if helmets became compulsory...

[david k]

Rather a ludicrous comparison surely?

There is proof that murder is not good for the victim's health, but there is absolutely no proof at a population level that not wearing a helmet is adverse.

Hence there is a value to murder being illegal, but no value to not wearing a helmet being illegal.

Please reassure me that you do not think that that murder is in any way equivalent to not wearing a helmet - surely you are not going to advocate life sentences for failing to wear a bit of plastic?

please re assure me you can read the posts and reply to the points made and not make up your own

 

[ufkacbln]

Oh dear, it appears that this has become too complicated for you.

You posted

murder is against the law, but it doesnt stop people doing it, is that good enough reason for it not to be law? im not saying wearing a helmet should or should not be, just that your reasoning on this occasion is flawed

My reply answers your question, but that is now (apparently) not what you meant.

Care to explain the real meaning of this sentence?

 

[Red Light]

i said if it is made illegal police will have to pull you up, that was in response to somebody saying they wouldnt. nothing to do with making them legal or not, responding to the comment about police, do you follow?

There are thousands of illegal acts taking place right in front of the police every day without the perpetrators being pulled up so what makes you think the police "will have to pull you up" for this one? All it will mean will be that there will be a lottery with some people getting pulled up because the police or PCSO is having a bad day or on a power trip while the vast majority are untroubled. A bit like the laws on seatbelt wearing, mobile phone use while driving, ASLs, having reflectors on your SPD pedals..........

 

[david k]

Oh dear, it appears that this has become too complicated for you.

You posted

My reply answers your question, but that is now (apparently) not what you meant.

Care to explain the real meaning of this sentence?

LMAO, you really make me laugh cunobelin, see if this helps you.

"Is that good enough reason not to make wearing helmets(added in for clarity) law." Your reason for you suggesting wearing helmets shouldnt be law is because there are some laws that are broken and ignored, there would never be any new laws ever.

You may have some valid points against helmet wearing becoming law but this isnt one. My responses are not pro or anti helmet law.

 

[david k]

There are thousands of illegal acts taking place right in front of the police every day without the perpetrators being pulled up so what makes you think the police "will have to pull you up" for this one? All it will mean will be that there will be a lottery with some people getting pulled up because the police or PCSO is having a bad day or on a power trip while the vast majority are untroubled. A bit like the laws on seatbelt wearing, mobile phone use while driving, ASLs, having reflectors on your SPD pedals..........

Does that happen currently red light? some police pulling you up and some not, inconsitent appraoch. that is a fault of policing not the law makers. IMHO poor policing is not a justified reason not to make a new law. If there are other reasons against it then fine but this isnt a justifyable reason

 

[ufkacbln]

LMAO, you really make me laugh cunobelin, see if this helps you.

"Is that good enough reason not to make wearing helmets(added in for clarity) law." Your reason for you suggesting wearing helmets shouldnt be law is because there are some laws that are broken and ignored, there would never be any new laws ever.

You may have some valid points against helmet wearing becoming law but this isnt one. My responses are not pro or anti helmet law.

thank you for your change - which alters the post from its original meaning. Your original context asked if unenforcability was a reason why Murder shouldn't be made illegal

However you are still absolutely and totally wrong!

My statement was that we see laws being broken every day because they are unenforceable. You have assumed (presumably because it fits your previously stated pro-compulsion agenda) that this stated the law shouldn't exist. That was your assumption, not what was stated in the post. The post states and the fact still stands that such a law is unenforceable.



However I would still like to know how and why you consider Murder and not wearing a helmet equivalent. Even for a pro-compulsionist that remains bizarre, do you really feel that the two are comparable in deed, severity and this should reflect in the penalty?

