Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story).
Add new comment
26 comments
Did something get missed off the live blog?
Couldn't see RLJ either (unless it was blocked by client software)
Pity Harrogate council hasn't made any investment in the roads. I'm basically living over there at the moment and the roads as always are beyond garbage. Passable if you've got an Audi q2 or tank but useless for cycling.
The policeman made a comment based on incomplete information and his own bias.
Many of those criticising him are doing the exact same thing.
It is impossible to tell from a photo of a helmet whether it prevented an injury or not.
It doesn't matter if it's cracked or compressed or has any other mark etc.
All we can tell is that it absorbed some energy. It is impossible to know how much.
It is impossible to know what the cyclist's injuries would have been like without the helmet.
Those claiming it did nothing are making the exact same mistake that the policeman made.
But you have done a similar thing to what the policeman did, in that you concentrate on the helmet thing, instead of starting with the "careless" and unlawful driving by the motorist being the cause of this incident, then you can mention the protective nature of the helmet that may have lessened injury, and to the head only.
I wasn't commenting on the accident itself.
I was commenting on the reaction to the photo of the helmet.
Which is much less important than the cause of the collision. But let's not worry about that, let's give those poor motorists innocently going about their business a bit of a break.
Rich, the policeman said:
"Cyclists and other road users share the same space. How can YOU all help reduce collisions??"
Well not helmets, they cause collisions rather than reducing them...
Nice try.
I have to give you full marks for resilience; it doesn't matter how many times you're proved wrong, you just bounce back. Still wrong, but still convinced that you are right.
From the man who literally refuses to read evidence that contradicts his viewpoint.
The dictionary definition of confirmation bias.
Nice try Burt.
Keep lying and I'll keep proving you're a liar, over and over again.
One hugely significant difference is that we are easily ignored, anonymous voices on an internet forum while he is an officer of the law making public statements that are erroneous and misleading. He is reinforcing false ideas about driver behaviour, road safety and PPE that are then repeated over and over again.
I know which of those voices holds more weight with the general public.
I agree that the police should never refer to the potential benefit of PPE without explicitly referencing the criminal behaviour that has led to the PPE being necessary.
Actually it does; a cracked helmet has absorbed very little energy and given that there are thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories with the same picture of a damaged helmet, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall despite all these stories, they can't be true. The policeman was wrong and we should all be pointing this out every time it happens, because it removes responsibility from the causes of the problem; bad driving, poor enforcement and victim blaming.
Thanks for displaying the exact bias I was referencing.
You have literally no idea how much energy that helmet absorbed.
You have literally no idea whether it prevented an injury or not.
You're just speculating from your own biased perspective.
Which is exactly what the policeman did.
Good to see you still repeating your lie about death rates though.
It would be nice to have more confidence that Norwich police would respond better to public submissions of video close passes.
On one occasion (a few years ago now) I was told they couldn't give notice of prosecution because the incident was more than 14 days ago. I pointed out that I submitted the video on the same evening as the incident occurred and they were responding for the first time 18 days later. The reason I was given for this was, the officer who delt with video submissions was off sick.
So, no cover for sickness and holidays then.
The surface of the Trans Pennine Trail might be down to exceptional bad weather, gates that are difficult with a non-standard bike isn't:
https://tandem-club.org.uk/forum/All?id=10934
Davide Rebellin still cycling at that level just doesn't sit right with me, just as an aging Valverde doesn't sit right with me.
Poor old PC McArthur.. he had no idea he was prodding a wasps nest when he tweeted that pic of a smashed up helmet. I bet the poor ignorant fool just thought he was putting out some good news and a careful reminder/warning to road users.
I feel a bit sorry for him. He clearly had no idea about the reaction he'd get. I remember Geraint Thomas getting something similar when he said he'd never ride without a helmet.
As well as being factually misleading (suggesting that the helmet was effective), his safety reminder was directed at the wrong road user group.
Would he broadcast the same kind of message after a woman had been hospitalised by a violent man? Or be surprised at the reaction?
Every member of police, judiciary, politicians etc should be nagged, badgered and cajoled until they stop letting dangerous drivers off the hook with 'token' or slap-on-the-wrist punishments for the totally avoidable damage they cause.
People in authority, like policemen and doctors, are looked up to as sources of unbiased information, and therefore they have a responsibility to be accurate. At the very least PC Arthur was misleading and distracting from the cause of the collision.
It is always better to avoid collisions than to ameliorate the effects, especially when the armour provided is proven to be not effective. I hope the PC will learn from this, and won't be repeating his error any time soon..
It's not really the policemans fault, he's just referencing rule 59 of the highway code.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
The highway code needs reviewing and modifying, but that is unlikely to happen in the near future. Also, with the current government, I can't see any changes being in cyclists favour. More likely to get the wording of rule 59 changed from "should" to "must".
He didn't reference a rule though, he made a claim that the helmet did something and prevented a lengthy stay in hospital. What was the basis of that claim and how is he qualified to make it?
To me it comes back to that pyramid of controls shown in the twitter discussion https://twitter.com/CCSteV/status/1224842007505514498/photo/2
and that with cycling the last resort is usually promoted as the first resort.
"I'm Spartacus!"
Police are supposed to be unbiased during an investigation, but it does sometimes seem that there is more enthusiasum for finding mitigations than fault.
This BBC programme follows the investigation into a serious collision involving four cyclists and a car.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dp8h/the-crash-detectives-seri...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49986575
There were a couple of points in the programme I found a bit (and likely unconsciously) biased:
- at 19:30 an officer praises the driver for doing well managing to straighten up the out-of-control car, until his more experienced colleague points out it's due to the impact with the cyclist.
- at 23:20 there's a comment about the cyclists being 'responsible' and this seems to be linked to the fact they were riding single file and had lights and helmets. This is despite it not being dark when the collision occurred, so all of those things are completely irrelevant.