Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 27/08/2026Aside from the issues already raised, it's worth noting that Bikeability provides courses pupils participate in, not qualifications they can gain, so insisting on something that doesn't exist isn't really scoring them much in the way of Clue Points 🙄 020 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 27/08/2026a) it's counter-productive gatekeeping and b) they have no authority to make or enforce rules on how pupils get to and from school. If they're keen on L3 training they should ensure any pupil that wants it should be able to have it, but there's no need or power for them to insist on it. 030 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 03/08/2026We're in a car club, but it's a couple of miles to the nearest parking spot. No great problem with a Brompton, of course... What we do find is the "pay as you go" nature of a car club has us thinking about our need to drive where the sunk-cost of a bought car outside tends not to. 130 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 27/07/2026A spoiled vote is easy enough so that's a bit of a non-problem A problem I do see is it dumps on folk who can't get their shit together for any number of reasons (see also: fines for missed medical appointments) 010 0
Reposted by Peter ClinchHarry @harry-is-human.bsky.social · 27/07/2026The UK governments habit of insisting on science having an economic return provable upfront has, ironically, been dragging back the UK economy for decades. Its why our space industry basically doesn't exist for instance. 2145 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 17/07/2026Topically, www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...theguardian.comToo many drivers see road safety rules as a personal affront. It’s time to tighten up UK laws | Sally KydTwo court cases last month illustrate how confusion over legal definitions are feeding into a culture of poor driving standards, says law professor Sally Kyd 042 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 03/07/2026"Oh no, someone's smashed into my parked car!" "It just so happens I have footage of the miscreant on my camera" "Oh! can I get a copy please?" "I would give it to you, but then that *would* be grassing on one of your fellow motorists" "Oh, fair enough, I'll just pay for the hit myself then" 🤔🙄 161 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 22/06/2026Looking good, I have loop bars on my off-road tourer but the Moulton is even more swept back with Pashley North Roads... 020 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 21/06/2026Good on you! That all sounds quite familiar - we adopted our two in 2009 and it's been quite the saga at times but absolutely worth it. They're remarkable people, very happy to get my father's day messages today, we'll see them next week when the youngest graduates with a 2.1 🙂 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 07/06/2026I just asked AI how far a typical Disney visitor walks in a day, and it reckoned several miles, averaging about 10. 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 07/06/2026Walkable distances are fine... so long as they're across a few acres of car parking or around a theme park adjacent to said parking. Same or less distance from your front door though, not so much... 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026I'm predisposed to SF but see a good SF story as a good story. Rather than not seeing Star Wars because you were e.g. confused/bored by 2001 it would make more sense not to see it because you couldn't be bothered with all the fighting in The Adventures of Robin Hood... 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026Perhaps less of the patronising and more at the looking at what's being meant? Behavioural change resulting from perceived risk hasn't been debunked. If you think it has on the basis of anything you've suggested thus far you're being quite naïve 🤷♂️ 010 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026Also, if a hypothesis is supported by a piece of information that is found to be incorrect that doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole concept. It might, but it's certainly not a given. 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026I think you need to be very careful with statements like that when dealing with human behaviour. That Subject 1 doesn't exhibit some behaviour doesn't tell you that will surely be the case for Subject 2. Human behaviour is difficult to pin down and predict. I think that's a lot of Adams' point. 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026I suspect you're reading the bits about *elements* of behavioural alteration theory that have lost credence and conflating those with all aspects of behavioural alteration in reaction to perceived risk. It certainly doesn't say that behavioural alteration in reaction to perceived risk isn't a thing. 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026Don't be trite, my point with the Wiki is if the whole concept was yesterday's news it would at least say so. Nobody seems to have told the psychology folk that though... That you think what you said before is a corollary of risk compensation clearly isn't, so you're on about something else 🤷♂️ 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026We see risk compensation all the time, it's a built into human behaviour, but what it isn't is predictable and the same for one person as the next. Hence the real thrust of the book that human behaviour tends to derail predictable outcomes for safety interventions. 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 06/06/2026If it's "erroneous and discredited" I'd expect that to mentioned in, say, it's Wikipedia entry at least in passing, but no. I think you've misread the hypothesis, and so your characterisation of a corollary is also wrong, and thus also your thinking on how it dismisses the theory. 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 05/06/2026You use "mute thread" Perhaps finding out how to use something before setting off is a bit like seeing what threads are really about before jumping in? (i.e. a pretty good idea) 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026I ran a hub front and battery rear for years, because rears last months on one set of batteries and it means no faffing about getting cable to the back. I use wired now, but a battery rear and front hub powered isn't actually that mad. 100 0
Reposted by Peter ClinchAndy Brown @andybrown1951.bsky.social · 04/06/2026What motive could a crypto billionaire possibly have for funding a political party to champion light regulation of corrupt practices? Asking for a nation of cynics. 14813 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026And TBF disagreeing with how appropriate my analogy to gardening gloves might be isn't the same thing as evangelising helmets... 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026Not really, first up "cold stats" for anything complex are problematic, and hence it hasn't been "clearly proved" (see the Goldacre/Spiegelhalter piece I've linked). What we ought to know is that we don't really know, and that's *not* a sound basis for public health intervention & policy. 120 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026I'd not really understood that comment until I saw my comment had got more repost action in a few minutes than I usually get in months. Bit of an ironic learning experience... 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026But there are still false positives, particularly when over-relying on software for detection. My daughter got a horrible grilling yesterday, exonerated after showing her essay was really her own work, but described it as one of the worst experiences of her life, like guilty until proven innocent 😡 31915 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026This, and even promotion of non-mandatory helmets can be a problem in this regard of "dangerising" cycling putting folk off doing it. More people cycling not only makes a healthier population but for those riding there appears to be a "safety in numbers" effect. 