Petition to the Women's Institute

[downfader]

Some of you will know that the Women's Institute is a powerful lobby group on many issues of charity, social impact, crime and risk. They have been very good at raising women's rights in Africa and have raised £millions for charity.

They now have turned their attention to road safety, specifically cycle helmets:
http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2011/12/cycle-helmet-laws-on-your-bike-wi.html

I personally feel this would be the wrong approach, and is a similar mistake to that the BMA made a few years back. They will voting shortly on whether to campaign for mandatory cycle helmets and have the backing of Headway.

UK cycling struggles as it is.

The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain is strongly against helmet compulsion, is for free choice, and believes that much can and should be done elsewhere before helmet laws are even contemplated.

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/

So, could those of you who agree please sign the petition and ask that alternatives be considered first. Even if you believe that helmets help, no-one can deny the effect similar legislation has had in Australia, New Zealand and other countries... for those reasons please sign:

http://www.change.org/petitions/to-reject-calls-for-compulsory-helmet-laws

 

[numbnuts]

Downfader your always moaning about something

 

[downfader]

Downfader your always moaning about something

Theres a difference between "moaning" and pushing for positive change. Or would you rather people like myself gave up trying?

 

[Sore Thumb]

What has this really got to do with the WI? Maybe they should stick to what they do best and make cakes.
But maybe we should tax the WI more for all the unhealthy food they produce.

Maybe they should themselves be responsible to the health of the nation and stop making cakes, anything helps in reducing the obesity epidemic in this country.

 

[marafi]

Hurray cycling for a reason and a good cause! Brilliant.

 

[growingvegetables]

could those of you who agree please sign the petition and ask that alternatives be considered first.

Agreed and signed

 

[ufkacbln]

What has this really got to do with the WI? Maybe they should stick to what they do best and make cakes.

Like this one?

 

[dellzeqq]

CEGB v. WI? I reckon the WI can take 'em........

 

[Noodley]

I commit my moobs to cycling safety...

 

[growingvegetables]

What has this really got to do with the WI? Maybe they should stick to what they do best and make cakes.

Don't ever underestimate the WI. Somebody else famously did so - and came off (hilariously) worst.

here and

The idea of the WI campaigning for compulsory helmet wearing ...... now that would worry me

 

[mumbo jumbo]

I've signed. Keep up the good work downfader

 

[Titan yer tummy]

I believe that 'the compulsion to wear' issue will ultimately be decided by lobbying not from the the WI (and I do not underestimate the power of this wonderful organisation) but by the insurance lobby. Actuaries spend their lives considering risk and it's impact on their profit margins and when you think about it this is probably about the most reliable incentive for getting things right.

Enforcement in particular would be difficult, particularly amongst children and youngsters. But 'difficult' is not something that would be allowed to interfere with profit.

I am not bright enough to access all the evidence on this subject let alone consider it.

I therefore have to rely on those that are.

At the moment I feel the balance of the argument lies in favour of those are in favour of wearing a helmet.

I choose to wear a lid. I think anyone who doesn't is a fool. I believe all fools shoul be allowed to behave foolishly provided it does not impact on me generally and my wallet particularly.

 

[middleagecyclist]

Already signed it, got into a FB debate about it and managed a blog post from it. Better than religion!

 

[StuartG]

At the moment I feel the balance of the argument lies in favour of those are in favour of wearing a helmet.

I choose to wear a lid. I think anyone who doesn't is a fool.

Have you not considered these statements to be contradictory?

First you accept that there are arguements for (mainly the protection in a collision) and against (the affect on the chance of a collision).

Secondly using the word 'feel' you appear to accept that balancing is subjective rather than objective. I happen to agree with you on that.

Thirdly you say that anyone coming to the opposite conclusion is a fool. You may feel they are wrong but, in the absence of strong objective evidence needed to balance the arguement, then this would be going well against the evidence that we do have.

Hence it is you that is irrational. A word I prefer to fool.

 

[semislickstick]

....I'm going to need more than just a helmet if the Huntingdon WI members continue to try and left hook me on the shared cycle path outside their clubhouse.