Petition to the Women's Institute

[ufkacbln]

What is most amusing for me is the "other measures are in place" dismissal for anything that does not suit the cycle helmet agenda

This is exactly the point!

Anyone with the most basic knowledge would realise that helmets as PPE should be the last, and not the first measure.

Safer driving, better road conditions, road user training, tougher enforcement and a "no tolerance" policy for minor motoring offences along with awhile spectrum of other measures should be considered first


Helmets are merely a sticking plaster that attempts to absolve reponsibility for real and effective road safety measures.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I don't know, what does it say in the policy t&c?

Well it was a rhetorical question, but I do see your point; the analogy wasn't a good one. A better analogy is: if a car careered across the garden and knocked the ladder out from under me, would the lack of a helmet be considered contributory negligence in any claim against the driver.

 

[Norm]

Working at height? Ooo, as Arch shows, you don't need to be up very far.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

How high up this imaginary ladder are you?

It was a real ladder, just a rhetorical question. Only about 10 feet, but I've been up to about 20 feet on it without a helmet in the past.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Would any of you involved in this discussion who disgree with the the highway code or feel that its advice should not be followed please be kind enough to let me know by quoting/replying to this post. Otherwise I shall assume that you do agree with its contents.

Thank you

 

[Norm]

Only if you have the courtesy to reply to the questions asked of you.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

S 12, Licensing Act 1872 - Drunk in highway - Recordable

It certainly is.

Best wishes,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/94/crossheading/offences-against-public-order/enacted

Offences against Public Orde

Penalty on persons found drunk

12
Every person found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten shillings, and on a second conviction within a period of twelve months shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings, and on a third or subsequent conviction within such period of twelve months be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings. Every person who in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, is guilty while drunk of riotous or disorderly behaviour, or who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or. steam engine, or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded fire-arms, may be apprehended, and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month. Where the court commits any person to prison for nonpayment of any penalty under this section, the court may order him to be imprisoned with hard labour.



Nope!No mention of it being illegal to consume "excessive" alcohol!

Want to try again?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

It's a bit rich to threaten posters with moderation, when TyT has called everyone who disagrees with him a fool.

I'm not sure yet if the problem is calling him a fool , I'm still waiting for the answer as to which bit he objected to.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I'll do the same, as he's completely failed to address many of the points or answer any of the questions, I find myself in the embarrassing position of agreeing with LYB.

There is no need to be embarrassed , most people come around agreeing with me eventually, I must admit it often takes decades. Look on the bright side you got in early this time. BTW what bit were you agreeing with?

 

[Norm]

BTW what bit were you agreeing with?

There is no "thinking" behind it, it's just a knee jerk reaction. He's been told there is a "cure" ( cycle helmets) , he religously believes in the "cure" , but the "cure" hasn't been suggested for any other user group hence he doesn't need to believe in it's use for them. It's a religous belief, the only courses of action are to ignore it or ridicule it, there is no point asking him to explain it, it can't be explained.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

The figure of 60% was not "plucked" it is from the work of Sharon Thornhill who analysed ALL head injuries admitted to a large DGH over a year

Her findings are impartial in that they ave no agenda or bias towards proving the cause? the paper looks at disability a year after the injury, but the analysis of the cause does illustrate nicely where funds are being spent.

If you really object to paying for people who could have prevented injury then it is common sense to look at the areas that cost most?



No twisting of statistics , simply an independent analysis of the causes of head injury requiring admission to a DGH


if you wish to critique the evidence provided then the full paper is here

Now it would be nice if you could now state why Sharon Thornhill is mistaken or admit that woth hospital admission that the biggest single cost to the NHS is from alcohol related incidents, and that by your logic the few ctyclst injuries are objectionable, but the far greater number of alcohol,related injuries is acceptable

Both are preventable by wearing helmets

Firstly your message has not displayed properly for me viz the bit I have seen until I have pressed the reply button finishes at .....requiring admission to a GDH. As you can see the URL you provided is not shown. (edit: OK so it does not display on my iPad but does on a PC)

In the event I had located the article anyway. Five hospitals in GLASGOW that city so renowned for sobriety!!

More importantly you 'forgot' to mention it excludes under 14 year olds.

TWISTED!!!!

As I have said I do see excessive alcohol consumption as a problem. Clearly so does the government who have legislation in place to deal with it, enabling those who are drunk in a public place to be arrested to prevent, inter alia*, them harming themselves. *sorry no italics on this thing!!

And finally your thoughts on the highway code if any?

Regards

 

[Titan yer tummy]

To make it clear, I would say that the highway code is in error, promoting as it does helmet wearing for cyclists and other two wheeled road users on inconclusive evidence, whilst ignoring any parallel potential benefits of helmets for other road users.

Thank you Adrian. That's honest anyway!!

Best wishes

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Only if you have the courtesy to reply to the questions asked of you.

Norm it may have escaped your notice, there are seven or eight of you on my case. I am doing my best I shall revert.

In the meantine I say to you what I said earlier to brompton. Please do not discuss me with other forum members in open forum as if I did not exist. It is rude.

Thank you.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Norm it may have escaped your notice, there are seven or eight of you on my case. I am doing my best I shall revert.

In the meantine I say to you what I said earlier to brompton. Please do not discuss me with other forum members in open forum as if I did not exist. It is rude.

Thank you.

That's not what you said earlier....

However on the subject of being rude, does talking about someone come higher or lower on the scale of rudeness than calling people fools?

 

[Norm]

Norm it may have escaped your notice, there are seven or eight of you on my case. I am doing my best I shall revert.

I'm not sure that I get that as you have selected a single line (which wasn't a question) from one of my posts for response. It is just the questions which have been unresolved.

And I'm not, in any way, on your case. I have asked a number of questions to try and understand your position. I'm a helmet wearer, as I said earlier, but I still don't understand why you would wish to exclude non-helmeted riders from medical care. If it's "just because they look like they should help", then that's fine.

Belief is a strange thing which often cannot be explained by logic but that doesn't make it feel any less valid. However, imposing belief (or faith or any other emotion) upon anyone else is a dangerous, if not impossible, thing to achieve.

I have not discussed you anywhere. LYB asked which part I agreed with, I quoted his post without comment.