That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

Author
Discussion

V6 Pushfit

11,319 posts

58 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Huw Janus said:
In the history of PH has anyone ever admitted they were wrong ?
I was wrong once. 1990 it was.

The day I got married.

Graveworm

2,821 posts

19 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
V6 Pushfit said:
I was wrong once. 1990 it was.

The day I got married.
I have yet to be right, but then I haven't been married as long as you wink

Graveworm

2,821 posts

19 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
yonex said:
Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious
It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.

heebeegeetee

26,775 posts

196 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.
Applies to everyone, and definitely to pedestrians who die at a higher rate and number.

This is leaving aside that a cycle helmet is designed to play no part whatsoever in a collision with a vehicle.

On average (and in reality, I believe), even day, week, month and year, more pedestrians have died than cyclists and more pedestrians have died than cyclists over distance. The number of journeys done makes no difference to these statistics at all.

Zigster

1,315 posts

92 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
yonex said:
Seems less about what’s right and work wrong and more about individuals moaning about sod all?

What impact does wearing a helmet have upon a non cyclist? It’s hilarious
It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.
And car occupants as well?

If car occupants are seriously injured or die, this impacts on other people in the same way as if they were cyclists. So why shouldn't everyone wear helmets when in a car? Many more people die or are seriously injured in cars each year than they are on bicycles, so if helmets are so important for cyclists why not for car occupants?

heebeegeetee

26,775 posts

196 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Tired said:
If some idiot on a bike cycles out in front of my car and I hit him, I'd rather they were wearing a helmet, as I'd prefer they didn't die.
But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?

Graveworm

2,821 posts

19 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Applies to everyone, and definitely to pedestrians who die at a higher rate and number.
You keep ignoring and failing to acknowledge the facts that don't suit you. For clarity and the last time. Pedestrians do not die at a higher rate than cyclists NOT wearing a helmet and cyclists are about three times more likely to be injured or seriously injured in an accident

heebeegeetee said:
On average (and in reality, I believe), even day, week, month and year, more pedestrians have died than cyclists and more pedestrians have died than cyclists over distance. The number of journeys done makes no difference to these statistics at all.

Again not more pedestrians over distance than cyclists without helmets, injuries are also mitigated by helmets so it's inappropriate to just deal with deaths. The number of journeys matters because that is how often you would need to carry, put on and remove a helmet that would
  • Still not be anywhere near as beneficial as it would be to as a cyclist
  • Not be recommended by any safety body and have no evidence that it's use was of overall benefit. The exact opposite of cycle helmets.
So in a benefit vs inconvenience it makes the case for use on a cycle many times stronger than for a pedestrian.
All of which is only a distraction from: "It is great idea for a cyclist to wear a helmet when they can" being a good message and to say it should be suppressed makes no logical sense at all.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 11:17

OpulentBob

10,714 posts

128 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Tired said:
If some idiot on a bike cycles out in front of my car and I hit him, I'd rather they were wearing a helmet, as I'd prefer they didn't die.
But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?
No. That's a massive misrepresentation of what he said.

If I say to someone, "I hope you have a nice day", it doesn't mean that I hope everyone else has a really stty day.

Or "Get well soon" to my mum doesn't mean I want everyone else in hospital to die.

Arguing points using basic kiddy logic like that doesn't help your case at all. Although I think you know it and you're just saying crap like that to get a reaction - you seem to like prodding to get a reaction.

Tired

259 posts

11 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?
No, you've not got that right. It's not even that your first paragraph is a bit of an assumption, you've just made that up on the spot, and tried to attribute it to me.

I've stated that I'd quite like it if people didn't die for no good reason. And from that, you've tried to state that I don't care if people die.

Instead of trying to be clever and read between the lines, maybe you should just stick to reading the lines laugh

Funny forum this.

heebeegeetee

26,775 posts

196 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
OpulentBob said:
No. That's a massive misrepresentation of what he said.

If I say to someone, "I hope you have a nice day", it doesn't mean that I hope everyone else has a really stty day.

Or "Get well soon" to my mum doesn't mean I want everyone else in hospital to die.

Arguing points using basic kiddy logic like that doesn't help your case at all. Although I think you know it and you're just saying crap like that to get a reaction - you seem to like prodding to get a reaction.
Why would you only care if a cyclist pulled out in front of you?

I mean, given the numbers involved it’s far more likely that a pedestrian would step out in front of you?

Each and every one of us is far more likely to collide with a pedestrian than a cyclist, and official figures show that pedestrians die at a higher number and a higher rate than cyclists (and a higher rate than drivers), so if a helmet is the difference between life and death, why wouldn’t we want the person we’re hitting to be wearing a helmet, whoever the person is?

yonex

15,795 posts

116 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
It impacts everyone cyclists or non cyclists. It impacts their friends and families when they are more seriously injured or die and impacts on everyone with the associated costs, delays and abstraction of resources.
Do you go into pubs and lecture people on drinking and/or smoking?

Of course not.

This is just BS to provoke individuals into getting defensive about their choices, which is all they are smile

poo at Paul's

8,080 posts

123 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
But not if some idiot steps out? If a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don’t care if they’re wearing a helmet and you don’t care if they die?

And likewise, when you’re a pedestrian you’re not going to wear a helmet, so if you step out or if a car mounts the pavement, it doesn’t matter if you live or die?

Have I got this right?
I think there is a fundamental and obvious difference in that the cyclist generally shares the same piece or tarmac as the motor vehicle, so there is a higher possibility of a collision between the two. The majority of pedestrian traffic does not share the same space as the motor vehicle, most of the times, and the interaction is more limited to crossings, many of which are specifically controlled to make things a bit safer.

