helmets from Why wear black?

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
Cunobelin
Posts: 10128
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 18 Feb 2020, 8:06pm

Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10128
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 18 Feb 2020, 8:06pm

Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!

fastpedaller
Posts: 2321
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby fastpedaller » 18 Feb 2020, 8:32pm

pjclinch wrote:
mattheus wrote:There are also many clubs, workplaces and event organisers who enforce helmet-wearing. This is not a "freedom of choice" situation.

It's like saying "I've got nothing against LGBT people, but they're not coming in my pub/club/hotel/etc.

And every year a couple of celebs and/or politicians launch a campaign to mandate helmets. Even people like G.Thomas support them!


EDIT: to add "workplaces"


G's support, as with Wiggo's and other pros before, is another illustration of how culture underpins what people think. If you are in an environment day-in, day-out where it literally goes without saying that you'll wear a helmet and everybody always wear a helmet, you will naturally come to think they're a Good Thing. This is not at all surprising and doesn't actually reflect that badly on them because it's a perfectly normal way to think.

What's quite noticeable is how surprised these people are when it's pointed out to them that it's not cut and dried, and when one of the figures pointing this out is Chris Boardman, who they probably worked with to some degree, respect and who is well known within their culture as someone who gets his facts straight that is a much bigger wake-up than some random on Twitter, because there's no shortage of randoms on Twitter who'll tell you stuff you don't believe and have no particular cause to believe.

Pete.

The riders of the grand tours survived (pretty much) for a very long time without helmets - just saying :?

Smudgerii
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 18 Feb 2020, 8:50pm

Cunobelin wrote:Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!


And?

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3871
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby pjclinch » 18 Feb 2020, 9:06pm

fastpedaller wrote:The riders of the grand tours survived (pretty much) for a very long time without helmets - just saying :?


They did, but not in the time frame that G was being indoctrinated in to helmet culture.

As I recall the pro peloton considered striking against compulsory helmets " back in the day".

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2914
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby The utility cyclist » 18 Feb 2020, 9:14pm

Smudgerii wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Those of us that don't/never have worn helmets are essentially the robust data that makes banning helmets a logical solution that should take the choice out of the populations hands. If you chuck in a ban on hi-vis then we know that will massively increase the amount of time police and government both locally and nationally will spend on looking elsewhere. Considering all the crimes plod must have resolved to be spending so much time and effort on handing out hi-vis and BS regarding helmets they can't have anything else to do so must have to then get onto the main problem of the roads because there's nowt else for them to resolve :roll:

That extra focus on motorists due to not spending time on harassing people on bikes will increase the safety of motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

So banning helmets is not just good for cyclists, it would also reduce the NHS bill by billions, reduce pollution, reduce the heartache for thousands of families, how can we not ban them, frankly it's socially irresponsible to wear them, and as CUK normalises the wearing of helmets and hi-vis with their continual displaying of helmets in their photos and events and by not condemning helmet wearing are also socially irresponsible and complicit.


How are you any different than those who want to impose hi-vis and helmets on others?

Your arguments are poorly delivered, that no balanced decision can be achieved.

Please provide some proof of the events, benefits, cost savings you continually claim.

My stance has a massively positive effect on individuals and populations, communities, health, economy, pretty much everything, those pushing for helmets and hi-vis has the complete opposite effect. Misery, pollution, death, land rape, ill health, declining economy, to not ban helmets and hi-vis and focus the attention onto motoring is frankly bizarre in the extreme, illogical and hangs a noose around our necks.

You on the other hand have ZERO argument and cannot disprove what I've said and yet we know that helmets/hi-vis does exactly what I' ve said it does and the results of that are having a huge negative effect. To go in the opposite direction can only be beneficial, if you can't see the argument for that then that's your failing not mine.

Smudgerii
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 18 Feb 2020, 10:10pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Those of us that don't/never have worn helmets are essentially the robust data that makes banning helmets a logical solution that should take the choice out of the populations hands. If you chuck in a ban on hi-vis then we know that will massively increase the amount of time police and government both locally and nationally will spend on looking elsewhere. Considering all the crimes plod must have resolved to be spending so much time and effort on handing out hi-vis and BS regarding helmets they can't have anything else to do so must have to then get onto the main problem of the roads because there's nowt else for them to resolve :roll:

That extra focus on motorists due to not spending time on harassing people on bikes will increase the safety of motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

So banning helmets is not just good for cyclists, it would also reduce the NHS bill by billions, reduce pollution, reduce the heartache for thousands of families, how can we not ban them, frankly it's socially irresponsible to wear them, and as CUK normalises the wearing of helmets and hi-vis with their continual displaying of helmets in their photos and events and by not condemning helmet wearing are also socially irresponsible and complicit.


How are you any different than those who want to impose hi-vis and helmets on others?

Your arguments are poorly delivered, that no balanced decision can be achieved.

Please provide some proof of the events, benefits, cost savings you continually claim.

My stance has a massively positive effect on individuals and populations, communities, health, economy, pretty much everything, those pushing for helmets and hi-vis has the complete opposite effect. Misery, pollution, death, land rape, ill health, declining economy, to not ban helmets and hi-vis and focus the attention onto motoring is frankly bizarre in the extreme, illogical and hangs a noose around our necks.

