Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[GrumpyGregry]

GC, Would not trading standards have stepped in if a helmet was not fit for purpose.

Assume the helmet passes the EN1078 test. That standard is not fit for purpose. QED The helmet that meets the standard is not fit for purpose either.

 

[david k]

Are you being wilfully stupid on this issue ?

If you read my previous comments on the issue, I said I felt that cycle hat requirements should be raised to the same standard of protection as motorcycle helmets before compulsion is considered - not that all cyclists should wear motorcycle helmets

I use a MET cycle lid FYI

i dont believe cycle helmets have to have the same protection as motorcycle helmets as the risk is different due to lower speeds. I am comfortable with a cycle helmet on a cycle, but i wear my full helmet on a motorcycle

 

[david k]

We currently have no boycott and cycle helmets are not as good as thy were 15-20 years ago.

there are numerous things we dont currently do, doesnt mean it is the reason cycle helmets are not as good as they were 15-20 years ago (presuming thats correct)

 

[StuartG]

You wouldn't say that if I were arguing in favour of your preference.
Do I believe that quality head protection will save lives - absolutely 100%

Really - Ade (and me) will rubbish bad arguments for just that - being bad. Its doubly worse coming from a viewpoint we might share since it gives an unscrupulous opposition the opportunity to undermine our whole case.

You have never understood that. Not doing so deludes yourself and others into where we are coming from.

Just like your 100% belief. The arguement is not whether helmets will save lives. Of course under the right circumstances they will - but at the cost of others. Neither Ade nor I know which is the bigger number. We don't have a consensus on how to evaluate an answer and we certainly do not have consistent statistics to resolve the tricky balance. That's what finer and more knowledgeable minds than mine have also concluded. Doesn't stop either side here cherry picking some to help grind their axe - but there you have it.

What we think we do know is that at best helmets are well down the pecking list of safety measures we can take individually or collectively. They are a distraction. Now Ade is going to attack me for being repititious. Which I am.

 

[Red Light]

What makes you a troll is the fact that you argue this stuff, refusing properly to take on board any evidence people put to you whilst shifting your ground and arguments to keep it going.

Linf doesn't need evidence, he has unshakeable faith.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We currently have no boycott and cycle helmets are not as good as thy were 15-20 years ago.

True. The tests my first off-road helmet* passed in the mid 90's courtesy of Messrs Snell, though still limited in scope, where to a higher standard than the current EN1078.

*It split when I hit with a tree coming off the Downs above Steyning. It is therefore my lucky tree, I give it a nod when I ride past it these days in the hope it won't jump out at me again. I have no memory of that morning and only know this because others saw and told me later "this is the tree you hit." This could mean my lucky tree isn't really my lucky tree but some random tree they've chosen for goodness knows what reason but I like to think its the one I hit - I trust my friends, and since that tree has hit more than one of them over the intervening years it clearly likes a nod or two as it generally stays out of my way. I sent the remains of said lid back to Specialised's distributor and their response was basically "you were outside the performance envelope for this helmet so what did you expect?"

 

[GrumpyGregry]

really? havnt motorcycle helmets improved whilst being bought? i pretty sure it hasnt taken a boycott to improve many things

What is your criteria for improved?

 

[david k]

Adrian said: ↑

We currently have no boycott and cycle helmets are not as good as thy were 15-20 years ago.​

True.

we also have no boycott of numerous things but it doesnt mean its related

 

[Linford]

We have dealt with his way back. Even if helmets do make a difference, the fact that compulsion leads to a drop off in cyclist numbers means that the benefit you are arguing for is outweighed by the overall negative health benefit of an increasingly sedentary population. You need to try to see the bigger picture here.
What makes you a troll is the fact that you argue this stuff, refusing properly to take on board any evidence people put to you whilst shifting your ground and arguments to keep it going.

I had Cunobelin arguing the difference between a car passenger getting a head injury and a cyclist does also. what is going to hurt more (or words to the effect of).

From a first person perspective, there isn't any, and that is the argument for pro compulsion

When your brains are all over the road because you were one of the unlucky ones - statistics for other health benefits become academic

 

[Red Light]

The arguement is not whether helmets will save lives. Of course under the right circumstances they will - but at the cost of others. Neither Ade nor I know which is the bigger number.

The problem is the difference between the numbers is too small to be able to detect. If you take the claims of the helmet lobby those head injuries should drop by 85% and you would see a clearly detectable drop in the head injury rate when they were made mandatory. The problem is you don't as a result of which the problem comes between the anti-compulsionists who say look, they made no difference and the helmet lobby who won't accept that. Here once again is the graph showing the helmet wearing rate in Ontario when a mandatory helmet law was introduced and then not enforced and the effect of that massive change in helmet wearing both positive and negative. You need much more convincing evidence than that to enforce compulsory helmets on everybody

 

[david k]

What is your criteria for improved?

i didnt set any criteria

 

[Linford]

Fantastic. Can we take that as you are now going to shut up since you have avoided putting up throughout this whole thread?


Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill (2004), Bicycles (Children's Safety Helmets) Bill (2006-7), Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill (2011) and Amendment 160 to the Road Safety Bill (2005) to name just some examples. Do you not get at all embarrassed about being so blatantly and obviously wrong so often?

And they failed to make it to the statute books because ????

 

[Red Light]

I had Cunobelin arguing the difference between a car passenger getting a head injury and a cyclist does also. what is going to hurt more (or words to the effect of).

From a first person perspective, there isn't any, and that is the argument for pro compulsion

When your brains are all over the road because you were one of the unlucky ones - statistics for other health benefits become academic

When you are laid up in hospital with diabetes and heart problems because you didn't take regular exercise, the health benefits of helmets become very academic. The number of "unlucky ones" who would have lived without their head injury is a handful at most. Obesity related premature death is set to overtake smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in the UK and obesity levels directly and negatively correlate with active transportation (cycling and walking). So you would far rather that many thousands die prematurely in the UK every year in order to save a tiny handful of cyclists?

 

[Red Light]

And they failed to make it to the statute books because ????

Why is that relevant? You said that none had been tabled and I gave you four that had. The reason they didn't succeed doesn't make you less wrong. But since you ask it was because of active lobbying by the CTC and individuals to inform their MPs and members of the House of Lords of the evidence base against compulsion.

 

[Red Light]

So Linf, which bit of the bigger picture are you not seeing?

You need to ask?