James Cracknell urges cyclists to wear helmets after being photographed riding without one

Rick_Rude wrote:

BTBS has stretched this a new level. Have you actually seen the Dan Wheldon crash? Pretty hard not to strike your head when you've just disintergrated at 230 mph.

I've been watching motorsport and involved with it at some point for 35+years and have seen a lot of people die on TV and sadly at events I've attended. Righting stuff off like Bianchi as 'struck on the head' as if he tapped a tyre wall or something is disrespectful. You forgot to stick Schumacher in there. Struck on the head. Helmet didn't do him any good.

Motorsport is all about pushing the envelope of corner speeds and braking limits. Accidents are inevitable at some point. The same should not be said of cycling, professional cycling, maybe but everyday cycling not really. I don't know how you can try and make some point about people who died in motorsport wearing helmets in what you think was a futile manner. Maybe a return to the polo shirt and goggles of the Fangio era is in order?

Myself, I wear a helmet when I feel like it. If I 'had' to wear one it wouldn't be the end of world but since I'm a rebel I'd possibly not wear one just to get involved in a low speed police chase with the police having to put their forks on lock just to keep up.

I haven't "stretched" anything, all the ones I mentioned who died were struck on the head or collided with something that meant the head hit something, there are many more BTW. ALL of them were wearing modern helmets. There is as elsewhere a belief that wearers are virtually invincible when the facts as shown in the testing how little they are able to withstand comparative to the high forces (due to the very high speeds) involved. Or maybe as a long time motorsport viewer you haven't accepted that sometimes helmet wearers still die when blows to the head occur?

Maybe all motorsport should be closed cockpit, thus making the drivers take even more risks 

bikeman01 wrote:

I'm a member of several road cycling clubs, we ride hundreds of miles every week year in year out, stopping regulary at popular cyclist coffee stops, so I see a lot of road cyclists (and more than a few mountain bikers) and from this limited observation almost every single one wears a helmet.

They've all decided that they will wear this non-compulsory device yet I dare say most don't kid themselves that it will save them if they are unfortunate enough to be involved in serious accident but they have decided that it may lessen the damage in a less serious incident.

The anti helment brigade have unwisely rejected any chance of themselves being involved in less serious accidents. 

What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.

It is pointless engaging with them.

You might like to look up "observation bias".

Since all the reliable data shows that cycle helmets don't reduce the risks of cycling, I fail to see where Darwin could possibly be applied.  Fools and their money being soon parted however, is immediately relevant.  Try cyclehelmets.org for a few facts.  Or that cyclist who makes such poor choices Chris Boardman https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-...

But what would he know?

bikeman01 wrote:

I'm a member of several road cycling clubs, we ride hundreds of miles every week year in year out, stopping regulary at popular cyclist coffee stops, so I see a lot of road cyclists (and more than a few mountain bikers) and from this limited observation almost every single one wears a helmet.

They've all decided that they will wear this non-compulsory device yet I dare say most don't kid themselves that it will save them if they are unfortunate enough to be involved in serious accident but they have decided that it may lessen the damage in a less serious incident.

The anti helment brigade have unwisely rejected any chance of themselves being involved in less serious accidents. 

What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.

It is pointless engaging with them.

 

 

What the fuck is this shit?

Has it occurred to you that you're describing a scenario very similar to one where helmets are mandated. And we know what happens when helmets are mandated, don't we. Because we have EVIDENCE. People stop riding bikes.

This is what's routinely missed by evangelists like you. There is a wider point about cycling and society that will continue to bounce off your head.

Me, I ride with my comfort blanket. I haven't had a spill since I started doing that, so my comfort blanket stops collisions. 100%.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Has it occurred to you that you're describing a scenario very similar to one where helmets are mandated. And we know what happens when helmets are mandated, don't we. Because we have EVIDENCE. People stop riding bikes.

This is what's routinely missed by evangelists like you. There is a wider point about cycling and society that will continue to bounce off your head.

