Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[mangaman]

I forgot to add that I won't be wearing a lid. I might, however, wear gloves. Perhaps Linf could come up with some kind of formula, involving pints of beer, numbers of children on the bike, tyre width, road conditions and "safety gear" so that we can calculate what is acceptable. For instance, if I wear a Sam Browne and only carry one child instead of two, can I have another three pints?

Well the experience from the Netherlands suggests 5 pints, 6 children in a small pyramid on a dry road at 21 kph with gloves but no hats*

Van Bommel et al : Dutch Journal of cycling stuff 2011; 345 pp56-67 "Cycling while pissed with no hands without spilling your kids"

 

[Red Light]

If they are really laws that is. They could be more of a serving suggestion.

We need an Act of Parliament to make them compulsory. Think of the safety implications if they keep on going and changing on us all the time.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Can't beat the laws of physics though. s=v²/2a

You are Scottie from the Starship Enterprise and ICMFP

 

[StuartG]

Not fair. RL has got more keys on his keyboard than me ...

 

[Red Light]

Not as far as I know. They are hypothetical children, but someone else's nevertheless.

Congratulations! Award yourself a hypothetical three extra pints to celebrate.

 

[theclaud]

Downhill tyres = Kestrel Superstrength, if that still exists.

Only if your route home is downhill. Trying to ride a downhill bike uphill means you forfeit two pints, or go back to the session ale.

 

[Linford]

If you design cycle helmets or some other "safety" gear for a living, you ought to have declared an interest at the start of this thread. It's just as well you've no credibility to lose!

I don't design safety gear, but do design components which are exposed to many thousand tonnes of pressure. It is incumbent on me to design in a responsible way to minimise the risk to the operators who use the components. Theirs is already a very dangerous environment.

 

[Linford]

As far as I know no law was passed compelling people to drive hybrids. (happy to be corrected)

So, we compel cyclists today to wear helmets that comply with current lame standards and that don't work effectively in the range of circumstances in which they are used in the hope that someone will then spot a gap in the market and come up with the miracle lid?

No Greg, we only compel when the product is right and fit for purpose

 

[theclaud]

I don't design safety gear, but do design components which are exposed to many thousand tonnes of pressure. It is incumbent on me to design in a responsible way to minimise the risk to the operators who use the components. Theirs is already a very dangerous environment.

Ah - so it's irrelevant to the debate then. As you were.

 

[Linford]

Not as far as I know. They are hypothetical children, but someone else's nevertheless.

Bravery on an unprecedented scale

 

[theclaud]

Too many rules.

You're right - f**k it. Let's forget the rules and play it by ear. Linf doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with that formula anyway.

 

[PpPete]

No Greg, we only compel when the product is right and fit for purpose

So we'll be alright then - unobtanium development is still slow..... but our grandchildren might have to put up with compulsion?

 

[Red Light]

No Greg, we only compel when the product is right and fit for purpose

Great. Just what we need. Linf opposes helmet compulsion! Can we melonate now?

 

[Red Light]

but our grandchildren might have to put up with compulsion?

Unlikely. We have the Higgs Boson and neutrinos don't travel faster than light. The laws of physics seem to be holding up.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No Greg, we only compel when the product is right and fit for purpose

Jebus, Linf if I'd known you'd agree with the antit-compulsionists all along we could have all saved about a gazillion keystokes.

The product is not fit for purpose. There is no current prospect of the product ever being fit for purpose. qed We must all oppose compulsion.