That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
Mort7 said:
I think that it's inevitable that cycle helmets will become law at some time. It is, after all, necessary to wear a crash helmet when riding a moped - which is limited to 31 mph -
1. so what logical reason is there to exempt cycles which can, under some circumstances, attain faster speeds?
2. I was a biker when crash helmet legislation was introduced in 1973. I didn't like it, but soon got used to it, and eventually wouldn't consider riding without one. Those who protested at the time, and refused to wear a helmet, were prosecuted. Everyone soon got the message. A helmet saved my life a couple of years later, when I rather foolishly rode my bike into a telegraph pole at 60 mph.
3. I was a motorist when seat belt legislation was introduced in 1983. I didn't like that either, particularly as I had previously survived a RTA as a result of NOT wearing a seat belt. I soon got used to that too, and would now feel naked without one.
When cycle helmet legislation is introduced there will be protests,
4. but everyone will eventually fall into line - particularly when prosecutions become routine - and the introduction will be helped by the fact that the younger generation will have been made to wear helmets by their parents (who may not wear them themselves - hypocritical, or what?).
5. Resistance is futile!
I really don't understand your thinking, I really don't.1. so what logical reason is there to exempt cycles which can, under some circumstances, attain faster speeds?
2. I was a biker when crash helmet legislation was introduced in 1973. I didn't like it, but soon got used to it, and eventually wouldn't consider riding without one. Those who protested at the time, and refused to wear a helmet, were prosecuted. Everyone soon got the message. A helmet saved my life a couple of years later, when I rather foolishly rode my bike into a telegraph pole at 60 mph.
3. I was a motorist when seat belt legislation was introduced in 1983. I didn't like that either, particularly as I had previously survived a RTA as a result of NOT wearing a seat belt. I soon got used to that too, and would now feel naked without one.
When cycle helmet legislation is introduced there will be protests,
4. but everyone will eventually fall into line - particularly when prosecutions become routine - and the introduction will be helped by the fact that the younger generation will have been made to wear helmets by their parents (who may not wear them themselves - hypocritical, or what?).
5. Resistance is futile!
1. Have you not seen the film we're discussing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=372&am...
The answers are in there, and unless you know better than the health professionals, what is the problem? Please note the words "overwhelming body of evidence that the health benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the health risks."
2. This is crazy. Bikers do fewer miles than cyclists per annum in the uk, yet have a fatality rate nearly four times higher, and yet as a biker or former biker you're criticising the group that is far safer. That simply doesn't make any sense.
3. If you google it, you'll find strong evidence that where cycle helmets were mandatory numbers of cyclists reduced. In Australia it was said to have been like flicking a switch, such was the reduction in numbers of cyclists, and I have read that the numbers of adolescent girls cycling reduced by 90% and never recovered. As far as I am aware, there is nowhere in the world that can show an improvement in public health that can be attributed to cycle helmets, because any reduction in head injuries was achieved by reducing the numbers of cyclists. As cyclists are safer in numbers, this made life more dangerous for those who chose to continue.
Australia has now gone through a huge increase in rates of obesity and diabetes, and the costs are threatening to bankrupt state health budgets. Australia is now one of the fattest nations on the planet, and the costs are galactic compared to the costs of cycling and /or head injuries. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-pr...
>>Research shows that one of the main barriers to increasing cycling participation, particularly for women, is the perception that bike riding is dangerous. So how dangerous is cycling in Tasmania?
Evidence suggests bike riding is not fundamentally dangerous. The average Australian is more likely to be killed by lightning than by a cyclist. Further, the risk of being hospitalised for a bicycle-related injury is on a par with cricket, fishing, dancing and playing netball, while motor sports are 17 times more dangerous, rugby is six times, Aussie Rules four times and playing soccer or basketball are both two times more dangerous.<< https://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/breakin...
Nowhere in the world recorded a reduction of car use due to the introduction of seat belts, and if they did, nobody would say that was a bad thing. There is simply no correlation between seat belts and bicycle helmets, and let's not forget that even with seat belts and air bags, car occupants make up 44% of casualties.
