End of debate?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have noticed a tendency here for people to say cycling is different to everything else, therefore the experience gained in other sports is irrelevant,

And that's why your reasoning is flawed. Who said anything about 'sports'? What does sport have to do with it?

Sorry, I tend to use English as per the Oxford English dictionary (Definition of cycling: The sport or activity of riding a bicycle), and for me cycling is a sport not a commute, but hell yes, lets argue semantics, rather than having a constructive debate around what we all agree is a problem.  That will get us far

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn't work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

Griff500 wrote:

 

I have noticed a tendency here for people to say cycling is different to everything else, therefore the experience gained in other sports is irrelevant,

And that's why your reasoning is flawed. Who said anything about 'sports'? What does sport have to do with it?[/quote]

Sorry, I tend to use English as per the Oxford English dictionary (Definition of cycling: The sport or activity of riding a bicycle), and for me cycling is a sport not a commute,

[/quote]

Nah if it was sport, we would get a decent article out of the Guardian as per the OP article. 

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have noticed a tendency here for people to say cycling is different to everything else, therefore the experience gained in other sports is irrelevant,

And that's why your reasoning is flawed. Who said anything about 'sports'? What does sport have to do with it?

Sorry, I tend to use English as per the Oxford English dictionary (Definition of cycling: The sport or activity of riding a bicycle), and for me cycling is a sport not a commute, but hell yes, lets argue semantics, rather than having a constructive debate around what we all agree is a problem.  That will get us far

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn't work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

 

Read very slightly between the lines in my posts and you can very clearly see that either

- We separate cyclists from vehicles properly
- We stop drivers hitting cyclists that share the same carriageways (let's say we make close passes, phone use, shit excuses as socially unacceptable as drink driving, or 'think bike' include push bikes as well as motorbikes).

Deliberately obtuse cyclists like you really boil my piss. You would seemingly rather invest effort in making a trivial point on an Internet forum vs fellow cyclists while ignoring the Stats regarding the actual cause of cyclist KSIs than put equivalent effort into doing us all a favour.

It is not rocket (or even fucking styrofoam) science. It's basic probability. Wear your lid, as will I. As long as we keep getting hit by vehicles it matters jack shit. Read the figures please.

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

 

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn't work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

 

Read very slightly between the lines in my posts and you can very clearly see that either - We separate cyclists from vehicles properly

I don't even need to read between the lines of your posts to see that this is just another idea you have dismissed, or did you forget writing this: "we all know that we'll be on the roads with vehicles for the forseeable future, and so will our kids, maybe grandkids".

Fluffykitten has also comprehensively dismissed the suggestion that we educate drivers. We all know that helmets aren't perfect, and poster after poster quoting figures to remind us of that without proposing anything better is not moving us forward.

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

 

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn't work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

 

Read very slightly between the lines in my posts and you can very clearly see that either - We separate cyclists from vehicles properly

I don't even need to read between the lines of your posts to see that this is just another idea you have dismissed, or did you forget writing this: "we all know that we'll be on the roads with vehicles for the forseeable future, and so will our kids, maybe grandkids".

 

Fluffykitten has also comprehensively dismissed the suggestion that we educate drivers. We all know that helmets aren't perfect, and poster after poster quoting figures to remind us of that without proposing anything better is not moving us forward.

 

There's your first problem: I'm not dismissing it entirely. I wear a helmet. Fat lot of good it'll do me if I get rear-ended at 45mph on tomorrow's commute. That's your second problem.

I'm just appealing for proportion. I see me ranting about victim blaming and helmets not being a panacea and not kowtowing to a culture and propaganda machine that churns out guff like today's apparent THINK! hgv advert as more positive than laughing at 'flat earthers' for questioning research that clearly needs to be questioned.

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

 

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn't work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

 

Read very slightly between the lines in my posts and you can very clearly see that either - We separate cyclists from vehicles properly

I don't even need to read between the lines of your posts to see that this is just another idea you have dismissed, or did you forget writing this: "we all know that we'll be on the roads with vehicles for the forseeable future, and so will our kids, maybe grandkids".

 

Fluffykitten has also comprehensively dismissed the suggestion that we educate drivers. We all know that helmets aren't perfect, and poster after poster quoting figures to remind us of that without proposing anything better is not moving us forward.

