[Closed] Biggest Hitter ever to join helmet debate...

hmmmm

[img] [/img]

Please. Let's not do this again.

Just because he's the best professional cyclist in the world right now doesn't mean to say he knows anything about helmets an why they should be mandatory, just like I can't imagine Casey Stoner knows anything about commuting to work on a 125.

Yes but casey probably commute to work on a motorcycle and he probably wears a helmet on it as well 😉

kneel before King Wiggins of Kilburn, for everything he says is plated with gold. 8)

Cyclist last night was crushed by wheels of left turning bus. Failure of infrastructure as cyclist was where current roads direct a rider.

Helmets and headphones an irrelevant distraction. Very poor response from Brad.

Oh. And I read the thread title as Hitler and assumed poster was just invoking Godwins Law early

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/01/cyclist-killed-collision-bus ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/01/cyclist-killed-collision-bus[/url]

More than enough space for proper protected infrastructure on that road but all that's there is a poxy unenforced ASL. Cyclist going straight on was exactly where the road would indicate they should be.

Yes but casey probably commute to work on a motorcycle and he probably wears a helmet on it as well

Oh god make it stop........

Does the one that can't be named know about this thread??

And so is riding a cycle without 😉

Helmets are for whipping through the woods and blasts on the road bike. Pootling down canal toe paths with the kids is perfectly ok lidless. IMO that is.

But what would happen if it was Wiggo on the 125 (Lambretta, natch), Mr Stoner on a pushbike and Son Of Wiggo driving the bus? Eh?

Usual helmet law induced reduction in particpation would prob be balanced out by numbers motivated to cycle by Sir Wiggins' success.

He did qualify it by saying cyclists had to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Which I think the helmet and RLJ debate is all about.

If cyclists aren't seen as behaving like gung-ho mavericks who pay no attention to the rules of the road then motorists can't continue to behave as they do and justify it by saying 'cyclists bring it on themeselves'.

You know the debate doesn't have to be so polarized - should we or should we not enforce the wearing of helmets.

A blanket law would be impractical in the short run. A more sensible initial approach would be to make it compulsory in city centres, say for example anywhere within the congestion charging zone of London. That would place greater responsibility for personal safety on those likely to be commuting without necessarily criminalizing the kids playing in the street in the suburbs.

Just an idea.

Oh and one other point.

This is OUR time right now, it's up to us how we make the most of it. Cycling is a nascent sport in the UK at the moment and we have a chance to really shape and change our sport for the better.

Wiggo's point about being seen to do the right thing, acting responsibly etc, that's the hall mark of a mature and grown up sport that we can all feel good about getting our kids into.

If people want to be petulant and all 'ooh it's my personal choice' about it then that is of course, peoples' personal choice. But the nation is watching us right now so we better set an example.

1972 - agree totally with your post above. It is about setting an example. I am not going to argue about proper cycle lanes, training, high vis cycling gear/lighting, nor how effective a helmet might be. The more aware people are of road safety full stop, the better, if that means making sure people wear a helmet, I don't think that is such a bad ace to start. I know people claim we are in a Nanny State. If Wiggo thinks he has a point, good on him for saying it. I am sure he is all to aware of the discussion in cycling on this issue.

I do personally always wear a helmet, only because I think of there is any chance it may one day do some good, then it has been worthwhile getting it out of the cupboard. A helmet was once useful to me at Afan and that was enough for me. That's my choice though. When I were a lad I didn't think like that and I was lucky never to fall on my melon, I never wore a helmet.

Im pretty sure there would have been similar arguements when compulsory helmet use was proposed for motorcyclists. They seem to be ok with it now.
Like wiggo and others have said, if cyclists as a whole wish to be treated with me credibility and respect then a more pragmatic approach to cycling in cities needs to be adopted. i.e dont ride like a plum on pavements and RLJ. Show a little give and take. Dont make yourself a target, but defend your roadspace assertively.
TGhe other thing that needs to change is other roadusers attitudes, to other road users im general.
I had some idiot who turned left in front of me without indicating, but preceded to call me an "idiot" after I pointed out (sarcastically) that i knew she was going to be turning left. This highlights quite nicely how cyclists as viewed as the bottom of the food chain in motoring terms.

