Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

Why not on per hour of activity?

I think you are clutching at straws Adrian....

 

[benb]

Cyclists are being let down by lack of compulsion.

What absolute drivel.

1) Cyclists are free to wear helmets if they want to
2) There is no reliable evidence that cycle helmets offer any significant protection against serious head injuries
3) Everywhere that has brought in compulsion has seen a sharp reduction in cycling, which (even if helmets were 100% effective, which they're not) is far more damaging to the health of the population than the supposed protection offered by helmets.

 

[Boris Bajic]

What absolute drivel.

1) Cyclists are free to wear helmets if they want to
2) There is no reliable evidence that cycle helmets offer any significant protection against serious head injuries
3) Everywhere that has brought in compulsion has seen a sharp reduction in cycling, which (even if helmets were 100% effective, which they're not) is far more damaging to the health of the population than the supposed protection offered by helmets.

I disagree with it too, ben. But that doesn't make it drivel.

I'm quite against compulsion too, but my opinion (to one side or the other in a debate) doesn't necessarily render the contrary view drivel.

 

[Linford]

I'm not clutching at straws, just questioning your biased choice of statistic.

DFT state 31 million cars in the UK
CTC state there are 2.9 million bicycles in the UK

Cunobelin stated there are 3 times as many head injuries in cars as on cycles, but there are more than 10 times as many car drivers as cyclists

Do the maths, and see if you can come back with a figure which biases it in the way you want to see it....

 

[benb]

I disagree with it too, ben. But that doesn't make it drivel.

I'm quite against compulsion too, but my opinion (to one side or the other in a debate) doesn't necessarily render the contrary view drivel.

It's not automatically drivel just because I disagree with it (there have been plenty of people that disagree with me that have nevertheless made interesting and informed contributions). It's drivel because it's demonstrably wrong.

 

[Linford]

What absolute drivel.

1) Cyclists are free to wear helmets if they want to
2) There is no reliable evidence that cycle helmets offer any significant protection against serious head injuries
3) Everywhere that has brought in compulsion has seen a sharp reduction in cycling, which (even if helmets were 100% effective, which they're not) is far more damaging to the health of the population than the supposed protection offered by helmets.

My argument is that cycling helmets currently sold do not offer decent protection, and it is down to the legislators to set an acceptable standard first.

Try reading the rest of the posts in the thread before jumping up and down at what you think I am proposing.....

 

[Linford]

It is not a like for like comparison though is it? Long motorway journeys v short town ones for example.

So you do admit that car journeys are safer than cycling ones - ithankyouverymuch

 

[benb]

And here's another ignorant "expert" pushing for compulsion.
http://road.cc/content/news/62990-h...in-injury-charity-wants-welsh-assembly-debate

 

[benb]

My argument is that cycling helmets currently sold do not offer decent protection, and it is down to the legislators to set an acceptable standard first.

Try reading the rest of the posts in the thread before jumping up and down at what you think I am proposing.....

You said cyclists were let down by the lack of compulsion. I fail to see how it's possible to misunderstand what you meant by that.

 

[Linford]

And here's another ignorant "expert" pushing for compulsion.
http://road.cc/content/news/62990-h...in-injury-charity-wants-welsh-assembly-debate

You mean that there are other people out there who think that protecting ones head whilst engaging in an activity where it might come into contact with a road/vehicle/etc is a good idea - he must obviously be 'WRONG'

 

[Linford]

You said cyclists were let down by the lack of compulsion. I fail to see how it's possible to misunderstand what you meant by that.

I also stated this a couple of pages back - you are cherry picking
http://www.cyclechat.net/posts/1966121/

 

[Linford]

You are such a child

I'll take that as a yes

 

[Linford]

Another big step up in mature discussion there.

Let me repeat myself so we are clear.

As the technology currently stands,in regard to cycle hats, I do not favour compulsion.I think they need to move forward and be developed and tested to conform with motorcycle crash helmet standards (ACU gold star/ECE-2205.

then I think that compulsion would be justifiable, and people will lose the invincibility attitude to getting hurt.

Nobody in the UK argues aginst crash helmets on motorcycles. We accept it as being a good move to safeguard the riders. There was the same arguments in 73.

Prove the technology, and then apply it - or else you risk becoming a fashion victim !

 

[Hector]

LOL

 

[Linford]

Oh, and get some decent product stylists on them. The majority of cycle hats just make the riders look like geeky numpties