Cycling UK Forum

Oldjohnw wrote:That sounds like you think that helmets/certain clothing does offer protection after all.

I wouldn’t question whether or not a cycle helmet might offer some protection in a minor incident, perhaps falling off at low speed, but I think it is clear that they don’t offer any meaningful protection in higher speed incidents involving cars or other heavy vehicles. That doesn’t affect the fact that overall as a society we expect people on bikes to protect themselves, even if the equipment that they are expected to use is essentially useless for the kinds of conditions that they are expected to protect themselves from.

Mike Sales wrote:Driving really is a unique case, so an exact analogy is not available....

It is not a unique case because it is so dangerous, rather it is as dangerous as it is because we consider that danger to be socially acceptable and that is the unique thing about it.

Wanlock Dod wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:Driving really is a unique case, so an exact analogy is not available....

It is not a unique case because it is so dangerous, rather it is as dangerous as it is because we consider that danger to be socially acceptable and that is the unique thing about it.

That is another way of putting it, of saying essentially the same thing. Nothing else as dangerous to others is allowed so freely.
I doubt you can think of an exact analogy.

I suppose how good an analogy it is depends upon whether you consider it to be a choice that motorists make not to drive carefully, or if it is simply unavoidable that when they are not bothering to be careful sometimes pedestrians and cyclists get maimed and killed.

One particular poster seems to think:

The utility cyclist wrote:... 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.

Whereas actually:

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



This is the second time I've pointed that out. Strange that he hasn't deigned to reply.

mikeymo wrote:One particular poster seems to think:

The utility cyclist wrote:... 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.

Whereas actually:

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


This is the second time I've pointed that out. Strange that he hasn't deigned to reply.

Every photo this week on FB posts has shown kids with helmets, cycling groups with helmets, it's all so predictable. Last year i showed the linked to articles regarding women in cycling and various other articles. Quite literally 99% of the articles CUK put up or were linked to showed cyclists in hi-vis and/or helmets.
So actually your single photo is the exception by a long, long way!

mikeymo wrote:One particular poster seems to think:

The utility cyclist wrote:... 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.

Whereas actually:

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



This is the second time I've pointed that out. Strange that he hasn't deigned to reply.

Because they are cheap?

There was a discussion a while back about this and few were actually commissioned. Most are stock photos, and this incurs a cost

In these cases, if the photo had a helmet and was free, they would use that rather than the helmetless one that cost money to use.

It is a financial decision rather than choosing whether or not that rider wears a particular clothing item, rides a particular bike etc

Smudgerii wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:

Smudgerii wrote:
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”

Are you going to enlighten me TUC? Or are the arguments just false?

Oldjohnw wrote:

Wanlock Dod wrote:Quite so.
We don’t expect women to protect themselves from dangerous rapists.
We don’t expect folk in London to protect themselves from dangerous attackers with knives.
We don’t expect American school children to protect themselves from dangerous gunmen.
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

That sounds like you think that helmets/certain clothing does offer protection after all.

You're not answering the question John - shame on you!
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

This unit is budgeting for a black helmet for the upcoming buzzard breeding season. You don't know where those talons have been.

mattheus wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:

Wanlock Dod wrote:Quite so.
We don’t expect women to protect themselves from dangerous rapists.
We don’t expect folk in London to protect themselves from dangerous attackers with knives.
We don’t expect American school children to protect themselves from dangerous gunmen.
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

That sounds like you think that helmets/certain clothing does offer protection after all.

You're not answering the question John - shame on you!
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

1. The question wasn't addressed to me.
2. It appears to be rhetorical.
3. I replied to an apparenly rhetorical question.
4. In more direct reply, as my previous occasional comments have already made clear, I have no expectations of people. They are, IMv, entitled as thinking adults to make up their own minds.

So in France, buses can fly and attack you from above? Wow.

We don’t expect women to protect themselves from dangerous rapists.
We don’t expect folk in London to protect themselves from dangerous attackers with knives.
We don’t expect American school children to protect themselves from dangerous gunmen.
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers

Oldjohnw wrote:

mattheus wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:
That sounds like you think that helmets/certain clothing does offer protection after all.

You're not answering the question John - shame on you!
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

1. The question wasn't addressed to me.
2. It appears to be rhetorical.
3. I replied to an apparenly rhetorical question.
4. In more direct reply, as my previous occasional comments have already made clear, I have no expectations of people. They are, IMv, entitled as thinking adults to make up their own minds.

The trouble is, you are dodging the more important issue; currently society expects people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers.

What do you think about that?

Society does. It is no secret.

At the same time, since drivers too often are dangerous, I will take all the care I can. At present, no-one else is going to help me. That does not extend, in my case, to wearing a helmet or hi-vis. I have made that clear many times.

So I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Wanlock Dod wrote:Quite so.
We don’t expect women to protect themselves from dangerous rapists.
We don’t expect folk in London to protect themselves from dangerous attackers with knives.
We don’t expect American school children to protect themselves from dangerous gunmen.
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

But there is no protection from dangerous drivers,by their very nature they are dangerous.A helmet has little proven protection above 12mph,hiviz can itself,as can wearing black,be more difficult to see in some situations,but so can any colour if motorists aren't paying due care and attention to their driving and the road on which they're on.

The problem is the enforcement of traffic law which is scant at best and none existant at worst,worst being more than likely.Add to that over lenient penalties and courts not willing to hand down maximum penalties even when they can and we have what we have,a free for all lawless road system where the vulnerable and particularly cyclists are often are treated with the most appalling lack of respect,even being blamed for just being on the road and not paying their way to be there at all.
The problem is societal,ingrained and has been for a long time.

EDIT,With that backdrop steps forward someone has the bright idea that the UK take away cyclist's freedom by imposing a ban on the wearing of helmets or hi viz in the belief that not only will it increase cycling but save the NHS a fortune.