Dr Ferrari's Camper Van (off-topic discussion)

The match looks a lot more interesting now.

EDIT: Oh, hang on.

Well, that's a pity.

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are plenty of threads on this subject already in existence, and I've contributed to many of them. I'm not going to say anything to any of your points, as that would just light the fuse of another Helmet Thread.

Except that the whole argument centres around the bit in bold. Anti-compulsionists aren't the ones telling other people what to do.

I've no clue what you're trying to say? My argument? Your argument?

Advocating / Promoting (a theory as fact) / Leading by Example is not telling what to do per say but it encourages

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm sorry, we really can't go through this here. I'm very tempted, but it's just too tedious.

Tedious or it's too hard to argue with common sense?

chakattack wrote: »

Tedious or it's too hard to argue with common sense?

I'm trying to think of a reponse that won't open a can of worms.

Maybe this: the problem with the Matt Cooper show is that he'd already discussed the issue. He then decided that he didn't like the way that had ended, or Headway contacted him, and they set up a "shroud-waving piece". The purpose of shroud-waving pieces is to kill debate. It certainly isn't conducive to an informed debate.

The question I'm interested in is whether the mass promotion and/or compulsory wearing leads to safer cycling or not. By and large, I think it doesn't. You think it does. So let's leave it at that.

EDIT: Also, my apologies if it sounds as if I was saying that your argument was tedious. I meant the rehashing the helmet arguments would be tedious.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm trying to think of a reponse that won't open a can of worms.

Maybe this: the problem with the Matt Cooper show is that he'd already discussed the issue. He then decided that he didn't like the way that had ended, or Headway contacted him, and they set up a "shroud-waving piece". The purpose of shroud-waving pieces is to kill debate. It certainly isn't conducive to an informed debate.

The question I'm interested in is whether the mass promotion and/or compulsory wearing leads to safer cycling or not. By and large, I think it doesn't. You think it does. So let's leave it at that.

EDIT: Also, my apologies if it sounds as if I was saying that your argument was tedious. I meant the rehashing the helmet arguments would be tedious.

I got you don't worry and you're right it's very tedious.

The argument I was making is should cycling campaigners go on the radio and when asked if they wear a helmet respond with "Well actually Matt studies have shown...blah blah" rather that something like "no I don't out of personal preference as I'm happy enough with my ability to stay upright and out of trouble and I'm comfortable with the low level of risk."

To me they acted irresponsibly and presented cyclists in a bad light.

Chris Hoy (Sir) does a Jimmy Carr http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/22/chris-hoy-received-loan-firm

Again, I hope I'm avoiding the usual Helmet Thread pitfalls.

Whatever one thinks of helmets or helmet promotion, I hope that anyone interested in promoting cycling (sport, touring or utility) can agree that it would be preferable if any attempt to promote cycling (including National Bike Week) didn't end up spending half its allotted time on one or more of the Weird Sisters: helmets, red-light jumping, hi-viz. (Maybe "road tax" in there too.)

I mean, whenever there's a surge of interest in rugby, the media doesn't constantly warn people of the high relative risk of head injury in rubgy. Much higher than cycling, from what I gather.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Whatever one thinks of helmets or helmet promotion, I hope that anyone interested in promoting cycling (sport, touring or utility) can agree that it would be preferable if any attempt to promote cycling (including National Bike Week) didn't end up spending half its allotted time on one or more of the Weird Sisters: helmets, red-light jumping, hi-viz. (Maybe "road tax" in there too.)

My wife and I, with daughter being towed in trailer by my wife, went along to the Fun Family Cycle from Marlay Park today. Helmets were compulsory and everyone was given a hi-viz vest - so far so predictable. The fixation on both helmets and hi-viz bugs me a lot, and there is something a little freaky about seeing what my wife accurately described as a hi-viz snake of cyclists (over 100 turned out it was reckoned) stretched out in front and behind, but shag it it was a fun event and it was good to see so many kids on bikes so we expressed our discontent about one of those fixations simply and quietly by not wearing the hi-viz vests (we're fookin' mad, us, we live life on the edge).

The barriers on the supposedly tailor made cycle route were harder to ignore, as some of them made getting through with a trailer a complete pain in the arse. My wife manoeuvred her bike and trailer as much as the limited space would allow and I lifted the back of the trailer to shift it sideways and eventually we got bike plus trailer through. Negotiating some of the barriers alone, with trailer, would not be possible without unhitching the trailer and wheel it through separately to the bike, and at that stage you may as well just cycle on the road. Yet another interesting idea very badly implemented and therefore rubbish for its intended purpose for those with trailers, long bike, or cargo bikes, at the very least. Boo!

On the return leg, just after we'd manhandled the trailer back through one of the poxy barriers, and were therefore a little less than filled with the complete and utter joys of life, a woman standing there and adopting a slightly stern expression looked in the side window/panel of the trailer and said "Is the baby not wearing a helmet?" in what seemed like a disapproving tone. The tone wasn't one of a question, more one of making a statement. I'll stop you there, I thought to myself, and I'll raise two important points:

* You've just referred to a 3yr old as a baby. The 3yr old in question has strong feelings on this matter, to the extent that she casually reminds us almost daily that she is "not a baby, I'm a little girl". The fact that the flap on the trailer didn't fly open and a ball of indignant rage didn't rip snotty woman a new one suggests that my daughter didn't hear the condescending remark. Lucky escape there, snotty woman.

* The trailer has a roll cage and my daughter is secured in a substantial harness - she is more secure in there, without a helmet, than in or on any other form of bicycle transport that I can think of. I said exactly that to snotty woman, and willed her to reply with yet another stupid comment but instead she simply ignored me and stared after the trailer with an expression reminiscent of the local parish priests of my childhood who'd look on an unrepentant sinner with a knowing look of "Oh yes, you're going to hell, oh yes indeed, friend of Satan!".

What annoyed me most, apart from the condescension that is, is that snotty woman looked past the glaringly obvious (roll cage, harness, low centre of gravity that makes the trailer difficult to tip over, etc.) and instead honed in on the absence of a helmet. To her, it seems, helmets are everything and anything else is just dressing, The incredibly strong "helmets are essential" views of someone like her, who is so blinkered that she can't see the bleedin' obvious, are just utter nonsense - where there is no room for reason, there is no value in her opinion or views.

Ironically, for someone that is so willing to casually and deviously (i.e. in an indirect manner) imply loudly and publicly that these two parents are somehow not sufficiently concerned about the welfare of their child to take steps to ensure their safety, she was remarkedly devoid of any form of personal protection herself. She should remember that self-righteousness is not a protective shield. Daft bint. Boo, again!

how were people able to see you without your hi vis on?

I do like the term ninja cyclist thou, black clothes no lights cycling in the night, ninja cyclist.

Darkglasses wrote: »

Fair play Doozerie, i think you're completely right. I would've left it at 'Shove it' though, I don't have the energy to educate people anymore.

Unless I've misunderstood, doozerie's debate happened within the confines of his own skull.

The answer to the question "Is your baby not wearing a helmet?" is "I don't know, she's with her mother in Dundalk right now. Anyway, who told you about that and why are you bringing it up with my wife standing right here?".

USE Sumo titanium seat post
July 2010-June 2012
RIP

Spotted it today while giving the bike a good going over.:(