School of hard knocks

therevokid wrote:

and me .... luckily I'd decided on the dhb bib longs rather
than the Assos !!!!!

High quality material will pass a scrape right through to your flesh and remain completely unmarked... as I discovered one day just shorts though, also bird shit and rain under bridges can be quite slippy too. I always seem to absorb the energy of a fall with my hanger, only £17.99 a go.

No helmet debate, makes a nice change.

Martin Thomas wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate any more.

Gosh really? A helmet is the answer, eh? How about riding a bit slower, according to the conditions, or not riding at all and/or using another form of transport if necessary? How about making it your express intention to avoid unnecessary risk, and thus avoid injury completely, rather than taking risks and hoping your protective gear will help when the 'inevitable' happens?

A chap called Mark Sisson wrote an excellent book called "The Primal Blueprint", published in 2009, which encourages the reader to adapt their life as closely as possible to the principles of their stone-age ancestors (whose physiology they inherited) and most particularly their diet before farming was invented. I'd highly recommend it.

There are 10 'Primal Blueprint Laws' of which #9 is "Avoid Stupid Mistakes". Obviously this was essential because there were no hospitals and if a man injured himself he might not be able to either feed or defend his family for weeks or months ... if ever.

All this macho talk of 'look at my road rash' and 'guess how long I was unconscious for' is utter bollocks as far as I'm concerned. All those injuries were due to AVOIDABLE stupid mistakes and you really shouldn't be proud of them or expect sympathy.

When our polar explorers go off and lose a few digits due to frost-bite it is regarded as a badge of honour in the UK. To the residents of Alaska or Greenland it most certainly isn't. In those communities frost-bite is the mark of foolishness, reckless stupidity and a source of embarrassment to the recipient.

To ride a bike safely you don't need helmets or share pictures of road-rash and assume the inevitability of 'accidents'. You just need to ride (or even walk alongside your bike) according to the conditions. It's really *not* that difficult to do.

An excuse like "I wasn't expecting ice" is about as valid as a motorist's SMIDSY as he takes out a cyclist.

Sanctimonious and wrong.

I came off in December on the one piece of black ice between home and work doing about 7 mph. The only reason ice was there was because it had been recently resurfaced and the council decided to use the world's most dangerous road dressing.

As for the book you reference, I am afraid it is laughable. I agree you should avoid stupid mistakes, but do you know what the life expectancy for stone age hunter gatherers is?

Martin Thomas wrote:

I won’t be reading the book you recommend because you’ve irritated me. My loss I guess.

lerrup wrote:

As for the book you reference, I am afraid it is laughable. I agree you should avoid stupid mistakes, but do you know what the life expectancy for stone age hunter gatherers is?

The book is actually quite good. Lerrup, its point is not to replicate exactly the lifestyle of stone age hunter gatherers (modern medicine is a nice thing, for example, as are creature comforts) so much as it is taking from it the good bits and pieces that are beneficial compared to the bad bits and pieces our modern lifestyle entails - eat fresh food and be active, as opposed to subsist on highly processed foods and little to no exercise.

I would think most of us are already following that approach very closely without ever having heard of the concept.

lerrup wrote:

Sanctimonious and wrong.

I came off in December on the one piece of black ice between home and work doing about 7 mph. The only reason ice was there was because it had been recently resurfaced and the council decided to use the world's most dangerous road dressing.

Totally wrong. The presence of 'black ice' requires two things ... freezing temperatures and water. If either of those things are not present then it will not occur. Period. The council's choice of road dressing is pretty much irrelevant.

There are *lots* of cues to the experienced cyclist (or motorist or pedestrian) as to when icy conditions may occur. Freezing temperatures either in the days *before* the ride or during is always a good clue. Then you need the presence of water. Where does water happen on the road? Well, most commonly (for the purposes of detecting 'black ice'), it'll be due to run-off from fields on country roads, usually in dips and at the bottom of hills, fords, streams, minor subsidence of otherwise level road surfaces, poor drainage, etc, etc. Unusually low temperatures often occur (relative to the surrounding area) in heavily shaded areas (tall trees, etc) and again in dips and at the bottom of hills. A bit of 'Arctic mist', which can be seen from some distance, is another good cue that dodgy conditions lie ahead. There are literally *hundreds* of little clues, both visual and physical, that you need to tune into in order to understand the conditions of the road ahead.

Matthew Syed, in his book 'Bounce' explains the concept of these 'cues' much better than me. He describes how he was at a tennis media event where Richard Krajicek was lobbing balls over the net to various journalists, just for fun. Syed then asked Krajicek to serve at him at full power __ just to see what it was like. Krajicek was reluctant but eventually agreed. WHACK!!! Syed heard the ball fizz past his ear at just about the point that he became aware that Krajicek's serving arm was actually moving. Syed was a former world-class table tennis player who was particularly renowned for his quick reactions and yet he hadn't even seen the ball in the air. He concluded that the only possible way that anyone could even hope to return such a serve was if they had huge experience (usually requiring about 10K hours of practice to become world-class in a given field) and was able to deduce from the movement of the opponent the speed and direction of the ball ... before it actually happened.

I reckon it's the same with cycling. You need to be able to interpret the conditions ahead from the 'cues' you have all around you. If you don't have that level of experience then fucking well slow down until you do. You don't need body-armour to cycle safely, you just need common sense.

Joeinpoole wrote:

You don't need body-armour to cycle safely, you just need common sense.

A helmet is not 'body armour.' Your tennis analogy is risible; the gentleman that came off at 7mph is not a pro cyclist and not trying to descend at 70mph. He is not claiming to be Peter Sagan nor should you have to be to go for a ride.