4. Er well, they clearly haven't. Not "everyone" continued to cycle, as proven around the world. They might choose to walk instead, and in the uk walking has a higher fatality rate that cycling, and as shown in this thread, utility cycling can be very safe indeed, when 43 million journeys over 5 years produces just two fatalities (and we don't know if helmets would have prevented either)
5. Mass cycling is some 130 years old and yet in the UK we are simply nowhere near making helmet wear mandatory for adults. I'm 60 years old, I'll bet you a £1000 it doesn't get introduced in my life time.
Interesting article here, imo. https://theconversation.com/ditching-bike-helmets-...
>>A large study in Denmark found that commuter cycling for just three hours a week led to 39% fewer deaths (from any cause, including heart disease) compared with non cyclists, taking into account other leisure time physical activities and other explanatory factors.<<
frisbee said:
deltashad said:
I wouldn't buy a car from a regular cyclist. Not unless they used wetwipes frequently.
I wouldn’t buy a car from a motorist on one of these threads. They get far too excited by men in Lycra...
swisstoni said:
It is physically safer to wear a helmet. If you don’t want to bother, good luck.
Absolutely, 100% agree with you, and it applies to all people at all times.For instance I'm sat at my kitchen table, typing this. If I get up and trip over the table leg, and crack my head on the adjacent kitchen unit, I fully agree that I'd be safer wearing a helmet. After all, accidents in the home:
>>More accidents happen at home than anywhere else
Every year there are approximately 6,000 deaths as the result of a home accident<< (as opposed to 1700 on the roads).
Falls are the most common accidents, which can cause serious injury at any time of life. The risk increases with age.
The cost to society of UK home accident injuries has been estimated at £45.63billion (£45,630million) annually.<<
https://www.rospa.com/home-safety/advice/general/f...
Wear a helmet. At all times.
but I might not
swisstoni said:
saaby93 said:
heebeegeetee said:
saaby93 said:
Schmed said:
Only retarded lemmings with no sense of self preservation would challenge sensible Highway Code advice to “wear helmets and protective clothing”. Jesus Christ.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/...
Good video https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=372&am...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-46790235/...
The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
There are a number of issues
Cycling helmets dont protect as much as most people think they do, it can lead to a false sense of safety
and more risky behaviour.
Meanwhile other road users make less allowance as theyre nice and safe in their helmets
The overall effect isnt what youd first think.
I suspect that the reason that you don't understand my post, heebeegeetee, is because you haven't taken the time to read it, digest the content, and consider what I've actually written, before replying.
I haven't criticised anyone. I’ve merely expressed an opinion that cycle helmets will, at some time, become compulsory. Time will tell which of us is correct.
As regards the health benefits of cycling, I understand them because I used to do it myself many years ago, however there are other ways of getting excercise which are equally beneficial, less dangerous, and less confrontational. I'm older than you. I spend 20 minutes on a rowing machine each morning. No traffic, no fumes, no hassle, I can step straight into the shower afterwards, I exercise more than just my legs and my cardiovascular system, and nobody else is inconvenienced in any way (although our cat is clearly a bit bemused, and occasionally wanders in to watch).
It seems to me that many modern road cyclists are a bit like the members of a religious cult. And like other cultists they tend to be irrational, unforgiving of any criticism, and keen to punish unbelievers.
On the positive side self-righteous indignation does make me chuckle, and that, perhaps, is the problem. People who take themselves too seriously become thin-skinned and defensive.
Please feel free to take offence - even where none is intended. I'll do the reverse, as it seems to be a lot healthier.
I haven't criticised anyone. I’ve merely expressed an opinion that cycle helmets will, at some time, become compulsory. Time will tell which of us is correct.
As regards the health benefits of cycling, I understand them because I used to do it myself many years ago, however there are other ways of getting excercise which are equally beneficial, less dangerous, and less confrontational. I'm older than you. I spend 20 minutes on a rowing machine each morning. No traffic, no fumes, no hassle, I can step straight into the shower afterwards, I exercise more than just my legs and my cardiovascular system, and nobody else is inconvenienced in any way (although our cat is clearly a bit bemused, and occasionally wanders in to watch).
