Anyone else hear Peter Thatchel on Jeremy Vine – calling for compulsary helmets?

Home Forum Chat Forum Anyone else hear Peter Thatchel on Jeremy Vine – calling for compulsary helmets?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 81 total)
  • Anyone else hear Peter Thatchel on Jeremy Vine – calling for compulsary helmets?
  • Premier Icon zippykona
    Subscriber

    What kind of helmet did he want?

    zimbo
    Member

    What kind of helmet did he want?

    ha ha ha! If politically incorrect!

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    as long as they don’t make them compulsory we’ll be ok.

    zimbo
    Member

    i don’t even want a voluntary one

    Premier Icon Bunnyhop
    Subscriber

    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.

    tracknicko
    Member

    i’m fine with mandatory helmets. don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be?

    druidh
    Member

    Kill it. Kill it now!

    Premier Icon speaker2animals
    Subscriber

    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.

    don simon
    Member

    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

    don simon
    Member

    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.

    LapSteel
    Member

    Luckily I’ve just been to Lidl and purchased some bourbon creme biscuits

    b r
    Member

    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?

    LapSteel
    Member

    I’m usually against anything that is compulsory……Its unfair to people who can think for themselves

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?

    billysugger
    Member

    Another ‘make allowances for crap drivers’ idea.

    alpin
    Member

    numbers of cyclists fell in Oz when helmets were made compulsory…

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    i’m fine with mandatory helmets. don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be?

    Eject.. Eject.. EJECT!

    Premier Icon Harry_the_Spider
    Subscriber

    Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?

    Or the headboard?

    hunta
    Member

    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)?

    wrecker
    Member

    Or the headboard?

    Or another person?

    alex222
    Member

    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.

    bencooper
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon ahwiles
    Subscriber

    tracknicko – member

    i’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.

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    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?

    Premier Icon althepal
    Subscriber

    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.

    bencooper
    Member

    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.

    don simon
    Member

    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.

    damo2576
    Member

    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?

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.

    Impossible to do.

    bencooper
    Member

    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 🙂

    rogerthecat
    Member

    I’ll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC

    What did I do? 😯

    don simon
    Member

    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.

    bencooper
    Member

    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.

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    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.

    b r
    Member

    anyway, back to the post…

    bencooper
    Member

    still no evidence.

    I refer you to John Adams book – I’m not going to quote 20 pages of scientific data and analysis.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 81 total)

The topic ‘Anyone else hear Peter Thatchel on Jeremy Vine – calling for compulsary helmets?’ is closed to new replies.