Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[theclaud]

Norm did offer to lock it a couple of hours ago.

It's definitely getting nowhere, but then that hardly marks it as unique. Think of it as a "Tea?" thread for the argumentative element...

 

[StuAff]

Are you sure? I felt that Linf was on the brink of a breakthrough in self awareness and understanding

I have no idea if anyone else is aware of that.

 

[david k]

On a previous thread on compulsion... in response to a series of posts Redlight asked:

The reply from David K was:

Of course an opinion and hence entitled, but is it something we should actually be recommending for BMX or Off road?

This is exactly where the "hint and run" and non-evidenced opinion becomes unacceptable.

Different thread from over a year ago, seems a little desperate that youve had to drag something up from so long ago. That run its course, this is a different time and a different discussion.

So back on topic

I have challenged on this thread the notion that you cannot wear a helmet unless youve studies the evidence. Which you claim supports that wearing a helmet is dangerous as it puts people off and more people become fat blah, blah, blah.

I aim to support every cyclist who chooses to wear a helmet and dont want to spend hours going over the 'evidence'

 

[david k]

It's definitely getting nowhere, but then that hardly marks it as unique. Think of it as a "Tea?" thread for the argumentative element...

if you feel you are getting nowhere have you considered it may be that people see your points of view have limited merit?

 

[theclaud]

I have challenged on this thread the notion that you cannot wear a helmet unless youve studies the evidence.

You should've saved yourself the bother, seeing as no-one was arguing that in the first place.

 

[david k]

Not necessarily unreasonable, just utterly counter-productive.

Even if helmets were 100% effective at preventing head injuries, compulsion would still be a terrible idea, because the lives saved by helmets would be dwarfed by the lives lost due to fewer cyclists, and thus an increase in obesity and coronary heart disease.

do you really think wearing cycle helmets has that level of effect? obesity is a massive problem in the UK we keep hearing and we have no compulsion.

 

[StuAff]

I have challenged on this thread the notion that you cannot wear a helmet unless youve studies the evidence.

Pardon? Assuming that you refer to helmets conforming to the relevant British/EU standards, there is no need for anyone to 'study the evidence'. Either you choose to wear one, and it should protect you to a certain extent in certain situations, or it will be of no benefit if those conditions do not apply, or you choose not to wear one. Not complicated.

I aim to support every cyclist who chooses to wear a helmet and dont want to spend hours going over the 'evidence'

The first six words of this sentence are the only relevant ones.
I choose to wear a helmet. The key word here being 'choose'.

 

[david k]

You should've saved yourself the bother, seeing as no-one was arguing that in the first place.

Im afraid people have

 

[theclaud]

Im afraid people have

Who?

 

[david k]

Pardon? Assuming that you refer to helmets conforming to the relevant British/EU standards, there is no need for anyone to 'study the evidence'. Either you choose to wear one, and it should protect you to a certain extent in certain situations, or it will be of no benefit if those conditions do not apply, or you choose not to wear one. Not complicated.

The first six words of this sentence are the only relevant ones.
I choose to wear a helmet. The key word here being 'choose'.

I have no problem with people choosing, but i am being told that choosing to wear one is putting people off cycling, making them fat and they are dying of obesity. I am not supposed to wear one unless I have studied the evidence. Just read the posts back and you will see

 

[david k]

Who?

read the posts back

 

[ufkacbln]

Different thread from over a year ago, seems a little desperate that youve had to drag something up from so long ago. That run its course, this is a different time and a different discussion.

So back on topic

I have challenged on this thread the notion that you cannot wear a helmet unless youve studies the evidence. Which you claim supports that wearing a helmet is dangerous as it puts people off and more people become fat blah, blah, blah.

I aim to support every cyclist who chooses to wear a helmet and dont want to spend hours going over the 'evidence'

Which really sums it up.............


It is entirely relevant because you are still stating that evidence is unnecessary, the posts illustrate why without evidence there is a real danger to giving advice from an uninformed position


PS I never ever thanked you for the tagline

 

[StuAff]

I have no problem with people choosing, but i am being told that choosing to wear one is putting people off cycling, making them fat and they are dying of obesity. I am not supposed to wear one unless I have studied the evidence. Just read the posts back and you will see

I have and I didn't see.

 

[Wobblers]

GC, Would not trading standards have stepped in if a helmet was not fit for purpose.

No. They meet the standards. It's just the standards are appallingly low... and a helmet that actually offered a reasonable level of protection would be impractical and unsaleable.

 

[ufkacbln]

You are so right, perception is a tricky thong.

I am absolutely and unequivocally in favour of compulsory thongs!

... or maybe not:

Perhaps it should be an informed choice after weighing up the evidence.