It seems to me that many modern road cyclists are a bit like the members of a religious cult. And like other cultists they tend to be irrational, unforgiving of any criticism, and keen to punish unbelievers.
On the positive side self-righteous indignation does make me chuckle, and that, perhaps, is the problem. People who take themselves too seriously become thin-skinned and defensive.
Please feel free to take offence - even where none is intended. I'll do the reverse, as it seems to be a lot healthier.
Edited by Mort7 on Tuesday 8th January 23:56
saaby93 said:
o that wasnt the main argument
There are a number of issues
Cycling helmets dont protect as much as most people think they do, it can lead to a false sense of safety
and more risky behaviour.
Meanwhile other road users make less allowance as theyre nice and safe in their helmets
The overall effect isnt what youd first think.
Sorry in amongst the irrespective of what people may think - are you saying that wearing cycling helmets, when cycling increases or decreases risk & severity of injuries?. It's a bit like climate change, nearly all studies show it's safer but some people will discount those and look to some studies that concentrate on one aspect and then extrapolate that to question all the other data. Cyclists in helmets are much safer the exact numbers vary by method but averaging out over 40 of the major studies which looked at 64000 accidents found the risk of severe head injury decreases by 69% and the risk of fatal head injury by 65%.There is no way that this can be off by any kind of meaningful amount. Increases to a couple of other injuries amount to 1 or 2 percent and none are serious. There are a number of issues
Cycling helmets dont protect as much as most people think they do, it can lead to a false sense of safety
and more risky behaviour.
Meanwhile other road users make less allowance as theyre nice and safe in their helmets
The overall effect isnt what youd first think.
The arguments against compulsion are separate and much stronger for all the reasons above.
As for risky behaviour and less allowances that is a repeated stated view based on part of a study from 2007 that when reviewed had got it wrong .. Here is what ..
ROSPA said:
Others state that the protective effect of cycle helmets is exaggerated, drawing on ‘risk compensation’. This is
where either cyclists or motorists change their behaviour as a result of a cyclist wearing a helmet, meaning
that any benefit of wearing a helmet is offset by an increase in risk in other areas (e.g. the cyclist riding faster
or motorists passing closer to the cyclist)
.
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances
included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible
explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not
wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins,
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any
support for this notion
where either cyclists or motorists change their behaviour as a result of a cyclist wearing a helmet, meaning
that any benefit of wearing a helmet is offset by an increase in risk in other areas (e.g. the cyclist riding faster
or motorists passing closer to the cyclist)
.
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances
included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible
explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not
wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins,
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any
support for this notion
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 00:44
Graveworm said:
Sorry in amongst the irrespective of what people may think - are you saying that wearing cycling helmets, when cycling increases or decreases risk & severity of injuries?. It's a bit like climate change, nearly all studies show it's safer but some people will discount those and look to some studies that concentrate on one aspect and then extrapolate that to question all the other data. Cyclists in helmets are much safer the exact numbers vary by method but averaging out over 40 of the major studies which looked at 64000 accidents found the risk of severe head injury decreases by 69% and the risk of fatal head injury by 65%.There is no way that this can be off by any kind of meaningful amount. Increases to a couple of other injuries amount to 1 or 2 percent and none are serious.
]
That study looked at 64,000 people who had had an accident, and while its figures are 60 and 70% etc, I would have thought 100% of people would benefit from a helmet whilst having an accident.]
Everybody: Pedestrians, who have a higher fatality rate than cyclists; people at home like possibly you and me now, home where most accidents happen and 6000 are killed per annum, as opposed to 100 cyclists. Motorists, who make up 44% of casualties. And of these people, there's possibly no downsides: If we wear helmets at home we're not going to exercise less, are we?
Surely *everybody* in an accident would benefit from a helmet?
So the next question has to be, why on earth do we confine this debate to only cyclists?
