Firebird wrote:My apologies folks. I thought that I was encouraging people to return to the roads on two wheels who like myself have been absent from the saddle or have not ridden at all.
And you think that telling everybody that cycling is so very very dangerous that you need to kit yourself out with protective head gear is going to achieve that???? Do you imagine that tobacco companies voluntarily stick health warnings on their products as a marketing strategy?
Whenever there has been a serious effort to promote cycle helmets this has resulted in a decline in cycling.
I had no idea that there were so many facists.
Is this a new entry to the dictionary:
facist n. One who believes that cycling is a normal routine method of transportation that does not require any specialised protective equipment. Not to be confused with:
fascist n. supporter of extreme right wing politics.
I thought cycling was an activity that "everyman" could engage in,
No, that is what the rest of us think. You appear to think that it is some kind of extreme sport for which protective equipment is required.
however it seems there is a lot of snobbery and elitism in it.
I always find rational argument is so much more persuasive than name calling.
Obviously you look down on learners who are trying to get started.
How is not telling someone to wear a helmet “looking down” on them?
As none of you have actually seen the films yet really you are not qualified to comment on the angle I am taking.
We are only commenting on the bit where you posted:
” I really do believe that people should be encouraged to use cycle helmets, and have put this in the film.”Now, it is true, some others did jump to the assumption that you were singling out cyclists for this treatment, while I did ask if all the pedestrians (ie those at a slightly greater risk of injury) in your film would also be helmeted. If everyone has got it wrong and your film advocates that everyone should wear a helmet all the time whatever they are doing all you have to do is say. However, if your film is claiming that cycling is so much more dangerous than other forms of transport that you need to wear a helmet then what you are doing is promoting those other safer forms of transport.
So tell us… What angle are you taking wrt helmets?
Remember the films are aimed at people starting off their lives as cyclists, and the films are about using bikes for daily travelling and family outings.
Quite, so something that is a perfectly normal safe activity that does not require any specialised clothing or equipment other than a bike.
They are not aimed at competitive or sports cyclists- if we get people using bikes again then they can turn to more competent and sporty minded cyclists for advice later.
And if you were aiming at that market then there would be less of an issue with promoting helmets. Racing or mountain biking are risky activities for which an element of danger are part of the attraction and shed loads of expensive specialised kit, including helmets, are a good idea.
If you were promoting alpine mountaineering then a helmet is a must, but if you turned up on a pedestrian forum suggesting that helmets were needed to walk to the local shops I suspect you would get a much more robust response than you did here.
