Helmet debate, Radio 2 Jeremy Old coming up now

SimonAH

Despite my dislike for his show I'm at the dining room table doing my expenses and that's what's playing.

Apparently if you have the intelligence to call in to the show then your opinion is valid - let's see what transpires.

For the record I think that making helmet wearing compulsory is an idiocy and puts us in the bracket of US states that make any kind of sex other than missionary an inprisonment issue.

snooks

Unlike most of the DJs who usually host a pro helmet/anti cycling one sided rant, Jeremy does actually cycle around London so it might be interesting to hear his views...Then again.....

I remember hearing him say he lost his helmet after he left in on a Boris bike :roll:

SimonAH

Didn't know he was a cyclist....as you say could be interesting.

shm_uk

I'd like to know: if I want to wear a helmet, should it be made compulsory for me to be riding a bike?

snooks

He seems to have done a bit of research about this....woo hoo

snooks

OK this is freaking me out, it seems pro cycling and a MP seems to be speaking sense.

I might have to go for a lie down :shock:

SimonAH

My flabber is ghasted!

rick_chasey

Which MP?

UndercoverElephant

If it's anything like the helmet debates on here, they'll still be trundling on in three years time. Don't anybody expect to hear anything else on Radio 2 for quite some time.

phy2sll2

Blimey - he was a bit confrontational with the lady from BRAKE!

snooks

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which MP?

Emily Thornberry, MP for Islington South and Finsbury (labour)

It's now on iPlayer

Starts from around 37mins in

A bit more about her from her website http://www.emilythornberry.com/:
"A keen cyclist, Emily used her position as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling to encourage others to cycle, as well as lobbying for changes to lorry mirror regulations to make cycling safer. "

t4tomo

Surely common sense dictates it probably better to wear a helmet than not, BUT making it compulsory is a stupid idea.

It would finish casual use of Boris bikes for start and send the who scheme bankrupt.

thelawnet

phy2sll2 wrote:

Blimey - he was a bit confrontational with the lady from BRAKE!

Well they can f right off as far as I'm concerned.

Just had a look at their website, they're supposed to be about reducing road deaths, they have a section that says

'TO BIKE OR NOT TO BIKE?
The benefits and risks of cycling in the UK.'

http://www.brake.org.uk/bike-or-not-to-bike
This has then got five pages under it

Page 1 - "•In a crash cyclists are particularly vulnerable as they do not have the advantage of a vehicle’s protective cage. A cyclist is eight times more likely to be killed than a car driver per km travelled " "•More than 16,000 cyclists are hurt or killed every year in Britain. That’s 44 casualties a day, or nearly two every hour. Nearly 1 in 4 (22%) of these casualties are children." "•In 2007 (latest year of available statistics), 136 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads - one every two and a half days. " "An additional 2,428 were seriously injured, a definition which includes brain injuries and paralysis as well as broken bones. That’s almost seven cyclists seriously injured every day. "

Which makes it sound hellishly dangerous and would have the effect of pushing people into their road-death-causing cars.

Page 2 is PERSONAL TRAGEDIES: CASE STUDIES OF CYCLIST DEATHS
which is a collection of arbitrarily chosen heart-rending stories about dead cyclists, including 'Britain’s worst ever bike crash. '

Page 3 suggests - 'If you have access to quiet roads or cycle paths in your community, it can be an easy way to exercise while also saving time; for example, by cycling to work rather than being stuck in a traffic queue.'

It's unclear how you are supposed to avoid traffic queues if the roads are quiet....

Page 4 does point out that cycling is more environmentally friendly, and page 5 says most of the UK is crap for cycling due to poor road design.


Shouldn't they have a page up about the perils of going to beach or swimming pool?

snooks

t4tomo wrote:

Surely common sense dictates it probably better to wear a helmet than not,

It's thinking like that which will make this thread go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ has all sorts of reason not to wear a helmet, so it's far from clear cut to say "probably better to wear a helmet than not"

t4tomo wrote:

BUT making it compulsory is a stupid idea.

