Cyclists

[Devils best friend]

Nobody has a problem with safety kit and training. It's making them compulsory is the problem

Why is that a problem? By your logic driving licenses, car insurance, minimum safety standards on cars, etc., are a waste of time and money too.

I would also like to know, as you stated earlier, how cyclists having some safety knowledge would actually cause more deaths, or was that just a post out of hysteria

 

[oul'doll]

Don't be ridiculous.

Well that's how I can tell who a cyclist is.

 

[How bad boy]

Why is that a problem? By your logic driving licenses, car insurance, minimum safety standards on cars, etc., are a waste of time and money too.

I would also like to know, as you stated earlier, how cyclists having some safety knowledge would actually cause more deaths, or was that just a post out of hysteria

No, cars are far, far, far more lethal than bicycles.

There may be a couple of deaths a decade in the UK from cyclists hitting people/cars.

Cars kill thousands a year.

Its like saying that the regulation of guns and skipping ropes should be the same. They're in no way equivalent from the point of view of dangers to others.

The point on cycle knowledge, making all that stuff compulsory would significantly reduce cycling rates. Cycling saves way more lives through improved fitness than die in accidents.

So putting those barriers in the way of cyclists might reduce a small number of serious accidents (as the vast majority are not caused by cyclists) but due to poorer health in the general population as a whole arising from lower cycling rates, the net result would almost certainly be more premature deaths and higher diabetes and obesity rates. Would also increase driven miles, which increases the number of accidents.

Compulsion has a cost. A significantly cost.

 

[Mick Lyons]

We used to use a skipping rope as a whip when we'd be playing gladiators.
Combined with a dustbin-lid shield it was a pretty lethal weapon.
Not quite up there with the potato-peeler spear but you could still do damage.

 

[Jinky]

No, cars are far, far, far more lethal than bicycles.

There may be a couple of deaths a decade in the UK from cyclists hitting people/cars.

Cars kill thousands a year.

Its like saying that the regulation of guns and skipping ropes should be the same. They're in no way equivalent from the point of view of dangers to others.

The point on cycle knowledge, making all that stuff compulsory would significantly reduce cycling rates. Cycling saves way more lives through improved fitness than die in accidents.

So putting those barriers in the way of cyclists might reduce a small number of serious accidents (as the vast majority are not caused by cyclists) but due to poorer health in the general population as a whole arising from lower cycling rates, the net result would almost certainly be more premature deaths and higher diabetes and obesity rates. Would also increase driven miles, which increases the number of accidents.

Compulsion has a cost. A significantly cost.

You were doing so well.

 

[Mick Lyons]

God almighty.
I don't know who's more boring, the cyclists or the stoners of the board.
Shut up the lot of ye!

 

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

Anyway, real cyclists (i.e me) don't even use the roads.

We cycle in forest, across fields, up mountains, off cliffs etc.

The only helmet a real man needs is the one he was born with.

 

[backagain]

Anyway, real cyclists (i.e me) don't even use the roads.

We cycle in forest, across fields, up mountains, off cliffs etc.

The only helmet a real man needs is the one he was born with.

Didn't you come a cropper and nearly kill yourself though?

 

[Lostmeringtopaddypower]

STFU, rutty.

I was only in hospital for a week.

 

[Róisín_Rua]

STFU, rutty.

I was only in hospital for a week.

Shoulda worn a helmet ....

On your head.