 

[Red Light]

Does that happen currently red light? some police pulling you up and some not, inconsitent appraoch. that is a fault of policing not the law makers. IMHO poor policing is not a justified reason not to make a new law. If there are other reasons against it then fine but this isnt a justifyable reason

No, its not the fault of the police, its the fault of the law makers making laws but not providing the resources to enforce them and in many cases making laws that are far from being a priority for enforcement. So for example do you think its a good use of police time to enforce the laws on pedal reflectors in these times of cost constraints? And do you think it is necessary to add a new law on helmets which, if it is to be enforced, will necessarily take police resources away from enforcing other laws. They already have insufficient resources to police many traffic offences but would you rather they devoted what resource there was to getting motorists to obey speed limits and not use mobile phones or should they use it to make sure all cyclists are wearing helmets?

But you have as usual ducked the actual question which is: You said if a helmet law was introduced the police would have to enforce it. Seeing as they don't enforce lots of existing laws, why are you saying they would have to enforce a helmet law?

 

[david k]

thank you for your change - which alters the post from its original meaning. Didnt change the meaning just didnt read as intended, glad the confusion is cleared up

However you are still absolutely and totally wrong! - opinion or fact?

However I would still like to know how and why you consider Murder and not wearing a helmet equivalent. Never considered them to be an equivalent, and i think you know that. i was discussing law making and reasons for law making when I posted this, as you know, you can read and as I said before. No doubt youl reply with some other attemp to twist the real meaning.
Even for a pro-compulsionist (not put anything refering to that here, this is your assumption based on historical threads, how far do you need to go back to try to twist the topic?)that remains bizarre, do you really feel that the two are comparable in deed, severity and this should reflect in the penalty? No

 

[david k]

No, its not the fault of the police, its the fault of the law makers making laws but not providing the resources to enforce them. Do you feel that the resources should be the deciding factor on what becomes law and what doesnt? As opposed to whether it is required or not?and in many cases making laws that are far from being a priority for enforcement. So for example do you think its a good use of police time to enforce the laws on pedal reflectors in these times of cost constraints? Didnt know that was law, but if it is i presume its low priority. And do you think it is necessary to add a new law on helmets which, if it is to be enforced, will necessarily take police resources away from enforcing other laws. I dont know at this moment in time if it should be law or not based on other issues discussed, but if it was to be law it should be with good intention and be policed. Not at the expence of something else but as well as, otherwise it shouldnt be law They already have insufficient resources to police many traffic offences but would you rather they devoted what resource there was to getting motorists to obey speed limits and not use mobile phones or should they use it to make sure all cyclists are wearing helmets?
shouldnt come down to one or the other, if its needed it should be policed, everyone has to work under resource issues and certain constriants, it should be managed as effectively as possible, not ignored as you suggest because they are busy
But you have as usual ducked the actual question which is: You said if a helmet law was introduced the police would have to enforce it. Seeing as they don't enforce lots of existing laws, why are you saying they would have to enforce a helmet law? I'm not aware of new laws being passed because they are needed and then police being told to ignore them? There may be old out of date laws that are not policed but they have never removed them from law, heard about it being law that black hackney cabs must carry hey in their carboots! (dont know if thats true)because they never bothered to change the law, but to go to the trouble of passing a new law thats so much in the public eye i dont see how that could then be ignored

 

[ufkacbln]

thank you for your change - which alters the post from its original meaning. Didnt change the meaning just didnt read as intended, glad the confusion is cleared up

Oh dear...... Your original post asked

Murder is against the law, but it doesnt stop people doing it, is that good enough reason for it not to be law?

Yet now you say this was was in fact a reference to helmets?

However you are still absolutely and totally wrong! - opinion or fact?

Fact - you are wrongly stating that I posted the law (murder or helmet wearing) shouldn't be made, when I in fact posted it was not enforceable... you are absolutely and totally wrong in your assumption.

However I would still like to know how and why you consider Murder and not wearing a helmet equivalent. Never considered them to be an equivalent, and i think you know that. i was discussing law making and reasons for law making when I posted this, as you know, you can read and as I said before. No doubt youl reply with some other attemp to twist the real meaning.
Even for a pro-compulsionist (not put anything refering to that here, this is your assumption based on historical threads, how far do you need to go back to try to twist the topic?)that remains bizarre, do you really feel that the two are comparable in deed, severity and this should reflect in the penalty? No

You chose to ludicrously compare the crime of murder with not wearing a helmet, why do so if you do not wish them to be compared as equal?