150 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026As you can see in my profile picture I'm not against helmets, but I'm very much against over-stressing their importance based on anecdotes and/or highly questionable science. @cyclinguk.bsky.social have a good evidence based policy, see www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cyc...cyclinguk.orgCycle helmetsThere is no justification for making helmet-wearing compulsory: it could undermine levels of cycle use and, in any case, the effectiveness of helmets is far from clear. 010 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026They also point out that pushing helmets is more about culture than actual track record. I can relate to that, I used to think they should be compulsory because I was a "serious cyclist", and I had my own helmet saved me anecdote too... I was wrong, they're a distraction from more important stuff. 140 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 04/06/2026They can stop you dying, there are ways they can make things worse. The overall safety effect against serious stuff is "too modest to capture" according to www.bmj.com/content/346/... This is two eminent scientists at the top of the game saying it's really hard to show what their overall effect is.bmj.com 120 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 03/06/2026Yes, people really have got up and walked away from the likes of that without a helmet, and others have had fatal injuries from far more innocuous events when wearing one. These are anecdotes and don't really tell us much is the reality. 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 03/06/2026Also, there's a big difference between being just dropped on your head and your head striking the ground as you're in a roll, as there's a tendency to be in an OTB. If it's a sideways topple a lot of the energy tends to be taken by shoulders, and so on. So many things can make a big difference. 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 03/06/2026As already noted, cycle helmets don't have a clear track record of reducing serious injury rates. If they could be trusted to change the outcome of significant numbers of OTBs with a head landing over several decades that would probably not be the case, and yet it is 🤷♂️ 031 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 03/06/2026The crucial speed is the vertical as that's the direction the ground stops you very quickly, unless you hit a wall or similar horizontal speed (and associated energy) is scrubbed off relatively slowly. Vertical speed will be about the same as a trip or fall, that skulls have evolved to deal with. 220 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026Lots of people have fallen off their bike, landed in their head and survived with complete recovery, so it's not a safe assumption that your helmet made a crucial difference. As noted, they've not clearly changed serious injury rates. Also, look up confirmation bias. 170 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026The sort of falls from a bike that get one dead are, alas, beyond the design spec of lightweight cycle helmets. They have no proven track record of reducing serious injury rates. I wish they did, but they don't 😕 1100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026... but they'll probably eat your face, given half a chance! 120 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026"just saying what people think" = just trotting out the prejudices people grew up with in a racist, sexist society and because they're ground in it seems like it rings some sort of bell of accord. That's not what folk *think*, it's what they rationalise because it's what surrounded them. 010 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026No, it's considered "safe" because people routinely do it with a passably low doom rate. That the doom rate is passably low is down to those protective measures, but people don't think those through when they go shopping, they just get to the shops however and do their shopping as they always do. 010 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026Oh come on, it's been rolled out continuously for decades! It's nonsense, certainly, and anyone serious should be able to see that, but to suggest that nobody is making or has made it requires blinkers. 010 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026But we digress... There is no serious argument being made for helmets in cars, there's a facetious one to show that the oft-made "if one life is saved it's worth it!" push for compulsory cycle helmets is bilge. There's no point nit-picking the driving helmets thing, nobody's really pushing it. 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026yes, my risk changes by modality, but the demographic pool I'm drawn from doesn't. Though my risk does change by modality, in each case (driving car, driving 3 tonne van, cycling, carbo bike cycling, walking) we're in the realm of low enough to be considered generically "safe" (i.e., PPE optional) 220 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026And it's similarly a huge range between a 50 year old experienced driver with a spotless license in a Sensible Car on a motorway and a wannabe boy racer who's had their license for a week and a souped up old hot-hatch on a twisty rural road. So what? 000 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026So if I drive to the shops or alternatively I ride to the shops or walk to the shops, I suddenly change to a different demographic pool along with my transport choice? 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026Aye, I think we're in Furious Agreement overall, but it's a different argument. "We should do X because Y" "We realise the similar notion of Z because Y is dumb, maybe that tells you something about doing X?" (On seatbelts, worth reading John Adams' "Risk", www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/u... )john-adams.co.uk 100 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026And it turns out cycle helmets have unintended consequences too, as I'm sure you know. Again, the point being made isn't drivers should wear racing helmets, it's that the argument that cycle helmets might prevent some cycling head injuries is not a good argument for their compulsory use. 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026The relative risk of a head injury cycling isn't wildly different from driving or walking. If the folk crowing about cycle helmet laws actually cared about head injuries across the population they'd be all over all sorts of things besides cycling. 120 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026But they could be used in everyday driving and possibly reduce the head injury rate of everyday driving. This illustrates that pushing cycle helmets is really a way of blaming cyclists for injuries beyond the spec of a light helmet to deal with, not general concern over any head injuries. 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026What you suggest is a trap is actually an illustration that the argument for pushing something that might save some head injuries among cyclists is not at all well made. If absolutist tones turned people off then they'd be turned off the idea of compulsory helmets. Alas, they're not. 110 0
Peter Clinch @peterclinch.bsky.social · 02/06/2026This isn't an argument to wear them driving, btw, it's to illustrate that many of the "reasons" given to force people into cycle helmets are actually rationalisations using logic that we do not consistently apply in other areas where it really ought to. 010 0