Oh and one other point.

This is OUR time right now, it's up to us how we make the most of it. Cycling is a nascent sport in the UK at the moment and we have a chance to really shape and change our sport for the better.

Wiggo's point about being seen to do the right thing, acting responsibly etc, that's the hall mark of a mature and grown up sport that we can all feel good about getting our kids into.

If people want to be petulant and all 'ooh it's my personal choice' about it then that is of course, peoples' personal choice. But the nation is watching us right now so we better set an example.

Absolutely, when cycling becomes popular, the worst thing the cycling community can do is shoot themselves in the foot by being assholes about something people are told might save their life

There is an eyewitness report on reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some_poor_bloke_for_his_last/

Absolutely, when cycling becomes popular, the worst thing the cycling community can do is shoot themselves in the foot by being assholes about something people are told might save their life

No, the worst thing the cycling community can do with "[i]OUR[/i]" time is concede this point. It would singlehandedly wipe out any and all advances cycling has made recently. And I say "advances" knowing that the modal share for cycling is still a massive joke in the UK.

The CTC's twitter feed this mornign makes me slightly embarassed to be a cyclist, tbh.

Chance in a lifetime to make cyclign a mainstream activity and what are they doing;

[i]
not sure it is useful to give so much credence to views of gold medallist on road safety - how about Steve Redgrave on the Costa Concordia?[/i]

Utter ****wits.

How can criticising a national hero today of all days do anything but harm to their cause?

they aren't criticising him wwaswas, they are questioning whether:

it is useful to give so much credence to views of gold medallist on road safety

...not the same thing at all. Not helpful to oversimplify!

cynic-al, I think they were [url= http://beta.ctc.org.uk/news/2012-08-02/gold-medal-winnner-wiggins-puts-road-safety-in-spotlight ]http://beta.ctc.org.uk/news/2012-08-02/gold-medal-winnner-wiggins-puts-road-safety-in-spotlight[/url];

[i]Asked about the incident Wiggins suggested that making helmets compulsory and passing laws restricting cyclists from listening to music would enable cyclists to say that they had done as much as they could and therefore the responsibility must rest with motorists.

CTC disagrees with this position. Chris Peck, CTC's Policy Coordinator, told Radio 5 Live this morning:

"Making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health, since the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.[/i]

I understand CTC's argument in general but they have to see that there's a bigger picture abotu how cyclists are viewed by other road users and that we need to move on from the whole helmet debate.

Conceding helmet wearing would allow them to focus on other areas. Once people felt that cycling was a 'safe' activity then more people would do it.

It's the CTC, what do you expect, they make a living through money cyclist ggave them. The more cyclist, the more money.

A more sensible initial approach would be to make it compulsory in city centres

Which would kill the cycle hire scheme dead. Fail

[url= http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2012/08/bradley-wiggins-wrong-on-helmets/ ]Christian Wolmar's blog this morning[/url]

Note - far more lives would be saved by making car occupants wear helmets. >50% of in car deaths result of head injuries.

Conceding helmet wearing would allow them to focus on other areas. Once people felt that cycling was a 'safe' activity then more people would do it.

But would lead to significant fall in cycling in short term (if Australian experience anything to go by).

Only sport cyclists wear helmets in the Netherlands - 'utility' cyclists don't.

Making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health

Straw man argument as far as I'm concerned - the issue is whether a [b]cyclist[/b] is safer wearing a helmet or not.

i heard a snippet on the radio lasst night.

he said that if cyclists were to wear a helmet then they would be seen to be doing the right thing and would be respected by motorists.

tbh, i think this is rubbish. it doesn't stop people getting knocked down and there is evidence on Australia that the mandatory waering of helmets actually reduced the number of cyclists.

i don't think that he should have taken it upon himself to state that helmets should be compulsory. he is obviously in the limelight now, but does not represent 98% of the cycling public.

Are you insinuating that a tour de France winner and multiple medal winner is bigger hitter than TJ ? Are you mad?

i don't think that he should have taken it upon himself to state that helmets should be compulsory. he is obviously in the limelight now, but does not represent 98% of the cycling public

would have been a crap interview if he had said "no comment" everytime he was asked his opinion.