Ordinary, utility cycling is a very safe activity indeed which allows people to transport themselves at the same time as exercising and is an excellent solution to the very real and major problems of pollution, obesity and congestion. It doesn't need tampering with, and there are far, far bigger problems to worry about.
As the man said, there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the risks. Anyone who wants to tamper with this is plain bonkers imo, given that there are tens of thousands of lives that could be saved elsewhere, and which would also give people more productive lives and ease the financial burden to the nhs.
There simply isn't any logic to this debate. Those who probably do need to wear helmets already do. If people genuinely cared about others they would look elsewhere to improve lives and outcomes. What is really at the bottom of these 'debates' is this rather uniquely british hatred of cyclists, which also has very little logic or sense behind it. There's no more sense to this debate than there is behind the bizarre belief that ownership of a bicycle relieves one of tax.
Like, because "road tax".
heebeegeetee said:
That study looked at 64,000 people who had had an accident, and while its figures are 60 and 70% etc, I would have thought 100% of people would benefit from a helmet whilst having an accident.
Everybody: Pedestrians, who have a higher fatality rate than cyclists; people at home like possibly you and me now, home where most accidents happen and 6000 are killed per annum, as opposed to 100 cyclists. Motorists, who make up 44% of casualties. And of these people, there's possibly no downsides: If we wear helmets at home we're not going to exercise less, are we?
Surely *everybody* in an accident would benefit from a helmet?
So the next question has to be, why on earth do we confine this debate to only cyclists?
Ordinary, utility cycling is a very safe activity indeed which allows people to transport themselves at the same time as exercising and is an excellent solution to the very real and major problems of pollution, obesity and congestion. It doesn't need tampering with, and there are far, far bigger problems to worry about.
As the man said, there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the risks. Anyone who wants to tamper with this is plain bonkers imo, given that there are tens of thousands of lives that could be saved elsewhere, and which would also give people more productive lives and ease the financial burden to the nhs.
There simply isn't any logic to this debate. Those who probably do need to wear helmets already do. If people genuinely cared about others they would look elsewhere to improve lives and outcomes. What is really at the bottom of these 'debates' is this rather uniquely british hatred of cyclists, which also has very little logic or sense behind it. There's no more sense to this debate than there is behind the bizarre belief that ownership of a bicycle relieves one of tax.
Like, because "road tax".
There is no debate it's safer. Your non argument is, "So what! Don't tell anyone about it because other things are also dangerous. Telling cyclists that wearing a helmet is safer and may save your life is a bad idea", despite no evidence of that. Everybody: Pedestrians, who have a higher fatality rate than cyclists; people at home like possibly you and me now, home where most accidents happen and 6000 are killed per annum, as opposed to 100 cyclists. Motorists, who make up 44% of casualties. And of these people, there's possibly no downsides: If we wear helmets at home we're not going to exercise less, are we?
Surely *everybody* in an accident would benefit from a helmet?
So the next question has to be, why on earth do we confine this debate to only cyclists?
Ordinary, utility cycling is a very safe activity indeed which allows people to transport themselves at the same time as exercising and is an excellent solution to the very real and major problems of pollution, obesity and congestion. It doesn't need tampering with, and there are far, far bigger problems to worry about.
As the man said, there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the risks. Anyone who wants to tamper with this is plain bonkers imo, given that there are tens of thousands of lives that could be saved elsewhere, and which would also give people more productive lives and ease the financial burden to the nhs.
There simply isn't any logic to this debate. Those who probably do need to wear helmets already do. If people genuinely cared about others they would look elsewhere to improve lives and outcomes. What is really at the bottom of these 'debates' is this rather uniquely british hatred of cyclists, which also has very little logic or sense behind it. There's no more sense to this debate than there is behind the bizarre belief that ownership of a bicycle relieves one of tax.
Like, because "road tax".
If I hated cyclists I would:
1) Hate myself and
2) Not try to encourage them to use helmets.
Motorists would be worse off if they wore helmets, whereas cyclists would be much better off, which you keep ignoring.