You on the other hand have ZERO argument and cannot disprove what I've said and yet we know that helmets/hi-vis does exactly what I' ve said it does and the results of that are having a huge negative effect. To go in the opposite direction can only be beneficial, if you can't see the argument for that then that's your failing not mine.


My stance on the other hand, is about freedoms. Freedom to choose not to wear a helmet, not to wear hi-vis. And for those that want to wear them, the respect to accept they are responsible for their own actions.

Who are you to take away those freedoms? Are you elected? Or just a self appointed champion of a cause you want to force on others?

Maybe I could pick one of your arguments on the positives and you can enlighten me, and the World? Try “economy”.

And the same for a negative... lets go with “ill health”

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 556
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 18 Feb 2020, 10:14pm

The utility cyclist wrote:... a massively positive effect on individuals and populations, communities, health, economy, ...

These really don’t seem to be things that have any place in modern British society, or at least if they do I haven’t seen any evidence of it in my lifetime. Indeed, why have those things when you could just spend more money on building roads and supporting the NHS, both of which have always been sure vote winners for decades.

mikeymo
Posts: 525
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mikeymo » 18 Feb 2020, 10:40pm

The utility cyclist wrote: So banning helmets is not just good for cyclists, it would also reduce the NHS bill by billions, reduce pollution, reduce the heartache for thousands of families, how can we not ban them, frankly it's socially irresponsible to wear them, and as CUK normalises the wearing of helmets and hi-vis with their continual displaying of helmets in their photos and events and by not condemning helmet wearing are also socially irresponsible and complicit.


I'm confused. Is the "CUK" you refer to Cycling UK? This organisation:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets

That has this picture on their page about cycle helmets:

Image

That's five cyclists, without helmets, and no hi-vis.

the same organisation that says:

"Cycling UK is opposed to both cycle helmet laws and to helmet promotion campaigns "

in this document:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2019/11/helmets-policy_4s_cuk_rv.pdf

mikeymo
Posts: 525
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mikeymo » 18 Feb 2020, 10:54pm

Smudgerii wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!


And?


Well, it proves it, doesn't it? FACT!!

fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 472
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby fullupandslowingdown » 19 Feb 2020, 12:20am

only thing that that proves is the company is elf and safety bonkers. I believe in the efficacy of hi vis, but wearing on the footpath like that, ridiculous. I'd wonder if they have a sign warning them that the kettle might have hot water.

As an aside, poll time again. How people have those 13A plug socket "safety" plug in covers plugged in at home in case of toddler invasion?
download.png

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10128
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 19 Feb 2020, 6:05am

Smudgerii wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!


And?

They will all walk along the same pavement on the way home without the vest... why?

User avatar
Syd
Posts: 368
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Syd » 19 Feb 2020, 6:55am

Cunobelin wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!


And?

They will all walk along the same pavement on the way home without the vest... why?

Meaningless without context of what goes on before and after. What is the job of those wearing hi-viz at that time? We’re they taking a temporary departure from a role where hi-viz makes sense and it’s more hassle than not to remove and put back on hi-viz?

My team are required to wear hi-viz when in and around a busy goods yard they visit on an irregular basis for deliveries or collections. Generally, for convenience, they don hi-viz in the workshop, walk through the hospital to the goods yard and remove it when they return to the workshop. Easier to wear than carry.

Smudgerii
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 19 Feb 2020, 8:12am

Cunobelin wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Saw an incident today where a package was taken to a van parked in a delivery bay, tight against a pavement.

The three staff involved walked along the pavement handed the driver the package.... and all wore HiViz to do so!


And?

They will all walk along the same pavement on the way home without the vest... why?



Because in work time the business have made the decision to enforce a hi-viz policy, whereas in their own time they are free to make a free choice on their own safety....

Kinda makes the case for freedom of choice, something UC deems the masses unsuitable of.

reohn2
Posts: 37780
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby reohn2 » 19 Feb 2020, 8:37am

The utility cyclist wrote:My stance has a massively positive effect on individuals and populations, communities, health, economy, pretty much everything, those pushing for helmets and hi-vis has the complete opposite effect. Misery, pollution, death, land rape, ill health, declining economy, to not ban helmets and hi-vis and focus the attention onto motoring is frankly bizarre in the extreme, illogical and hangs a noose around our necks.

You on the other hand have ZERO argument and cannot disprove what I've said and yet we know that helmets/hi-vis does exactly what I' ve said it does and the results of that are having a huge negative effect. To go in the opposite direction can only be beneficial, if you can't see the argument for that then that's your failing not mine.

Your theory on helmets and hi viz,for it is only a theory without any foundation or fact.
In other posts you mention rape in relation to womens revealing clothing(short skirts low tops,etc) by your logic women should be banned from wearing such clothing so they don't attract attention from potential rapists.

The main threat to cyclists health are motor traffic,as a country we'd do well for everyone's safety by first employing an effective traffic police force and making penalties harsher for motorists with no fancy lawer get out clauses for those who can afford it.Whilst at the same time implementing a law of the those who are capable of causing the most harm to take the most blame.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.