I seem to remember that there was a great uproar when they made seat belts compulsory, but I can tell you from a paramedic's point of view that the difference post RTC between those wearing them and those not is quite significant. And there was lots of resistance about motor cyclists having to wear them.. But there are still a lot of people on motor bikes. Personally I think it's a good idea. As said above we need to show the world that we are responsible and safety conscious.

I've seen the difference between car vs cyclist wearing a helmet and car vs cyclist wearing one of those stupid looking roadie caps. The latter spent several months in ITU with brain trauma and the other was treated for minor injuries. Both were side swiped at around 50 mph.

Live and let die!

It's personal, but as I never know when I'm going to fall off I always wear one.

From the eye-witness report:

as we approached a bus he went inside while I held back. The lights changed as he was in the buses blind spot and as he was attempting to go straight the bus turned left. He didn't really have anywhere to go and no time to do anything anyway

Sorry, but a helmet doesn't sound like it would have helped. More awareness from the bus-driver could have, but FFS [b]DON'T UNDERTAKE!!![/b]

There's such a lack of common sense in this country it disgusts me. No, you shouldn't have to wear a helmet if you don't want to. But be aware if you don't, and you fall over, whoesever fault it is, and you bang your head, wearing a helmet is unlikely to impede your safety, wearing one will probably help. As a cyclist, you are the lowest of the low in the physical ranking of road-users. You take your life into your own hands.

Yes, a helemt will only protect you at impacts up to about 30mph. Therefore being hit at 50mph, makes it seem like 20mph.

Good grief.

Biggest Hitler ever is what I read

simons_nicolai-uk - Member
Cyclist last night was crushed by wheels of left turning bus. Failure of infrastructure as cyclist was where current roads direct a rider.
Helmets and headphones an irrelevant distraction. Very poor response from Brad.

Yes, a helemt will only protect you at impacts up to about 30mph. Therefore being hit at 50mph, makes it seem like 20mph.

Actually, it goes as the square of velocity. So if a helmet protects up to about 30mph, then at 50mph it makes it seem like 40mph.

In reality, even the most rigorous (and obsolete) SNELL standards tested at 12.5mph - that's 1/4 the speed, so 1/16th the impact energy of an impact at 30mph.

[i]FFS DON'T UNDERTAKE!!![/i]

if you're in a designated cycle lane you'll be undertaking a row of cars, almost by definition, every time the traffic stops, though?

I'm not passing judgement on this case at all, but I do wonder whether the bus was indicating left before the cyclist decided to undertake. It seems to be typical of most drivers to sit at the lights with no indication then lights change, roll forward, indicate left and turn.

I'm sure that if drivers indicated their intention at the point that a cyclist is deciding whether to undertake or not fewer of these sorts of accidents would occur.

Given that the bus operators can't do very much to stop cyclists riding however they choose, perhaps this is something they should be insisting their drivers do as standard practice.

Never undertake the first person in the queue unless you're absolutely certain you can get in front of them before lights change - that's always been my rule.

Actually, it goes as the square of velocity. So if a helmet protects up to about 30mph, then at 50mph it makes it seem like 40mph.

ok, well you get my drift.

My sister-in-law got knocked off by an idiot opening a car door as she went past (on a bike path)
Smacked her head on the ground. Was concussed for weeks.
There's no doubt if she didn't have a helmet on, she'd have been far worse.

As I said above, I can see the argument for not making it law, but unfortunatly too many of the population now need to live in the nanny state we've become and because it isn't law, think they don't need a helmet. Quite frankly, its Darwinian.

And don't get me started on Time trials on dual carriageways.

Rant over.

Sounds like bad road layout as large vehicles have blind spots its bad enough driving a van never mind a bus or lorry .I feel very sorry for all concerned

Boris says wear one if you want.

My impression from reading his comments was that he was talking less about helmets specifically and more about how there needs to be a clear legal framework for cycling in the UK, with it being a bit less anarchic than it is now. This means cyclists have more responsibilities - like wearing helmets - but also that we have more easily enforceable rights.

