Bishop fractures skull after being doored while cycling - but says he should have worn his helmet

hawkinspeter wrote:

Are we up to 100 comments yet?

Have you seen this?  Obstacle course for squirrels.  Hysterical, especially the homewrecker.  https://boingboing.net/2020/05/25/mark-robers-rube-goldberg-sq.html?fbcl...

Yes thanks - I posted a link to it earlier on the Beeline article: https://road.cc/content/review/beeline-velo-273627

(Which is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to my eBay sale of my Beeline currently selling at 99p)

I loved the consideration given to the squirrels safety and the uselessness of the guard dog.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yes thanks - I posted a link to it earlier on the Beeline article: https://road.cc/content/review/beeline-velo-273627

(Which is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to my eBay sale of my Beeline currently selling at 99p)

I loved the consideration given to the squirrels safety and the uselessness of the guard dog.

Surely you'll have your own course set up soon?  Show him our British squirrels are more than a match for those damn yankees.

eburtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yes thanks - I posted a link to it earlier on the Beeline article: https://road.cc/content/review/beeline-velo-273627

(Which is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to my eBay sale of my Beeline currently selling at 99p)

I loved the consideration given to the squirrels safety and the uselessness of the guard dog.

Surely you'll have your own course set up soon?  Show him our British squirrels are more than a match for those damn yankees.

I haven't got a big enough garden to set up an assault course, so I've been concentrating on online exams instead.

David9694 wrote:

“Shut up”, “No you shut up”, ahh, the Helmet debate. Can’t even mention Hs on most of CUK - has its own thread.

"Please don’t leave anything valuable in your car and don’t hide them either because you never know who is watching you. This handbag was stolen from the boot,"

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/18469089.warning-handbag-stolen-...

So the traditional “don’t leave valuables on view” morphs into this. At what point does crime prevention advice become an admission of failure? At what point do people start saying the person should have known better, as the Police can be read as doing here? Or do we say “what a horrible thing to happen - hope whoever did this is caught and the person gets their stuff back”?

We’re too quick, thinking what wise owls we are, to say “that’s a bad area of town” and then say “what was she doing out on her own?” and then that becomes in a few cases “asking for it”.  Cyclists wilfully endanger themselves, whereas things cars do (what with everything they do being necessary and important) somehow just happen by themselves. 

So it goes with helmets and hi viz. “That’s a dangerous/busy road...”

A couple of times, I’ve encountered Facebook posts from drivers either having had an encounter with a wayward road user, or fearing a change in traffic regulation will give rise to this. I’ve stood firm with “drive to the conditions” and “bikes, kids, animals, buggies - it’s your job to keep them all safe - whatever they might do”.  

An interesting side-issue I’ve noticed is the motorist fear of them getting sued, their car getting damaged - laughable with some, huh - but bullies make the world’s greatest victims. let’s hear it for the ill-used, hard done by, law-abiding motorist! (Anyone got a picture?)

The drivers who process one road related thought every 2-3 seconds don’t like/ can’t handle any sort of complexity in the environment - that’s in part where I think you get the “ban everything” / “roads are for cars outlook”/ “made to” (another fave phrase) wear helmets.  Driving past a school at 3.30pm is a level 1 complexity, so that’s about 10%.

Back to helmets - I wear one. Call it habit, comfort, protection from overhanging branches - but I know fine it’s not going help me much in the event of a collision involving a car or being doored.  I will resist any move to make them mandatory for cyclists, principally because this would be a win for the "make everything simple for me" argument and a distraction from the real issue that actually does the killing and maiming day after day.

Get we'll, soon, Bish. 

Concise works best.

Sorry eburt, I thought it was well written and put across good points.

ktache wrote:

Sorry eburt, I thought it was well written and put across good points.

Perhaps, but I'll never know.  My tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be declining, and either they make their points succinctly or I just can't be assed to read them.  Surely it's only polite not to waste people's time with waffle.

eburtthebike wrote:

 My tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be declining, and either they make their points succinctly or I just can't be assed to read them.  Surely it's only polite not to waste people's time with waffle.

Yes, but comments on a bike website seems a good place for waffle. Obviously you don't have to read them if you don't have the inclination. (I'm with ktache in that it was worth my time reading it)

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

 My tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be declining, and either they make their points succinctly or I just can't be assed to read them.  Surely it's only polite not to waste people's time with waffle.

Yes, but comments on a bike website seems a good place for waffle. Obviously you don't have to read them if you don't have the inclination. (I'm with ktache in that it was worth my time reading it)

Perhaps, but good points are best made succinctly, not prolix.

digested read:

Janet has got a new Audi.  It is black and goes very fast. "Vroom, vroom," says Janet. John has got his old mountain bike out of the garage. The bike is a bit dusty and the tyres need pumping up. "I like riding my bike" says John. 
 

digester, digested read: bikes are good 

David9694 wrote:

digested read:

Janet has got a new Audi.  It is black and goes very fast. "Vroom, vroom," says Janet. John has got his old mountain bike out of the garage. The bike is a bit dusty and the tyres need pumping up. "I like riding my bike" says John. 
 

digester, digested read: bikes are good 

A trifle simplistic perhaps, but, see, you can make your points succinctly.

eburtthebike wrote:

David9694 wrote:

digested read:

Janet has got a new Audi.  It is black and goes very fast. "Vroom, vroom," says Janet. John has got his old mountain bike out of the garage. The bike is a bit dusty and the tyres need pumping up. "I like riding my bike" says John. 
 

digester, digested read: bikes are good 

A trifle simplistic perhaps, but, see, you can make your points succinctly.

