Cycling UK Forum

OP, did you notice how the woman who was with the old man behaved when you challenged him about how he had spoken to your son?

In my experience, when dealing with men who are behaving in a way that significantly breaches social norms, how the women who accompany them behave can be a good indicator of whether it's worthwhile bothering to continue to engage with the men, or even if it's unwise to do so and best to just walk away.

I realised this after a road rage incident, where a car driver performed a very close overtake of me on my bike on a 90 degree left hand turn. I called out something very restrained like 'That was too close!', and the driver immediately braked and started to swear at me through the open passenger window. After he had driven away it occurred to me that there had been a woman in the passenger seat, and she had at no time turned her head to look either at me or him, and instead had just kept her kept her head rigidly facing forward. It was clearly not the first time she had experienced him behaving in such a manner, and her coping technique was evidently to withdraw into herself and act as if it simply was not happening.

Ever since I've made a mental note in any potentially confrontational situation involving a man accompanied by a woman, to try to see how the woman is behaving, since I suspect she may give better cues than the man (if the man's behaviour significantly deviates from accepted social norms, he may also not give out the sort of cues that make it possible to 'read' him and assess the situation).

Interesting point made somewhere above that its rare for a non helmet wearer to comment on/castigate a wearer whilst its common for the opposite to happen.
As so often in life those who profess to have concern about others actually have little concern for anything other than their own beliefs.

meic wrote:
Pembrokeshire, I guess from that.

Or Little England beyond Wales as I've heard it called.

pete75 wrote:

meic wrote:
Pembrokeshire, I guess from that.

Or Little England beyond Wales as I've heard it called.

West West Wales (fausto copy)

mattsccm wrote:Interesting point made somewhere above that its rare for a non helmet wearer to comment on/castigate a wearer whilst its common for the opposite to happen.
As so often in life those who profess to have concern about others actually have little concern for anything other than their own beliefs.

I think it's only on this forum that you might get a non-helmet wearer kind of castigating a helmet wearer. Certainly seems the more vocal forum characters in the helmet debate are non wearers and they tend to be negative about those who wear helmets. The most vocal ones tend to slip a helmet debate into any thread they can shoe horn it into.

Tangled Metal wrote:I think it's only on this forum that you might get a non-helmet wearer kind of castigating a helmet wearer. Certainly seems the more vocal forum characters in the helmet debate are non wearers and they tend to be negative about those who wear helmets. The most vocal ones tend to slip a helmet debate into any thread they can shoe horn it into.

Yes, it is only on this forum. Perhaps that is why non-helmet wearers tend to vent their frustrations rather forcefully. In most other areas of our lives, in politics and in the media, we are beseiged with the message that we should be compelled against our will to wear a certain form of headwear. This is one of the few places where we can challenge that daily assault.

Think of it as the pressure release valve that stops us exploding, and humour us a little.

irc wrote:Lecture? Like when I parked my bike at the pub sans helmet and on ordering my pint got a disapproving look from the barman along with a comment of "well, it's your funeral."

I couldn't be sure if it was the lack of helmet, having one pint before cycling, or the combination that would kill me and wasn't going to waste any of my time arguing about it.

To which I hope you replied "Blimey! Is your beer that bad?"

Theng you, I'm here all week...

Tangled Metal wrote:I think it's only on this forum that you might get a non-helmet wearer kind of castigating a helmet wearer.

At risk of getting consigned to the ghetto (which we probably should be), I don't think it happens even here does it? People opposed to helmets are incredibly rare. People prepared to answer when someone else says, or implies, that everyone else should wear helmets are not so rare (here). So:

• Say, "I wear a helmet" and I'd be surprised if anyone questions it.
• Say, "I wear a helmet because it's only common sense", and they may
• Say, "I wear a helmet and so should you", and you'll almost certainly get a response

Oh I don't know about that. I've read enough comments to get the clear message there's a lot of vocal opposition to helmet wearing on here. You can pass it off as educating people but it amounts to helmet opposition. Nothing wrong with that if you also allow others to hold opposing views. AFAIK there's no killer evidence to prove one side of the argument it might be suggestive of one side or the other but not conclusive.