I have made it clear why they are not equivalent..... murder is proven to be a disbenefit, not wearing a helmet is not - simples.... no equivalence

Finally, I must apologise - I have naively assumed that your unequivocal previous statement that you were pro-compulsion was true,and in doing so have 'twisted' the topic. As I am obviously wrong in assuming that you actually meant this statement when you posted it then please feel free to correct the 'assumption'.

Are you pro compulsion (in which case I am right) or pro-choice and simply didn't mean it when you claimed to be pro-compulsion

 

[ufkacbln]

If there are other reasons against it then fine but this isnt a justifyable reason

Where do we start?

No proven benefit would be good?

 

[MontyVeda]

who opened this can of worms!

 

[david k]

[/b]Oh dear...... Your original post asked



Yet now you say this was was in fact a reference to helmets?



Fact - you are wrongly stating that I posted the law (murder or helmet wearing) shouldn't be made, when I in fact posted it was not enforceable... you are absolutely and totally wrong in your assumption.



You chose to ludicrously compare the crime of murder with not wearing a helmet, why do so if you do not wish them to be compared as equal?

I have made it clear why they are not equivalent..... murder is proven to be a disbenefit, not wearing a helmet is not - simples.... no equivalence

Finally, I must apologise - I have naively assumed that your unequivocal previous statement that you were pro-compulsion was true,and in doing so have 'twisted' the topic. As I am obviously wrong in assuming that you actually meant this statement when you posted it then please feel free to correct the 'assumption'.

Are you pro compulsion (in which case I am right) or pro-choice and simply didn't mean it when you claimed to be pro-compulsion

Im sorry this makes you so angry, it was not my intention. I'm surpirsed such a short statement and somebody elses opinion would make you so angry that you feel compelled to reduce it to its constituant parts with numerous long, multi quoted threads. It is a little bizzare that this can lead you into this anxious state. Its just a comment on a forum, I dont think it should make you so stressed.

I must admit, youve lost me with your latest post, its become way to clouded now, if I cannot explain my point in the threads above Im not sure I can make it clear to you, I'll let others make up their own minds rather than continue with the repitition.

 

[Bicycle]

When motorcycle helmets became compulory, very few people stopped riding for that reason.

When the wearing of seatbelts by front-seat occupants in cars became mandatory, very few people stopped driving for that reason.

Similarly, when it became compulsory to wear them in the rear very few people stopped accepting lifts...

I recall heated debates in the 80s where drivers would insist that seat belts were dangerous because they would make it difficult to exit a car submerged upside-down in a lake. In all my years on this planet I've known only one person who died in an inverted car in a river and that was more due to alcohol and size than the seatbelt.

I don't believe for a moment that cycle helmets will become compulsory, but if they do then very few people will stop cycling.

I see far more cycle helmets than I did in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.....

More and more new cyclists will just assume that helmets are desirable and will buy them.

I don't imagine there will ever be any need to make them compulsory.

I often go without a helmet, but I'm in a minority on that.

I think if it came down to a national debate (even a referendum!) the vast majority of people would decide they had bigger fish to fry.

It's not unlike the fox-hunting debate. The extremeties on either side have little else that makes them crosser, but most people find other things to occupy their minds.

So... If helmets bcome compulsory, not much will change.

 

[Red Light]

I don't believe for a moment that cycle helmets will become compulsory, but if they do then very few people will stop cycling.

What you believe has nothing to do with reality though. In every jurisdiction where helmet wearing has been made mandatory and enforced cycling has dropped significantly and particularly in the under 16s where decreases of up to 90% have been seen.

A study of UK towns showed that cycling declined in those where helmets were promoted but grew in those where they weren't.

Several cities are now repealing mandatory helmet laws because their Boris Bike equivalents are incompatible with mandatory helmets. Those that haven't, most noticeably in Australia and New Zealand, have bike hire schemes that are largely unused compared to the great successes in London, Paris, Dublin, Barcelona.......

Have a look at this Australian view of Dublin compared with Melbourne and the impact of mandatory helmets.