Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[theclaud]

You are confident that people can make the right decision for themselves

but you feel the same people will make a less than obvious assumption?

In terms of individual safety it is of very small consequence whether they make the "right" decision or the "wrong" one, and the right decision in one context can be wrong in another (see anecdotes above). They can peruse the evidence at leisure, go with a hunch, or simply stick up two fingers at risk-assessment altogether. I'm not sure what you mean by your second question.

 

[david k]

In terms of individual safety it is of very small consequence whether they make the "right" decision or the "wrong" one, and the right decision in one context can be wrong in another (see anecdotes above). They can peruse the evidence at leisure, go with a hunch, or simply stick up two fingers at risk-assessment altogether. I'm not sure what you mean by your second question.

You make the point that you trust people to make a decision to wear a helmet or not by themselves, therefore you afford the general public to have a certain amount of common sense to apply to a decision.
But you think the same people will consider cycling dangerous because they see people wearing helmets.

 

[theclaud]

is this a confession that you make quotes up?

No. Unlike Linford I am unusually rigorous about quoting. I'm just saying that "Linford" consists only of a bunch of posts on a forum, and the net outcome of these is a diminution of fun.

 

[theclaud]

Yes, sorry it does. I just have the impression that his position is more radical than yours. I guess it would be best to ask him.

You may be right, Adrian. It might even be the case that 3BM was only joshing. But in my Kool Gang PR role I'm attempting to quash rumours of party infighting.

 

[david k]

Sorry I thought you meant that you intended to challenge the correlation between compulsion and a reduction in cyclist numbers.

No I agree that could happen although I'm not convinced. IMO people may stop initially but eventually it would return to normal. However I'm happy for it to remain a consideration when discussing obesity
My point was more to do with it having a direct affect on a helmet protection you or not, in which it doesnt IMO

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

It is a classic Linford "hint and run"

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 ?​

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?

Te avoidance since is there for all to see.

 

[Red Light]

i get that, no problem with it either, but redlight said it was about helmet compulsion and suggested i started an alternative thread, if thats the case obesity shouldnt be referred to here

Helmet promotion/compulsion => less cycling => higher obesity levels => increased premature deaths. i.e. increased obesity is a direct consequence of helmet promotion and probably a major reason behind Australia becoming the most obese nation 20 years after its mandatory helmet law was introduced. Now I know its convenient for the pro-helmet brigade to not to want to talk about the negative health consequences of helmet compulsion but its a perfectly valid topic in a thread on helmet compulsion. Car culture causing obesity is not a valid topic in a thread on helmet compulsion hence my suggestion you start a new thread on it.

 

[theclaud]

You make the point that you trust people to make a decision to wear a helmet or not by themselves, therefore you afford the general public to have a certain amount of common sense to apply to a decision.
But you think the same people will consider cycling dangerous because they see people wearing helmets.

I have no truck whatever with "common sense", which usually contains very little sense at all. I'll say it again - because helmets are irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether their decision is based on calmly evaluating all the research, keeping their mum happy, or not wanting to mess up their hair. It does matter if people see cyclists and what they see confirms or reinforces a belief that cycling is a dangerous activity (or simply one that requires a lot of special safety equipment), because it could make cycling less attractive in their eyes. This doesn't matter to Linf, because (as I said) he disapproves of cycling and doesn't want to see more cyclists enjoying themselves on the road. You'll just have to trust me on the last sentence.

 

[PpPete]

You make the point that you trust people to make a decision to wear a helmet or not by themselves, therefore you afford the general public to have a certain amount of common sense to apply to a decision.
But you think the same people will consider cycling dangerous because they see people wearing helmets.

Cart before horse.
What people see will have an effect on what they think - it will go into the mix along with whatever scientific literature they happen to have read or not read, celebrities they have listened to or whatever.

I see the effects of gravity....but I still think the earth sucks

 

[dellzeqq]

 

[david k]

Would it help if you were to look at the actual evidence rather than just guess at your intuitive opinion?

Just guess at what? My opinion? Must everyone consider actual evidence before holding an opinion on anything? Do you refuse to have an opinion before you have spent hours looking at evidence?

 

[PpPete]

Just guess at what? My opinion? Must everyone consider actual evidence before holding an opinion on anything? Do you refuse to have an opinion before you have spent hours looking at evidence?

No, you could just read the Daily Mail

 

[ufkacbln]

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

The only dancing is the irngs around your claims!


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 ?[/quote]

An obscure tangent to avoid the question atually asked.

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.

Again answere previously, but youprobably avioided teh question then as well!

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.

Which is the point you are avoiding totally....

The Thudguard has been proven to work with low speed impacts in children, so surely it is alogical step to use this evidence to improve child cycle helmet design as opposed to dismissing it because yoiu find it inconvenient?

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

So you haven't mentioned Thudguard?

Did a small naughty child steal your keyboard when you weren't looking and post this

You clearly state that you know nothing of the product yet choose to cursorily dismiss it in blissful ignorance, yet now you are claiming you have never metioned it?

The only thing "challenged" is your claim that cycling with chilren is "frowned upon" (you have yet to state who by) and your grip on reality!

 

[theclaud]

No, you could just read the Daily Mail

Or visit Speak You're Branes and press the button...

 

[ufkacbln]

The bumps and jolts they receive in carriage (or a fall) is IMO an unacceptable risk

There you are .......a small child in a fall - exactly the risk that the College of Emergency Medicine reccomends reducing by wearing a Thudguard!