[Closed] Packet of biscuits anyone...?

TL:DR ?

I only came here for the biscuits and I'm allergic to nuts.

Compulsory helmets for drivers and pedestrians too.. May as well make the same rule for everybody. No helmet.. No walking on the pavement outside.

Compulsory helmets for drivers and pedestrians too.

Yep, this is the only logical solution.

And this is an entirely logical debate, isn't it?

Also while we are protecting pedestrians, given the news about horrific air polllution in cities, shouldn't it be compulsory to wear a gas mask?

Can I just ride with packets of hobnobs taped to my head? Or would rich tea be better for absorbing impacts?

Custard creams would act like SIPS shirley?

Fig rolls would provide some extra cushioning

Fig rolls would provide some extra cushioning

Good shout, but leave them out the packet for a day or two to firm up a bit I reckon.

Kind of like a primitive form of D30.

Jaffa cakes?

Or are they breaking the rules, not strictly being biscuits..

Actually the classic Tunnocks tea cake might be a winner, but biscuit side in or out?

Army issue brown biscuits.

Hardest thing known to man.

Stop a DU round dead.

I feel that all moving objects sud be forced to wear lumi.
No nice black or silver cars - they must be yellow. With reflective bits.

It's a trap, there are no biscuits.

Yay! Helmet debate time and fresh off the racism thread in the chat forum. This week is turning out to be forum gold.

Everything should be hi-viz and reflective in order to aid the poor little car drivers. It's hard to pay attention to driving and look for stuff more than a metre away from the bonnet.

Helmets should be worn by everybody, all the time.

Edit - read the article. No helmet and dressing as a lady shall henceforth be the way I cycle. Purely for reasons of safety. What biscuits for a bearded crossdresser?

The photo of the mountain bike, off road, at the top of the article just screams "I don't know what I'm talking about" 🙄

Maybe he does (however tiresome it may be!), I haven't read the article yet, but it's not exactly a great first impression.

[img] [/img]

I'm kind of a Chris Boardman fan.

I feel that all moving objects sud be forced to wear biscuits.
No nice black or silver cars - they must be biscuits. With biscuits.

Keep dreaming sirromj and one day your wonderful vision may come true. Biscuits for all!

I got yelled 'hi vis, hi vis, hi vis!' Repeatedly by a stranger on the pavement recently, really took me by surprise, then I did a u turn and went and confronted him politely about yelling at strangers going about their business. The guy seemed sincere, although misguided and a bit ignorant.

How did he see you when you weren't draped in hi-viz? I thought all cyclists entered predator mode without it. 😀

I've found not wearing hi-viz or lights get you noticed far more. People beep and shout at you but surely that's better than being totally ****ing ignored 👿

Jam bo

That's a two hob nob comment right there.

I virtually always wear a helmet but I'm totally opposed to compunction. There is no way a bicycle helmet can be of any real benefit in a mid to high speed impact with a car or van.

All it will do is give already shit drivers a greater sense of security. I remember Wilde's risk homeostasis theory from uni. Basically for any given set of circumstances a person is prepared to take a certain amount of risk. If you make the environment safer they take more risks (eg drive faster). If you put 1kg of tnt in place of airbags you'd get a lot more people taking more car behind the wheel.

I thought it actually quite a well balanced article giving both sides of the debate and with a reasonable discussion of the issues.

My favourite anecdote about helmets still is the poster on here ( northwind? ) who when being treated for a minor cycling head injury was told by the doc the helmet saved his life - the only issue being he wasnt wearing one!

One issue remains that that actual research / evidence base is very poor. Evangelicals on both sides use a lot of partial quoting of the evidence to support their view and there is huge confusion often deliberate between the effects on individuals who have crashed, the effects on populations over all and the effects helmet wearing has on risk profiles.

Being totally convinced of using an evidence based approach ( because of my profession nursing which over the time I have been in it has changed from a "commonsense" approach to an evidence based one) Its actually quite hard to make a coherent policy based on the evidence.

Large plastic bag stuffed with pink wafer biscuits secured on my bonce with an old inner tube saved my life you know, anyone who doesn't wear one should be made to pay for their own hospital treatment

Being totally convinced of using an evidence based approach ( because of my profession nursing which over the time I have been in it has changed from a "commonsense" approach to an evidence based one) Its actually quite hard to make a coherent policy based on the evidence.

