SilverBadge wrote:KTM690 wrote:I think compulsory wearing of helmets is a good idea.
Rank these in order of priority
a) Saving 10% of 120 fatalities annually
b) Saving 10% of 600 fatalities annually
c) Saving 20% of 1200 fatalities annually
d) Saving 10% of 300 fatalities annually.
If someone picked (a) in priority to the other three, would you regard them as an idiot? I would.What did you do to the other 99+% of non-cyclists that sustained head injuries - ignore them?My perspective is from working in A+E for over 15 years and dealing with many cyclists that have sustained head injuries.I don't see why I should pay more tax to care for those injured that could've reduced their injury with a helmet.
Excellent - so we're not restricting this to cyclists. Please list the specific activities for which humans will be legally permitted to remove a helmet (to EN1078 spec) from their heads.
Read up on "Vision Zero"
It's a really daft idea thats fundamentally based on the goal of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. That's the standard their lobbying/advice is based on and our Govt' is signed up to it
Bear this in mind when organising your defence.
Also consider this.
Blaming motorists for cycle accidents is futile when you look at the history of road accidents.
There have always been accidents on our roads due to traffic.
There was "traffic" before the invention of motorcars in the form of horses and stagecoaches.
Footpaths were partly created to seperate pedestrians from horse and carriage as many were run down by galloping horses.
So even in the complete abscence of motorvehicles there have always been RTA's - Road Traffic Accidents.
Cyclists have been the focus of persecution for their percieved/real threat to pedestrians based on the historical seperation of users.
It used to be illegal to cycle on bridleways for this reason. As a legacy of this cyclists are required to give way to equestrians.
Tackling "vision Zero" will go a long way in deflecting the imposition of helmet law