Reply to: Compulsary bike helmets?

[EternalOptimist]

Plenty of burglaries happen during the working day so again your theory fails.

Thats like saying you dont need to turn the lights on when you drive at night because the lights dont need to know what they are coming from


I am sorry. but I have been drinking.

[SueEllen]

You think burglars would rob during working hours instead if they run real risk of being shot dead during night time?

Burglars aren't the brighest bunch which I learnt from personal experience.

[AtW]

Plenty of burglaries happen during the working day so again your theory fails.

You think burglars would rob during working hours instead if they run real risk of being shot dead during night time?

[SueEllen]

It's all about statistical control of populations isn't it ?

Seatbelts will infringe your freedom and cost you money, but we know statistically that they will save 20 lives per year. Not neccessarily YOUR life, but A life.

And it worked. Same with drink driving and motorbike helmets. You can see in the figures when certain measures were introduced.

Of course if the aim were to prevent deaths of cyclists, then bikes would be banned. No one would ever be injured riding a bike again. People would save money but it's a massive intrusion on freedom.

Thats the balance that I can see. a triangle . freedom vs cost vs benefit

The cyclists would then die of health related diseases so your theory is wrong there.

Remember the lycra and helmet brigade do it for sport.

you could reduce burglary in this country to near zero by introducing a 9 oclock curfew with a shoot on sight policy. impact on freedom - massive, cost - not much, benefit - middling

etc

Plenty of burglaries happen during the working day so again your theory fails.

[d000hg]

Should a child wear a helmet when cycling in the park? Should they be banned from playing Rugby incase they break bones? What about kids climbing trees? Rope swings over water? ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.... someone might die!

Presumably drink-driving should be allowed too, after all not every drunk driver crashes.

This is a crap troll.

[Ticktock]

Should a child wear a helmet when cycling in the park? Should they be banned from playing Rugby incase they break bones? What about kids climbing trees? Rope swings over water? ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.... someone might die!

I'm not arguing over whether they should. You said "You can't force someone" and I'm saying you can.

[EternalOptimist]

It's all about statistical control of populations isn't it ?

Seatbelts will infringe your freedom and cost you money, but we know statistically that they will save 20 lives per year. Not neccessarily YOUR life, but A life.

And it worked. Same with drink driving and motorbike helmets. You can see in the figures when certain measures were introduced.

Of course if the aim were to prevent deaths of cyclists, then bikes would be banned. No one would ever be injured riding a bike again. People would save money but it's a massive intrusion on freedom.

Thats the balance that I can see. a triangle . freedom vs cost vs benefit


you could reduce burglary in this country to near zero by introducing a 9 oclock curfew with a shoot on sight policy. impact on freedom - massive, cost - not much, benefit - middling

etc

[Underscore Pt2]

Actually some parents ban their kids from doing lots of things - so you shouldn't joke.

Remember parents are responsible for their children's well-being.

Exactly...and after taking an 8yo school football session last night I really fear for the children. Some of these kids were actually scared of a football and its the parents that turn them into that. A ball hit a kids hand and he started crying...nothing wrong with him...and his mum took him away. I have kids and I'd be ashamed if they were like that.

[SueEllen]

Should a child wear a helmet when cycling in the park? Should they be banned from playing Rugby incase they break bones? What about kids climbing trees? Rope swings over water? ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.... someone might die!

Actually some parents ban their kids from doing lots of things - so you shouldn't joke.

Remember parents are responsible for their children's well-being.

[DaveB]

Please explain how i am going to be killed by not wearing a helmet... SOME poor people have died not wearing a helmet. IF i put a helmet on it doesnt mean i wont be kiiled by a car at some point. You cannot force people to wear a helmet on a bike.

No, but it does reduce the likelihood of it happening. It's the difference between your head smacking into the kerb at 20mph and fracturing your skull or getting away with concussion.

[Underscore Pt2]

Yes, of course you can. It just isn't currently done in this country.
What you're saying is the same as "You cannot force people to wear a seatbelt in a car".
OK, you can't physically check every person, every time and ensure a 100% compliance rate, but you can put measures in place to "encourage" their use.

Should a child wear a helmet when cycling in the park? Should they be banned from playing Rugby incase they break bones? What about kids climbing trees? Rope swings over water? ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.... someone might die!

[Ticktock]

You cannot force people to wear a helmet on a bike.

Yes, of course you can. It just isn't currently done in this country.
What you're saying is the same as "You cannot force people to wear a seatbelt in a car".
OK, you can't physically check every person, every time and ensure a 100% compliance rate, but you can put measures in place to "encourage" their use.

[Underscore Pt2]

In that case, your views are stupid.

Whether you should be forced to wear a helmet, I don't know. Defending your right to be an arse Vs defending other people from the horror when they kill you due to lack of helmet!

Please explain how i am going to be killed by not wearing a helmet... SOME poor people have died not wearing a helmet. IF i put a helmet on it doesnt mean i wont be kiiled by a car at some point. You cannot force people to wear a helmet on a bike.

[DaveB]

Seriously look at some cycle lanes or get on a bike and ride along some before making such a stupid comment. You are more likely to mow someone down or injury them if cyclists insisted on using some of the more stupidly placed cycle lanes in London.

Indeed, in particular those on roads that have central islands ion them as a traffic calming measure that narrow the lanes. I always pull into the middle of the lane for these because if I don't some idiot in a car or a van will try and squeeze past me regardless of the amount of room available.

Not to mention the need to get out of the way of busses pulling into bus stops etc that mean we have to pull out into traffic to get past them. Yes, cyclists should look and indicate before doing so, but equally car drivers should be aware of whats going on in front of them and it's reasonable to expect a cyclist to pull out to get past a bus if it's indicating thats it's going to pull into a bus stop in front of you.

Then there are the wheel eating potholes that will wreck your bike or chuck you off into traffic or both if you don't avoid them. The most useful skill I ever learnt riding in London was being able to bunny hop over them in an emergency.

[d000hg]

Smart enough never to have been close to an accident on my bike

I think the word is lucky, not smart. Sure, you can avoid roads which are more dangerous and be vigilant, but not every factor is under your control.