I rarely use the dedicated inside green cycling lane specifically beause of left hand turns but then again I would never undertake at a junction whether the vehicle was indicating or not.Inexperienced cyclists are given a false sense of security by green lanes,and the fact that it links to the big the green ASL box leads one to ride up it to the front of the traffic queue. It's paint on the road not a cloak of invincibiity and most car driver rarely look in their LH mirror before setting off.I sit in the middle of the lane and if I want to get to the ASL I go round the outside as drivers use their RH mirror more.As for the argument about helmets ,how many people on here don't actually wear one? They are very vocal on here but surely they are in a very small minority of cyclists?

This means cyclists have more responsibilities - like wearing helmets - but also that we have more easily enforceable rights.

Out of curiosity what do you think these rights would be?

This means cyclists have more responsibilities - like wearing helmets - but also that we have more easily enforceable rights.

Problem with that is, do you then lose those rights if you don't wear a helmet? And where do you stop once you've started with that - cycling would also be safer if body armour was compulsory, for instance.

As for the argument about helmets ,how many people on here don't actually wear one?

I don't. Never have, in 30 years of cycling.

To the op, "biggest hitter" as in Olympic and tour de France champion, or "biggest hitter" as in Stw internet leach?

Here is a ready-made (and tragic) flip-side to the frustrated drivers assuming they must overtake cyclists immediately recently discussed - the flip-side being, cyclists must not just vacantly assume that they must filter past all traffic!

Maximise space around you. What's so wrong about just waiting in line at the traffic lights with every other road user? Put yourself somewhere that you can be seen.

The helmet debate is at best a red herring, at worst a signal to other road users that cyclists aren't doing enough.

enfht - google "sense of humour"

wwaswas - Member
FFS DON'T UNDERTAKE!!!

if you're in a designated cycle lane you'll be undertaking a row of cars, almost by definition, every time the traffic stops, though?

That's filtering.

ir_bandito - wowser on that video 😯

Never undertake the first person in the queue unless you're absolutely certain you can get in front of them before lights change

That's filtering.

Filtering, undertaking - we all know what it is, what's the point in arguing about what it's called? Filtering under traffic is bloody dangerous and gets people killed. Don't just do it without assessing the risk - one massive factor being; can the drivers see you (or will they see you)?

Should have said video was c/o philconsequence

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/psa-lorry-blind-spot-video

I listened to Wiggins comments this morning on the radio (Edited of course) it struck me that he wasn't neccesarily suggesting that making helmet use compulsory and ipod use illegal would directly address RTAs involving cyclists, more that it would send the general message to other road users that cyclists were taking practicable measures (compulsory) to address their own safety and therefore drivers should do the same if for no other reason than to avoid the inconvienience/truama/legal issues that occur when you hit a cyclist, the burden of care falls on both parties...

I can see his point drivers often talk about "suicidal" cyclists "Not even wearing a helmet" and RJLing...
And often assume that all cyclists, across the board, are the only ones considered to be responsible for their own safety and that drivers are to some degree absolved by a cyclists own percieved carelessness...

It really should be the case that we all accept a degree of trust between all road users, that everyones focus is on completing their journey safely and not getting held up or injured in an accident both drivers and cyclists alike...

It's about re-framing the debate, I don't think wiggins put it as elloquently as he could but I susspect he was caught on the spot, asked for a comment without time to really consider his response or full knowledge of the incident.

Really there are a number of fronts that road cycling safety should be addressed on, all of equal importance:

-Driver education
-Cyclist education
-Better Road/town/traffic planning and management.
-Appropriate PPE (accepting that it has limitations).

I'm still not 100% in agreement on Compulsory Helmet use (but I can see the case for stronger promotion of their use) I see the for and against points and a helmet obviously is not a shield of invulnerability, merely a piece of PPE with a limited performance envelope. But wearing one also sends a message to others on the roads - "I have considered my safety and taken measures to try and safeguard it"... what follows of course is the question over how other road users consider their own actions contribution to safety...

But wearing one also sends a message to others on the roads - "I have considered my safety and taken measures to try and safeguard it"

Problem is, people don't think like that. The message wearing a helmet says, psychologically, is "I've taken care of my safety so you don't have to".

Various studies have shown that car drivers pass closer to cyclists who wear helmets, for instance. To really get lots of space on the road, wear a long blonde wig.

glenp - Member
That's filtering.
What's the point of being pedantic?

A stopped car/bus isn't going to turn left and drive over you, so for this discussion they are utterly different IMO.

