Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Glow worm]

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

That's as maybe, but honestly, motorbike helmets for cyclists? Bonkers.
I'm trying to think of a quicker way of ridding the country of cyclists once and for all and to be honest I don't think I can.

 

[Linford]

In what way? It is based on independent verified stats. Helmet compulsion has caused a decrease in cyclists numbers where introduced. Cyclists have not just sucked it up as you would expect.

So what is the difference between the groups of cyclist and motorcyclists apart from the fact that motorcyclists in 1973 were already bound by the conditions of both their driving license and vehicle license (as well as insurance).

Cycling in the UK is particularly well indulged by the law makers with very few conditions attached to enjoy the use of one.

You give the impression that any and all increases in cycling are a move in the right direction irrespective of whatever that brings with it - be that good or bad overall to the cyclists or to those around them.

 

[mcshroom]

I'm struggling to find data on usage rates. The best I can find is 22% from the CTC but I think that's from 2003. A study by the BMJ In Nottingham said 29% and an earlier NIH study from Kent said 19%, so somewhere between a fifth and a third seems sensible.

I don't suppose anyone has any better data?

 

[david k]

"Must everyone consider actual evidence before holding an opinion on anything? " David K

Yes they should.

Not everyone who holds an opinion has considered actual evidence before holding that opinion.

You think they should

I dont think every opinion requires actual evidence.

I cannot think how depressing life would be for somebody to worried to hold an opinion without having first to read up on in depth evidence and data, I am glad I am free from this burden you obvious carry.

 

[david k]

Your observation is probably not representative

do you know the actual number?

 

[Linford]

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?

We had a rideabike scheme in Cheltenham about 5 years ago. It lasted a couple and then went west. Many bikes were pinched or vandalised in their stations.

Ah the Velib scheme in Paris - what a good example to hold up

 

[mcshroom]

So what is the difference between the groups of cyclist and motorcyclists apart from the fact that motorcyclists in 1973 were already bound by the conditions of both their driving license and vehicle license (as well as insurance).

Cycling in the UK is particularly well indulged by the law makers with very few conditions attached to enjoy the use of one.

You give the impression that any and all increases in cycling are a move in the right direction irrespective of whatever that brings with it - be that good or bad overall to the cyclists or to those around them.

I think we are getting to the heart of Linf here, it's the perceived unfairness that motorcyclists have more regulation than cyclists.

Cyclists, like pedestrians and horse riders have a RIGHT to use the public highway. Motorised vehicles have to be driven under LICENCE. THere isn't a perceived difference in entitlement but rather an actual difference.

Also, any increase in cycling would be an improvement for society, and it would be interesting to see what negative impacts you believe it would have.

 

[Red Light]

I find it interesting that helmet advocates see high proportions of cyclists wearing helmets, whereas those against see very low proportions. Might I suggest some confirmation bias on both sides

Cycle helmet wearing rates in London in 2008 were just under 70% and in the rest of the country just under 30%. My impression is that helmet wearing in London has dropped since then. Source: TRL Report PPR420

 

[Linford]

I don't know and I don't care./quote]

That sums up your input and willingness to balance the argument...thanks for nothing

 

[david k]

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:

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

As stated previously (post 1355) if the Government decided to consider compulsion on any age group then they should investigate thoroughly.

This I presume may be one of many statements they may wish to investigate

 

[mcshroom]

"Must everyone consider actual evidence before holding an opinion on anything? " David K



Not everyone who holds an opinion has considered actual evidence before holding that opinion.

You think they should

I dont think every opinion requires actual evidence.

I cannot think how depressing life would be for somebody to worried to hold an opinion without having first to read up on in depth evidence and data, I am glad I am free from this burden you obvious carry.

So you are glad to be ignorant?

My job involves me being able to back up my opinions with fact, otherwise I run the risk of making myself and others glow in the dark. Uninformed opinions have no place in rational debate.

 

[david k]

Cycle helmet wearing rates in London in 2008 were just under 70% and in the rest of the country just under 30%.
My impression is that helmet wearing in London has dropped since then. Source: TRL Report PPR420

My impression is that the amount of cyclists wearing helmets around my local area is significantly higher than this

 

[Linford]

I think we are getting to the heart of Linf here, it's the perceived unfairness that motorcyclists have more regulation than cyclists.

Cylists, like pedestrians and horse riders have a RIGHT to use the public highway. Motorised vehicles have to be driven under LICENCE. THere isn't a perceived difference in entitlement but rather an actual difference.

If you knew me a bit better, you would know that I keep horses (x3)

A horse is not a vehicle, a bicycle is, and a horse rider is bound by law to wear a riding hat on the road up to the age of 14.

 

[mcshroom]

Selective reading again Linf?

 

[Red Light]

Ah the Velib scheme in Paris - what a good example to hold up

It is. In the five years since it was introduced it has become a great success with 138 million journeys made and 100-150,000 trips a day compared with c20,000 for the Boris Bikes. Since the introduction of Velib, cycling has grown by 55% in Paris. So if you are looking for failure you'll have to look elsewhere.