More fuel for the helmet debate

[ufkacbln]

Even though you have refused the common courtesy of answering a simple question, I will answer yours.

I do not need to tackle all three, showing how RoSPA's polices back my stance will be sufficient.

I agree with RoSPA as you are already aware, however they have a few interesting points that you really should have been aware of if you were trying to imply that they fully support helmet use and in any way support compulsion.

RoSPA does NOT support compulsion - It is really rather sad that you are trying to imply that they do... you really should have read their policy statements before you posted this. They feel that it is impractical and should be based on evidence:

RoSPA does not believe that it is practical to make the use of cycle helmets mandatory because voluntary wearing rates are too low. Should compulsory cycle helmet legislation be considered in the future, it should be based on evidence that cycle helmets are effective in reducing cyclist casualties, and on evidence that voluntary use is sufficiently high for enforcement of the law to be practical.

RoSPA also makes a point that helmets should meet standards, and be correctly worn (ironically the suggestions that you seem to be so offended about)

RoSPA recommends that all cyclists wear a cycle helmet that meets a recognised safety standard. Cycle helmets, when correctly worn, are effective in reducing the risk of receiving major head or brain injuries in an accident.

They are also unequivocal about second hand helmets:

Do not buy a second hand helmet, as damage may not be obvious.

RoSPA recognise that helmets have limited protection and that the most effective way of reducing accidents is in fact driver training, something you have previously refused to accept.

t is recognised that helmets do not guarantee protection for the wearer, nor prevent accidents from happening in the first place. The most effective ways of reducing cyclist accidents and casualties are to improve the behaviour of drivers, improve the behaviour of cyclists and to provide safer cycling environments

So in answer to your questions:

I fully support RoSPA when they state that it is unwise to use a second hand helmet as you are unaware of it's provenance

I fully support their take on helmets that they can reduce injuries, but also their unequivocal statement that driver and cyclist training would be far more effective than wearing helmets.


As for compulsion, I am against compulsion as I do not believe it is the answer. As stated by RoSPA the most effective way of improving cycle safety is by training, and as long as we concentrate on helmets to the detriment of the other measures we are not going to gain the greatest benefit.

Cycle helmets should be a matter of informed choice... and that is the magic word - INFORMED

That is why it was (and still) is appropriate to point out the problems with second hand helmets.

 

[ufkacbln]

To be frank, I know exactly what he is making a fuss about. However, as he has now told us how funny he found it and he has even shared my "wonderful joke" with his colleagues it simply shows us that his faux outrage is simply for effect on the forum. He can't have it both ways.
Old english words, though effectively redundant, can be fun. I'm glad that he has enjoyed it.

After 20 years in Casualty Departments and Naval Sick Bays dealing with all sorts it takes more than an anonymous person on the internet to cause any concern or outrage. That is why I am so very happy to let it stay.

Everyone has personal standards of conduct they feel are appropriate on a forum, I have mine, and you have clearly demonstrated the level of yours!

The fact that you refuse to answer simple questions and resort to this level in avoiding them speaks volumes!

 

[Recycler]

I agree with Rosa as you are already aware,

I have never said or implied that Rospa support compulsion. I simply asked if you do. It is quite clear that they do not support it (because they believe that it would not be effective)

You have, however, fudged your answer by talking around the subject....and on the most important point in the whole debate you have remained silent.

You have raised the recommendation of Rospa, BHSI and BHIT. They all recommend that all cyclists wear helmets. They are unequivacal.
Do you support that or not?

 

[Recycler]

That is why I am so very happy to let it stay.

Good. I'm at a loss to understand what you were making all the big red font fuss about.

 

[ufkacbln]

I have never said or implied that Rospa support compulsion. I simply asked if you do. It is quite clear that they do not support it (because they believe that it would not be effective)

You have, however, fudged your answer by talking around the subject....and on the most important point in the whole debate you have remained silent.

You have raised the recommendation of Rospa, BHSI and BHIT. They all recommend that all cyclists wear helmets. They are unequivacal.
Do you support that or not?

As I have shown your interpretation is incorrect.


The problem is that you have a very narrow viewpoint on a single agenda......... and that is probably why you are unable to bring yourself to answer the question as to whether checking a second hand helmet for cracks, wear and tear, fit and suitability is sensible or not.

I have taken the time and courtesy to answer your question fully and in detail.... If you do not have the common decency to answer the one asked repeatedly then I do not feel thatI have any moral or ethical duty to explain my answers further.


If offered a second hand helmet is checking it for wear and tear, cracks, fit and suitability:

a. Sensible
b. Unacceptable

Go - on it may be outside your comfort zone, but I am sure you can manage

 

[ufkacbln]

Good. I'm at a loss to understand what you were making all the big red font fuss about.

Simply to force your hand and have you admit that it was deliberate use of an obscenity in the full knowledge of its meaning

I can then let your personal standards of conduct speak for themselves

 

[Recycler]

I have any moral or ethical duty

You're not short on the pomposity front are you?

As I said; you are quoting selectively and refuse to commit yourself on the main issue of Rospa's view that all cyclists should wear helmets. The rest of it is detail but of course peeps should take care to use things properly just as they should have a battery in their lights, properly inflated tyres and brake blocks that aren't worn out.

But you still haven't said what your stance on Rospas key recommendation is.

 

[Recycler]

blah blah blah

OMFG FFS

 

[ufkacbln]

I am afraid that your refusal to answer such a simple question really is rather pathetic, and comes to the conclusion that you have dug yourself a big hole and are now unable to climb out.

As Red Light succinctly put it:

Why don't you have a sit down and think about what you have been saying. Seriously.

The only real conclusion to your contribution is :troll:

 

[Recycler]

I am afraid that your refusal to answer such a simple question really is rather pathetic,

Are you not capable of reading #108? You can read?

You said that you agree with Rospa. Now, what is your answer to the question about Rospa's recomendation that all cyclist wear helmets. Stop ducking. Stop diving.
Come clean. You know you can do it.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are you not capable of reading #108? You can read?

......again the obvious conclusion
:troll:

 

[Recycler]

I agree with RoSPA

There you are. easy really.
Night night.

 

[ufkacbln]

There you are. easy really.
Night night.

I am sure that everyone will be convinced, at least those with an IQ of 5 or less anyway!


I an only really feel pity for someone that desperate they have to resort to such tactics.

It will be interesting to see how much lower you can sink!




Totally a confirmation of :troll:

 

[Recycler]

The mentioning of helmets is strictly forbidden as it is a personal choice to wear one or not and there are some reasons to wear one and some reasons not to and all you will get is an argument off one particular member designed to wind you up until you will definitely NEVER mention it again.'

I'm looking at you Cunobelin.

He had a point there, didn't he?

Good to hear that you now support Rospa, BHSI and BHIT though. You're making progress.
Bye for now

 

[Recycler]

He did have a point, personal choice and the constant watch to resist any move to remove it.

I think you'll find that the main point that NotthatJasonKenny was making was aimed at Cunobelin's track record of trying to squash any discussion which does not fit in with his own view of the world,