James Cracknell gets behind Surrey safe cycling campaign + Video

Gosh, if I were Merida bikes, or the product managers behind the Alpina brand helmets I certainly wouldn't want James Cracknell wandering around demonstrating that you get severe brain damage when you wear them.

He's competing in the CTT 12-hour race on Sunday which starts in Shropshire. I've half a mind to pop up there and ask what evidence he has for his ridiculous claims.

In addition to lacking any scientific basis for his claims Cracknell is, as Kim points out, being PAID to promote Alpina helmets:

http://www.alpina-helmets.co.uk/athletes.html

He's a puppet.

It would be better if James supported positive campaigns persuading drivers to look out for cyclists and pedestrians in the first place. So-called 'road safety' campaigns like this do nothing to address the real dangers people face on the roads.

"Does anybody know what sort of, if any, helmet James Cracknell wears when he is on his high horse?"

Probable a Alpina Pheos, after all that is the lid he was being paid to wear when got clout on the head before...

Wasnt it mentioned that he was wearing a fairly non-standard helmet that covered more of the back of his head than usual?

Does anybody know what sort of, if any, helmet James Cracknell wears when he is on his high horse?

Oh, it seems James Cracknell is an ambassador for a cycle helmet company, Alpina, and his US trip was actually sponsored by their UK distributor:

http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1693

So he may be somewhat biased (even if subconsciously) in his regular pushing of the "Cycling: Fear! Helmets!" line.

Education, persuasion etc. don't work.

"The first Cochrane Review looks at the effectiveness of driver education in existing drivers. The schemes that have been trialled particularly focus on advanced driver training — the sort of programme that is designed to improve hazard detection and reduce error making, and which is frequently recommended for professional drivers — and on the remedial programmes that are increasingly offered to drivers who break the rules as an alternative to a driving ban. These are lessons and lectures rather than marketing campaigns, but the remedial programmes — lectures on why speed limits matter — are particularly relevant to the “be nice” approach to making our streets nicer places where people feel able to ride bicycles."

"The trials typically checked up on participants two years later and compared the rate of rule breaking and/or the rate of crashes in those who received the education programme and the controls who did not. There was no difference. The education programmes didn’t stop drivers breaking the law or having crashes. The authors concluded that companies shouldn’t bother with driving courses for their staff, but should let them take the train instead."

http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/can-drivers-be-taught-a...

Quote:

It is "selfish" of people not to wear helmets.

Maybe that bump on his head knocked something loose?

I choose to wear a helmet but that is my decision and at least I wear it correctly unlike Mr Cracknell in the photograph that accompanies the article.

BTW, I can't find any details about the campaign on the Surrey Police or county council websites and apart from news reports the search results came up with cycle-smart.com and cyclesmart.net which are nothing to do with this.

[cyclists]should also manage their speed ...

What the hell does that mean?

What evidence is there for Cracknell's belief the helmet saved his life? E.g. there is evidence motorists tend to make closer passes when cyclists wear helmets, so for all we know it could be that Cracknell nearly lost his life and suffered long-term brain injuries, *because* he wore a helmet.

Anecdotes are not evidence.