|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Steve Watkin wrote:
Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ? I have no sites for this (I am sure I read about it in here)but "the goverment" has decided that once a certain percentage of people are wearing h*lm*ts "they" have less opposition to an MHL so will introduce one. That is why a lot of people do not want to see others wear a h*lm*t as this furthers the cause for an MHL. -- www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
soup wrote: Steve Watkin wrote: Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ? I have no sites for this (I am sure I read about it in here)but "the goverment" has decided that once a certain percentage of people are wearing h*lm*ts "they" have less opposition to an MHL so will introduce one. That is why a lot of people do not want to see others wear a h*lm*t as this furthers the cause for an MHL. Quite. Wearing a h*lm*t is effectively a vote for compulsion :-( John B |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?
Short answer: We don't want to be fined for popping down the shops without a sodding helmet on. Long answer: People can do as they wish, but their reasons for wearing helmets are challenged if they are based on ignorance, misconceptions or the myriad of other poor reasons that are often given. Examples are thinking that helmets are far more protective than they really are, or that cycling is significantly more dangerous than it really is. Think people wearing helmets when they cycling to the shops but not weaing them when they walk - activities with a broadly similar risk profile (though possibly slightly worse for walking). It is also regularly pointed out that wearing a helmet is (in effect) an unwitting vote for making it illegal to cycle without a helmet. This is unfortunately a fairly accurate statement. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
On 23/04/2007 18:56, John B said,
Wearing a h*lm*t is effectively a vote for compulsion :-( It's also a sign of not wanting to bash my bonce on a tree if I come off my mountain bike. It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory - some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them. Both are wrong. I'm as against compulsion as the next man, but that is because I want to exercise my choice to wear a helmet when I wish, and not to wear one if I wish. It is the choice one way or the other that is being campaigned for, not a mandate one way or the other. -- Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Paul Boyd wrote: On 23/04/2007 18:56, John B said, Wearing a h*lm*t is effectively a vote for compulsion :-( It's also a sign of not wanting to bash my bonce on a tree if I come off my mountain bike. It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory - some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them. Both are wrong. Anyone who wishes to "force" the issue one way or the other is "wrong'. The decision is best left to choice, but I'm sure you will agree that it is better that the choice is made on real evidence rather than emotional claptrap and anecdotes. I don't wish to be carted off to jail or slapped with a fine when I pop out for ten minutes on the Brommie to buy my croissants from the baker - simply because far too many people were taken in by the rubbish and falsehoods expounded by the pro-compulsion lobby. Everyday I experience kids and adults who have been seriously mislead/conditioned into believing that the lump of polystyrene is a charm to protect them from being run over by a bus. I hope you'll agree they have been hoodwinked. If compulsion is introduced because of such beliefs then that does sweet FA for the safety of cycling on today's roads. The bullies will have won. Wear your helmet if you wish. No one is trying to force you not to. I simply hope the decision was an informed one rather tahn one on scaremongering and hype. It is the choice one way or the other that is being campaigned for, not a mandate one way or the other. Exactly, but the choice is best made on real evidence rather than BeHit misinformation. John B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
On 23 Apr 2007 19:10:43 GMT, Mark Thompson
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote: Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ? Short answer: We don't want to be fined for popping down the shops without a sodding helmet on. Long answer: People can do as they wish, but their reasons for wearing helmets are challenged if they are based on ignorance, misconceptions or the myriad of other poor reasons that are often given. Pot, meet kettle. It is also regularly pointed out that wearing a helmet is (in effect) an unwitting vote for making it illegal to cycle without a helmet. This is unfortunately a fairly accurate statement. ....based on even less evidence than either side of the helmet debate can muster. Please, please, stop with yer FUD that helmet wearing will lead to a MHL. It has absolutely no validity, and is simply a product of the Usenet echo chamber. Somebody claimed it once, and now it's an article of faith that can be used to bash people on their (ironically, helmeted) heads. Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Marc Brett wrote:
