Being a bit thick as I am living my life in my wibbly wobbly world I wondered at first what the hell you were on about with all this compulsion business, then my brain switched compulsion for compulsory and it all made sense. I feel better now I think I'll go and have a big shoot and go to bed (I working nights at the mo, not a lazy student).
Pro compulsion
- Thread starter david k
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Being a bit thick as I am living my life in my wibbly wobbly world I wondered at first what the hell you were on about with all this compulsion business, then my brain switched compulsion for compulsory and it all made sense. I feel better now I think I'll go and have a big shoot and go to bed (I working nights at the mo, not a lazy student).
Rereading it we were probably both victims of the ambiguity in what you wrote.
tigger
Über Member
MOIWYW
rowan 46
Über Member
- Location
- birmingham
You don't need test equipment to see if someone is wearing a helmet, but you are right on reflection, perhaps enforce is the wrong word perhaps police would be better.1486115 said:
I'll just nail my flag to the wall where I stand on the whole issue of helmets then retire from the debate. I wear one because it gives my family piece of mind and that's the only reason. I am against compulsion as when it is found that helmet use will not significantly decrease accidents (if at all). compulsory training will be next on the agenda, then of course they will need testing to make sure the training is up to standard, then of course you will need licences to prove you have passed your test. That unfortunately imo is what will happen.
I have only my ignorance to guide me, but I'm not too sure about compulsion being a real threat.
The general public (the electorate) appear to find current accident, injury and death rates among cyclists acceptable.
Unlike the motor industry, who worked hard to support the mandatory fitting of airbags in new cars, the cycle-safety lobby does not have a bottomless slush fund. We are approaching the stage where cars will be cheaper to scrap than to pay for re-charged airbags. The obsolecence curve in new cars gets ever steeper as new, more rigorous safety laws are passed.
Even the scrappage scheme (politically brilliant) was really a handy transfer of money to the motor industry from the exchequer. Brilliant, but a product entirely of creatives in the SMMT.
The road-safety lobby do not have that sort of money or muscle. The SMMT can do a lot better when it wants Bills read than to give them to a low-profile Lib Dem MP from Devon....
I'd rather the cyclist accident, injury and death rates were lower, but I'm not in favour of helmet legislation or training legislation being passed in an attempt to alter them. Nor is anyone with whom I've ever discussed the matter is in favour of either measure. That's not a hugely credible statistic, but it works for me up to a point.
I agree with rowan46 that one outcome of compulsory training would be a large, bureaucratic poo-shaped object, but (basing my opinion largely on ignorance) that is why I do not think it will happen.
Dare we dream in our worst nightmare of a sister branch of the DVLA, the CBLA? I don't think a reading in the H of C would survive the first mention of cost.
In a way, fear has worked with the wearing of helmets. When I started to ride, almost nobody wore one. These days almost nobody doesn't.... I still often go without, but when I do wear one it is because of superstition and an irrational fear of something that hasn't happened to me in scores of high-speed offs....
I apologise for that, but it does read to me that there is no evidence to back up the benefits of training
OP
OP
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
OP
OP
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
According to the BHIT they cause acidents!
They claim that 52 child deaths per year would be prevented if all children wore helmets.
At the moment only 3 - 4 deaths per year occur.
Therefore compulsory helmets would have to cause another 48 potentially fatal accidents for their figures to be true.
rowan 46
Über Member
- Location
- birmingham
My apologies I misspoke , I meant injuries not accidents
OP
OP
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
no problem, any ppe will never decrease accidents, their aim is to protect in case of an accident
Which is why the pro-compulsion lobby is so dangerous
The "Wear a helmet or you will die a painful death" single agenda makes no effort to tackle, or evan acknowledge any of the measures that could improve safety.
Driver education, road user education for cyclists and pedestrians, maintenance classes so that your vehicle is safe are all ignored.
It is perfectly OK to drive dangerously, cycle unsafely or ride a dangerous bike, as the helmet will save the cyclist's life!
Even worse is where compulsion has excluded those who most need training. For instance in Norwich the attendance at training lessons has significantly decreased since helmets became compulsory.
Many parents especially those in low income families are not buying helmets specifically to allow their child to attend the course.
This means that many children will be injured purely because an unfounded and unsubstantiated theory has been applied and excluded them. You really couldn't make it up!
OP
OP
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
where has anyone said this, can you name the source please
twobiker
New Member
- Location
- South Hams Devon
A cycling helmet may save you in a minor accident as would a woolly hat, or a diving helmet filled with expanding foam,but only if you have the right kind of accident, it may even in some cases contribute to your injuries,you cannot legislate against evey possibility,but eventually the government will try, if the media or a campaign by a grieving family pushes them to act.
OP
OP
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
- Status