Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

I am going to refrain from the obvious remark there!




Completely missing the point. They are for protecting toddlers in a domestic environment...possibly why they also offer a cycle helmet with different design.

This inclusion is irrelevant to this debate as we are discussing protecting cyclists from serious head injuries.

How many time do I have to refer my previous post ?

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 !

 

[middleagecyclist]

Linf, it is done give it up.

+1

 

[ufkacbln]

This inclusion is irrelevant to this debate as we are discussing protecting cyclists from serious head injuries.

Laughable, but expected.

The point of this is simple.... demonstrating how the debate becomes limited whenever it becomes uncomfortable.

After all this is really about learning from science and research..

The mechanisms, injuries and prevention are common to almost any childhood head injury, whether they be in a room, on a bike, or in a play area. Simply refusing to listen to, consider and apply that learning is very narrow minded and does not serve them well. Why not learn from the Thudguard rather than simple exclude because the questions it raises are uncomfortable for a particular agenda??



If we exclude the Thudguard as "irrelevant" because it isn't a child cycle helmet.... do we exclude all posts not specific to child cycle helmets as irrelevant on the same grounds?

How many time do I have to refer my previous post ?

Surely these aren't cycle helmets and therefore by your own standards...This inclusion is irrelevant to this debate for his reason?

If we refuse to accept and apply the learning and research from the Thudguard and the support for it's use from bodies such as RoSPA and the College for Emergency Medicine to infants head injuries - why can we suddenly we can learn lots form motorcycle helmets in this field?

What makes the lessons learned from motorcycle helmets in childhood head any more valid or acceptable than that from the Thudguard?

 

[ufkacbln]

Oh dear, Linford is having problems answering this?

 

[Linford]

Oh dear, Linford is having problems answering this?

I didn't realise you posted it until now

 

[Linford]

Laughable, but expected.

The point of this is simple.... demonstrating how the debate becomes limited whenever it becomes uncomfortable.

After all this is really about learning from science and research..

The mechanisms, injuries and prevention are common to almost any childhood head injury, whether they be in a room, on a bike, or in a play area. Simply refusing to listen to, consider and apply that learning is very narrow minded and does not serve them well. Why not learn from the Thudguard rather than simple exclude because the questions it raises are uncomfortable for a particular agenda??



If we exclude the Thudguard as "irrelevant" because it isn't a child cycle helmet.... do we exclude all posts not specific to child cycle helmets as irrelevant on the same grounds?






Surely these aren't cycle helmets and therefore by your own standards...This inclusion is irrelevant to this debate for his reason?

If we refuse to accept and apply the learning and research from the Thudguard and the support for it's use from bodies such as RoSPA and the College for Emergency Medicine to infants head injuries - why can we suddenly we can learn lots form motorcycle helmets in this field?

What makes the lessons learned from motorcycle helmets in childhood head any more valid or acceptable than that from the Thudguard?

Why would I make comment on a product I have never come across ?

You really are scraping the barrel on this one - this is a blind alley - give it up

Getting back on track, I do recall us having a debate on speeding a while back, and you being a very big proponent of the work which the charity 'BRAKE' do.

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/why-cycle-helmets-save-lives.htm

Perhaps you might like to comment on their stance on cycle hats to stay on topic as the thudguard is something which will never be recommended for babies being conveyed on cycles as this act in itself is frowned upon ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Try again?

Your statement was that the Thudguard was irrelevant, you have been asked to simply explain why we should exclude the learning, experience and science of the Thudguard, yet accept the learning, experience and science of the motorcycle helmet?

Once again you have gone off on a complete tangent to avoid the question asked.

Do I need to make the question simpler?

 

[ufkacbln]

Perhaps you might like to comment on their stance on cycle hats to stay on topic as the thudguard is something which will never be recommended for babies being conveyed on cycles as this act in itself is frowned upon ?

But then again neither would motorcycle helmets reinforcing the question that you are avoiding as to why we should include them in the debate and not the Thudguard?



What I do love though is this "hint and run" tactic you deploy, make a claim then try and suggest there is supporting evidence when it really isn't the case.

You should work for Fox News!

The child you quoted was a two year old, could you please justify the claim that children of this age, and toddlers inthe Thudguard age range is "frowned upon" and who by?

 

[Linford]

Try again?

Your statement was that the Thudguard was irrelevant, you have been asked to simply explain why we should exclude the learning, experience and science of the Thudguard, yet accept the learning, experience and science of the motorcycle helmet?

Once again you have gone off on a complete tangent to avoid the question asked.

Do I need to make the question simpler?

You are yet again dancing around like an idiot - with all this practice, one would hope you get good at it one day.

Thudguard is irrelevant to this debate as they are bring made for young children who should never be exposed to the forces associated with cycling.

Before you go any further with this line - Are they designed and recomended for the purpose of protecting someones head in a fall from a moving vehicle - or instead for protecting a head from a trip on a laminate floor - or walking into a door ?

The idiot mother who I saw I consider to be totally irresponsible for not just taking her child on the back of her cycle, and additionally riding through a red light, Are thudguards recommended for babies on bicycles - I have no Idea - seeing as you know so much about them, perhaps you can shed some light on it.
Motorcycle helmet standards on the other hand have already been proven to work at much higher impact speeds than experienced when cycling, so it would be a logical step to improve cycle helmet standards to match that which motorcycle helmets have to reach.

You are coming across as being a bit challenged as I never mentioned thudguard at all - read what I said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[middleagecyclist]

The idiot mother who I saw I consider to be totally irresponsible for not just taking her child on the back of her cycle...

Sorry Linford. I phased out several pages ago and just keep dipping into this thread for amusement value. I may therefore have this totally wrong but if I understand you correctly you think carrying children on bicyles is idiotic. Is this correct? I await clarification. Thanks.

 

[screenman]

I see you picked up on a different part of that sentence to me.

 

[Linford]

Sorry Linford. I phased out several pages ago and just keep dipping into this thread for amusement value. I may therefore have this totally wrong but if I understand you correctly you think carrying children on bicyles is idiotic. Is this correct? I await clarification. Thanks.

For clarity - Carrying a very small child (toddler) on a cycle is dangerous as their head is large for the degree of support which their neck gives (risking a neck injury also) . The bumps and jolts they receive in carriage (or a fall) is IMO an unacceptable risk Below the age of 3 is for me is just too young.

 

[middleagecyclist]

For clarity - Carrying a very small child (toddler) on a cycle is dangerous as their head is large for the degree of support which their neck gives (risking a neck injury also) . The bumps and jolts they receive in carriage (or a fall) is IMO an unacceptable risk Below the age of 3 is for me is just too young.

But if they were wearing a helmet wouldn't it be OK then?

 

[Linford]

But if they were wearing a helmet wouldn't it be OK then?

The child was too young to be there.

 

[Linford]

And this from a man who doesn't even ride a bike...

How old are you and how long have you been cycling ?