Cycling UK Forum

Cunobelin wrote:Of course, there are other options that could be used to demonstrate this point. This is one... the Stab vest, and the much publicised knife crime agenda.

Firstly the emotive "Stab Vest saved a life":

One source said: The body armour he was wearing saved his life. Each time the blade hit him, the stab-proof vest cushioned the full force. Even with the armour on, the point of the blade pierced through the protective clothing and nicked PC Marshall's skin. I'm sure he's just glad he's alive.


A police spokesman added: Officers know the importance of wearing these special vests and, in this case, it has probably saved PC Marshall's life.

Then we have the video supporting their use and how you can protect yourself from knife crime:

However, will we be seeing a sudden rush on these vests?

Is someone being stabbed without one, Darwinism in action?
Are people responsible for protecting themselves from knives?

Given the rate of knife crime, compared to the number of cyclist deaths in RTCs, promotion of stab vests seems an excellent idea.

There were 43,516 knife crime offences in the 12 months ending March 2019.
This is an 80% increase from the low-point in the year ending March 2014, when there were 23,945 offences, and is the highest number since comparable data was compiled.
These statistics do not include those from Greater Manchester Police because of data recording issues.
Out of the 44 police forces, 43 recorded a rise in knife crime since 2011...
The number of knife-related homicides went from 272 in 2007 to 186 in 2015. Since then it's risen every year, with a steep increase in 2017-18, when there were 285 killings, the highest figure since 1946.

from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089
Think of the lives that could be saved. And the crime that would be prevented!

I'm not wearing one until they are in Hi-Viz. That's just common sense.

If you hold your breath for long enough, you’ll pass out. Now ( to my knowledge) no one has ever done a study into this. However, I’d say that holding your breath until you pass out, is a stupid idea, and won’t end well. However, there’s no studies out there, so it mustn’t be a bad idea.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:If you hold your breath for long enough, you’ll pass out. Now ( to my knowledge) no one has ever done a study into this. However, I’d say that holding your breath until you pass out, is a stupid idea, and won’t end well. However, there’s no studies out there, so it mustn’t be a bad idea.

So are you going to ban breath-holding?

Marcus Aurelius wrote:If you hold your breath for long enough, you’ll pass out. Now ( to my knowledge) no one has ever done a study into this. However, I’d say that holding your breath until you pass out, is a stupid idea, and won’t end well. However, there’s no studies out there, so it mustn’t be a bad idea.

If you are suggesting that wearing a helmet is a similar level of common sense to not holding your breath until you pass out, then I don't think you will find much sympathy from anyone, including others who advocate for helmet use, except maybe the folks at Headway.
Even hospital case studies which demonstrate a benefit in using helmets among cyclists that have crashed, do not go that far.

mattheus wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:If you hold your breath for long enough, you’ll pass out. Now ( to my knowledge) no one has ever done a study into this. However, I’d say that holding your breath until you pass out, is a stupid idea, and won’t end well. However, there’s no studies out there, so it mustn’t be a bad idea.

So are you going to ban breath-holding?

There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

mattheus wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:If you hold your breath for long enough, you’ll pass out. Now ( to my knowledge) no one has ever done a study into this. However, I’d say that holding your breath until you pass out, is a stupid idea, and won’t end well. However, there’s no studies out there, so it mustn’t be a bad idea.

So are you going to ban breath-holding?

There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

Whereas with helmets....

Mike Sales wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

mattheus wrote:So are you going to ban breath-holding?

There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

Whereas with helmets....

Quite right, the truths are also self evident.so absolutely no need for a law.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

Whereas with helmets....

Quite right, the truths are also self evident.so absolutely no need for a law.

I think you will find that Oz and NZ have found that they "need" a law to force cyclists into lids, amongst much protest. In spite of wearing rates approaching 100% these countries have injury rates for cyclists two or three times ours.
There are other countries too with laws.
There are campaigners for a law in this country too.
So, many of your fellow believers do see a need, because there are many cyclists who don't see one.
It is odd that some of the most prominent law advocates, like Angie Lee, don't cycle.

Mike Sales wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:
Whereas with helmets....