People like bikeman01 don't give a shit about everyday cycling, about population level stats or about health and the other factors related to this topic.

They memorise their copy of the Rules, they unthinkingly absorb and repeat the code passed on by the in-group they wish to belong to; and, because they're invariably insecure, they use whatever means they have to assert their status. That invariably means dismissing or badmouthing people whose views, appearance, values or conduct don't fit in with the ones they have taken on.

I have seen it all my life and I have no time for it. I may occasionally unwittingly succumb to similar behaviour, and believe me I chastise myself when I realise I have because it's just so shit.

I don't care how many fucking miles he rides (and it's always blokes), how much his bike cost or whatever other pathetic method he uses to raise his self-worth, it just makes me more determined to not be browbeaten by that kind of condescending bullshit.

bikeman01 wrote:

The anti helment brigade have unwisely rejected any chance of themselves being involved in less serious accidents. 

What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.

More helmet shaming and name-calling.

Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

By mentioning Darwinism are you talking about your own inability to be objective and rational when boring things like facts are presented and instead rely on your own experience?

Do you wear a helmet when walking down a flight of stairs or working on a ladder? Do  your kids wear them to climb trees or on play equipment? If the answer is no then, if we judge you by your own measures, you are a selfish, arrogant A&E statistic waiting to happen and deserve to die. [I don't believe that, I am merely illustrating your own method]

Those of us disagreeing with you are against compulsion and have no desire to call you names because you choose to wear a helmet when cycling.

Perhaps you and RTB (if you are not the same individual) can get your own little room somewhere and stick pins in dolls of people cycling helmetless instead of trolling what was a fairly reasonable discussion.

Simon E wrote:

...instead of trolling what was a fairly reasonable discussion.

Eh? Where was that then? Does such a thing even exist where helmets are involved?

bikeman01 wrote:

What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.

Bollocks. I wear a helmet while commuting because it means the "but he wasn't wearing a lid" excuse won't be available in court should the worst happen. I'm fully aware that it's a chocolate teapot.

srchar wrote:

Bollocks. I wear a helmet while commuting because it means the "but he wasn't wearing a lid" excuse won't be available in court should the worst happen. I'm fully aware that it's a chocolate teapot.

There has been a single case where not wearing a helmet was found to be contributory negligence, in very peculiar circumstances, and it didn't make case law.   Drivers' insurance companies will try to claim that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, and try to reduce the payout accordingly, but they always withdraw this if you stand up to them.  Some people will accept this, which is why they try it, but don't be fooled.

So no need to worry about it being brought up in court; it won't be.

burtthebike wrote:

There has been a single case where not wearing a helmet was found to be contributory negligence, in very peculiar circumstances, and it didn't make case law.   Drivers' insurance companies will try to claim that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, and try to reduce the payout accordingly, but they always withdraw this if you stand up to them.  Some people will accept this, which is why they try it, but don't be fooled.

So no need to worry about it being brought up in court; it won't be.

 

They don't always withdraw the contributary negligent bit.
Take a look at Bethany Probert -v- Churchill Insurance.
I doubt anyone who reads that would consider buying from Churchill.

atgni wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

There has been a single case where not wearing a helmet was found to be contributory negligence, in very peculiar circumstances, and it didn't make case law.   Drivers' insurance companies will try to claim that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, and try to reduce the payout accordingly, but they always withdraw this if you stand up to them.  Some people will accept this, which is why they try it, but don't be fooled.

So no need to worry about it being brought up in court; it won't be.

They don't always withdraw the contributary negligent bit. Take a look at Bethany Probert -v- Churchill Insurance. I doubt anyone who reads that would consider buying from Churchill.

She was walking and the sole grounds for Churchill trying to claim contributory negligence was the lack of hi-viz.  Nothing whatsoever to do with cycle helmets, so totally irrelevant I'm afraid, and my point that insurance companies will drop the contributory negligence claim about helmets still stands.

bikeman01 wrote:

The anti helment brigade have unwisely rejected any chance of themselves being involved in less serious accidents. 

