Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[snorri]

A quality lid is a prized possession for bikers nowadays. People think nothing of spending £500 on one.

I think this has more to do with the facial features of your average motor biker rather any possible safety benefits, I doubt you would get much cosmetic surgery for £500.

 

[ufkacbln]

The 'motorway' analogy is using the same logical argument as the pedestrian head injury justification. i.e. not at all relevant to cyclists.

Yet those who dismiss it and resort to personal attack, are the first to repeatedly use it.

Polar opposites surely?

The Motorway system fulfils a specific purpose of moving large amounts of traffic over long distances as quickly as possible, providing a proven benefit to those travelers.


There is no evidence at all that motorways have any effect on cycling, adverse or positive.

In fact it could be argued that by taking a lot of drivers who wish to drive at speed off the more minor roads there is a benefit to road safety and that by reducing the numbers of vehicles on these roads, motorways encourage cycling.

Cycle helmets however have been repeatedly shown that helmet compulsion has discouraged cycling (evidenced in the reduced number of cyclists) and has failed to deliver the claimed reductions in head injury.

It was why the introduction of the motorway argument is so ironic

 

[Linford]

So since that mandatory helmet laws increase the risks to cyclists, then can we presume that you're against them?

As for the complaint about personal attacks. It is agreed that, in the normal run of events, they are at best regrettable. In this situation though, where the actual, recorded, outcomes of helmet compulsion are both known and pointed out, how do you respond to someone who repeatedly ignores that evidence and comes back with the same analogy about motor cycle helmets?

May I refer you to my previous post = http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/br...ws-and-compulsory-helmets.107549/post-1966121

 

[Linford]

For once I am in full agreement with you, and I stand in dumbfounded admiration at your newly found honesty, and ability at long last to recognise reality!
There are very few cases where your contributions were not corrected. and you have indeed not stood corrected on a number of matters



Ironic for someone who has squirmed,wriggled and undergone painful contortions to avoid answering a simple question or two about head injuries!


1. Two people are admitted to A and E
2. They have similarly serious head injuries
3. One is a cyclist
4. One is a Motorist

Q1. Does one hurt less than the other?
Q2. Is one less traumatic than the other?
Q3. Is the effect on the family less for one than the other?

My experience shows that both are equally serious and yet you don't seem to believe that the significantly greater number of driver admissions for head injuries should be prevented by the same simple expedient use of a helmet that you so strongly advocate for cyclists

We have been through this one already. There are 10 times the amount of regular drivers to cyclists, but the stats do not show that there are 10 times the amount of drivers being treated for head injuries. Most of these driver injuries recorded are also because they were't using seatbelts.

 

[Linford]

I think this has more to do with the facial features of your average motor biker rather any possible safety benefits, I doubt you would get much cosmetic surgery for £500.

Quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted on this thread to date - and the most obvious trolling also.

You get mingers on bicycles in the same way you get mingers in cars, on horseback and motorcycles, as well as on foot.

 

[ufkacbln]

We have been through this one already. There are 10 times the amount of regular drivers to cyclists, but the stats do not show that there are 10 times the amount of drivers being treated for head injuries. Most of these driver injuries recorded are also because they were't using seatbelts.

Another one of your pseudo-facts?

I would be interested to see the evidence for your seat belt / head injury link - but I won't hold my breath.

However despite this latest contortion to avoid the questions... let me point out (again) that in this case we are not talking about statistics, but a simple comparison between two unfortunates lying on two adjacent beds in an A/E department.


1. Two people are admitted to A and E
2. They have similarly serious head injuries
3. One is a cyclist
4. One is a Motorist

Q1. Does one hurt less than the other?
Q2. Is one less traumatic than the other?
Q3. Is the effect on the family less for one than the other?

 

[Red Light]

Quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted on this thread to date - and the most obvious trolling also.

A most honest bit of self appraisal

 

[screenman]

Please can somebody show me the evidence that somebody died through wearing a helmet, after coming off a bike.

 

[Linford]

You may but my phone only jumps to the page, not the actual post, and doesn't show post numbers. Which of your posts on that page are you suggesting is relevant to the point at stake? For clarity, the point being that in countries where helmet compulsion has been enforced there has been a measurable decrease in cyclist numbers not matched by a decrease in injuries. Your comparison with motorcyclists sucking it up therefore being shown to be invalid.

#248

 

[Red Light]

Please can somebody show me the evidence that somebody died through wearing a helmet, after coming off a bike.

Rodgers study of 8 million cyclist accidents in the USA concluded that helmet wearers had an increased risk of being killed in an accident. But just as "helmet saved their life" anecdotes are unsound evidence, so would "helmet killed them" anecdotes be also.
Reducing bicycle accidents: a re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use
Rodgers GB. Journal of Products Liability, 1988 ,11:307-317. 1988.

 

[Red Light]

Anyone want to see again the effect of massive changes, positive and negative, in helmet wearing in Ontario on head injury rates in cyclists? A good illustration of the effectiveness in head injury reduction of making helmets mandatory and of the effectiveness of a mandatory helmet law without enforcement in getting people to wear helmets.

 

[Linford]

"And doesn't show post numbers"

Another failing of the licensing is to allow a lid to be made and sold which really isn't fit for purpose. If they can manage to do this for motorcyclists with the ECE 2205, and gold star ACU badging to certify a minimum standard, then why are the cycling community let down so badly with the current offering - you'd not buy a m/cycle lid from Argos !

Compulsion in law for motorcyclists also means that the strap needs to be done up for them to be classed as a 'worn item' for compliance and punishable with a fine.

The fact that people say that cycle helmets are not effective in their present form means that they should be made a legal requirement and they must reach an agreed minimum standard of construction, and effectiveness.

Motorcyclists spend a lot of money on lids, and the fit is very much emphasized before they leave the shop with them (well you do want to know it fits properly when you spend £100+ on something which you will look to replace in 3 years time)

 

[Boris Bajic]

Actually these sorts of debates are very useful. The arguments that have been used to counter attempts at compulsion have largely been honed in forums like this against the died in the wool helmet faithful. So you can in part put the current freedom of choice down to debates like this and thank the pro-helmets contributors for acting as proxies in helping to rehearse the case.

I accept fully that my current freedom of choice can be put down to people writing things on the Internet. I always have.

Guys, please keep writing things or my freedom of choice might be eroded!

But... What if the helmet chaps who died in the wool (or similar) are using this forum in exactly the same way?

The only way to stop them is to write even more than they do!

Hurry! They're catching up!! Bad, naughty proxies!

 

[dellzeqq]

Are you addressing the point about compulsion being followed by a decline in cyclist numbers there?

easy tiger! This is a helmet thread!

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I don't suppose that there is an outside chance you might like to contribute usefully here at any point is there?

If you need lucidity in this thread I am happy to contribute.