mattleonard Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 laws of physics if someone travelling at 20-30mph hits a stationary person will do a lot of damage and potentially kill someone, including the cyclist, thats why a helmet is preferable You do realise that someone can't be charged with a crime after they've died, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawny1970 Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 You do realise that someone can't be charged with a crime after they've died, don't you? thats only if they are killed, chances are, who they hit will be seriously injured or killed tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 can you please explain why you think raod tax is solely based on emissions? I don't. My post No 801 was very specific. There's no need to try and twist my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 thats only if they are killed, chances are, who they hit will be seriously injured or killed tho So in your earlier posts were you actually calling for pedestrians to wear helmets? That's the only way your posts could make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawny1970 Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 So in your earlier posts were you actually calling for pedestrians to wear helmets? That's the only way your posts could make sense. no, i said cyclists should wear helmets just as motorcyclists have to, after all, they can get up to similar speeds as a 50cc motorbike easily, and they have been proved to save lifes, thats why all police forces who use bikes wear helmets That is one of the laws that i feel should be brought in asap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 thats only if they are killed, chances are, who they hit will be seriously injured or killed tho So the issue of whether cyclists should wear helmets (which I believe they should) has absolutely nothing to do with a private members bill in order to bring in a charge of "death by dangerous cycling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 This thread is about:- Dangerous cyclists No. As in much else, you are wrong. The thread is called 'Dangerous cyclists'; it is about ignorant drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 no, i said cyclists should wear helmets just as motorcyclists have to, after all, they can get up to similar speeds as a 50cc motorbike easily, and they have been proved to save lifes, thats why all police forces who use bikes wear helmets That is one of the laws that i feel should be brought in asap You are blaming cyclists for being a danger to OTHERS and are using this as a reason for the cyclists to wear a helmet. As far as whether cyclists should wear helmets - There is conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of compulsory cycle helmets. If you are really interested in the subject, and not just cyclist beating, there is a really good website - something like cyclehelmets.com. I don't know if that's the correct name, and I cant access it at present, to check. It is very impartial, openly discussing alternative views. Bits I remember - that some overtaking drivers drive more closely when overtaking cyclists who are wearing helmets. The drivers perceive helmeted riders as being better protected so compensate by putting them at greater risk. There is evidence from Australia that following the introduction of a cycle helmet law, it actually became more dangerous for cyclists than before. This was put down to a reduction in cyclists brought about by the new law meant that they were less common, and therefore more marginalised and less a 'normal part of traffic' in the eyes of some drivers. Also, the helmets provide very limited protection - certainly much less than provided by a motorcycle helmet. Well worth a google search for anyone considering whether helmets are really all they are cracked up to be. Btw, I wear a helmet when cycling. On balance, I'm against compulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawny1970 Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 its compulsory to wear seat belts, its compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorbike, why should the only other legal form of transport on the road a bike NOT be compulsory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 its compulsory to wear seat belts, its compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorbike, why should the only other legal form of transport on the road a bike NOT be compulsory? More lives would be saved if helmets were compulsory for car occupants. Why should they not be compulsory for them either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.