 

There's your first problem: I'm not dismissing it entirely. I wear a helmet. Fat lot of good it'll do me if I get rear-ended at 45mph on tomorrow's commute. That's your second problem.

I'm just appealing for proportion. I see me ranting about victim blaming and helmets not being a panacea and not kowtowing to a culture and propaganda machine that churns out guff like today's apparent THINK! hgv advert as more positive than laughing at 'flat earthers' for questioning research that clearly needs to be questioned.

I don't disagree. I took a look at some if the upcoming Volvo car technology, and again, great effort seems to be going into preventing very specific damage. Eg an external airbag blows up in front of the windscreen. But if you miss the windscreen, you still get your balls ripped off by the door mirror!

Griff500 wrote:

Sadly I am old enough to remember when the wearing of seatbelts in cars was made mandatory in the UK. Those suffering from testosterone overdose argued that seatbelts increased certain risks such as drowning or fire due to the victim being trapped in the car by the seatbelt. Slightly more recently, there were the arguments against anti lock brakes on cars, suggesting that safer brakes just increased tailgating. Skiing went through the same anti-helmet arguments as cycling, and I have to say in this case I was a late adopter, and only bought a helmet when I saw the damage inflicted on a non-helmet wearer by the hard shell of somebody else's helmet in a crash. In my working life I have heard similar resistance to safety measures such as the wearing of safety goggles impeding visibility, and the wearing of ear defenders impeding hearing. Sadly there will always be people who look for reasons to justify the ignoring of common sense.

With regard to statements in the article that the wearing of cycle helmets reduces entry to cycling by  conveying the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, I can't believe anyone would take such a statement seriously. 

 

Compulsory seat-belts are in no way the same thing as compulsory cycle helmets. Is it really necessary to yet again explain the obvious? (That they are totally different issues, both in terms of practicalities and morality).

Also that you have trouble taking seriously things that are pretty obviously likely to be true (and supported by what data there is available) suggests your position is largely faith-based.

PS - do skiers often get run over by trucks or side-swiped by texting drivers?

The reason why the debate never ends is that there is a never-ending supply of compulsory helmet law advocates who keep presenting the same, already-answered, arguments as if they are new, without bothering to read the opposing arguments first. They seem a bit like climate-change deniers in that regard.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Sadly I am old enough to remember when the wearing of seatbelts in cars was made mandatory in the UK. Those suffering from testosterone overdose argued that seatbelts increased certain risks such as drowning or fire due to the victim being trapped in the car by the seatbelt. Slightly more recently, there were the arguments against anti lock brakes on cars, suggesting that safer brakes just increased tailgating. Skiing went through the same anti-helmet arguments as cycling, and I have to say in this case I was a late adopter, and only bought a helmet when I saw the damage inflicted on a non-helmet wearer by the hard shell of somebody else's helmet in a crash. In my working life I have heard similar resistance to safety measures such as the wearing of safety goggles impeding visibility, and the wearing of ear defenders impeding hearing. Sadly there will always be people who look for reasons to justify the ignoring of common sense.

With regard to statements in the article that the wearing of cycle helmets reduces entry to cycling by  conveying the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, I can't believe anyone would take such a statement seriously. 

 

Compulsory seat-belts are in no way the same thing as compulsory cycle helmets. Is it really necessary to yet again explain the obvious? (That they are totally different issues, both in terms of practicalities and morality). Also that you have trouble taking seriously things that are pretty obviously likely to be true (and supported by what data there is available) suggests your position is largely faith-based. PS - do skiers often get run over by trucks or side-swiped by texting drivers? The reason why the debate never ends is that there is a never-ending supply of compulsory helmet law advocates who keep presenting the same, already-answered, arguments as if they are new, without bothering to read the opposing arguments first. They seem a bit like climate-change deniers in that regard.

Where did I mention anything about compulsory helmet wearing in my post? If you're going to shoot down another poster, at least show him the respect of reading his post and understanding what he is saying first.

 As for your question about skiers being hit by texting drivers, no they don't but they regularly receive injury due to being hit by 3rd parties who are out of control. I am quite happy cycling on a quiet country lane without helmet, and quite happy skiing off piste without helmet as landing in the hedge or in deep snow is unlikely to be fatal. In both activities however, it is the increase in traffic which materially affects the risk, and whether I am going be hit by somebody else's ski hardware, or land on the bonnet of a car, I'd rather be wearing a helmet. As I suspect would the majority of cyclists, as borne out by the fact that the vast majority wear helmets.