You have not addressed the point made multiple times above that conditions are never ideal.

You are being sanctimonious as you seem to thing you can 'read the signs' but condescend to tell other not to ride if they cannot read these signs of which you can see *hundreds.* I hope you reflect on your expertise the next time you have an off.

bikeboy76 wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

You don't need body-armour to cycle safely, you just need common sense.

A helmet is not 'body armour.' Your tennis analogy is risible; the gentleman that came off at 7mph is not a pro cyclist and not trying to descend at 70mph. He is not claiming to be Peter Sagan nor should you have to be to go for a ride.

You have not addressed the point made multiple times above that conditions are never ideal.

You are being sanctimonious as you seem to thing you can 'read the signs' but condescend to tell other not to ride if they cannot read these signs of which you can see *hundreds.* I hope you reflect on your expertise the next time you have an off.

Whatever. The last time I had an "an off" was about 36 years ago when I was probably 13. I learnt from it and the many, many episodes before it. Maybe it was all those paper rounds in Birmingham in all weathers that did it (I was the guy that the the shop owner knew would *always* turn up).

Anyway, you can either believe that you have control of your own destiny and of your bike ... or you can weep at your misfortune when things "just happen". I know which I believe.

As I say sanctimonious and wrong, and as I have over 10k hours of cycling experience and having been doing it for 40 years I think I pass your test. I was also going 7mph so am not sure what speed you expect me to do.

You see your list of things to watch out for didn't count in this case; it was near the top of a slope, it wasn't in a dip, there was no fog, etc.

The ice in question was undoubtedly caused by the resurfaced patch as the untouched road a metre away was not iced up. There may well be a hollow patch under the new surface such as a foul water drain which would have caused it to be colder but this was apparent from the surface.

The helmet helped in this case, I agree it wouldn't do much against a bus, but a 2 metre drop is what they are designed for.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Matthew Syed, in his book 'Bounce' explains the concept of these 'cues' much better than me. He describes how he was at a tennis media event where Richard Krajicek was lobbing balls over the net to various journalists, just for fun. Syed then asked Krajicek to serve at him at full power __ just to see what it was like. Krajicek was reluctant but eventually agreed. WHACK!!! Syed heard the ball fizz past his ear at just about the point that he became aware that Krajicek's serving arm was actually moving. Syed was a former world-class table tennis player who was particularly renowned for his quick reactions and yet he hadn't even seen the ball in the air. He concluded that the only possible way that anyone could even hope to return such a serve was if they had huge experience (usually requiring about 10K hours of practice to become world-class in a given field) and was able to deduce from the movement of the opponent the speed and direction of the ball ... before it actually happened.

I reckon it's the same with cycling. You need to be able to interpret the conditions ahead from the 'cues' you have all around you. If you don't have that level of experience then fucking well slow down until you do. You don't need body-armour to cycle safely, you just need common sense.

I think you have been reading too many of those books that explain to you what you already know, like 'blink' by Malcolm Gladwell. There was barely a bean in that book that was really edifying.

You probably need to stop reading and start riding more. Personally I think the things you talk about (prehistoric mans proclivity towards less risky strategies) is unknowable. There was no written history and the dangers faced by man are always very different. Risk is also subjective. So while you can harp on about it unless you know someone else's skill and experience your judgement counts for little.

I must admit I have predilection for 'higher' risk sports, scuba diving, cycling and skiing. But most of the risks that are knowable reduce the chances of incident. It's when you add things like off piste skiing, or diving in unknown waters or cycling at speed down unknown hills that you increase the real risks. But within limits you can control these things by putting in extra limiters, but accidents will always happen.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Gosh really? A helmet is the answer, eh? How about riding a bit slower, according to the conditions, or not riding at all and/or using another form of transport if necessary? How about making it your express intention to avoid unnecessary risk, and thus avoid injury completely, rather than taking risks and hoping your protective gear will help when the 'inevitable' happens?

A chap called Mark Sisson wrote an excellent book called "The Primal Blueprint", published in 2009, which encourages the reader to adapt their life as closely as possible to the principles of their stone-age ancestors (whose physiology they inherited) and most particularly their diet before farming was invented. I'd highly recommend it.

Compliment to Martin for being restrained in your reply, but well really Joe this has to be the most moronic argument against helmet wearing I have ever heard. You might have a point if you could show that helmets did not have an effect in traumatic crashes (with other vehicles) though this was exactly the sort of slow speed head impact they are designed for. You might even have a point if you said a helmet messed up your hair. If you are telling people to be risk-averse like a stone-age ancestor then you might as well never cycle again. Cyclist always involves going at speeds unsafe for head impacts regardless of the conditions.
Besides there is no shortage of Humans, no requirement to protect the existence of the tribe. I have studied the history of Britain and the 20th Century in particular for many years and I don't know if you noticed but Humans are not risk-averse as a species (perhaps you are not a Human?) You are right in the middle of a massive Political/Economic/Technological experiment. Millions of people fought and died for rival philosophies to get to your modern lifestyle.
Have you ever taken a flight, because that is a quantifiable risk just like cycling. If you have then you must be a hypocrite because other less risk-averse individuals pioneered flight for you, take the boat, or better yet don't go out your front door.

This being the internet I hope you really don't believe the guff you wrote.
Here is a reminder how awesome humans are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqdG8_FxlEQ
How many people in that video are wearing helmets? Helmets are cool and they might just save your life.
Ride fast and wear a helmet kids.