What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.

It is pointless engaging with them.

 

 

This is the sort of self-praising, illogical, and just plain stupid drivel that helmet-obsessives come out with, which is what makes me rant against helmets _even though I wear one_ (when cycling...most of the time).

When I started cycling I had two opinionated cyclist friends, one a generally ultra-risk-averse chap, who explained I had to get a helmet, and another (a woman, perhaps significantly) who went into angry lectures against them.  Not knowing anything about it I felt caught between the two of them.  Since then it's more than anything the pro-helmet lobby that has made me realise where the second was coming from.

I think it's less 'helmets' I object to, maybe not _even_ compulsory helmet laws (enraging though those are), but the flaws in human nature that the helmet pushers illustrate.

ktache wrote:

I wear a helmet, have done every time I have been on my bike since 92, apart from a couple of weeks in 93 when I returned a Specialized one under crash replacement.  Feels weird not to now.

It has stopped me getting a nasty bump on the head on several occasions, but nothing more, maybe an abrasion or two.

I would never, ever dare condemn anyone for their choices whether to wear or not a helmet, it is purely their own personal choice.  If the claims made by some for their magical safety prowess could be proved, you might think that some significant statistical proof might emerge from the data, yet I, someone who has worn one longer than most, could possibly have seen some evidence of this.

Maybe your life was saved by a thin bit of polystyrene, RTB, but until they do a crash test of a head being hit at 50mph by a motor vehicle with the impact being lowered to under 250g, then I will consider that you stick out like a circumcision on display and draw as much respectful disdain as you deserve.

I will tell you someone whose life was definitely saved by the wearing of a helmet and that us Filepe Massa, but that would mean car helmets for all wouldn’t it.

Oh, and Cracknell is a hypocrite.

Young Henry Surtees (john Surtees son) was killed 6 days previously despite wearing a helmet when a wheel struck him killing him instantly, Dan Wheldon was killed when he was struck on the head, Jules Bianchi died when struck on the head, the protective nature of motor-racing helmets, even the very latest ones are not as good as you think.

People saying that the new Halo system would prevented these incidents is yet more speculation, part of the reason why competition/sports participants push more is in part due to the very things that are invented/trying to protect them and the outcomes from that further pushing outweigh the protection offered.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Jules Bianchi died when struck on the head, the protective nature of motor-racing helmets, even the very latest ones are not as good as you think.

He was "struck on the head" by an earth-moving machine and was subject to an impact of 250G.

I am in agreement with your position on cycle helmet compulsion, but motorsport helmets (and the HANS devices that are attached to them) definitely do save lives (Felipe Massa, Martin Brundle, Fernando Alonso, Robert Kubica, I could go on).  Bringing motorsport into the cycling helmet debate is stupid.

srchar wrote:

RTB, does your positive experience of helmet wearing mean that you now wear one when driving a car, riding a bus, or crossing the road? Do you exhort friends and relatives over the age of 65 to wear one at all times, lest they have a fall? Genuine question.

"Positive experience".  Did you really write that to someone who still struggles after 1.5 years since a life changing incident?  Insensitive is the least thing it is.  Ridiculing, low and insulting.  Absurd too.

Let me tell you there is nothing positive about being airlifted to hospital, spending a week intensive care, months in hospital and stillhaving procedures (latest yesterday) to sort problems out. 

RTB wrote:

srchar wrote:

RTB, does your positive experience of helmet wearing mean that you now wear one when driving a car, riding a bus, or crossing the road? Do you exhort friends and relatives over the age of 65 to wear one at all times, lest they have a fall? Genuine question.

"Positive experience".  Did you really write that to someone who still struggles after 1.5 years since a life changing incident?  Insensitive is the least thing it is.  Ridiculing, low and insulting.  Absurd too.

Let me tell you there is nothing positive about being airlifted to hospital, spending a week intensive care, months in hospital and stillhaving procedures (latest yesterday) to sort problems out. 