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Sadly I am old enough to remember when the wearing of seatbelts in cars was made mandatory in the UK. Those suffering from testosterone overdose argued that seatbelts increased certain risks such as drowning or fire due to the victim being trapped in the car by the seatbelt. Slightly more recently, there were the arguments against anti lock brakes on cars, suggesting that safer brakes just increased tailgating. Skiing went through the same anti-helmet arguments as cycling, and I have to say in this case I was a late adopter, and only bought a helmet when I saw the damage inflicted on a non-helmet wearer by the hard shell of somebody else's helmet in a crash. In my working life I have heard similar resistance to safety measures such as the wearing of safety goggles impeding visibility, and the wearing of ear defenders impeding hearing. Sadly there will always be people who look for reasons to justify the ignoring of common sense.

With regard to statements in the article that the wearing of cycle helmets reduces entry to cycling by  conveying the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, I can't believe anyone would take such a statement seriously. 

 

Compulsory seat-belts are in no way the same thing as compulsory cycle helmets. Is it really necessary to yet again explain the obvious? (That they are totally different issues, both in terms of practicalities and morality). Also that you have trouble taking seriously things that are pretty obviously likely to be true (and supported by what data there is available) suggests your position is largely faith-based. PS - do skiers often get run over by trucks or side-swiped by texting drivers? The reason why the debate never ends is that there is a never-ending supply of compulsory helmet law advocates who keep presenting the same, already-answered, arguments as if they are new, without bothering to read the opposing arguments first. They seem a bit like climate-change deniers in that regard.

Where did I mention anything about compulsory helmet wearing in my post? If you're going to shoot down another poster, at least show him the respect of reading his post and understanding what he is saying first.

 As for your question about skiers being hit by texting drivers, no they don't but they regularly receive injury due to being hit by 3rd parties who are out of control. I am quite happy cycling on a quiet country lane without helmet, and quite happy skiing off piste without helmet as landing in the hedge or in deep snow is unlikely to be fatal. In both activities however, it is the increase in traffic which materially affects the risk, and whether I am going be hit by somebody else's ski hardware, or land on the bonnet of a car, I'd rather be wearing a helmet. As I suspect would the majority of cyclists, as borne out by the fact that the vast majority wear helmets.

You drew an analogy between the helmet argument and _compulsory_ seat belt wearing. What was the point in referring to the latter if you are just saying 'its up to the individual'?

Edit - actually, re-reading what you said originally, I do accept you didn't say you favoured a law compelling it, so I apologise, I just went with the implication of the seat-belt comparison, but you weren't in fact saying that so we have no disagreement after all. Feeling worried about too many people pushing such laws makes for trigger-finger posts.

Griff500 wrote:

With regard to statements in the article that the wearing of cycle helmets reduces entry to cycling by  conveying the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, I can't believe anyone would take such a statement seriously. 

 

There are surveys that have found as much. The trend in NSW for tougher cycling laws, penalties and mandatory helmet wearing CORRELATES (I won't argue causes yet)with a pretty drastic reduction in cycling. What you choose to believe about that does not trump it.

And that trend is worrying. Because we all know we're not going to get decent separate infrastructure soon, so we'll be on the roads with vehicles for the forseeable future, and so will our kids, maybe grandkids. And being a minority, an inconvenience, is not going to make us safer; the more cyclists there are, the more we're accepted, empathised with, looked out for, understood - killed, even, the more drivers and regulators will deal with us properly.

So if helmets actually do act as a deterrent to our numbers reaching that critical mass, I'd argue they're making us all less safe.

paulrattew wrote:

Very few people have ever argued against that. 

Have you been coming here long? Loads of people argue against it.

surly_by_name wrote:

paulrattew wrote:

Very few people have ever argued against that. 

Have you been coming here long? Loads of people argue against it.

I've seen people argue, rightly, about the design limitations of helmets and how the protection they provide against head injury is limited, or that they provide no protection against non-head injuries. I have not seen people argue that they provide no protection at all from head injuries. If you would like to provide some examples of people arguing exactly that on here then I will happily stand corrected.