"Cycle safety called for"

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:21:29 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Tony wrote:

The bicycled plod in these parts wear cycle helmets (black of course - LOL)
so what's with that then if they are a known hazard (rotation injuries)
and almost universally disdained by the knowledgeable?

The extent to which they're a "known hazard" is, at best, limited.
snip

The main objection to cycle helmets is nothing to do with how
effective they may be or may not be - it is because the
anti-helmet-nazis see it as the thin end of the compulsory helmet
wearing agenda.

I like the argument that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists - therefore this must be a bad thing - it must be a
base herd sort of thing.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:28:44 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
Larrington" wrote this:-

The dibbles quite often wear helmets when walking too.

In England and Wales.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland they wear peaked caps (though a
rather silly looking hat was introduce in Northern Ireland some
years ago, no idea if they still wear it).

Do they know
something we don't, or are they just worried about being hit over the head
by Ruthless Anarchists?

Perhaps walking around is more dangerous in England and Wales?
Perhaps there are more Ruthless Anarchists there?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

judith wrote:

I like the argument that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists - therefore this must be a bad thing - it must be a
base herd sort of thing.

You'd be a very weird sort of person if you thought that there ought to
be fewer cyclists in the world.
I'm not going to bother giving you the reasons why cycling is better for
the individual and better for the planet because you know them as well
as I do.
Roger Thorpe

Judith wrote:
snip


I like the argument that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists - therefore this must be a bad thing - it must be a
base herd sort of thing.


Could you clarify this in less ambiguous language please.

Ta

Sniper8052

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:01:37 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

judith wrote:

I like the argument that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists - therefore this must be a bad thing - it must be a
base herd sort of thing.

You'd be a very weird sort of person if you thought that there ought to
be fewer cyclists in the world.
I'm not going to bother giving you the reasons why cycling is better for
the individual and better for the planet because you know them as well
as I do.
Roger Thorpe

You are right: it would be a very weird sort of person who thought
that there ought to be fewer cyclists in the world.

I can't see where I actually said that or implied that I thought that
- can you?

However, I think it is weird to argue against compulsory helmets on
the basis that this will reduce the number of cyclists; clutching at
straws in the extreme.

(PS I don't think there should be fewer cyclists in the world - I
think that there should be fewer obnoxious ones)
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

judith wrote:

you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

What's this all about then? You come from nowhere and flood the group with hysterical
pro-helmet rants. What's your agenda? Do you actually ride a bike or are you some kind
of health and safety zealot? Give us some background, please.

Alan

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Judith wrote:
snip


I like the argument that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists - therefore this must be a bad thing - it must be a
base herd sort of thing.


Could you clarify this in less ambiguous language please.


Some people argue that forcing people to wear cycle helmets would
reduce the number of cyclists.
Reducing the number of cyclists would be a bad thing.
Therefore forcing people to wear cycle helmets is a bad thing as we
must mot finish up with fewer cyclists.

I can't understand this argument - it must be some sort of inherent
"survival of the cyclist herd instinct" which I don't have.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:12:42 +0100, "A.C.P.Crawshaw"
wrote:

judith wrote:

you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

What's this all about then? You come from nowhere and flood the group with hysterical
pro-helmet rants. What's your agenda? Do you actually ride a bike or are you some kind
of health and safety zealot? Give us some background, please.

Alan


I am a cyclist, a motorist, and a pedestrian.

I despair over the rabid anti-helmet rants that there are in here.

I believe that this is a public newsgroup and I am entitled to voice
my opinion.

Please learn how to use your kill-file if you do not wish to read what
I say.


--
Mile for mile a child cycling on the road is safer than their friend
walking on the pavement.

judith wrote:

You are right: it would be a very weird sort of person who thought
that there ought to be fewer cyclists in the world.

I can't see where I actually said that or implied that I thought that
- can you?

However, I think it is weird to argue against compulsory helmets on
the basis that this will reduce the number of cyclists; clutching at
straws in the extreme.

Well, I think that the arguments a
Extra cost ( historically this was valid. when I worked in a bike shop
the cheapest helmets were £70 allowing for inflation. These days you can
get them for under a tenner)

Some can be hot in summer weather.

They add to the perception that cycling is intrinsically dangerous.

They make one look geeky or less phat or something.

I think that in most places where hat wearing has become errrr...
mandatory (I think that we know what that means) there has been a fall
in the number of people cycling. Someone will pop up with the numbers soon.

Roger Thorpe

judith wrote:
However, I think it is weird to argue against compulsory helmets on
the basis that this will reduce the number of cyclists; clutching at
straws in the extreme.

It's a common facet of the helmet debate;
some simple research should reveal points
of view, and related facts and statistics,
on both sides.

BugBear