There is no data to support the overall benefit of pedestrians wearing helmets, especially given the lower levels of accidents and injuries it's just fatalities that are higher per billion miles. Per journey, pedestrians are an order of magnitude safer, which is of course a measure of how many times you have to put on and take off a helmet.
It is a meaningless argument that others might benefit as well, what has that got to do with it, It's either a good thing or a bad thing? It's as spurious an argument as "Why try to stop terrorism when, most years, more cyclists die or are seriously injured as a result of not wearing helmets"
If more cyclists wore helmets, then less would die or be seriously injured which would indeed mean less burden on tax or more money to improve things for all cyclists whichever your point of view.
Graveworm said:
This is despite even ROSPA data showing the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists[/footnote]
Have you got a link to that data? The DTI report I've seen suggests that in collisions between cars and cyclists, it is more likely to be the fault of the motorists than the cyclist, especially if you exclude children from the data.Mave said:
Graveworm said:
This is despite even ROSPA data showing the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists[/footnote]
Have you got a link to that data? The DTI report I've seen suggests that in collisions between cars and cyclists, it is more likely to be the fault of the motorists than the cyclist, especially if you exclude children from the data.Mave said:
Graveworm said:
This is despite even ROSPA data showing the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists[/footnote]
Have you got a link to that data? The DTI report I've seen suggests that in collisions between cars and cyclists, it is more likely to be the fault of the motorists than the cyclist, especially if you exclude children from the data.One is KSI accidents involving cyclists (which may or may not involve a car or other vehicle) and the other is just cars and cyclists.
For all the back and forth about compulsory helmets the simple fact is that compulsion puts people off cycling - I am not sure anyone disagrees with that.
And that is a BAD thing - I am not sure anyone disagrees with that.
More cycling is simply better... for health, for the environment, for the safety of other cyclists, and even for road wear.
Do people disagree with that?
So what are the benefits to mandatory helmets?
Some casual cyclists might wear a helmet who don't now - like the chap on Boris bikes. Which might save the odd head injury here and there. For sure - it's safer.
BUT from what I can tell, the most risky cyclists (roadies, MTBers and regular commuters) all wear helmets anyway.
So the tiny benefit of a few casual cyclists being a bit safer is simply MASSIVELY offset by the highly significant reduction in overall levels of cycling.
Lastly, in fairness it IS safer to walk about the house in a helmet. I am not sure anyone disagrees.
HBGT's point is that you have to draw a line in where you enforce compulsion - no one wants to make pedestrians wear helmets EVEN THOUGH IT IS OBVIOUSLY SAFER.
Motorcycling.... well there aren't any health benefits to that so let's just make it law - helmets = safer.
But as above for cycling there ARE offsetting issues... so it is a balance.
One which has been shown time and again not to be worth the legislation.
Mort7 said:
I suspect that the reason that you don't understand my post, heebeegeetee, is because you haven't taken the time to read it, digest the content, and consider what I've actually written, before replying.
I haven't criticised anyone. I’ve merely expressed an opinion that cycle helmets will, at some time, become compulsory. Time will tell which of us is correct.
As regards the health benefits of cycling, I understand them because I used to do it myself many years ago, however there are other ways of getting excercise which are equally beneficial, less dangerous, and less confrontational. I'm older than you. I spend 20 minutes on a rowing machine each morning. No traffic, no fumes, no hassle, I can step straight into the shower afterwards, I exercise more than just my legs and my cardiovascular system, and nobody else is inconvenienced in any way (although our cat is clearly a bit bemused, and occasionally wanders in to watch).
It seems to me that many modern road cyclists are a bit like the members of a religious cult. And like other cultists they tend to be irrational, unforgiving of any criticism, and keen to punish unbelievers.
On the positive side self-righteous indignation does make me chuckle, and that, perhaps, is the problem. People who take themselves too seriously become thin-skinned and defensive.
Please feel free to take offence - even where none is intended. I'll do the reverse, as it seems to be a lot healthier.
Well. That's it, I suppose. Debate over.I haven't criticised anyone. I’ve merely expressed an opinion that cycle helmets will, at some time, become compulsory. Time will tell which of us is correct.