Agreed

I wear a helmet, but I'll fight for the right not to wear one. There are some sunny days when I just want to cycle slowly down the cycle path by the river and feel the wind in what's left of my hair. It's my choice and long may it remain so

Headhuunter

snooks wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which MP?

Emily Thornberry, MP for Islington South and Finsbury (labour)

It's now on iPlayer

Starts from around 37mins in

A bit more about her from her website http://www.emilythornberry.com/:
"A keen cyclist, Emily used her position as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling to encourage others to cycle, as well as lobbying for changes to lorry mirror regulations to make cycling safer. "

Emily Thornberry was my MP when I lived in Islington, she was brilliant. She even used to send me personally signed Christmas cards!

rick_chasey

Ah, it looks sh!t and I don't want to carry a big polystyrene cage with me all day alright!

Jeez.

Car drivers want it so when the inevitable car-on-bike crash occurs, they're less likely to be done for manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.

I'd rather have debates on "why can't we turn all road lanes which have another in the same direction adjacent into bike lanes?" or more generally on preventative action like "how can we prevent car+bike accidents" rather than mitigating issues like "wearing a helmet/wearing body armour/I'm angered by law breakers so I'm entitled to injure a randomer" debates.

W1

phy2sll2 wrote:

Blimey - he was a bit confrontational with the lady from BRAKE!

Good. They're a dangerously barking bunch of loonies who, for some reason, are always dragged out to talk about anything even remotely to do with roads.

phy2sll2

W1 wrote:

phy2sll2 wrote:

Blimey - he was a bit confrontational with the lady from BRAKE!

Good. They're a dangerously barking bunch of loonies who, for some reason, are always dragged out to talk about anything even remotely to do with roads.

Yeah, but... he did sound a bit "over-zealous self-righteous cyclist". I think we all know one of those!

davmaggs

thelawnet wrote:

phy2sll2 wrote:

Blimey - he was a bit confrontational with the lady from BRAKE!

A cyclist is eight times more likely to be killed than a car driver per km travelled " "•More than 16,000 cyclists are hurt or killed every year in Britain.

As soon as any lobby group aggregates up the stats then you know that they are up to something. Why mix in minor falls (which could be self inflicted) with deaths.

Another trick is to use phrase like "increased by x times". That is used by tabloids to exaggerate figures nicely and is meaningless without the background numbers.

In short the media sells hits/listening figures so they'll find anything to increase them.

deptfordmarmoset

shm_uk wrote:

I'd like to know: if I want to wear a helmet, should it be made compulsory for me to be riding a bike?

reading that just reminded me that I saw a very old man with a walking stick wearing a helmet as he walked down the road today. Given that there was no way he would have been wearing it in readiness for a ride, I found I couldn't decide whether he was had it one because he was prone to falling or because he had marble-retention issues.

Whichever, it's still worth 10 points in my I-spy book of cycling sights.

shm_uk

he did sound a bit "over-zealous self-righteous cyclist". I think we all know one of those!

Yep, they're all on BikeRadar usually.

notsoblue

shm_uk wrote:

he did sound a bit "over-zealous self-righteous cyclist". I think we all know one of those!

Yep, they're all on BikeRadar usually.

Hey! I'm not over-zealous!

El Gordo

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

reading that just reminded me that I saw a very old man with a walking stick wearing a helmet as he walked down the road today. Given that there was no way he would have been wearing it in readiness for a ride, I found I couldn't decide whether he was had it one because he was prone to falling or because he had marble-retention issues.

Whichever, it's still worth 10 points in my I-spy book of cycling sights.

Given that it is not entirely unheard of for old folk to trip over and whack their heads maybe he had very rationally thought it was a sensible thing to do.

I would fully expect that all the "I always wear a helmet when riding a bike and you'd be stupid not to" people to do exactly the same when they get a bit frail unless of course they are actually just buying in to a whole load of hysteria and can't assess risks for themselves.