altus Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 pedestrians are not going at 30mph, car drivers HAVE to wear a seat belt, so pray do tell why a bike travelling at 30mph should be allowed to have no safety device when all other forms of transport do?? Because the benefits vs increased risks of wearing a seatbelt are overwhelming whereas with a cycle helmet the benefits of wearing one are counterbalanced by the increased risks of wearing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 pedestrians are not going at 30mph, car drivers HAVE to wear a seat belt, so pray do tell why a bike travelling at 30mph should be allowed to have no safety device when all other forms of transport do?? All other forms of transport. Maybe you mean all motorised forms of transport. And therein is the difference, a bike is not motorised. You should look up the accident statistics that gave rise to the compulsory seat belt and motorcycle helmets. You can then compare it to the accident statistics for cycles, and you will then have you answer as to why no compulsory safety device is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 pedestrians are not going at 30mph, car drivers HAVE to wear a seat belt, so pray do tell why a bike travelling at 30mph should be allowed to have no safety device when all other forms of transport do?? Yea, let's give over with the loopy smiley shall we? I find it offensive and frankly it makes YOU look like a twit as well as a troll. But in short answer to your silly question for those listening who aren't trolls like you... ah, it's so obvious to even the most stupid people that I can't be bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTurner Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 The biggest risk to cyclists is other road users. The debate over whether helmets increase or decrease the rate of injury/fatality in accidents, or even if they are a contributory factor to accidents has been debated extensively elsewhere and there doesn't seem to be any concensus. It seems to me that the biggest risk to cyclists on the road is cars. Cyclists must do everything they can to protect themselves from dangerous car drivers. I was waiting in the left hand only lane on Penistone Road waiting to turn into Neepsend Lane when the light went green. As I approached I checked over my shoulder, nothing coming, so moved into the center of the lane to take control of the junction. A car pulled up behind me, beeped at me and shouted that I should be over to the left side of the road (I'm assuming so that he could pull alongside of me and not have to wait behind me). I was at the front of the queue, the light was red, he had no-where to go, just didn't wan't to be behind a cyclist. He wasn't interested that it was dangerous for me to be in his blind spot, on his inside, when he was turning left, in a left hand only lane. Not interested at all. Dangerous car drivers with cyclists needing to take control of the situation to protect themselves. Had I not been in the middle of the lane he would likely have left hooked me as we went round the corner. Dangerous cyclists can cause accidents, mostly injuring themselves only. Dangerous car drivers can cause accidents, however the consequences for others on the road is often far far more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Yea, let's give over with the loopy smiley shall we? I find it offensive and frankly it makes YOU look like a twit as well as a troll. But in short answer to your silly question for those listening who aren't trolls like you... ah, it's so obvious to even the most stupid people that I can't be bothered. And we find some in fact quite a few of yours and your friends comments offesnive to the piont where mods have intevened. The game of turning threads into arguments is well played by a well known forum member, he's known as the closer of threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Ah science, lovely science. Why aren't you advocating compulsory helmets for pedestrians and motorists? You'd get much better safety improvements than making cyclists wear them. What a plonker, we have a pedestrian lane, it's called the pavement/footpath although a high percentage of Dangerous cyclists think that it's a second cycle lane and use it as such. At the rate Dangerous cyclists are using the pedestrians areas it will soon be recommended for pedestrians to wear helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 As previous warnings have gone unheeded this thread will now be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.