Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

I'll put it again

It is against the law for people to cycle on the motorway.

Would you suggest that this law is repealed as it might also discourage people from cycling?

Still going with the non sequitur analog then?[/quote]

It wasn't for your benefit, but you can have a go if you think you're hard enough

 

[Linford]

Linf appears to think that posting something stupid twice makes it look less stupid.

Come again?....

 

[theclaud]

Come again?....

The motorway thing. It was idiotic the first time. It hasn't improved.

 

[lukesdad]

Linf and TC in a helmet thread enter at your peril !

 

[theclaud]

Linf and TC in a helmet thread enter at your peril !

Any thread with Linf in is a helmet thread.

 

[theclaud]

HBF

Would it hurt you to hit the f**king Like button once in a while?

 

[Linford]

It has been dealt with already. It is totally irrelevant. Helmet compulsion demonstrably causes a decline in cycling numbers. By and large cyclists don't cycle on motorways.

The notion of cycling is good at all costs is a banal one. Safety must come above all other things if cycling is to gain in popularity. People will suck it up and get used to it if they have no other choice - just as motorcyclists have. A quality lid is a prized possession for bikers nowadays. People think nothing of spending £500 on one.

 

[Wobblers]

I'll put it again

It is against the law for people to cycle on the motorway.

Would you suggest that this law is repealed as it might also discourage people from cycling?

Too busy to look up the statistics for the number of cyclists in Australia and New Zealand both before and after mandatory helmets then?

(That's a hint by the way. Just in case I need to spell it out.)

 

[theclaud]

The notion of cycling is good at all costs is a banal one. Safety must come above all other things if cycling is to gain in popularity. People will suck it up and get used to it if they have no other choice - just as motorcyclists have. A quality lid is a prized possession for bikers nowadays. People think nothing of spending £500 on one.

You're amongst friends, Linfy, so you don't have to skirt around things like this. The nasty people made you wear a lid, and so you want people on proper bikes to have to wear one as well. I understand. Life is so unfair.

 

[Wobblers]

The notion of cycling is good at all costs is a banal one. Safety must come above all other things if cycling is to gain in popularity. People will suck it up and get used to it if they have no other choice - just as motorcyclists have. A quality lid is a prized possession for bikers nowadays. People think nothing of spending £500 on one.

So since that mandatory helmet laws increase the risks to cyclists, then can we presume that you're against them?

 

[ufkacbln]

Actually Linford's point about motorways, is delightfully ironic.

In several cases motorways have been open to the public for walking and cycling. In these cases the turnout is excellent.

Which proves (or at least by the Linford quality of proof) that banning cas from motorways and opening them to cyclists would encourage cycling!

Here is the M74...

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 1972154, member: 45"]The first bit I know, and was the point I was making.

The second part is where it becomes more diluted. Yes, the faster you're travelling the more likely the higher the rotational impact speed. But it's diluted because that only applies if your head contacts the ground early on in the collision, and then it's also dependent on angle of contact.

It's too simplistic to assume that travelling speed at point of collision is close to travelling speed when head hits the ground. And again, the testing is pretty irrelevant.[/quote]

You need to consider the laws of physics here. Firstly, all that kinetic energy does not simply disappear. Higher horizontal speed means higher kinetic energy - which typically is dissipated in a crash by a series of impacts. This is why there is a strong correlation between the number of injuries (not just severity) and speed. The force of each impact is a vector sum of the horizontal and vertical velocities - that is, the higher the horizontal velocity, the greater the impact forces and energy. This means increased speed will result in more impacts consisting of greater forces.

 

[Wobblers]

Twit-Twooooo

Now this is quite possibly the most sensible comment on this thread...

 

[ufkacbln]

I'd like to see where that is the case and where I've not stood corrected ?

For once I am in full agreement with you, and I stand in dumbfounded admiration at your newly found honesty, and ability at long last to recognise reality!
There are very few cases where your contributions were not corrected. and you have indeed not stood corrected on a number of matters

For someone who works in healthcare, you really do display a cavalier approach to keeping all the body parts intact, and in the right place

Ironic for someone who has squirmed,wriggled and undergone painful contortions to avoid answering a simple question or two about head injuries!


1. Two people are admitted to A and E
2. They have similarly serious head injuries
3. One is a cyclist
4. One is a Motorist

Q1. Does one hurt less than the other?
Q2. Is one less traumatic than the other?
Q3. Is the effect on the family less for one than the other?

My experience shows that both are equally serious and yet you don't seem to believe that the significantly greater number of driver admissions for head injuries should be prevented by the same simple expedient use of a helmet that you so strongly advocate for cyclists

 

[Red Light]

Surely he could have picked up the hint by now

i don't think I've ever met anyone so proud to display their ignorance and so ignorant of the fact they are doing it.