Can you give any examples? i.e. cases where people have posted opposition to helmets? I suppose there's the occasional argument that every person who wears one is another step towards compulsion (given statements from politicians that, once a sufficient percentage wear them, they'll legislate). But even the people who say that would probably rather that you were truly free to make your own choice, without having to think whether it would lead to others being compelled to copy you?

It really seems to me that the conversations are all one way. They are almost always triggered by a statement in favour of helmets, implying that they should be worn more widely. This thread is the first I can remember that started with (an account of) someone telling off another rider for wearing a helmet, i.e. the other way around to normal. That's what makes it so remarkable to me.

Vorpal wrote:Helmet stuff split off into the ghetto... viewtopic.php?f=41&t=124834&p=1271306#p1271306

You seem to have missed the post that started that subthread with its "insurance requirement" myth, which now stands unchallenged in this thread again!

Sorry? I haven't followed the whole conversation in depth, as it got a bit detailed (and more to the point repetitive!), so I may have missed a nuance. On the face of it, though, that post just says that the compulsory helmet rule is ill-founded, and makes a comment about fit. I can't see any comment suggesting that anyone, anywhere, at any time, was wrong simply to wear a helmet???

drossall wrote:This thread is the first I can remember that started with (an account of) someone telling off another rider for wearing a helmet, i.e. the other way around to normal. That's what makes it so remarkable to me.

Reminds me of the recent government consultation about home education (sorry to digress!). Among the catalogue of the potential dangers it was suggested that parents may not have asked the children whether they want to be home educated. It's a fair point, but it didn't seem to have occurred to the authors of the paper that no one ever asks school educated children whether they want to be at school. Myself - I would have loved the opportunity to decide.

Anyway, the point is that the orthodoxy is never seen as a choice. It is the natural way from which any deviation needs to be justified. The helmet is the default and the choice is made not to wear one. Until recently it was the same with beards. "Why have you grown a beard?" was the common question, even though the growing of a beard required no choice. Shaven people are rarely asked why they have no beard.

bovlomov wrote:

drossall wrote:This thread is the first I can remember that started with (an account of) someone telling off another rider for wearing a helmet, i.e. the other way around to normal. That's what makes it so remarkable to me.

Reminds me of the recent government consultation about home education (sorry to digress!). Among the catalogue of the potential dangers it was suggested that parents may not have asked the children whether they want to be home educated. It's a fair point, but it didn't seem to have occurred to the authors of the paper that no one ever asks school educated children whether they want to be at school. Myself - I would have loved the opportunity to decide.

Anyway, the point is that the orthodoxy is never seen as a choice. It is the natural way from which any deviation needs to be justified. The helmet is the default and the choice is made not to wear one. Until recently it was the same with beards. "Why have you grown a beard?" was the common question, even though the growing of a beard required no choice. Shaven people are rarely asked why they have no beard.

+1,+1
Both are valid
Children could be educated in AND out of school. In fact they are, I learnt lots on holiday and visiting the grandparents and cycling/hostelling
..
Shaving is abnormal! Wiki explains how men were conned into it to sell razor blades
Mind, just read a free lifestyle mag. A barber recommends **oiling**!! ones beard twice a day and getting it trimmed every two weeks (€€€!), he says that beards have recently become fashionable or socially acceptable!
Anyone here shave? Why?

Cyril Haearn wrote:

pete75 wrote:

meic wrote:
Pembrokeshire, I guess from that.

Or Little England beyond Wales as I've heard it called.

West West Wales (fausto copy)

The Lost Lands of West Wales, in fact - no one here in NW England that I mention it to has any idea where places like Castell Newydd Emlyn and Llambed are.

Our bolt hole is on the border atween Sir Benfro, Ceredigion and Sir Gaerfyrddin - the best of all possible worlds, despite the constant disagreements between one town and the next village about how to pronounce most Welsh words. We will eventually live near Llambed (Lampeter) for its University Town facilities, including the opportunity to learn Mandarin (which we probably won't).

Cugel bach