Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[threebikesmcginty]

drag effect?

If you want noggin protection and a proper drag effect...

Not sure what a chain would do to that frock mind.

 

[Boris Bajic]

If you want noggin protection and a proper drag effect...

Not sure what a chain would do to that frock mind.

I thought this was a picture of the Fat Lady about to sing, but then I noticed that she isn't fat and doesn't appear to be about to sing.

So it isn't the end of the thread.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I thought this was a picture of the Fat Lady about to sing, but then I noticed that she isn't fat and doesn't appear to be about to sing.

So it isn't the end of the thread.

It ain't over until 4F gets his melons out!

Edit: Smeg's got one out for him.

 

[Linford]

So you support mandatory helmet wearing despite the fact that it has been shown to decrease the safety of cyclists... whilst claiming it's 'for the sake of safety'.

I think we need to take a step back here. What is the scientific method? And why is it better than anecdote?

I also said that cycle Helmet effectiveness effectively becomes self defeating in providing positive evidence as when they do their job properly, the impact becomes a non event.

Or put it another way - you won't report a head injury if the helmet use has prevented one...

 

[benb]

I also said that cycle Helmet effectiveness effectively becomes self defeating in providing positive evidence as when they do their job properly, the impact becomes a non event.

Or put it another way - you won't report a head injury if the helmet use has prevented one...

The evidence doesn't show this though. In areas where compulsion has been introduced, the number of cyclists dropped considerably, but the proportion of head injuries did not decrease.

Can I ask why you're so incapable or unwilling to accept the evidence that many people have put to you? You clearly don't understand the scientific method, and place higher value on anecdata than proper statistical analysis.

 

[dellzeqq]

if we're really interested in keeping death on the roads, wouldn't it be sensible to ban motorcycles? They're very dangerous, especially those big bikes ridden by middle-aged men who aren't as quick-thinking as they used to be.

 

[theclaud]

if we're really interested in keeping death on the roads, wouldn't it be sensible to ban motorcycles? They're very dangerous, especially those big bikes ridden by middle-aged men who aren't as quick-thinking as they used to be.

It's possible that they never were...

 

[Red Light]

But when the imminent and threatened vote to erase our open-bonce cycling freedoms in one fell swoop comes to pass (as it surely will), the people who swing it will not be cyclists either.

They will be motorists. They may even be 'motorists hoping to have a pop at cyclists and wind them up'.

That means (if I read you correctly) the very people you are arguing the point with on this thread.

So really, you must keep writing and you must make sure you write more than them.

They are using you as proxies for the Final Debate just as you are using them!

Keep writing! Keep arguing! Keep winning the good fight! keep preserving my hard-won freedoms or similar!

There is an owl in those woods behind your back garden. Sometimes you can call to it.

The people who will decide this will be MPs in Parliament or the devolved assemblies, not motorists. And they are lobbied by the leaders of organisations who want to make them compulsory but have little interest otherwise in cycling such as BHIT and Headway (whose Chairman is currently lobbying the Welsh Assembly for a mandatory helmet law for Wales). And its cyclists who have led the development of the lobbying to counter that with both the CTC and ECF very actively involved in campaigning with Goverhment to retain freedom of choice.

Your banter might carry more weight if you knew something about how things happen but feel free to keep twit-twoo-ing as your contribution to a serious issue.

 

[Linford]

It's possible that they never were...

You actually sound like a biker judging by your lust for adrenaline fixes - you ought to try it sometime

Ask me nicely, and I take you out for a blast spin on mine

 

[Wobblers]

I also said that cycle Helmet effectiveness effectively becomes self defeating in providing positive evidence as when they do their job properly, the impact becomes a non event.

Or put it another way - you won't report a head injury if the helmet use has prevented one...

You'd expect to see any benefits to helmet wearing to show up in the epidemiological studies that compare the KSI rates of helmetted and bare headed cyclsits. They don't. Your assertion is demonstrably false.

It might be helpful for you if read up on the scientific method.

 

[Wobblers]

It's possible that they never were...

Have you anyone in mind?

 

[Linford]

if we're really interested in keeping death on the roads, wouldn't it be sensible to ban motorcycles? They're very dangerous, especially those big bikes ridden by middle-aged men who aren't as quick-thinking as they used to be.

My insurance premiums tell a different story....

 

[benb]

The evidence doesn't show this though. In areas where compulsion has been introduced, an indirect effect was the number of cyclists dropped considerably, but the proportion of head injuries did not decrease in all groups, including pedestrians.

Can I ask why you're so incapable or unwilling to accept the evidence that many people have put to you? You clearly don't understand the scientific method, and place higher value on anecdata than proper statistical analysis I am considerably cleverer than you.

ftfy

Yes, very droll.

Why do you say it's an indirect effect, and what on earth does the head injury rate in pedestrians have to do with it?

 

[Red Light]

I reserve the right to be both a gadfly and a complete arse.

By definition, I do not find one in any way exclusive of the other.

Neither do we - you manage both at the same time pretty well

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Have you fallen off at speed yet ?

One does not 'fall off at speed'.

One 'crashes'.