Compulsary helmet wearing is not the answer, High Viz Vests are. Yes, make everyone wear an HVV. All of the time. Everywhere. Last week I was merrily walking down the road and a person walked straight into me, they just hadn't seen me, weren't looking at all, very careless. Yep, it's the logical conclusion. Compulsory HVV's for all - should this be extended to mosh pits and the like, or would these and similar areas carry an exemption? Also, moving around your home, should they be worn indoors and out?

The death of the cyclist yesterday is tragic. But the debate that Wiggins' comments have generated don't seem terribly well reasoned (barring STW's). Looking at ir_bandito's video up there^^ road and taking into consideration many of the anecdotes shared on this forum road user education is a much bigger issue. FWIW out of habit I always/mostly wear a helmet.

might open the eyes of some of the know-it-alls to ride in london,
its easy to assert your opinion from a position of ignorance. Everyone with a knowledge of riding on a road can draw on a map where the cyclist should be, a little different when you throw in a bus lane, on/off cycle lanes, box junctions, multi lane junctions, filtered traffic signals, taxis, motorbikes changing lanes at will, then up the level of traffic so its approaching gridlock and throw in a large number of wobbly nodders.

stats show that sometimes, someone is gonna get it wrong.

A stopped car/bus isn't going to turn left and drive over you, so for this discussion they are utterly different IMO.

Running up the gutter inside traffic (moving or stationery) is risky. You should never assume that it is the normal/safe thing to do without having a proper look - what are you going to do if someone turns left? Is there enough room to get out of the blind spots? Where are you going to (is there a safe place that you are trying to get to)? etc.

Whether you call it undertaking or filtering is utterly irrelevant.

Oh well I guess we disagree on that one.

+1 cookeaa

I always wear hi viz on my commute as do many others in the hope that it makes me more,well visible-not sure if there's any evidence for this 😉
And as for helmets I can't recall any one not wearing one off road-unless they'd forgot it.
I have never seen any roadies not wearing one and nearly all the commuters I see wear them.In fact the only people I don't see wearing helmets are those on BSOs, a couple of really old guys on old racers popping to the shops and teenagers hanging around the park on their BSOs so what's the big deal? For years now kids today have been brought up wearing them and will do so as adults.The only people who seem to be against them a a few old school die hards on here(I am prepared to be flamed).
The legal/compulsory requirement issue is a separate one about civil liberties IMHO.

Problem is, people don't think like that. The message wearing a helmet says, psychologically, is "I've taken care of my safety so you don't have to".

Various studies have shown that car drivers pass closer to cyclists who wear helmets, for instance. To really get lots of space on the road, wear a long blonde wig.

You reckon?

Isn't that one of these 25 year old aussie studdies, with a bit of bias to start with...

If I hit someone who had taken some reasonable steps to guard their own safety, I assume the law/general opinion would see me as more caupable Vs hitting some larrey helmetless chancer with agrguably less regards for their own safety? - Dunno...

Perhaps thats just me, but it all comes back to what I said about adressing the issue on multiple fronts rather than looking for a single point fix:

-Driver education
-Cyclist education
-Better Road/town/traffic planning and management.
-Appropriate PPE (accepting that it has limitations).

Remove the excuses from both parties...

Does helmet compullsion drive down participation? Possibly... show me the current UK focussed studies?

Should 'participation' mean you are allowed to place your hair do ahead of your safety? - Disscuss...

You reckon?

Isn't that one of these 25 year old aussie studdies, with a bit of bias to start with...

Well, one was a very good study done by someone at Warwick, using a rangefinder to accurately measure passing distances - seemed pretty rigorous and fairly recent.

The phenomenon of risk compensation is widely known - if you make something safer, people act in a more risky manner to compensate. It's subconscious, not a conscious thing. People drive faster with seatbelts on, for example.

Oh well I guess we disagree on that one.

Nobody could argue that it isn't dangerous to filter inside - as this tragic case proves pretty damned conclusively.

No, nooooooo......no, God No more whining...

Make it stop please Mummy.

glenp - Member
Oh well I guess we disagree on that one.
Hopefully we only disagree on the importance of what it's called!
Nobody could argue that it isn't dangerous to filter inside - as this tragic case proves pretty damned conclusively.

