Smudgerii wrote:BlueRider wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.
The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.
Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.
This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.
The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.
What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.
Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.
The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.
And where do you stand on freedom of choice?
Safety is everyones responsibility, but in this instance only the rider should decide on the level of protection they provide to themselves.
I will give up on cycling and motorcycling should hi-vis ever be made compulsory, at no point will hi-vis improve a drivers ability/concern. Put the emphasis on improving driving standards, not on victim blaming.
I completely agree that making wearing hi-vis compulsory would be appalling but to give up cycling? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face? The ill-advised legislators would be the winners.