Just listen to Jeremy Vine while washing my bike and they had the Addison Lee guy on, and Peter Thatchell (supporting the cyclist). Right at the end Thatchell just said, pretty much out of the blue, how we ought to look at compulsary helmets for cyclists!
While I've a lot of time for Thatchell and his support of the 'underdog', where did that come from?
What kind of helmet did he want?
What kind of helmet did he want?
ha ha ha! If politically incorrect!
as long as they don't make them compulsory we'll be ok.
i don't even want a voluntary one
He also mentioned that being an experienced cyclist he always cycled 'close to the kerb' to help buses pass. That's a no no in my book.
i'm fine with mandatory helmets. don't understand why anyone wouldn't be?
Kill it. Kill it now!
Sounds like an expert and has obviously never had the fun factor of clipping a kerb with pedal in traffic.
Sounds to me like one of these types who thinks the best way to get his point across is to give up a personal liberty. Obviously thinks that if we accept compulsory helmets motorised vehicle operators will suddenly respect us. Obviously not seen the research that indicates that "cars" give helmet wearing riders less room as they perceive that the rider is safer.
Thatchell just said, pretty much out of the blue, how we ought to look at compulsary helmets for cyclists!
I 100% support the idea of looking into it.
I 100% support the idea of looking into it.
again? really?
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helmet-compulsion-bill-fails/012175
What's the harm in looking into it?
What's the harm in looking into it?
Opportunity cost. i.e. Waste of money that could be spent doing other things that would greater improve safety.
Luckily I've just been to Lidl and purchased some bourbon creme biscuits
OK.
I'm usually against anything that is compulsory......Its unfair to people who can think for themselves
Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?
Another 'make allowances for crap drivers' idea.
numbers of cyclists fell in Oz when helmets were made compulsory...
i'm fine with mandatory helmets. don't understand why anyone wouldn't be?
Eject.. Eject.. EJECT!
[img] 
[/img]
Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?
Or the headboard?
Didn't we go through all this when they made seat belts compulsory (or am I the only one that can remember that far back)?
Or the headboard?
Or another person?
Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?
Actually there is a study which tells us the the reduced coeff of friction between a helmet and the wall will lead to the brain rotating up to seven times more then when banging your head against a wall without a helmet. Leading to a little known form of brain damage called brainio over ratatio.
Didn't we go through all this when they made seat belts compulsory (or am I the only one that can remember that far back)?
We did, and compulsory seat belts didn't make life any safer for car occupants - though they made life a lot more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
Risk compensation is a funny thing.
tracknicko - memberi'm fine with mandatory helmets. don't understand why anyone wouldn't be?
helmet laws = fewer cyclists = more dangerous for those still riding.
(it's a very effective way to reduce the numbers of cyclists)
For everyone who wants a helmet law - just send me 50 quid each time you don't put your helmet on for cycling.
Problem solved.
compulsory seat belts didn't make life any safer for car occupants
back that up please with some evidence.
from this link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1294442/
Evidence demonstrating the advantages of seat belts in improving safety of road travel is overwhelming and has resulted in government legislation.
what do you know that they don't?
Sorry, mandatory seatbelt usage doesn't make life any safer for car occupants... Really??? I mean, seriously that's what you think?? You must be joking?
I'll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC I go to and ask him if he thinks he should have worn their seatbelt and see what they say.
Sorry, mandatory seatbelt usage doesn't make life any safer for car occupants... Really??? I mean, seriously that's what you think?? You must be joking?
I'll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC I go to and ask him if he thinks he should have worn their seatbelt and see what they say.
He'll say "maybe if I wasn't going so fast I wouldn't have had an accident".
Risk compensation is, as I said, a strange thing. But basically, if you make cars safer (or seem safer) then people drive faster in compensation. John Adams' book "Risk" is a good read on the subject.
What made a big difference was stricter drink-driving laws. Making seatbelts compulsory had no effect as people just drove faster (so had more accidents but were more likely to survive, hence no difference) - which made things more dangerous for other road users.
An interesting test to do if you don't believe in risk compensation is to drive along the road, and undo your seatbelt - see what happens to your speed and style of driving.
An interesting test to do if you don't believe in risk compensation is to drive along the road, and undo your seatbelt - see what happens to your speed and style of driving.
Another is to ride along the road while wearing a helmet, then do it again without. Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.
Making seatbelts compulsory had no effect as people just drove faster (so had more accidents but were more likely to survive, hence no difference) - which made things more dangerous for other road users.
Err, more likely to survive is a big positive difference no?
[i] Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.[/i]
Impossible to do.
Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.Impossible to do.
There was a study done at (I think) Warwick Uni, using a rangefinder to see how close cars passed a cyclist. They gave the cyclist less space when he was wearing a helmet...
...and loads more space when he wore a long blonde wig 🙂
I'll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC
What did I do? 😯
They gave the cyclist less space when he was wearing a helmet...
That's what I rememember, it was a good few years ago now so it's posssible that behaviours and attitudes to cyclists have changed.
Err, more likely to survive is a big positive difference no?
Not if there are more accidents. To give a rough example:
- 50 accidents, no seatbelts, 50/50 survival = 25 deaths
- 100 acidents, seatbetls, 75% survival = 25 deaths
Of course those aren't real numbers, but the principle holds. The idea is we all have a set level of risk we're happy with - it's different for every person, but pretty constant for that person. So do something to make life safer, and we autonatically and subconciously act in a more risky way to bring the total lovel of risk back to where it was.
Making seatbelts compulsory had no effect as people just drove faster (so had more accidents but were more likely to survive, hence no difference) - which made things more dangerous for other road users.
still no evidence.
does anyone else remember cars speeding up when seatbelt wearing became compulsory - I sure don't.
People generally drive faster now due to more powerful cars, better suspension isolating them from road feedback, and better handling.
anyway, back to the post...
still no evidence.
I refer you to John Adams book - I'm not going to quote 20 pages of scientific data and analysis.
Replace the driver's seatbelt with a 12" steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel and see much more careful people will become
Wear a helmet myself but very much NO to compulsory.
I keep my helmet on the pelmet.
I heard that programme, didn't rate Tatchell at all.
However it is discriminatory that moped riders some of whom cannot achieve the speeds some road bikes do have to wear helmets and road bikers don't. So I'm sure a case could be bought similar to the Mini Cab V Hackney Cab and Bus lanes thing, to insist on any Cyclist riding on the road being forced to wear a helmet.
It also actually beggars belief that road cyclists are allowed on the roads un insured, so another potential way for the Government to get badly needed tax receipts and thus save some public sector jobs, would be to Tax road cyclists.
So compulsory helmets and road tax doesn't seem unreasonable in todays climate, then maybe dutch style kerbs to protect cycle lanes could be funded across the land, think of all the employment that would create, oh and cycle helmet enforcement officers of course, a very popular job, I can see mental health professionals considering a career change for that job.. 😆
Oh er just to declare an interest here, I do sell nice helmets.... 😉
I refer you to John Adams book - I'm not going to quote 20 pages of scientific data and analysis.
does he specifically talk about seatbelts or just risk compensation in general.
if you have the evidence then you should alert the government to it and they can reverse the law - time is of the essence as lives are clearly being lost needlessly.
It also actually beggars belief that road cyclists are allowed on the roads un insured
Most of them are insured. Home contents insurance often has a public liability clause which covers legal fees and damages.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/02/bike-insurance-covered
so another potential way for the Government to get badly needed tax receipts and thus save some public sector jobs, would be to Tax road cyclists.
What does tax have to do with insurance???
