I have folowed the debate on Vancouver for some time, and I think it is a little cynical that the annual clamp down is teh same month as cycling is promoted!
Is (or was) June once again "Helmet Ticket Month"
Reasons not to wear helmets
- Thread starter tigger
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I have folowed the debate on Vancouver for some time, and I think it is a little cynical that the annual clamp down is teh same month as cycling is promoted!
Is (or was) June once again "Helmet Ticket Month"
AmericanWoman
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver, BC, Canada
Yeah, June is bike month and I think in July was the bike to work week. Anyway, my stance is that if you are riding in the road with cars, you should wear a helmet. If you are in the park with your family you shouldn't have to. I still see people in Stanley Park not wearing helmets but as soon as they start to leave the park, cops are there waiting.
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
so somebody who wears a helmet when cycling but not driving or walking is hypocritical?
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
so its just compulsory on roads
AmericanWoman
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver, BC, Canada
No, it's compulsory everywhere but the police don't waste their time going into the park. haha
The argument that there are more motorists (or pedestrians) therefore the vegitatative state is much more pleasant and should be allowed is really rather spurious.
The helmet only works when the accident happens, and that accident is more frequent in pedestrians and motorists.
There is a wonderful calculation showing why cyclists kill so many people per year and a clampdown on "killer cyclists" should be immediate as they are a massive risk to pedestrians
The concept is that in an average year 1, or perhaps 2 pedestrians willbe killed by the direct actions of a cyclist.
In the same period a couple of thousand will be killed by vehicles.
However when you look at the risk to pedestrians, the number killed per distance (or time) is far greater for cyclists due to the much greater distances travelled and time spent on the road.
The cyclist becomes even more dangerous when you compare with a high mileage group
IIRC one set showed that a pedestrian was 3 times more likely to be killed by a cyclist than a white van
The helmet only works when the accident happens, and that accident is more frequent in pedestrians and motorists.
There is a wonderful calculation showing why cyclists kill so many people per year and a clampdown on "killer cyclists" should be immediate as they are a massive risk to pedestrians
The concept is that in an average year 1, or perhaps 2 pedestrians willbe killed by the direct actions of a cyclist.
In the same period a couple of thousand will be killed by vehicles.
However when you look at the risk to pedestrians, the number killed per distance (or time) is far greater for cyclists due to the much greater distances travelled and time spent on the road.
The cyclist becomes even more dangerous when you compare with a high mileage group
IIRC one set showed that a pedestrian was 3 times more likely to be killed by a cyclist than a white van
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
seems reasonable
Ah taking Cicero's advice I see: When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.
lukesdad
Guest
Knew there was something wrong with Dyfed Powys police, just couldn t put my finger on it.
No, inconsistent. It only becomes hypocrisy when they start telling other people what to do if its related to the importance of preventing head injuries.
My apologies for that, you are right (in this case) it was uncalled for.
However it is impossible to have a sensible argument with someone who will not compare apples to apples and throws in a melon every so often.
Unfortunately the debate is always going to be like that.
The prime example is the bang your head against a wall with a helmet and it hurts less than without "experiment to prove that helmets should be worn.
This is frequently put forward, but the problem is that it proves absolutely nothing. The experiment works for pedestrians, but that is unacceptable for discussion.
Cynically wearing a canteloupe will also have the same effect
The "experiment" is proposed as "proof" that helmets work yet despite the same successful result it is no longer valid as proof for pedestrians, or that wearing fruit is beneficial.
Equally the emotional blackmail of "wear a helmet or be in a vegetative state" applies to any head injury, not just cyclists
Finally look at the attempts to restrict debate to set areas... again limitations that are more about excluding uncomfortable arguments than any real question over validity.
It is a wide and open area for discussion and the evidence points in all directions. The questions need to be asked.
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
Here we go again, all those have been explained and you choose to ignore because its easier than coming up with new reasons
Once again you seem to think this debate is revolving around you, and don't understand that this is a common theme that arises again and again throughout these discussions
However as you have decided to claim that this has "been explained" and ignored, let's for the continuity of this thread answer the following very simple questions.....
1.Bang your head against the wall with a helmet on and without if it hurts less with a helmet does it prove anything?
2.Bang your head against the wall with a canteloupe on and without and it hurts less with a canteloupe does it prove anything?
Make it as simple as you like for us thickies?
- Status