Agree. In the absence of some evidence to overall benefit the instinct should imo be to let people have choice. Compunction not backed up by science is a retrograde step. You risk making things worse with no evidence to say it should be better overall.

partial quoting of the evidence to support their view

Not something you'd do tj, eh. 😉

But people often have good

evidence to support their view

😛

who when being treated for a minor cycling head injury was told by the doc the helmet saved his life - the only issue being he wasnt wearing one!

Garage dweller - its even worse than that!

some of the contradictory but well proven facts

Helmets reduce minor head injuries significantly

Cycling has health benefits that far outweigh risks from cycling without helmets

even promoting helmet use let alone making it compulsory reduces participation in cycling thus reduces the overall population health.

How anyone is supposed to make a coherent policy out of that is really hard to see.

TJ - the main hurdle you have is the expectation of a 'coherent policy' from them that's in charge. If you lowered your standards to the usual knee jerk measures and short term fixes I'm sure you could come up with something.

I'd ban cycle helmets thus increasing the uptake of cycling thus improving the nations health! Coherent. Evidence based. We would have more minor head injuries and a reduction in diseases of inactivity.
Can you imagine the backlash!

not really - not even I am that evangelical / dictatorial /unrealistic

Be warned;

1 - these threads are black holes sucking both the well meaning and the wind up merchants, and only big hitters come away unscathed.

2 - there are no biscuits.

but but but but but - I have evidence of biscuits! I have seen the trail of crumbs! What do you mean its not a fairytale?

From today under 12s in France must wear a helmet when cycling, despite the fact that last year only one under 12 child died whilst cycling.

400 people fall down stairs every year in France and suffer serious head injuries..... Make biscuit wearing compulsory in France when using stairs?? ❓

At least Bosnia has come to its senses and repealed its cycle helmet wearing laws 😀

I feel very much safer on my step-thru city bike. Not least because the Shimano roller-brakes mean zero unplanned stoppies. If crashing, I simply 'step-through it'. No more high-falls, nut-cracking squeals or limbs getting caught in pesky triangles.

Make all [s]bikes[/s] road-vehicles step-thru bicycles with roller brakes. Helmets will become a thing of the past. Simple

Step throughs and helmetless. Watch for as long as you like, you won't see one.

[url= http://hdtv.webcam.nl/elburg/vischmarkt/ ]http://hdtv.webcam.nl/elburg/vischmarkt/[/url]

^. Rubbish! I saw a blue and white one locked/parked in the foreground and then an old guy rode past that shop on the left. No helmet. Step-thru.

*Edit, Bah, sarcasm filter busted 😉

^. Rubbish! I saw a blue and white one locked/parked in the foreground and then an old guy rode past that shop on the left. No helmet. Step-thru.

*Edit, Bah, my sarcasm filter is obv busted 😉

The crux of the biscuit in this case is what people believe / expect a helmet will protect them from.

As pointed out, any current form of non-FF cycle helmet will be useless for most impacts with vehicles. This is largely because that's not what they're designed to do. What they are designed to do is provide braincase protection in a very specific type of impact - the bit where your head is bouncing off the tarmac/other hard surface right at the end of the crash when all the exciting stuff has finished - assuming you had any chance of surviving the crash in the first place, this is the point where the un-recoverable injuries will normally happen.

Full Face helmets are a different propostion as there are actual DH helmets that are designed to provide some protection if ramming a tree at 30+mph as well as BMX helmets which may or may not be toys and motorcycle helmets which can cope with big impacts, once. Of course, any such impact is likely to at least dislocate a neck if not possibly start breaking bones through force redirection and taking an impact through your chest/shoulder instead of face etc.

The whole thing is troll-bait. However well-meaning, the people pushing for this don't really understand helmets, and in my opinion drivers that need cyclists in high vis should be handing their licenses in due to poor eyesight and insufficient attention span to operate a vehicle in a public place. FWIW, I'm a helmet wearer and wouldn't consider riding a bike without one, but I'm under no illusions about what they won't protect me from.