Mark Foster: "Rebecca Adlington is one of the nicest people you will ever meet but get her wet and she's a fighter". Dear Lord.
Bradley Wiggins: (Commenting after the death of a cyclist whose body and bike were mangled by an Olympic double decker bus) "Helmets should be compulsory". Yeah, that woulda saved him Bradley.
Perhaps this thread should be called how to take people answers out of contextOriginally Posted by santa claus
Biscuit (03-08-2012),cptwhite_uk (03-08-2012),dave87 (04-08-2012),Phage (03-08-2012)
To be fair Bradley was making a serious point, not that a helmet would have saved this poor fellow.
Actually there are reports where it has become law for a cyclist to wear a helmet has increased the death rate. Safer places have more cyclists, because motorsists learn to share the road with them
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...=feeds-newsxml
(as much as I despise the Daily Fail, it seems to hit the mark with who they spoke to)
santa claus (03-08-2012)
That is quite a good article for the DM, I'm shocked.
It is worth mentioning that it appears this person took a left next to a vehicle, never do this.
The issue I have when driving (despite been an avid cylist, I was doing 500km a week when I was in London last as part of my cycling training) is almost always with people who have no helmet, but earphones in, often no lights or even the reflectors......
I find lighting is a far more overlooked thing than helmets, and good lighting will prevent someone from been nocked off, not just nocked off and having their head contact the ground in the exact way a helmet would help.
I also still think anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is pants on head retarded, they cost so little and reduce your air resistance
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Let's add some of the context then. Bradley said "Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue." Ha.
Riding the Tour and a time trial on roads without other vehicles doesn't make you an authority on cycle safety. The mod git
Agree with statement 1.I find lighting is a far more overlooked thing than helmets, and good lighting will prevent someone from been nocked off, not just nocked off and having their head contact the ground in the exact way a helmet would help.
I also still think anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is pants on head retarded, they cost so little and reduce your air resistance
Disagree with statement 2.
Only if you have a silly haircut that causes air resistanceI also still think anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is pants on head retarded, they cost so little and reduce your air resistance
its time for compulsory 3rd part insurance and registration for bicycles - the damage in injury they cause is disgusting - the mother who`s baby was in life support because of being hit a bicycle on a crossing , and the rider got up and rode off.... all on cctv!
Is she a gremlin or something?
Beginners guide to raid Beginners guide to raid post edition Hexus.Social - FAQ
Don't agree sorry. It will discourage cycling the benefits of which far outweigh the need for impositions and/or restrictions. How about this: instead of cyclists dressing to the eyeballs in 'protective' gear, we encourage motorists to give them proper space on the road. Or segregate the two completely.
There's only one way to find out. Get her wet big boy.
I would say what is the cost of a helmet? And I don't mean to purchase. Its something else to carry, the mass is negligible. It makes you cycle faster due to less drag, even if your a slaphead. It gives you something else reflective/highvis at a point that many drivers in stationary traffic will be able to see when they can't see below your head.
All I see are pros, with no real cons, except what to do with it when locked up, as our lovely british weather is not conducive to locking your bike to your helmet.
Now we can argue noon to night that in a very high percentage of scenarios it will do little if anything to help. A friend of mine came off doing London to Barcalona and immediately remarked "The helmet, she does nothing...." as his shin was pretty cut up (I always like smooth SPDs, not those silly teeth'd peddles, thats the reason!). But I know quite a few people who've had their helmet messed up rather badly. And sadly I've given first aid to someone who hadn't, nocked off a borris bike, going slowly, but head struck a paving slab in a bad way, guy was in shock and have no idea what happened to him as paramedics arrived quite quickly, in that scenario a helmet would have at the very least, saved him the use of his haircut.Do you have a link for that story? it saddens me deeply, but I'd still like to see the video, as I'd wager the cyclist was breaking already existing laws. The question should be how can we help enforce safe cycling, not how can we make it so complex and expensive no one does.
I also point out I've insurance via ctc, but then again, I've a lot to loose if ever I was sued.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
As you are talking about intangible costs, what about the loss of personal freedom?
Risk is what makes life exciting. I value both the freedom to decide what risks I take and the responsibility that comes with it, to be directly accountable for my own education. In fact I believe that Darwin bloke might have been onto something. Continually undermining such freedoms and endlessly seeking to protect people from the cause and effect they lead to, may well encourage an entire population to dumb down.
The safety case for helmets on push bikes is nothing like as clear cut as say, helmets on motorbikes or seat belts in cars. Although it rarely gets airtime, there are certain accident scenarios in which a helmet can prove to be the distinguishing factor between life and death. In simple terms, fall off at low speed, helmet hits kerb, the helmet causes increased lateral leverage on the neck sufficient to break it, where otherwise the kneck might not have broken. The circumstances are specific but as they involve low speeds, kerb stones and pavement safety railings, they are commonly encountered by urban cyclists.
I agree with the point made earlier, that perhaps celebrities should stick to what they are good at and stay away from trying to be analysts or politicians, which they rarely are. I am sorry Mr Wiggins but the choice to wear a helmet is unrelated to the right to argue justifiably. That the absence of a helmet automatically apportions fault is a hasty generalisation; a fallacy. One can only wonder what additional distress such clumsy reasoning might cause a family grieving the recent loss of a loved one.
So yes, Mr Wiggins. Using your celebrity status to make a political point, by associating it to the tragic demise of a poor cyclist, who has no opportunity to argue or even answer the questions raised by his own family, because he is dead. Is a gaff of Olympic proportion.
Only once cyclists learn to obey the rules.
For every cyclist that goes through a red light or rides on the pavement, 1m of cycle lane should be removed.
I'm not talking about making it law....
I am simply saying that a helmet can save many people from injury, what is the cost of wearing one? granted some scenarios it could potentially make it worse but they are less likely than the ones where it will save life. I also think we could have better research and design, its not a perfect solutions.
But not wearing one is pants on head retarded, all I'm sayin'!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
For every motorist that fails to see me, despite my lights, and somewhere in the region of £400 wardrobe of high vis, we should add 1p a litre to fuel.
I've had 5 smidsy in the last month I spent in London fyi, all the time obeying the highway code. Hell one man pulled a U turn and nearly nocked me off (I grazed his car) how the fornications can someone not see me head on!? Daylight, high vis and I'm bloody 196cm built like a brick ****house!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
And every motorist that goes through....etc
Come on, it's that kind of entrenched view that is the threat to cyclists.
Freedom of choice is an issue here. Personally, I don't want to dress up like a Tour-pro when I'm popping down the shops on my bike to get the paper. Nor would I want a helmet on when meandering through a country lane in the Lake District. If I rode in a big City every day I might choose to wear a helmet but there are plenty of times when I'd prefer to decide for myself what the risk is and I don't need Wiggo's four-penneth to help me decide. The danger is the pen-pushers listen to what they think will be popular and run with it.
I already pay tax and insurance on virtually every part of my life. At present I can cycle and fart without incurring a duty and I'd prefer it stays that way.
matts-uk (04-08-2012)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote