Pro compulsion

[Bicycle]

It would be, and rigorously too.

Because unlike seatbelts in cars, mobile phones or illegal number plates an un-helmeted cyclist would stand out like a sore thumb, to the point where no police officer could be seen to ignore it.

If you doubt what I say, try riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

This is a fair point - It hurts me to accept that... but I do.

However, motorcyclists have registered vehicles and licenses.

I accept that the law (if ever introduced) would be applied by some officers, but I don't think plod would be rigorous.

But... as the law hasn't been passed and in all probability wont be.... we can still all chill.

My feeling (even as a left-leaning liberal who is not in love with the current Government) is that there is some sort of Counter-HSE reaction going on socially, politically and even within parliamentary parties.

I stand by my promise to eat my hat if cycling helmets become mandatory in the UK.

 

[ufkacbln]

your posting on a specific compulsion thread that the issue is being hidden, you couldnt write it lol, oh you did

The statement referred to the subject being hidden in a separate thread was a reference to your refusal to discuss the matter in other threads - as you well know!

:troll:

 

[ufkacbln]

This is a fair point - It hurts me to accept that... but I do.

However, motorcyclists have registered vehicles and licenses.

I accept that the law (if ever introduced) would be applied by some officers, but I don't think plod would be rigorous.

But... as the law hasn't been passed and in all probability wont be.... we can still all chill.

My feeling (even as a left-leaning liberal who is not in love with the current Government) is that there is some sort of Counter-HSE reaction going on socially, politically and even within parliamentary parties.

I stand by my promise to eat my hat if cycling helmets become mandatory in the UK.

The problem is that compulsion is being sneaked in through the back door, and for the wrong reasons.

It is also detrimental to safety.

Many of us believe helmets are not the complete answer and other factors like training road skills and maintenance have a role.

Yet now organisations are excluding children from training if they don't wear a helmet. In Norwich there has been a significant decrease in the uptake of cycle training since compulsion was introduced. These children are now riding without training and at risk because of it.

Same with may charities. Our local Scout Group used to have up to 80 riders in a charity ride, now helmets and Hi-Viz are compulsory the number is down to about twenty, and the income slashed accordingly.

It is now no longer possible to enter some other events as well unless a helmet is worn.

Compulsion is already here!

 

[Bicycle]

The problem is that compulsion is being sneaked in through the back door, and for the wrong reasons.

It is also detrimental to safety.

Many of us believe helmets are not the complete answer and other factors like training road skills and maintenance have a role.

Yet now organisations are excluding children from training if they don't wear a helmet. In Norwich there has been a significant decrease in the uptake of cycle training since compulsion was introduced. These children are now riding without training and at risk because of it.

Same with may charities. Our local Scout Group used to have up to 80 riders in a charity ride, now helmets and Hi-Viz are compulsory the number is down to about twenty, and the income slashed accordingly.

It is now no longer possible to enter some other events as well unless a helmet is worn.

Compulsion is already here!

I know the problem.

I do Charity MTB enduros and have to wear a hat.

When my children were smaller I did billions of those Anthony Nolan Trust or Oxfam rides and had to wear a hat.

I have a charity ride in September and will have to wear a hat.

But that isn't compulsion. I don't have to race and I don't have to raise money for charity.

I do take your point, but I differ in that I don't see it as legislation (or compulsion) being sneaked in through the back door.

My oldest child was taught to ride on a local scheme, but learned most of her roadcraft from me. My second and third were the victims of cuts, but they know what they need to know.

I was the son of a Cycling Proficiency trainer but was never officially trained. I just sort of picked stuff up, as my kids have.

I do not see legislation on the horizon and I don't think I'm holding my telescope up to a blinded eye.

 

[Red Light]

I do not see legislation on the horizon and I don't think I'm holding my telescope up to a blinded eye.

But if you're wrong we'll all have to wear helmets whereas if I'm wrong nothing will change. If nothing else therefore the precautionary principle says we don't put our faith in you being right but continue as if you were wrong.

 

[Bicycle]

But if you're wrong we'll all have to wear helmets whereas if I'm wrong nothing will change. If nothing else therefore the precautionary principle says we don't put our faith in you being right but continue as if you were wrong.

Indeed. I think you may have said that before.

Please feel free to continue whatever it is you want to continue with.

I feel there is a case here (as Jeremy Hardy might put it) for three angry letters to three separate local newspapers.

I also think the UK is unlikely to become a Shia caliphate in my lifetime and doubt that a bill will be passed banning the sale of tomatoes to minors.

