Cyclist down (London)
- Thread starter Matthew_T
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Boris Bajic
Guest
Whooppee! A new helmet debate.
I, for one, never wear a helmet in London. I wear one occasionally (training with middle child who disapproves of non-use or on fast rides in the Malverns). In London - never.
I lived there all my life until going all rural a few years ago. It never occured to me to wear one, although they were becoming popular before I left the Smoke.
I've been bowled over by traffic many times in London, fallen unassisted more than once and have a history of treating Euston Road as my own, private Rollerball track. But I've never bumped my bonce.
Even my pro-helmet middle child goes helmetless when we ride together in the Smoke.
I like to think I take my own longevity (relatively) seriously, but for me helmets in urban traffic are just something else to carry when you get there.
I have statistics to prove everything I've written here, but I left them in my other trousers.
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Anyone who even raises a slightly critical eyebrow to any of the above is a moral coward, a cretin, a buffoon and a scallywag (in the current rather than historical sense).
I, for one, never wear a helmet in London. I wear one occasionally (training with middle child who disapproves of non-use or on fast rides in the Malverns). In London - never.
I lived there all my life until going all rural a few years ago. It never occured to me to wear one, although they were becoming popular before I left the Smoke.
I've been bowled over by traffic many times in London, fallen unassisted more than once and have a history of treating Euston Road as my own, private Rollerball track. But I've never bumped my bonce.
Even my pro-helmet middle child goes helmetless when we ride together in the Smoke.
I like to think I take my own longevity (relatively) seriously, but for me helmets in urban traffic are just something else to carry when you get there.
I have statistics to prove everything I've written here, but I left them in my other trousers.
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Anyone who even raises a slightly critical eyebrow to any of the above is a moral coward, a cretin, a buffoon and a scallywag (in the current rather than historical sense).
Boris Bajic
Guest
Many years ago I watched a nature documentary about a feral dog and its various hunting strategies when trying to catch and eat a flightless deseret bird whose speed made it difficult prey to run down.
On one occasion, (unlikely as it may seem) the coyote fired itself from a cannon but due to a (frankly comical) sequence of mishaps, the bird escaped and the coyote was driven headlong into a rockface. The coyote would have been subjected to negative accelaration quite unsurvivable to most humans.
The footage is quite remarkable. I wish I could remember the name of the programme. I believe it was by National Geographic.
To cut a long story short, although the coyote appeared to suffer significant head trauma, it is likely that its life was saved by a helmet. As footage of this incident exists, the veracity of my assertion cannot be brought into question. Fact is fact.
Surely this cannot be ignored. Certainly, when I was a motorcycle courier in London (where helmets were mandatory) we took such proofs very seriously.
We also walked into offices with our helmets on backwards, pretending to be Mekons. Need I say more?
On one occasion, (unlikely as it may seem) the coyote fired itself from a cannon but due to a (frankly comical) sequence of mishaps, the bird escaped and the coyote was driven headlong into a rockface. The coyote would have been subjected to negative accelaration quite unsurvivable to most humans.
The footage is quite remarkable. I wish I could remember the name of the programme. I believe it was by National Geographic.
To cut a long story short, although the coyote appeared to suffer significant head trauma, it is likely that its life was saved by a helmet. As footage of this incident exists, the veracity of my assertion cannot be brought into question. Fact is fact.
Surely this cannot be ignored. Certainly, when I was a motorcycle courier in London (where helmets were mandatory) we took such proofs very seriously.
We also walked into offices with our helmets on backwards, pretending to be Mekons. Need I say more?
You're mistaken, it was "The Life Of Mammals", presented by none other than David Attenborough. It's quite a few years ago now though!
Boris Bajic
Guest
I do not remember a commentary. I may be mistaken.
I do remember some stunning detail in the shots of the reactions of the coyote and the intended prey to their encounters. There was an almost anthropomorphic quality to some of the film of their faces at the moment of triumph or tragedy.
Some of the zoom work was quite excellent too. How the cameraman managed in another sequence to follow the coyote to the very floor of a deep canyon defies logic. On that occasion he was not wearing a helmet, but there was no indication that he received serious injuries.
I confess to suspecting at times that the whole thing was scripted.
What was this thread about?
A cycle helmet would be of little value in such a situation anyway, as it is not designed for such use. The coyote would be well advised to wear a helmet designed for climbing activities, particularly one with UIAA approval.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I do not read books like the Highway Code and have never read the Road Traffic Act.
So I have no right to write as I do: Nonetheless, I believe the priority as you describe it lies with pedestrians crossing the junction.
This was as it was told to me by a bloke who knew someone I used to buy sheep feed from. You may question the veracity of this source.
I reacll no mention of cycles doing so, although my memory is suspect.
