Pro compulsion

ufkacbln · 29 Aug 2011

david k said:
 The one to which you commented on, if you wish to comment at least first answer so you consider a woolly hat the same protection as a cycle helmet

Oh dear - silly me

When you quoted Twobiker and asked this question, normal interpretation is that the person quoted is the person you are asking. hence the reason why I could' understand what question you had asked me.

I hadn't released you didn't understand that.

Were you in fact asking me and not Twobiker?

ufkacbln · 29 Aug 2011

twobiker said:
 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.

david k said:
 The one to which you commented on, if you wish to comment at least first answer so you consider a woolly hat the same protection as a cycle helmet

Why should I need to justify, explain or discuss your erroneous interpretation of someone else's post.

I(like others) do not see this as being what was stated,implied or meant.

However out of courtesy I will reply to the original post, as it may help you understand the original.

I agree fully - you cannot legislate against all eventualities and in some cases the fully padded diving helmet may be more appropriate depending on the type of impact likely.

I'm the same way a downhill rider may be more appropriately equipped with a full face helmet or one that gives far higher protection.

In the US for instance the EN1078 helmet is considered inadequate for racing or triathlons and a higher standard required.

twobiker · 29 Aug 2011

I said a helmet or a woolly hat in a minor accident, I did not say they were the same kind of minor accident , that would be a silly assumption to make,neither did I mean by Minor a small, young person. Also why does it not count as two posts if someone keeps quoting your posts.

ufkacbln · 30 Aug 2011

Having resloved all that - is there any chance of DavidK addressing the adverse effect of compulsion on the training programme in Norwich.

The number of children attending has decreased and parents / teachers are putting this down to the factthat helmets have been made compulsory.

We now have children being excluded from training which is proven (RoSPA puts untrained childrfen at betwee 4 and 5 times more likely to have an accident) to redue accidents.

Any other activity would lok at trainingm and prevention before PPE, but again this is notthe case with cyclists!

david k · 30 Aug 2011

Cunobelin said:
Any other activity would lok at trainingm and prevention before PPE, but again this is notthe case with cyclists!

No, they look at training and prevention controls as well as ppe.

You appear to think its one or the other, no reason why that should be, i dont see why both cannot exist together, they do in other areas.

Red Light · 30 Aug 2011

david k said:
No, they look at training and prevention controls as well as ppe.

You appear to think its one or the other, no reason why that should be, i dont see why both cannot exist together, they do in other areas.

You are clearly not familiar with the hierarchy of control in risk management in which PPE is the last resort.

ufkacbln · 31 Aug 2011

david k said:
No, they look at training and prevention controls as well as ppe.

You appear to think its one or the other, no reason why that should be, i dont see why both cannot exist together, they do in other areas.

Read the post, in particular the line

Any other activity would look at training and prevention before PPE, but again this is not the case with cyclists!

The use of the word before is a hierarchical statement of the order and does not in any stretch of the imagination state that one is exclusive of the other

Your assumption that I "appear to think it is one or the other" is exactly that - YOUR erroneous assumption and a misinterpretation of what has been clearly stated

The case in Norwich has been quite simple, they have put PPE before training.

Making helmets compulsory has meant that the number of children attending cyclist training courses (especially those from low income families)

Teachers and parents have stated that this is because of the helmets.

This decision is therefore detrimental to the safety of these children who will (according to RoSPA and others) suffer more accidents than if they had undergone training.

In this case surely the common sense thing would be to remove the helmet compulsion and train the children with proven prevention and reduction of accidents?

Mad at urage · 31 Aug 2011

Two other concils who say "If you don't wear a helmet, you cannot have training":

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/sports/walking-cycling/cycling-training/ "Children must be 10 years old before August 31, 2011 to take part and must attend training with a roadworthy bike and a properly fitting cycle helmet."

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/bicycle_training_children "children that attend the training course should bring with them a roadworthy bicycle, wear a cycle helmet "

:angry:

ufkacbln · 31 Aug 2011

Mad@urage said:
Two other concils who say "If you don't wear a helmet, you cannot have training":

http://www.wokingham...cling-training/ "Children must be 10 years old before August 31, 2011 to take part and must attend training with a roadworthy bike and a properly fitting cycle helmet."

http://www.hounslow....aining_children "children that attend the training course should bring with them a roadworthy bicycle, wear a cycle helmet "

Norwich is (so far) the only one where the parents and teachers have formally identified helmets as teh reason for the decreased participation.

It is a wide spread phenomenon though, our local Scout Group raises some £1000 less now the sponsored ride requires helmets and HiViz. Again the Scout Association is another one that has put PPE before prevention and training. There is no requirement to checkthe bike or the participant's abilities so lomg as they wear a helmet and HiViz

Red Light · 31 Aug 2011

Mad@urage said:
Two other concils who say "If you don't wear a helmet, you cannot have training":

http://www.wokingham...cling-training/ "Children must be 10 years old before August 31, 2011 to take part and must attend training with a roadworthy bike and a properly fitting cycle helmet."

http://www.hounslow....aining_children "children that attend the training course should bring with them a roadworthy bicycle, wear a cycle helmet "

The first says nothing about having to wear it :whistle:

ufkacbln · 1 Sep 2011

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

Cunobelin said:
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:

This is rather interesting. Last time it became obvious that compulsion was detrimental, we had a mysterious agreement not to discuss the matter in the main threads, but to only discuss it here.

Now we have a compulsion thread and the matter is being avoided completely.

Why are we not getting an answer to the question whether it is acceptable to diminish the effect of training and prevention by instituting PPE as the first measure and not the last?

Perhaps I was right in the first place and this thread was an attempt to avoid the matter, one that has come home to roost!

david k · 1 Sep 2011

Cunobelin said:
This is rather interesting. Last time it became obvious that compulsion was detrimental, we had a mysterious agreement not to discuss the matter in the main threads, but to only discuss it here.

Now we have a compulsion thread and the matter is being avoided completely.

Why are we not getting an answer to the question whether it is acceptable to diminish the effect of training and prevention by instituting PPE as the first measure and not the last?

Perhaps I was right in the first place and this thread was an attempt to avoid the matter, one that has come home to roost!

keep trying

ufkacbln · 1 Sep 2011

No point, I realise you find this a difficult question to answer, and are stuck in that you cannot try and divert this time.

I don't really expect you to answer.

Which is fine - the silence says enough to make the point

david k · 1 Sep 2011

Cunobelin said:
No point, I realise you find this a difficult question to answer, and are stuck in that you cannot try and divert this time.

I don't really expect you to answer.

Which is fine - the silence says enough to make the point

lol, no point yet you post, never said ppe was the first measure, so yet again keep trying

david k · 1 Sep 2011

1486157 said:
How about a straight answer to a straight question

Do you think that it is a good thing to insist that children have and wear a helmet before you give them cycle training? Your answer will need to be given in the knowledge that to do so reduces the number taking the training and that for those thus denied training makes them more likely to be involved in a collision on the road?

never ever ever have i said we should not train children. Wearing a helmet does not mean you should not train children. Wearing a helmet doesnt mean all other safety precautions can be ignorered. I have never said this or illuded to it. Any suggestion that i have is your assumption and incorrect at that. I think we all know why he makes this up, hence my reply, keep trying

Pro compulsion

ufkacbln

Guest

ufkacbln

Guest

twobiker

New Member

ufkacbln

Guest

david k

Hi

Red Light

Guest

ufkacbln

Guest

Mad at urage

New Member

ufkacbln

Guest

Red Light

Guest

ufkacbln

Guest

david k

Hi

ufkacbln

Guest

david k

Hi

david k

Hi