Quite right, the truths are also self evident.so absolutely no need for a law.

I think you will find that Oz and NZ have found that they "need" a law to force cyclists into lids, amongst much protest. In spite of wearing rates approaching 100% these countries have injury rates for cyclists two or three times ours.
There are other countries too with laws.
There are campaigners for a law in this country too.
So, many of your fellow believers do see a need, because there are many cyclists who don't see one.
It is odd that some of the most prominent law advocates, like Angie Lee, don't cycle.

The problem with ‘injury stats’ is that they don’t look at consequential events. The helmet less rider very well may have been squished by a truck, and a helmet wouldn’t have
helped against the truck squishing, but that stat doesn’t take into account anything that happened previous to the big significant issue. Tragedies are almost universally the conclusion to a chain of events, if you break the event chain, you stop the tragedy. I’m pro helmet use, but compulsion is counter productive.

I have advised you to read up on risk homeostasis.
Please take a look at John Adams's book Risk.
It is on his website as a pdf.
It is surprisingly readable with little mathematics. It may make you see the world in a new way, whilst at the same time confirming some of your own ideas.
It covers much more than cycle helmets.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/RISK-BOOK.pdf

Marcus Aurelius wrote:The problem with ‘injury stats’ is that they don’t look at consequential events. The helmet less rider very well may have been squished by a truck, and a helmet wouldn’t have
helped against the truck squishing, but that stat doesn’t take into account anything that happened previous to the big significant issue. Tragedies are almost universally the conclusion to a chain of events, if you break the event chain, you stop the tragedy. I’m pro helmet use, but compulsion is counter productive.

Physically separating bikes from large and heavy vehicles would probably be the best way to prevent that particular chain of events. Perhaps that is why The Netherlands is the safest place for cyclists as they have focused on preventing serious crashes rather than trying to mitigate the consequences of minor crashes by telling cyclists to protect themselves.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

mattheus wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:If you hold your breath for long enough, you’ll pass out. Now ( to my knowledge) no one has ever done a study into this. However, I’d say that holding your breath until you pass out, is a stupid idea, and won’t end well. However, there’s no studies out there, so it mustn’t be a bad idea.

So are you going to ban breath-holding?

There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

You keep on stating that

The only Truth that is evident is that you have no proof or evidence for the statement

Wanlock Dod wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:The problem with ‘injury stats’ is that they don’t look at consequential events. The helmet less rider very well may have been squished by a truck, and a helmet wouldn’t have
helped against the truck squishing, but that stat doesn’t take into account anything that happened previous to the big significant issue. Tragedies are almost universally the conclusion to a chain of events, if you break the event chain, you stop the tragedy. I’m pro helmet use, but compulsion is counter productive.

Physically separating bikes from large and heavy vehicles would probably be the best way to prevent that particular chain of events. Perhaps that is why The Netherlands is the safest place for cyclists as they have focused on preventing serious crashes rather than trying to mitigate the consequences of minor crashes by telling cyclists to protect themselves.

In Australia pre helmet rules police were focusing on what drivers were doing, cracking down on speeding and cycle injury/death rates were already going down, then the helmet rules and the consequential events were that the focus of safety went onto the vulnerable party, massively less focus on motorists and their actions and as a consequence deaths and injury rates went up.

Too many types ignore the bad consequences of helmet wearing/helmet rules, too narrow minded to see what's actually happened everywhere, not just in cycling (both casual and sporting), but also in other sports, gridiron being one with huge consequences for ignoring the actions of those posing the harm and coming up with the solution with helmets, and look how that has worked out for that sport, epidemic proportions of brain injury problems in males who participated not even to pro level.
The problem with pro helmet types is that they don't look at the consequential events if it doesn't match their agenda, pure ignorance at best.

Cunobelin wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

mattheus wrote:So are you going to ban breath-holding?

There’s no need for a law, the truths are self evident.

You keep on stating that

The only Truth that is evident is that you have no proof or evidence for the statement

Like I said, there’s no ‘proof or evidence’ about the link between holding one’s breath, and passing out, but most people wouldn’t need such ‘proof or evidence’.