I can...and will: filtering inside is not dangerous IMO, as long as you take a position in between cars once they start moving, and don't ride inside anything moving. I don't find this difficult on my route, admittedly where there are few HGVs/buses, which in rare cases may be best sat behind when stationary.

To be fair, the study on how close cars pass/how much room they give riders shows nothing more than that, it does not indicate or prove in any way that proximity of passing acts as a proxy for accidents, or that accidents are more likley amongst riders wearing a helmet, only that drivers pass fractionally closer on average.

Al - you've just said [i]exactly[/i] that [b]same thing[/b] as me.

The constant circular debates/expressions of opinion on helmets yes V helmets no, dedicated cycle lanes V integrated traffic measures etc etc ad infinitum isn't really helped by a lack of good, clear research and plenty of it. And ok there is research, predominantly from Australia, Canada, Scandinavia and the Netherlands. So where are the studies focusing on increasing the take up of cycling in the UK? And the safety of road users - in particular cyclists? What research is being carried out? What has been carried out? What meta studies of global surveys? There is clearly a cultural difference between road users so what can we learn from other situations and what are specific to ourselves? Basing any legislation on the most opinionated/who so ever shouts the loudest is idiocy.

I think that the timing was wrong, and as a response to a question about someone being killed by a bus it probably wasn’t the best thing he could have said. I suspect that if he’d known that particular question was coming he might have come up with a better response, but it’s probably not the question you expect in a press conference after winning a gold medal – I don’t know timing wise whether it would have been the first he even heard about the accident (I was at a work thing yesterday evening so didn’t see it unfold live).

It also seems to have been twisted by the media, but underlying what he said I do think that there’s an element of truth. Badly expressed and badly timed truth possibly, but he still has a point. With rights come responsibilities. We may have a right to use the roads, but we still have the responsibility to do so sensibly and to take care of our own safety rather than relying on other people to do it for us. If we want to be given the same respect as other traffic then we have to behave like traffic and play to largely the same rules as cars. And if we want other people to take our safety seriously we have to take it seriously ourselves. It’s not just about helmets, however good that is as a headline.

If that means having clearer standards about what we should and shouldn’t be doing then I can live with that. I’m not in favour of mandatory absolutes and I’m not sure that legislation is the way to do it, (although I do wear a helmet pretty much all of the time), but I agree with the principle that you should at least *think* about what level of safety equipment or other precautions are appropriate for the ride or manoeuvre you’re doing. Some of the people I see on bikes seem to have bypassed that step altogether. If I get hit by a car then regardless of the degree of culpability on the driver’s side I want to know that there’s nothing *I* could reasonably have done to make myself safer or to reduce the extent of my injuries. (speaking as someone who *has* been hit by a car a mile or so away from her house and was rather pleased she was wearing a helmet – short journey or not)

As I said, there were probably better times and places to make that point, in a way that couldn’t be distorted by the media. But in all the emotion about yesterday I’m not going to crucify him for it.

Ah...maybe I should have read it 😀

If I hit someone who had taken some reasonable steps to guard their own safety, I assume the law/general opinion would see me as more caupable Vs hitting some larrey helmetless chancer with agrguably less regards for their own safety? - Dunno...

There have been several recent convictions for dangerous driving after a driver has hit someone who's lying in the road.

If you look at simply,

Brads emotions going wild all day, Gold medal and all,
He gets asked loads of questions then the guy killed is brought up.
Brad caught off guard mentions the first couple of things that come into his head that could improve cyclist safety.
Brad gets slammed by people who have spent loads of time researching something that has probably never crossed his mind and probably wouldn't have.

The whole argument really only proves that until cyclists can get along with each other let alone motorists nothing will make their lives safely.

The CTC and other organisations could have used this to their advantage but instead choose to distance themselves to only man who has put British Cycling to the forefront of the worlds media.

The CTC and other organisations could have used this to their advantage but instead choose to distance themselves to only man who has put British Cycling to the forefront of the worlds media.

Plus one million!

Cycling groups have always been very Judean People's Front - I realised this many years ago at a meeting of the Glasgow Cycle Campaign where the whole meeting was about arguments with the Edinburgh cycle campaign 🙂