Geraint Thomas....

[661-Pete]

Oh dear!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45312756

I'm afraid this only widens the rift, as I see it, between racers and the 'ordinary cyclist' fraternity...

[pwa]

On most of the issues I agree with GT, including the wisdom of wearing a lid. The point on which I disagree is compulsion.

As for this widening the rift between racers and ordinary cyclists, my impression is that ordinary cyclists are now mostly lid wearers.

[661-Pete]

The difference is that most cyclists - whether 'ordinary' or not - do not call for compulsion. I certainly agree - ever since the tragic Casartelli case - that all racers must wear them.

[Cugel]

Must we eat fat lamb sausages rather than curried venison because some celeb says that's what he does so everyone should? This compulsion concerning the helmets seems to have popped into Mr Thomas's head solely for that "reason" (You must be and believe like me). I'm surprised that one who is said to be "humble" turns out to be a helmet fascist.

What else does the lad recommend for all we cyclists? Must we all train 100 hours a week and wear a Sky jersey?

Cugel

[reohn2]

I tire of individuals in high places calling for what they see as needing complusion without the facts to back it up.

[Mick F]

I tire of individuals in high places calling for anything to be compulsory.
In fact, I tire of individuals in high places full stop.

[bovlomov]

Half way down that BBC article is a link: 'Compulsory cycle helmets - what is the proof?'. It takes you to a shoddily assembled page from 2011, related to the NI law change.

Crappy journalism.

[Bonefishblues]

Why shoddy and crappy, can I ask?

[Pete Owens]

I wonder what punishment he would impose on this cyclist:

[Cunobelin]

If a professional makes statements like this then they need to declare financial or other personal interests

Quite simply he is sponsored by a helmet company...... he is now returning that favour by promoting their products.
\

[Cunobelin]

I wonder what punishment he would impose on this cyclist:

Or these:

[bovlomov]

Why shoddy and crappy, can I ask?

Because it's seven years old, and is the usual collection of incoherent factoids that doesn't do justice to the subject.

I mean these:

Doctors are applauding members of the Northern Ireland assembly for voting in favour of a bill to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory.

The British Medical Association believes it is a great way to prevent injuries and save lives.

Others appear to be ditching their headgear for fashion's sake.

Some even admitted that their non-wearing was partly a rebellion against their parents' previous instance when they were a child that they had to wear one.

Take one cyclist, for example: "I'll wear a helmet if I'm cycling in heavy traffic or plan to go fast, otherwise I won't bother.

Legislation did not appear to affect cycling frequency. Yet Australian research suggests it might.

..and so on.
A collection of quotes and badly worded observations that advance the reader's understanding by not a jot. The article appears to have been written by someone who knew nothing of the debate but had to assemble 500 words by lunchtime. The BBC has the resources to do better.

[boris]

The TDF winner , who for much of his life has been cycling 15000 miles a year as fast as possible, says I should be chased and fined by the police for cycling across the estate to the supermarket without wearing my helmet. He said he has based his opinion on what he has seen through the windows of taxis.
And the law would not just want any old helmet; it would need to comply with standards and the industry would make sure they need replacing every year or two.
When families are after compensation for their mum or dad getting killed or paralysed by bad driving the courts will be even more inclined to say it was her own fault for being in front of a car , as if they needed any more excuses.

What an idiot.

[Bonefishblues]

Why shoddy and crappy, can I ask?

Because it's seven years old, and is the usual collection of incoherent factoids that doesn't do justice to the subject.

I mean these:

Doctors are applauding members of the Northern Ireland assembly for voting in favour of a bill to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory.

The British Medical Association believes it is a great way to prevent injuries and save lives.

Others appear to be ditching their headgear for fashion's sake.

Some even admitted that their non-wearing was partly a rebellion against their parents' previous instance when they were a child that they had to wear one.

Take one cyclist, for example: "I'll wear a helmet if I'm cycling in heavy traffic or plan to go fast, otherwise I won't bother.

Legislation did not appear to affect cycling frequency. Yet Australian research suggests it might.

..and so on.
A collection of quotes and badly worded observations that advance the reader's understanding by not a jot. The article appears to have been written by someone who knew nothing of the debate but had to assemble 500 words by lunchtime. The BBC has the resources to do better.

OTOH for the casual reader who wants to understand that there are two sides to the debate it appears to link to major studies which illustrate that.

I'm not looking for an argument btw, just looking at it through a different lens.

[Bonefishblues]

The TDF winner , who for much of his life has been cycling 15000 miles a year as fast as possible, says I should be chased and fined by the police for cycling across the estate to the supermarket without wearing my helmet. He said he has based his opinion on what he has seen through the windows of taxis.
And the law would not just want any old helmet; it would need to comply with standards and the industry would make sure they need replacing every year or two.
When families are after compensation for their mum or dad getting killed or paralysed by bad driving the courts will be even more inclined to say it was her own fault for being in front of a car , as if they needed any more excuses.

What an idiot.

I guess I missed that bit of the rather brief article?