Fair enough, I accept it was a poor choice of words on my part and wasn't intended to belittle what you've been through, but I'm still interested in your answer to the question posed.

Does your no doubt honestly held belief that wearing a helmet saved you from a worse fate mean that you recommend helmet wearing to people who are more likely to suffer a head injury than a cyclist?

RTB wrote:

srchar wrote:

RTB, does your positive experience of helmet wearing mean that you now wear one when driving a car, riding a bus, or crossing the road? Do you exhort friends and relatives over the age of 65 to wear one at all times, lest they have a fall? Genuine question.

"Positive experience".  Did you really write that to someone who still struggles after 1.5 years since a life changing incident?  Insensitive is the least thing it is.  Ridiculing, low and insulting.  Absurd too.

Let me tell you there is nothing positive about being airlifted to hospital, spending a week intensive care, months in hospital and stillhaving procedures (latest yesterday) to sort problems out. 

Beautifully swerved, managed to not answer the question like a pro. Are you a politician ?

srchar wrote:

I haven't seen a copy of the Mail for yonks, but is this what counts as news in that "news"paper?  Man rides bike without helmet?

The Mail is for people with a reading age of over 7 who find the Sun too simple.  News is currently defined as anything that will increase circulation, and nothing whatever to do with importance or truth; even better if it involves a C grade celeb like Cracknell, who can be shown to be a complete hypocrite.

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

I don't who knows James Cracknell personally on this thread.

Who the heck is anyone to judge him? Take a look in the mirror.

If you don't want to be judged, it might be better not to indulge in quite so much self-publicity.  If Mr Cracknell would stop telling other people, better qualified than him, how to live their lives, he might not get quite so much criticism.

If you deliberately put yourself in the public eye, you can expect to be judged, and you'd probably be a lot better off not complaining about it.

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

I don't who knows James Cracknell personally on this thread.

Who the heck is anyone to judge him? Take a look in the mirror.

I didn't go looking for personal glory/adulation at the expense of my child, I can judge him on that seeing as I was a single parent who was treated like shit by my son's mother and nothing got in the way of giving him everything I could in terms of support, friendship, usual parent stuff. Crackers obviously thinks going back to school so he can get more plaudits is more important.

And, I'm not a shill, flogging a product because you're getting a hefty wedge despite it actually having a negative effect overall on society and making forceful statements/stance about said product and it's beneffits and then being a massive hypocrite by not following that same advice you were spouting so that you could get your bank balance sorted.

So yeah, I'm judging him because I would never do that and think it's pretty shitty by him

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

I don't who knows James Cracknell personally on this thread.

Who the heck is anyone to judge him? Take a look in the mirror.

I didn't go looking for personal glory/adulation at the expense of my child, I can judge him on that seeing as I was a single parent who was treated like shit by my son's mother and nothing got in the way of giving him everything I could in terms of support, friendship, usual parent stuff. Crackers obviously thinks going back to school so he can get more plaudits is more important.

And, I'm not a shill, flogging a product because you're getting a hefty wedge despite it actually having a negative effect overall on society and making forceful statements/stance about said product and it's beneffits and then being a massive hypocrite by not following that same advice you were spouting so that you could get your bank balance sorted.

So yeah, I'm judging him because I would never do that and think it's pretty shitty by him

You have a set of life experiences that have led you to certain conclusions and you would have to admit that you are quite passionate about putting forward those views be they about disc brakes, hi viz clothing, driver attitudes or helmets.

James Cracknell has gone through a massive near death experience that literally changed his life. I'll personally cut the guy some slack on the brain injury that he is the first to admit made him a difficult person to live with. That he was wearing a helmet at the time of the incident is fact. Whether it had any effect on his survival is impossible to proove but he obviously feels that it did and that life experience has led him to a conclusion that he is at perfect liberty in our free society to espouse. Exactly the same as your good self.

As to sponsorship, I guess that as a high profile sportsman, he makes a lot of income from numerous commercial deals. I wouldn't read too much into that. As I understand it he talks about wearing helmets not a specific brand.