However, on the precautionary principle you might want to continue as if I were wrong.

My promise to eat my hat if Parliament turns stupid overnight remains.

 

[Red Light]

Indeed. I think you may have said that before.

Indeed I did in response to the last time you said the same thing. I really can't why you are spending so much time on things you think will never happen.

 

[Bicycle]

I really can't (imagine?) why you are spending so much time on things you think will never happen.

Ummmm..... I can't think why I do either. Bother!

This year I are mostly using this forum to pick up useful tips, share the odd vague bit of knowledge I've managed to get into my not-very-bright bonce and occasionally put my two penn'orth into a discussion.

 

[tigger]

But that isn't compulsion. I don't have to race and I don't have to raise money for charity.

Yeah, but what if you didn't want to wear a helmet (perhaps because you are self conscious and think you look like a tool in one, or perhaps you believe your head will be dramatically cooler without a modern, good quality, well ventilated lid) but you did still want to race or raise money for charity?

Where does this back door compulsion leave you? Organising your own charity rides???... or perish the thoughts... Wearing a helmet??? Never looking in mirrors or glancing at windows when cycling???? Realising your head feels pretty much as cool in a helmet as it does without????

I mean... where does this monstrous outrage leave us????!!!!

 

[tigger]

Many of us believe helmets are not the complete answer and other factors like training road skills and maintenance have a role.

I agree with this. But, I THINK, WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP, the problem with banging the road skills drum too loudly is that this could lead us to an even greater infringement of our liberties in this crazy litigious, hse, paranoid age...

LICENCING AND MOTS

 

[ufkacbln]

Yeah, but what if you didn't want to wear a helmet (perhaps because you are self conscious and think you look like a tool in one, or perhaps you believe your head will be dramatically cooler without a modern, good quality, well ventilated lid) but you did still want to race or raise money for charity?

Where does this back door compulsion leave you? Organising your own charity rides???... or perish the thoughts... Wearing a helmet??? Never looking in mirrors or glancing at windows when cycling???? Realising your head feels pretty much as cool in a helmet as it does without????

I mean... where does this monstrous outrage leave us????!!!!

That must win the award as the weirdest post so far!

You make a lot of ridiculous assumptions about the reasons people do not wish to see compulsion - have you actually read any of the evidence?

 

[ufkacbln]

I agree with this. But, I THINK, WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP, the problem with banging the road skills drum too loudly is that this could lead us to an even greater infringement of our liberties in this crazy litigious, hse, paranoid age...

LICENCING AND MOTS

You really believe there is no evidence?

RoSPA, TR, DfT, IAM, AA, RAC and others don't actually agree and all have evidence that it does work.

The TRL for instance showed that children who had recieved training were safer,and better able to maneouvre than untrained children

RoSPA has claimed significant reductions in the number of accidents experienced by trained children when compared with untrained.

In fact the IAM states clearly that it feels training has a far greater effect on cyclist safety than helmets!

“While we would never discourage cyclists from wearing helmets, we would stress that cyclist behaviour, awareness of other road users and visibility are the factors that would make a bigger difference to cycle safety.”

The IAM has called for funding to be allocated to cycle training as well as better cycle lanes.

“Government, employers and individuals all have a part to play in making cycling a safe and easy way of getting around for everybody, through education and by encouraging a mutual awareness and respect amongst cyclists and other road users,” said Mr Pickering.

“As a voice for motorists, bikers and cyclists the IAM looks forward to encouraging better communication and cooperation between every type of road user to make the UK’s roads safer for all.”

There is lots of evidence that training works, unlike helmets where the evidence is equivocal!

 

[Red Light]

I agree with this. But, I THINK, WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP

There is evidence to back up trained cyclists being 3-4 times safer than untrained ones e.g. TRL Reports 220, 214, 890 & 902. Bexley's assessment of its cycle training scheme in 1992 found that children who had been trained were more likely to ride on public roads, were more likely to ride on 'busy' roads and more likely to ride to school. Trained children were less likely to be involved in a cycling accident, whether on or off road.

So there's hardly no evidence.

 

[rowan 46]

It would be, and rigorously too.

Because unlike seatbelts in cars, mobile phones or illegal number plates an un-helmeted cyclist would stand out like a sore thumb, to the point where no police officer could be seen to ignore it.

If you doubt what I say, try riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Absolutely agree if they made it compulsory. It would be enforced, because it's easy to enforce.

 

[tigger]

Cunebelin and Red Light. If only you would take the time to read posts properly and take in what is being said. I didn't question whether there was evidence to support training. I even wrote in capitals!