Helmet discussions in York

[Cyril Haearn]

Evidence-based facts, laws, permits, compulsion..
Any parallels with my thread on homeopathy?

[The utility cyclist]

... why is there no discussion regarding men to be compulsorily made to wear anti rape devices ...

Don't you know that men are even lower than cyclists when it comes to being raped, no-one cares!
But yes, you're right.

[Mike Sales]

Don't you know that men are even lower than cyclists when it comes to being raped, no-one cares!
But yes, you're right.

Are cyclists getting raped?I shall have to be more careful.

I think the suggestion was that men might be made to wear devices to stop them raping.

[pjclinch]

I think the suggestion was that men might be made to wear devices to stop them raping.

I have seen a suggestion for an anti-rape whistle. Should a man feel an uncontrollable urge to tape someone he blows the whistle to warn people away.

Irony may have been involved.

[thirdcrank]

I've not followed the thread so I'm unclear how it set off down this side-track, but I will say that campaigners against violence against women etc seem immeasurably more successful than cycle campaigners so perhaps there are some lessons to be learned.

[The utility cyclist]

Don't you know that men are even lower than cyclists when it comes to being raped, no-one cares!
But yes, you're right.

Are cyclists getting raped?I shall have to be more careful.

I think the suggestion was that men might be made to wear devices to stop them raping.

Ah I see, then I don't agree and it misses the point entirely.

[The utility cyclist]

I've not followed the thread so I'm unclear how it set off down this side-track, but I will say that campaigners against violence against women etc seem immeasurably more successful than cycle campaigners so perhaps there are some lessons to be learned.

Because it's a very strong and accurate analogy to telling people on bikes to wear helmets to avoid being seriously injured or killed.

if we told women to wear a flawed device, in fact forced them under fear of financial penalty (or worse if you don't pay the penalty) to wear said device/garment or not be able to go anywhere at all, all to avoid being raped or killed whilst being raped it would be absolutely abhorrent, uncivilised and breach innate human rights and would never, ever be on an agenda.
It would be even more sickening if the government, police and organisations actually taught/coerced young girls that they had to avoid going to certain places and to start wearing a device when they were barely out of nappies just so they don't get raped

And yet that is precisely what happens in the cycling world with respect to helmets, this is precisely why I am anti helmet and make no bones about stating such, I find the whole concept of forcing the onus of safety onto vulnerable persons in this way beyond sickening, and yet some on here semingly think I just have a vivid imagination when I say tht the very organisation that is supposed to be protecting us literally has no cncept as to the damage it does by portraying helmets and hi-vis frequently, especially when it comes those new to cycling, or encouraging people into cycling.

Yes ladies, step this way, you can join our club but only if you put on an anti rape device otherwise you can't come out with us in case you get raped ...

[thirdcrank]

I've not followed the thread so I'm unclear how it set off down this side-track, but I will say that campaigners against violence against women etc seem immeasurably more successful than cycle campaigners so perhaps there are some lessons to be learned.

Because it's a very strong and accurate analogy to telling people on bikes to wear helmets to avoid being seriously injured or killed.

if we told women to wear a flawed device, in fact forced them under fear of financial penalty (or worse if you don't pay the penalty) to wear said device/garment or not be able to go anywhere at all, all to avoid being raped or killed whilst being raped it would be absolutely abhorrent, uncivilised and breach innate human rights and would never, ever be on an agenda.
It would be even more sickening if the government, police and organisations actually taught/coerced young girls that they had to avoid going to certain places and to start wearing a device when they were barely out of nappies just so they don't get raped

And yet that is precisely what happens in the cycling world with respect to helmets, this is precisely why I am anti helmet and make no bones about stating such, I find the whole concept of forcing the onus of safety onto vulnerable persons in this way beyond sickening, and yet some on here semingly think I just have a vivid imagination when I say tht the very organisation that is supposed to be protecting us literally has no cncept as to the damage it does by portraying helmets and hi-vis frequently, especially when it comes those new to cycling, or encouraging people into cycling.

Yes ladies, step this way, you can join our club but only if you put on an anti rape device otherwise you can't come out with us in case you get raped ...

I should have made clear that I understood your point, but not the reason for the side-track. I know that vulnerable road users suffer death and serious injury in collisions. I should have also expressed more clearly my feeling that there's a lot to be learned from the success of other campaigners, such as those campaigning against violence against women. No doubt they feel there's still a lot to be achieved, but they've gone forwards while the danger on the roads has deteriorated further.

[Steady rider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dJ64o9 ... e=youtu.be

[atoz]

I watched the youtube recording also. It revealed nothing new. It would not alter the decision of just about all members of my local cycling group to wear helmets. One contributor to the discussions mentioned the complex and contradictory research data. Exactly the reason I don't wear a helmet- the evidence is poor, to say the least. You wouldn't ingest substances into your body based on this evidence (or maybe if you're trying to be the next PM, maybe you would- lol)

But many cyclists are not interested in looking at the evidence- they just feel they have to wear them to be "safe". They are under pressure from relatives, possibly work colleagues, and of course other cyclists- many of the latter who are younger have now grown up in a pro-helmet cycling culture. And some of the "new" cyclists of a certain age (at or over retirement), did not do much cycling at all when they were young, are very pro helmet, in my experience. It can be difficult resisting this sort of pressure to conform.

[De Sisti]

and some of the "new" cyclists of a certain age (at or over retirement), did not do much cycling at all when they were young, are very pro helmet, in my experience. It can be difficult resisting this sort of pressure to conform.

I've come across that attitude all too often recently.

[Steady rider]

In the event of an accident and compensation could such details as on U tube be used in a court or compensation issue?

[The utility cyclist]

In the event of an accident and compensation could such details as on U tube be used in a court or compensation issue?

If we are not applying the same rules for anyone else when it comes to being the victim of crime or victim of others negligence then not wearing an unproven garment should never effect outcomes with respect to compensation, nver mind criminal cases.
That is has in some areas shows how slanted and discriminatory helmets have actually pushed matters. The damage they and the people that promote them do, goes far, far deeper than people understand or even want to understand. This is why the rape analogy puts it into perspective as to how heinous the whole helmet thing really is, in fact it's worse than women being forced to wear or be victim blamed, it has other horrendous outcomes beyond.

[thirdcrank]

In the event of an accident and compensation could such details as on U tube be used in a court or compensation issue?

If we are not applying the same rules for anyone else when it comes to being the victim of crime or victim of others negligence then not wearing an unproven garment should never effect outcomes with respect to compensation, nver mind criminal cases.
That is has in some areas shows how slanted and discriminatory helmets have actually pushed matters. The damage they and the people that promote them do, goes far, far deeper than people understand or even want to understand. This is why the rape analogy puts it into perspective as to how heinous the whole helmet thing really is, in fact it's worse than women being forced to wear or be victim blamed, it has other horrendous outcomes beyond.

Do you campaign on these themes outside cycling forums? If so, do you notice any progress?

[Steady rider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-wVOMLS7w

Some helmet laws have been repealed.

Helmet requirements damage bike hire schemes, set the scene for reducing compensation to people not wearing, increase the accident rate, discourage cycling with the health and environmental consequences.

It is good for people to speak out but the details need to be very clear.

http://203.26.91.200/lc%20archive/LCCO% ... 0%20pm.mp4