I remember years ago reading something about how the structure of news programmes actually dictates the kind of debates that can happen (I think it might have been by Noam Chomsky, but couldn't find it). Basically, any idea that is complex enough to require more than 2-3 minutes of explanation cannot be discussed and thus news and politics devolves into small sound-bites that rarely mean anything but get people to make agreeing noises.

e.g. Get Brexit Done - doesn't specify what "Brexit" means or what getting it "Done" means but repeated often enough makes people think that it's a good idea. Any discussions of what the specific targets are and how they can be measurably completed, simply don't fit into most news items.

Or "Stay Home"

Hmmm...

ktache wrote:

Or "Stay Home"

Hmmm...

At least that is fairly specific, despite "loopholes" such as venturing out for medical reasons (though I don't think that going for a drive to test your eyesight is a wise thing to do even if it is your wife's 45th birthday).

Yes - we live in a 10 second soundbite world. Cars are "normal" to most people, it feels like we're usually the underdog.
So how to get our message across - concisely in a way that will have an impact, in the face of for example helmets, insurance, road tax, should be banned, etc. 
just another thought, from the local newspaper comment sections, if you're fond of phrases like "end of", why go on a forum?

The best message is to get out there and be seen riding your bike (with or without a helmet).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I remember years ago reading something about how the structure of news programmes actually dictates the kind of debates that can happen (I think it might have been by Noam Chomsky, but couldn't find it). Basically, any idea that is complex enough to require more than 2-3 minutes of explanation cannot be discussed and thus news and politics devolves into small sound-bites that rarely mean anything but get people to make agreeing noises.

e.g. Get Brexit Done - doesn't specify what "Brexit" means or what getting it "Done" means but repeated often enough makes people think that it's a good idea. Any discussions of what the specific targets are and how they can be measurably completed, simply don't fit into most news items.

Fair point, but do we deal with the world as it is, or how we wish it was?  It's perfectly possible to make short, extremely telling points e.g. Neil Kinnock, known as the "Welsh windbag" because of his long, incomprehensible questions at PMQs, scored his biggest hit with "How is the government's inflation plan going?"

eburtthebike wrote:

Fair point, but do we deal with the world as it is, or how we wish it was?  It's perfectly possible to make short, extremely telling points e.g. Neil Kinnock, known as the "Welsh windbag" because of his long, incomprehensible questions at PMQs, scored his biggest hit with "How is the government's inflation plan going?"

Short arguments are definitely best for gaining popular support, but that's not so relevant on a cycle forum.

No drifting off at the back there!

Whilst good roadcraft, you need to be careful with that line of thought.

It was the cyclist's fault because:

They should have used the cycle path.
Should have used a light in daytime
Shouldn't have used a bright light at night.
Should have been riding in primary
Shouldn't have been riding in primary
Should have been riding slower
Shouldn't have held up the traffic
Should have used the asl
Shouldn't have filtered past a queue of traffic
Shouldn't be using a busy road
Shouldn't be using quiet country roads
Should be riding as a compact group
Shouldn't be riding 2 abreast.
Should have ridded more defensively
Shouldn't have ridden as defensively

Etc

The good Bishop did nothing illegal here, certainly with regard to wearing or not wearing a helmet or with regard to where he was cycling. Maybe he was in one of those door zone cycle lanes? The fact is that a motorist did fail to observe the law in opening their door or allowing a passenger to do so, resulting in injury to another road user.

leqin wrote:

It was his own fault because he was riding his bike t̶o̶o̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶.̶ ̶A̶n̶y̶b̶o̶d̶y̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶r̶i̶d̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶b̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶e̶h̶i̶c̶l̶e̶ ̶-̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶v̶e̶h̶i̶c̶l̶e̶ ̶-̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶b̶o̶d̶y̶ ̶o̶c̶c̶u̶p̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶-̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶o̶a̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶d̶o̶o̶r̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶d̶i̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶h̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶t̶i̶n̶ ̶b̶o̶x̶e̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶e̶n̶t̶i̶t̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶d̶i̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶p̶h̶u̶c̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶-̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶w̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ down the road.

More likely, it's a reaction to all the rubbish spoken about helmets. With the number of articles on the BBC and mainstream media that can hardly ever mention a bike without commenting on hi-viz and helmets, it's a natural reaction to state that wearing helmets has very little to do with actual safety on the roads (motorists not paying attention or driving inconsiderately has to be number one).

There's also the reactions from people declaring things like "you must be a complete idiot to ever cycle without a helmet" without considering the other effects of helmets (e.g. risk compensation). What's worse is that the constant harping on about helmets makes it seem like cycling is a very dangerous activity and so the general public decides to get in a car and drive instead.

What we need to do is to focus on copying the examples of successful cycling cities and get ordinary people (e.g. not lycra-clad louts) to use cycles to go from A to B. There's just so many advantages of cycling and yet the MSM and motoring proponents manage to keep pushing the "danger" agenda and even that cycling increases air pollution!

This particular example highlights just how gaslighted the general public has become.

(I do wear a helmet but I don't believe it will be of much help. If NMOTD 414 had made contact then my helmet would have done nothing.)

Out of interest, and genuine question, based on the above why do you wear a helmet? 

I ask as I still refrain from wearing a helmet for much of my riding... MTB and fast group rides, race scenarios, yes, otherwise no. 

Reasons being... I don't see cycling as a dangerous activity, and certainly not one with a specific head injury issue that needs to be mitigated against. Raise that risk as in the examples I mention, then it maybe needs a fresh look... another reason is that the level of protection provided by a helmet is moderate at best... the final reason is plain stubborness; based on my first two reasons, I refuse to give in to peer pressure on this issue... I'm sure darwin may catch up with me at some point, put 30 years and god knows how many miles, and many, many crashes later, I'm still here!