Wanlock Dod wrote:Smudgerii wrote:...a ban on hi-vis and helmets brings the benefits...
Given that the promotion of hi-viz and helmets has certainly not increased uptake of cycling is it that extreme a view to suppose that the opposite might be true? What effect does the use of these “safety aids” by cyclists have on the opinions of those that don’t cycle about how safe cycling is as a means of transport for short journeys? Does it make them think that cycling is the kind of safe and normal activity that they could do themselves, or is it more likely to make them think that cycling is dangerous and dissuade them from participating in it?
If cyclists did not use these “safety aids” and rode about in ordinary attire might people think that cycling was a safe and normal activity and consider giving it a go themselves? Furthermore, given that the safety in numbers effect does correlate with cyclist safety that could mean even safer cycling, and even greater public health benefits as a result.
Please quote the statement in full, you give a false impression of my post.
Promotion has not increased uptake, but whoever thought it would? So why would a ban Suddenly reverse that trend?
We currently have choice, if we restrict choice then we risk placing yet another obstacle in the path of increasing the uptake.
So far we’ve had everything from the masses are not fit to decide for themselves, to saving the global economy through his ban on helmets and hi-vis. Well the masses have faired well enough on their own wit so far, and the global economy is not run by guys in hi-vis.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen any other group actively promote the restriction of choice in their own sport/pastime/hobby/commute. Baffling beyond reasoning, we should be fighting for choice not restriction.