Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[david k]

No I'm not assuming "people" are "sensible"..... I just think they should be given freedom to make their own minds up. Whether they want to do so on the basis of what they see, read in the press, is told to them by the politicians, or whatever - it's up to them.

But you seem to be assuming you know what my views are?

But i thought you made the point that seeing people wearing helmets is bad as it puts people off riding and leads to obesity and therefore people shouldnt wear helmets??

If i have mistaken your point and you are happy for them to make their mind up on whether they think helmets are good or not or whether they should ride or not then we agree

 

[david k]

Now you are assuming politicians are sensible ?

 

[PpPete]

But is it not incumbent on those of us who have read the evidence that downsides of helmets outweigh the upsides to set a good example to the Daily Mail readers?

 

[PpPete]

I suppose I should I declare that one part of my professional life involves teaching people that, in one particular operation for which I am an accredited trainer, the more PPE you wear the more dangerous it becomes.

 

[mcshroom]

Consider this position if you are in government.

Case A - Improving junctions and interchanges to make them safer for cyclists.
Cost: £x million
Benefit: Reduction in cyclist fatalities, increase in cycling
Side effects: Road works and traffic slowed, making drivers angry. Bad publicity about traffic

Case B - Mandatory cycle helmets
Cost: £0 (to the government)
Benefit: Possibly improves head injury rates. Good PR about 'safety'
Side effects: 30% reduction in cyclists*, increased NHS costs in a couple decades time

If you were a politician, which would you choose?

*Assuming similar effects to Australia

 

[ufkacbln]

Were I still owner of a small child, the continued use of Thudguard as a straw man argument, would have entirely put me off buy one.
(Irrelevant Anecdata - all my four children have at various times fallen down and bumped their heads without the benefit of such protection)

Which is where you should be.

Look at the Thudguard, examine the evidence, decide whether it is effective and then buy them, or alternatively decide they are not effective and don't buy one.

 

[ufkacbln]

But is it not incumbent on those of us who have read the evidence that downsides of helmets outweigh the upsides to set a good example to the Daily Mail readers?

It is certainly incumbent to challenge some of the pro-compulsion claims!

 

[Glow worm]

If the technology moves forward to give parity with the motorcycle standards, then I will become 'pro compulsion'

Who on earth is going to want to ride a bike with a motorcycle helmet (or some such contraption) on? I can understand why you might want to at 90mph on your Harley, but pootling to the corner shop on your bicycle wearing one? - I don't think so! Thankfully, it'll never happen.

 

[ufkacbln]

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?

Yes they should.

It is the difference between holding the opinion that full face helmets are unnecessary because normal helmets are wide enough to protect the face and reading a paper by the British Dental Association which shows evidence that helmets do not protect the face.

It is also why Linford's "hint and run" tactics are so nefarious, implying an evidence base when there is none.

 

[Linford]

Who on earth is going to want to ride a bike with a motorcycle helmet (or some such contraption) on? I can understand why you might want to at 90mph on your Harley, but pootling to the corner shop on your bicycle wearing one? - I don't think so! Thankfully, it'll never happen.

You make the mistake in thinking that a Harley will do 90mph

 

[Linford]

Your observation is probably not representative

Any more than your's is....

 

[Linford]

So we shall relay on independent observation shall we?

so that makes your core belief a load of bollocks also Adrian

 

[Linford]

Yes they should.

It is the difference between holding the opinion that full face helmets are unnecessary because normal helmets are wide enough to protect the face and reading a paper by the British Dental Association which shows evidence that helmets do not protect the face.

It is also why Linford's "hint and run" tactics are so nefarious, implying an evidence base when there is none.

That made no sense at all

Are you saying that a full face helmet gives no protection to the face ?

 

[ufkacbln]

OK...

Lets ask a very simple question.

Dr John Heyworth is president of the College of Emergency Medicine and an acknowledged expert in accident and eemergency medicine. He states that:

"I have seen a number of children present with serious head injuries resulting from bicycle riding,It is extremely frustrating to know the extent of these injuries could have been dramatically reduced had the child worn a helmet."

Should we act on his advice and ensure that children wear cycle helmets?

 

[Red Light]

I don't believe that having to stick a bit of polystyrene on their heads to participate in cycling will have a long term negative effect apart from with women who don't like messing their hair up by putting one one.

I've always considered that if compulsion came to pass, that people would eventually just suck it up - just as motorcyclists have done - helmet wearing has certainly saved a lot of lives in this group of road users, and this is at the core of my belief on this subject.

It doesn't much matter what you believe because your beliefs are wrong. Both Australia and New Zealand saw dramatic falls in cycling when they made helmets mandatory. TRL reported in the UK that promotion of helmets was associated with a reduction in cycling. In Melbourne, Brisbane and Auckland bicycle rental schemes which require you to wear by law a helmet are languishing largely unused while in Paris, London, Barcelona and Dublin where helmets are optional (and largely not worn)they are a massive success. So whatever you think its clear that having to stick a bit of polystyrene on your head does have a long term negative effect on cycling and a significant one.

But yet again you haven't let annoying little things like facts get in the way of an ignorance based opinion. You've demonstrably got so much wrong by now that if I were you I would be highly embarrassed by now and slinking quietly away. But you seem to wear your ignorance as a badge of pride and keep coming back with more. Why?