Graveworm

2,821 posts

19 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Zigster said:
And car occupants as well?

If car occupants are seriously injured or die, this impacts on other people in the same way as if they were cyclists. So why shouldn't everyone wear helmets when in a car? Many more people die or are seriously injured in cars each year than they are on bicycles, so if helmets are so important for cyclists why not for car occupants?
This straw man was also burned some way back. Wearing a helmet in a road car, especially with modern safety features is of no overall benefit since the majority of accidents happen at low speeds where CS injuries are more prevalent and aggravated by helmet use. So much so that the use of a helmet is not a good idea, recommended by no safety organisation and banned in some jurisdictions. That is before you get to the inability to wear them in some cars, how much they restrict movement in a car and any inconvenience.
Just to cut short any distracting back and forth:
The profile of track accidents is completely different so being OK or good for one is not the same for the other.
There have been extensive studies done about neck and any other aggravating accidents for cyclists linked previously and it's negligible compared to benefits so again "well then it's the same for cyclists" is not the case.

Graveworm

2,821 posts

19 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
yonex said:
Do you go into pubs and lecture people on drinking and/or smoking?

Of course not.

This is just BS to provoke individuals into getting defensive about their choices, which is all they are smile
I am not lecturing I do not tell anyone to wear or not wear a helmet. It is their choice, I do nearly always but it's not my place to tell others, I would suggest it if asked. The evidence is overwhelming that it is beneficial to wear them.
I am on a discussion thread where people defended trying to suppress the message that wearing a helmet was good idea. I have a different view to that and express it. I tried to show the evidence and when they persist in ad hominem arguments (c.f. your quoted post) I reply that it shouldn't be allowed to distract from the premise that it makes no sense to say that safety organisations shouldn't be allowed to recommend that cyclists wear helmets.

swisstoni

8,331 posts

227 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Huw Janus said:
swisstoni said:
I’m convinced by your google dump of guff from random countries.

Let’s BAN helmets then. Imagine the benefits to the nation!
Presented with facts you seem only capable of offering a puerile response.
Maybe debating with adults isn’t for you ?
Read my previous posts if you want argument;
And then come back with something that shows that the woman in the photo wouldn't be better off with a helmet on if she fell off and hit her head on the ground.

No nation's health. No herds. Just that woman on her bike. Thanks.

thiscocks

2,122 posts

143 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Had some bloke try and overtake me when I was on my bike going through a town center last night. I was right up behind a slow moving van but he was insistent on coming along side me (and about 5 foot away from the back of the van). When I waved to him as if to say 'wtf are you doing' he beeped, came along side with his window down and started shouting some unfathomable abuse. Another classic addition for the car driver in the 'bike v cars' spastic awards.

Tired

259 posts

11 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Why would you only care if a cyclist pulled out in front of you?
Where did I say I "only" cared about cyclists?

You're just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, as far as I can tell. Aren't there forum rules about that sort of thing?

Graveworm

2,821 posts

19 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Why would you only care if a cyclist pulled out in front of you?

I mean, given the numbers involved it’s far more likely that a pedestrian would step out in front of you?

Each and every one of us is far more likely to collide with a pedestrian than a cyclist, and official figures show that pedestrians die at a higher number and a higher rate than cyclists (and a higher rate than drivers), so if a helmet is the difference between life and death, why wouldn’t we want the person we’re hitting to be wearing a helmet, whoever the person is?
You are turning things on their head, It's more likely that a cyclist will be in a collision with you than a pedestrian.

heebeegeetee

26,775 posts

196 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
heebeegeetee said:
Applies to everyone, and definitely to pedestrians who die at a higher rate and number.
You keep ignoring and failing to acknowledge the facts that don't suit you. For clarity and the last time. Pedestrians do not die at a higher rate than cyclists NOT wearing a helmet and cyclists are about three times more likely to be injured or seriously injured in an accident

heebeegeetee said:
On average (and in reality, I believe), even day, week, month and year, more pedestrians have died than cyclists and more pedestrians have died than cyclists over distance. The number of journeys done makes no difference to these statistics at all.

Again not more pedestrians over distance than cyclists without helmets, injuries are also mitigated by helmets so it's inappropriate to just deal with deaths. The number of journeys matters because that is how often you would need to carry, put on and remove a helmet that would
  • Still not be anywhere near as beneficial as it would be to as a cyclist
  • Not be recommended by any safety body and have no evidence that it's use was of overall benefit. The exact opposite of cycle helmets.
So in a benefit vs inconvenience it makes the case for use on a cycle many times stronger than for a pedestrian.
All of which is only a distraction from: "It is great idea for a cyclist to wear a helmet when they can" being a good message and to say it should be suppressed makes no logical sense at all.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 11:17
Let's put it to bed:

The Department of Transport says, Page 7:

>>There are two key ways of looking at casualty numbers. The first is in terms of absolute counts. <<
It then publishes figures which shows four times as many pedestrians are killed than cyclists, making up 26% of casualties as opposed to the 6% which is cyclists.

>>The second approach is to look at casualty rates in terms of the number of casualties per mile
travelled.<< and publishes figures which shows pedestrians have a higher fatality rate per distance.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen... Pages 7 and 8.

And that's it, and the numbers of journeys that the individual groups make no difference whatsoever to those statistics.

I accept the cycling casualty figures are too high, and if you guys would lay off with your fake news and fear-mongering , and if all road users could get a fair share of the roads, instead of the near-total car-is-king approach that the UK has, we could get all of those figures down, and cleaner air too.





heebeegeetee

26,775 posts

196 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
You are turning things on their head, It's more likely that a cyclist will be in a collision with you than a pedestrian.
Given the sheer difference in numbers, how?