Proof if it were needed

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10076
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Proof if it were needed

Postby horizon » 4 Jan 2019, 8:12pm

https://www.change.org/p/natalie-holt-g ... r=50163641

I'm sorry if this has been discussed on here already. The following paragraph is a useful riposte to a current Highway Code tweet:

He was wearing a helmet, had bright lights on the front and rear of his bicycle and on the back of his rucksack, he also was wearing clothes with reflective strips on. He was doing everything right as a cyclist to stay safe.
A tractor driver failed to see Gareth before it was too late. He hit Gareth from behind, killing him instantly.
Gareth's helmet was destroyed on impact, resulting in a fatal head injury.
If Gareth stood no chance with a helmet on, what chance do others stand when not wearing a helmet?


And here's the current tweet:

https://twitter.com/HighwayCodeGB/statu ... 8764522496

The world hasn't got any more intelligent so far in 2019.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

landsurfer
Posts: 5081
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby landsurfer » 4 Jan 2019, 8:22pm

Poor Gareth ... so his helmet was of no use whatsoever ...so severe was the impact .. so if he had not been wearing a helmet the outcome would just have been as bad ..

Who was the tractor driver texting as he hit Gareth ? :roll:

I'm missing something here ... genuinely missing the point of the petition ...
Wear a helmet or don't wear a helmet and a severe impact by an inattentive driver will have the same result. Death.

SO .... petition for helmets to be compulsory ???

Feel free to put me straight on this ......genuinely.
The Road Goes On Forever

reohn2
Posts: 37801
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby reohn2 » 4 Jan 2019, 8:34pm

The effect of such a petition should it succeed would be to blame any victim that doesn't wear a helmet or hi-viz clothing and lights.
Gareth was wearing a helmet and was wearing hi-viz and was well lit and as a result is still just as dead.
Who's fault was it for his death?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

landsurfer
Posts: 5081
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby landsurfer » 4 Jan 2019, 9:16pm

reohn2 wrote:The effect of such a petition should it succeed would be to blame any victim that doesn't wear a helmet or hi-viz clothing and lights.
Gareth was wearing a helmet and was wearing hi-viz and was well lit and as a result is still just as dead.
Who's fault was it for his death?


+1

What was the primary cause of his death.
Suspect it may have been nothing to do with tractors, helmets of even visibility.
"Human Factors" .... screams out ....

Maybe a link to this site should be shared with his family ?
The Road Goes On Forever

irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Can't See the Logic

Postby irc » 4 Jan 2019, 9:46pm

Sister of a cyclist killed by tractor is campaigning for a helmet law. Her brother was wearing a helmet so a law would have made no difference.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news ... er-2348187

So maybe camp\ign for better helmet standards, bigger sentences for bad driving, more licensing and training for tractor drivers? But helmets when they don't work?

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Can't See the Logic

Postby thirdcrank » 4 Jan 2019, 9:48pm

Is this a duplicate thread?
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=127231

fastpedaller
Posts: 2323
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Can't See the Logic

Postby fastpedaller » 4 Jan 2019, 10:40pm

Maybe I'm not being sympathetic to people who are grieving, but can we petition against people who 'try to protect us' when they don't even take part in our passtime/hobby? i wouldn't even think of petitioning to (for instance) to ensure that every bungee jumper has a parachute just in case they need it - it's none of my business to, and whether they want to risk their lives is their own affair. When someone wants to influence how I should protect myself from someone else's risk-taking i'm afraid it makes me very angry. :(

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 817
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby Phil Fouracre » 5 Jan 2019, 6:24pm

Fastpedaller +100 doesn’t even cover it! This is the most recent petition of this sort that I’ve seen recently. The guy was killed doing everything right, so how does it make any sense to try and force other to take measures that have just been proved to be totally ineffective???
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 12310
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby Cyril Haearn » 5 Jan 2019, 6:29pm

Maybe we do not know the whole story, maybe the ctc could contact the petitioner
Nice one Cyrille, nice one son..
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on 49" fixed
We love safety cameras, we love life "1330"

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 817
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby Phil Fouracre » 5 Jan 2019, 7:29pm

Trouble is it’s the old story, have to ‘do something’, which can be self defeating.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

fastpedaller
Posts: 2323
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby fastpedaller » 5 Jan 2019, 7:37pm

I've just looked at the petition, and it has 166 'signings'. I couldn't see any way to do a 'negative signing' - I don't want to, and haven't signed it. I also bitterly dislike petitions, they have always seemed (to me) to be a 'red-top newspaper' form of garnering support - but (and I dislike having to say this) they seem to get the attention of the media (possibly because of the stance they use?).
I suspect it isn't possible to get a petition started to " get the driving licence removed for 1 year " for any driver convicted of illegally using a 'phone at the wheel? - that would probably be seen as a 'hate petition' and removed :(

User avatar
Syd
Posts: 375
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby Syd » 5 Jan 2019, 8:26pm

The initiator of the petition much, in some odd way, believe they are doing the right thing though their thought processes are still likely messed up by the death of someone close to them.

I suspect, by the relatively low number of signatures in the three months it’s been running, that others have seen the error in the logic.

fastpedaller wrote:.....I suspect it isn't possible to get a petition started to " get the driving licence removed for 1 year " for any driver convicted of illegally using a 'phone at the wheel? - that would probably be seen as a 'hate petition' and removed :(

Only one way to tell; try it and see, maybe word it likening it akin to driving with excess alcohol in ones system?

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10076
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby horizon » 5 Jan 2019, 9:07pm

Syd wrote:The initiator of the petition much, in some odd way, believe they are doing the right thing though their thought processes are still likely messed up by the death of someone close to them.



That's a really nice way of looking at it.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

MikeF
Posts: 3818
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Proof if it were needed

Postby MikeF » 7 Jan 2019, 9:25pm

If Gareth stood no chance with a helmet on, what chance do others stand when not wearing a helmet?
None unfortunately. The helmet isn't a relevant factor. The campaign seems to have skewed logic.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
Pastychomper
Posts: 357
Joined: 14 Nov 2017, 11:14am
Location: Caithness

Re: Can't See the Logic

Postby Pastychomper » 9 Jan 2019, 1:29pm

irc wrote:Sister of a cyclist killed by tractor is campaigning for a helmet law. Her brother was wearing a helmet so a law would have made no difference.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news ... er-2348187

So maybe camp\ign for better helmet standards, bigger sentences for bad driving, more licensing and training for tractor drivers? But helmets when they don't work?


That article provides a link to a Facebook page which appears to be run by the lady in question. It's actually encouraging in one respect - several people have pointed out that the desired helmet law would make cycling more dangerous, and although she hasn't changed her mind so far she is reading comments and says she will look into any evidence provided. It looks like she's willing to enter an adult conversation and adjust her view if necessary, despite having suffered some flames, so I take my flat cap off to her for that and for trying to make a difference.

Clearly she's encumbered by the usual 'any-helmet-must-be-good' bias, so I've stuck my oar in in the hope she'll shift her entire campaign onto improving road safety, and I encourage anyone else here who has the time and a Facebook account to do the same. Politely, of course - it may be Faecebook but it isn't the Br*xit thread! :wink:
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then.
--Ole Boot