As regards the health benefits of cycling, I understand them because I used to do it myself many years ago, however there are other ways of getting excercise which are equally beneficial, less dangerous, and less confrontational. I'm older than you. I spend 20 minutes on a rowing machine each morning. No traffic, no fumes, no hassle, I can step straight into the shower afterwards, I exercise more than just my legs and my cardiovascular system, and nobody else is inconvenienced in any way (although our cat is clearly a bit bemused, and occasionally wanders in to watch).
It seems to me that many modern road cyclists are a bit like the members of a religious cult. And like other cultists they tend to be irrational, unforgiving of any criticism, and keen to punish unbelievers.
On the positive side self-righteous indignation does make me chuckle, and that, perhaps, is the problem. People who take themselves too seriously become thin-skinned and defensive.
Please feel free to take offence - even where none is intended. I'll do the reverse, as it seems to be a lot healthier.
I'll make this my last post on the thread, and then I'll get on my rowing machine to go to the cash machine 5 miles away, and on my way back I'll lock my rowing machine to the rowing machine racks outside the Co-op, and grab a loaf of bread and a pint of milk...
...or I might take my bike instead, as it'll allow me to do a couple of laps of the local MTB trails, and when I put the bike back when I finish I'll be in the shower just as quickly and conveniently as you. I'll exercise more than just my legs and CV system, as a solo ride in the woodland will include clearing my head and giving me some thinking space. Very little traffic, almost no fumes, no-one inconvenienced in any meaningful way (although the local Deer, Pheasant, and Squirrel population might be ever so slightly disturbed by my clattering about the otherwise serene forest). There's also the chance that other like-minded people will be out and about enjoying the woods, so I might find a random riding partner for an hour (and possibly go on to find I've made a friend for life), or have a chat with a cheerful dog walker.
Or I could stay indoors in a stuffy, sweaty space, and join the "Cult of the Perfect Rep" working out in isolation, staring at the same four walls day in, day out.
I'll tell you what. We'll agree to disagree, and you can go polish your halo for "not inconveniencing others" while exercising, then clog up the roads by driving to a nearby shop you could easily walk to because a rowing machine is f
k all use for nipping to the shop for bread and milk, ye' nugget...nickfrog said:
julian64 said:
I made the mistake of posting about a single episode of unreasonable cycling in my neck of the woods and the same old faces who I subsequently found are on every thread on PH came to roundly accuse me of cyclist hating.
I think people mainly accused you of lying as you claimed to have been stuck behind a "lycra lout" as you call them for 45 minutes (from memory). I was accused of many things from ALL cyclist hating to outright lying which took me back a bit, I've often enjoyed strong discussions on PH but never been accused of outright lying, and you can't really protect yourself from that. I stupidly tried arguing that I had a bike which I used regularly so couldn't be a cyclist hater, and even posted the route I took to prove the approximate time delayed and the lack of a passing place. I stupidly thought anyone was listening. In retrospect I should have just left it at the first post because nothing said after that was going to make any difference. The problem comes back to militants. If you are one you don't think you are, and if you aren't one then nothing you have to say matters.
Mave said:
Have you got a link to that data? The DTI report I've seen suggests that in collisions between cars and cyclists, it is more likely to be the fault of the motorists than the cyclist, especially if you exclude children from the data.
It is more likely to be the fault of the motorist in reported collisions with motorists. But that doesn't include the 16% of reported accidents where the cyclist was the only vehicle involved, the estimated 2 or three times more where the cyclist is seriously injured, but it was never reported to Police (Which are far less likely to have involved a vehicle) and any which didn't take place on the road. I would suggest helmets, are logically, at least equal help, probably more when no motor vehicles are involved. https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 09:43
walm said:
HBGT's point is that you have to draw a line in where you enforce compulsion - no one wants to make pedestrians wear helmets EVEN THOUGH IT IS OBVIOUSLY SAFER.
Not convinced it would be.It could lead to more risky behaviour (not only by the pedestrian but others towards them) and end up being less safe overall
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff