Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[theclaud]

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

Let's forget trying to make sense of whatever it is you're arguing, and ask a different question. What, if anything, do you want from this debate, other than the opportunity to hang around with actual cyclists?

 

[StuartG]

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

People like us argued for the umpteenth time that proposing arguments were, at best, overblown. The benefits were unlikely to exceed the disbenefits especially for a government that doesn't want to look nannyish.

So eternal viligance. Once lost, and the statute book is breached, it is hard to reverse even when the consequences are obvious as our Oz cousins will attest. Do you have a problem with that?

Never underestimate a government's ability to do stupid things for the best of intentions.

 

[Red Light]

Let's forget trying to make sense of whatever it is you're arguing, and ask a different question. What, if anything, do you want from this debate, other than the opportunity to hang around with actual cyclists?

Linf a CycleChat groupie? Shudder.

 

[mcshroom]

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.

Lobbying by the CTC (and Sustrans in the case of Northern Ireland at least) means that resources in these organisations are wasted on a minor safety issue which suits a political agenda, which would be of far better use addressing proper cycling safety issues.

Helmets are a side-show safety wise (although their demonstrated detromental impact on participation levels mean the organisations have to actually lobby against them) but provide a nice diversion for successive govenments inaction on actually improving road safety for cyclists. It's far easier (and cheaper for them) to blame the victims and get them to spend their own money on polystyrene magic hats than it is to redesign dangerous intersections and junctions, or train cyclists and drivers better.

 

[theclaud]

Linf a CycleChat groupie? Shudder.

He's like one of those puritans who can't stop hanging out near brothels.

 

[Linford]

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?

I have lived with T2 Diabetes for 7 years - I have never been above what is normally regarded as my healthy BMI range. and have not smoked for 25 years and walk a respectable amount of miles each week (no decent cycle to ride for now)

How tall/heavy are you to make this claim as there are many regualr cyclists on here who are 6 or 7 stone more than me ?

 

[david k]

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?

i may have missed some posts, did he say he wants "many thousands die prematurely in the UK"?

 

[benb]

And he's firmly refusing to address these points, which have been made to him multiple times by multiple people. I wonder why that is?

There's simply no getting around the fact that the risk of head injuries on a bicycle is broadly similar to the risk as a pedestrian. That is, they are both low risk activities. There are plenty of low risk activities where we do not feel that the inconvenience of wearing protective equipment is worth the tiny increase in safety. I don't go along with the "just one life saved" rhetoric.

Yet only one group has to constantly justify and fight for their choice not to wear a helmet, which in any case has no evidence that it is effective in reducing serious head injuries.

There is no logically consistent argument in favour of helmets for cyclists that cannot also be applied to pedestrians.

 

[david k]

i understand your point but it was made in a way that suggested he was 'promoting' obesity which isnt really the case

if we make these assumptions the argument will get increasingly wide. For example the link has been made that by promoting helmet use you reduce cycling that therefore increases obesity and death. There is therefore also a link that somebody who drives a car makes it more difficult to ride on the road which reduces the amount of cyclists and therefore increases death from obesity. So any one of us who drive a car do this, or is it governments who went away from local jobs who forced us to drive etc. etc. etc. just making the point that these arguments can just become sooooo wide

 

[mcshroom]

Driving a car does make roads less safe for cyclists and is complicit in lowering activity levels. As for jobs, the reason so many can require people to drive to them is because the car is accepted as a necessary item. Basically driving allows companies to have nice leafy cheaper out of town premises, with the costs incurred for the extra transport being transferred to the employees

 

[david k]

Driving a car does make roads less safe for cyclists and is complicit in lowering activity levels. As for jobs, the reason so many can require people to drive to them is because the car is accepted as a necessary item. Basically driving allows companies to have nice leafy cheaper out of town premises, with the costs incurred for the extra transport being transferred to the employees

so does eveyone who drives a car o generates jobs in places that can only realistically be undertaken by people who arrive by car actively promote death by obesity? and if so is this an argument against helmets and a valid reason not to wear one?

 

[theclaud]

so does eveyone who drives a car o generates jobs in places that can only realistically be undertaken by people who arrive by car actively promote death by obesity? and if so is this an argument against helmets and a valid reason not to wear one?

He's just saying that the big picture matters. Helmets are a tiny part of the big picture, with which a few people are irrationally preoccupied. We really shouldn't be wasting so much time having to demonstrate "a valid reason not to wear one" at all, seeing as choosing to wear one or not is largely an irrelevance to safety, or at best the same kind of gamble either way.

 

[david k]

Same territory as so many motorists. There was no intention to cause harm, it was an accident. When however the consequences of the action can be reasonably clearly foreseen, the distinction between unthinking and deliberate becomes a bit fine.

and this can be applied to many other things and the issues can widen and widen, therefore i dont think it is as valid as claimed to define it when considering a single issue such as helmet use

 

[Linford]

He's just saying that the big picture matters. Helmets are a tiny part of the big picture, with which a few people are irrationally preoccupied. We really shouldn't be wasting so much time having to demonstrate "a valid reason not to wear one" at all, seeing as choosing to wear one or not is largely an irrelevance to safety, or at best the same kind of gamble either way.

They also make a terrible mess of ones barnet - I'm sure that must be a valid reason for anti compulsion. My daughter has cited many times when offered a spin out on my motorbike that she'd have to wash it again and didn't want the hassle. - don't you agree ?

 

[Linford]

Linf has a point of view, one which you share as I recall, that compelling people to wear helmets is a good thing. Taken in isolation this may be correct, although the evidence is inconclusive. Taken in the context of the bigger picture though it is a reckless stance because of the other consequences. To maintain that stance once appraised of the consequences is willful and therefore culpable. Fortunately no one is actually going to listen to either of you on this point, but the same arguments need to be made to people who are actually in a position to be dangerous whenever the issue rears its head.

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.

I've already stated I don't support compulsion with current helmet technology available for cyclists.