Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
I would also go out of my way to become a terrible burden upon the NHS.
That'll show 'em.
I will up my running mileage instead. At least until they make helmets compulsory for that as well.
I would also go out of my way to become a terrible burden upon the NHS.
That'll show 'em.
I will up my running mileage instead. At least until they make helmets compulsory for that as well.
I wear a helmet anyway so wouldn't be an issue for me most the time. If I ride down a track or a short ride to the shop I sometimes don't , but mostly do as it's just habit now. I guess the annoying thing might be if I took a short ride on a track and was fined. Unless compulsion was roads only?If wearing a helmet became a legal requirement would you obey the law?
Nope.If wearing a helmet became a legal requirement would you obey the law?
I've posted this graph before.
View attachment 384643
Can anyone spot the year in which seatbelts were made compulsory and there was this supposed dramatic drop in car occupant fatality rates? No, me neither.
You can see a temporary drop following the 1967 introduction of breathalysers - even that was pretty temporary. But anyone who claims that the introduction of comulsory seatbelts in the UK saved lives needs to have the same sort of searching questions asked of them as do the people who claim cycle helmets save lives.
(It was 1983)
Your wish is my command.Although most people in the front of cars were already wearing seatbelts in 1983, seeing as it had been compulsory for the car manufacturers to fit them (in the front) since 1967. So the graph isn't actually much use unless you also have data for actual seat belt wearing from 1950.
I've posted this graph before.
View attachment 384643
Can anyone spot the year in which seatbelts were made compulsory and there was this supposed dramatic drop in car occupant fatality rates? No, me neither.
You can see a temporary drop following the 1967 introduction of breathalysers - even that was pretty temporary. But anyone who claims that the introduction of comulsory seatbelts in the UK saved lives needs to have the same sort of searching questions asked of them as do the people who claim cycle helmets save lives.
(It was 1983)
Best guess is that, as our society became more affluent, more isolated from the daily risks of life that our forbears faced, we have gradually decided to accept a lower risk, and have adapted our behaviour accordingly. So the reduction in driving risk could well have happened anyway even if car technology had not changed at all. That would help explain why, in the developing world, pretty much the identical cars, with all the safety features, produce much higher risks.Excellent! No disputing your previous comment about the lack of effect from seat belts becoming compulsory.
Presumably the steady decline in deaths from 1950 is simply due to cars themselves being better built, with the steady increase in crumple zones and other features? As it can't be that the standard of driving has got better!
Yes, but only because I already choose to wear a helmet when I am cycling; except when I go to the pub on my bike, which is probably when I am most likely to benefit from injury reduction measures due to the affluence of alcohol; that is only because there is nowhere in the pub to put a helmet and I wouldn't leave it with my bike in case it got nicked. I would still ride to the pub helmet free.If wearing a helmet became a legal requirement would you obey the law?
If wearing a helmet became a legal requirement would you obey the law?
Excellent! No disputing your previous comment about the lack of effect from seat belts becoming compulsory.
Presumably the steady decline in deaths from 1950 is simply due to cars themselves being better built, with the steady increase in crumple zones and other features? As it can't be that the standard of driving has got better!