On 23 Apr 2007 19:10:43 GMT, Mark Thompson pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote: It is also regularly pointed out that wearing a helmet is (in effect) an unwitting vote for making it illegal to cycle without a helmet. This is unfortunately a fairly accurate statement. ...based on even less evidence than either side of the helmet debate can muster. Please, please, stop with yer FUD that helmet wearing will lead to a MHL. It has absolutely no validity, and is simply a product of the Usenet echo chamber. Somebody claimed it once, and now it's an article of faith that can be used to bash people on their (ironically, helmeted) heads. Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up. Neither of these are the original, it was in the 1990's and pre-dates almost all government information being easily searchable on the internet. However, 10 minutes work dug up these two (and some others, which were less authorative): http://www.pacts.org.uk/parliament/H...ng-10Jan06.pdf (page 67 & 68, government minister in Lords responding to attempt to make helmets compulsory for children) http://www.cfit.gov.uk/mf/reports/roadsafety/ucl/02.htm (section 2.13 could be interpretted as get numbers high enough before compulsion) What is notable about both is an assumption that helmets work, and its stupid stubborn people who object to them. When the voluntary wearing rate is high enough, the authorities can legislate for compulsion. A more rational position might be "when there is credible evidence of effectiveness, we might consider legislation". Even then, there is a civil liberties issue in respect of adult cyclists; they are adult, and any safety device is for their protection; we don't ban smoking by adults, or the supply of tabacco. Presumably because adults are thought capable of making their own mind up about the dangers. When we come to the evidence of effectiveness (on either side of the argument), all I see is noise caused by differences in method and difficulties in doing any form of reliable sampling. That suggests to me that any safety effect is between marginal and non existant. There are other road safety measures which should take a far higher priority. - Nigel -- Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Marc Brett wrote:
People can do as they wish, but their reasons for wearing helmets are challenged if they are based on ignorance, misconceptions or the myriad of other poor reasons that are often given. Pot, meet kettle. I don't wear a helmet in 'normal' cycling because the research I've looked at shows cycling to be pretty safe, and helmets not to be designed to prevent the sort of injuries I wish to protect myself from (death, turning into a vegetable..) Please explain where I have based my views on ignorance, misconceptions or poor reasoning. Alternatively, show me where I have prevented someone from wearing a helmet. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids
Marc Brett wrote on 24/04/2007 08:28 +0100:
....based on even less evidence than either side of the helmet debate can muster. Please, please, stop with yer FUD that helmet wearing will lead to a MHL. It has absolutely no validity, and is simply a product of the Usenet echo chamber. Somebody claimed it once, and now it's an article of faith that can be used to bash people on their (ironically, helmeted) heads. Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up. There is plenty of evidence and the statement has been made multiple times by Ministers. Witness the following statement by the Government Whip for Transport in the House of Lords on amendments to the Road Safety Bill to introduce mandatory helmets for children last year. " Baroness Crawley: For these and other reasons I have given, unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed to a different approach by government to other road users and quoted the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990, which made it compulsory for children to wear hard hats when riding. ...... It is also notable that at the time 80 per cent of riders were already wearing protective headgear. One of the reasons we resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is because as yet we are nowhere near that figure as regards the popular voluntary wearing of cycle helmets by children. When motorcycle helmets became compulsory, 80 per cent of people were already wearing them voluntarily before compulsion was introduced. In the case of cycle helmets being worn by children we would be making an enormous leap from a figure far less than 80 per cent." Hansard 10 Jan 2006 The DoT also wrote on behalf of the Minster to the Cambridge Cycling Campaign in 2004: "It has been our view that at the current level of wearing rates, making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and, without greater public acceptance, could have an effect on the levels of cycling. We will maintain our efforts to promote the wearing of cycle helmets and other safety measures such as - training, publicity and education." Just two of the many examples pulled at random. There is plenty more on the same line if you care to look. -- Tony "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lots of cyclists, lots of lids | Pyromancer | UK | 23 | April 28th 07 12:54 AM |
FS: lots of stuff | Dan H | Marketplace | 0 | November 23rd 05 05:51 AM |
Lots of punctures | [email protected] | General | 3 | April 18th 05 04:51 PM |
lots FA | gregclimbs | Marketplace | 0 | February 8th 05 09:26 PM |
FS: Lots Of Tools | Frankie | Marketplace | 3 | December 24th 04 06:36 PM |