Dangerous cyclists

[Bassman62 10]

I believe that the term is transexual.

 

This thread is about:- Dangerous cyclists

[Bassman62 10]

You do know dawny is a bloke, don't you?

This thread is about:- Dangerous cyclists

[MrsMozzy 10]

This thread is about:- Dangerous cyclists

I was replying to his referral to dawny as "dear" and actually when I realised he (dawny) was male it made me read his comments differently. So I personally don't feel it was totally off- topic.

 

I could argue that your constant referral to sports cars is not directly related to " dangerous cyclists" either.

Edited April 24, 2011 by MrsMozzy
Wrong referral to the male in question! Oh - and added a bit on.

[altus 538]

I was replying to his referral to you as "dear" and actually when I realised you were male it made me read your comments differently. So I personally don't feel it was totally off- topic..

Don't worry about it, Bassman62's quite happy to go off topic when he feels the urge to.

[mattleonard 10]

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?

[dawny1970 10]

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

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

[dawny1970 10]

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

[mattleonard 10]

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".

[Tricky 10]

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.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.