No wonder some cyclists are hated

"Mr Benn" > wrote in message
...
> thirty-six" > wrote in message

> This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards
> other road users. Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like
> these? Consideration for other road users goes both ways.

Why do you keep bringing up stuff like this? One cyclist deciding to keep in
the middle of the lane instead of letting faster traffic pass. Although they
did seem to be cycling at near 30mph.

In 30 years' of driving, I can't actually recall any significant occasions
when I've been delayed by cyclists like this. But there must have been a
thousand times when I've been stuck behind a bus, coach, truck, tractor, or,
more usually, another car, dawdling at this sort of speed.

So why this unjustified and unbalanced anti-cyclist propaganda?

*Some* people are just inconsiderate. That's not actually news. That some of
them are cyclists, and therefore an easy target, is irrelevant. Other people
who are cyclists, and who don't ride at 30mph and don't hog the middle of
the road, resent the hatred you're deliberately trying to stir up.


--
bartc

On Mar 8, 2:42*pm, "BartC" > wrote:
> "Mr Benn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > thirty-six" > wrote in message
> > This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards
> > other road users. *Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like
> > these? Consideration for other road users goes both ways.
>
> Why do you keep bringing up stuff like this? One cyclist deciding to keep in
> the middle of the lane instead of letting faster traffic pass. Although they
> did seem to be cycling at near 30mph.
>
> In 30 years' of driving, I can't actually recall any significant occasions
> when I've been delayed by cyclists like this. But there must have been a
> thousand times when I've been stuck behind a bus, coach, truck, tractor, or,
> more usually, another car, dawdling at this sort of speed.
>
> So why this unjustified and unbalanced anti-cyclist propaganda?
>
> *Some* people are just inconsiderate. That's not actually news. That some of
> them are cyclists, and therefore an easy target, is irrelevant. Other people
> who are cyclists, and who don't ride at 30mph and don't hog the middle of
> the road, resent the hatred you're deliberately trying to stir up.
>

"Mr Benn" is a known crossposting troll.
He is best ignored as he just wants to stir up trouble like the other
four trolls in urc do.
It is what they do.

--
Simon Mason

"BartC" > wrote in message ...
> "Mr Benn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> thirty-six" > wrote in message
>
>> This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards
>> other road users. Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists
>> like
>> these? Consideration for other road users goes both ways.
>
> Why do you keep bringing up stuff like this? One cyclist deciding to keep
> in
> the middle of the lane instead of letting faster traffic pass. Although
> they
> did seem to be cycling at near 30mph.
>
> In 30 years' of driving, I can't actually recall any significant occasions
> when I've been delayed by cyclists like this. But there must have been a
> thousand times when I've been stuck behind a bus, coach, truck, tractor,
> or,
> more usually, another car, dawdling at this sort of speed.
>
> So why this unjustified and unbalanced anti-cyclist propaganda?

No unjustified or unbalanced.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

Psycholists don't like it up 'em.

On Mar 8, 2:47*pm, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> "BartC" > wrote in ....
> > "Mr Benn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> thirty-six" > wrote in message
>
> >> This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards
> >> other road users. *Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists
> >> like
> >> these? Consideration for other road users goes both ways.
>
> > Why do you keep bringing up stuff like this? One cyclist deciding to keep
> > in
> > the middle of the lane instead of letting faster traffic pass. Although
> > they
> > did seem to be cycling at near 30mph.
>
> > In 30 years' of driving, I can't actually recall any significant occasions
> > when I've been delayed by cyclists like this. But there must have been a
> > thousand times when I've been stuck behind a bus, coach, truck, tractor,
> > or,
> > more usually, another car, dawdling at this sort of speed.
>
> > So why this unjustified and unbalanced anti-cyclist propaganda?
>
> No unjustified or unbalanced.
>
> If you don't like it, don't read it.
>
> Psycholists don't like it up 'em.

Seems like you've been getting yours today.

Tris wrote:
> If we were to be that seriously concerned with risk, should we be
> riding a bike in the first place?
> In post > "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
>> thirty-six wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 9:43 am, wrote:
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
>>>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
>>>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
>>>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill
>>>> 2010-11 will be shelved after it failed to receive a second
>>>> reading last week.
>>>>
>>>> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented
>>>> her bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned
>>>> legislation seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted
>>>> government policy, as well as that of her own party, not to
>>>> introduce helmet compulsion.
>>>>
>>>> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
>>>> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
>>>> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>>>>
>>>> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
>>>> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury
>>>> devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children
>>>> are at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully
>>>> developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads
>>>> in general."
>>>>
>>>> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
>>>> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
>>>> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child
>>>> Brain Injury Trust.
>>>>
>>>> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
>>>> CTC's campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
>>>> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
>>>> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use - typically
>>>> around a third, but with much higher reductions among children
>>>> teenagers. This amounts to a serious loss of cycling's health,
>>>> environmental and other benefits."
>>>>
>>>> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
>>>> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
>>>> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
>>>> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
>>>> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than
>>>> blaming the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective
>>>> headgear of doubtful effectiveness."
>>>>
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Mason
>>>
>>> Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
>>> stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
>>> polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful
>>> in future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
>>> raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
>>> plastic. And what about knees?
>>
>> The problem is that a bump as bad as you describe does irreparable
>> brain damage. Merely heading a football also does internal damage
>> that has lifelong consequences. So why risk it?
>
> If we were to be that seriously concerned with risk, should we be
> riding a bike in the first place?

Exactly, but since that is unlikely in the short term, why not take
precautions? A suitable helmet is very cheap compared to the slightest head
injury.

On 08/03/2012 10:06, The Todal wrote:
> wrote:
>> QUOTE:
>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
>> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>>
>> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
>> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
>> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
>> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>>
>> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...nder-14s-fails
>
> Good. Glad it has been shelved. Now, a far better law would be one which
> obliges children under 13 to undergo cycling proficiency training and to
> pass a test. That was standard practice in my day, in the 1960s (not
> compulsory of course) but I doubt if anyone expects kids to do this now, and
> our roads are more dangerous than they were.
>
> Coincidentally, in the London Metro newspaper today.....
>
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892453-h...says-new-study
>
>
> ‘Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or
> not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,’ said Dr Carwyn
> Hooper, from St George’s University of London. His team pointed to evidence
> in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were
> wearing helmets. However, he said children should be made to wear them
> because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they
> are more prone to.
>
>
>
The Porky Chapman Helmet Test.

1] Wear a cycle helmet & allow someone to hit you on the head with a hammer.
2] Repeat, but without wearing the cycle helmet.
Record which one hurts the most & causes most trauma.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/03/2012 14:08, Kim Bolton wrote:
>
> The Todal wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> QUOTE:
>>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
>>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
>>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
>>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
>>> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>
>> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892453-h...says-new-study
>>
>> ‘Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or
>> not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,’ said Dr Carwyn
>> Hooper, from St George’s University of London. His team pointed to evidence
>> in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were
>> wearing helmets. However, he said children should be made to wear them
>> because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they
>> are more prone to.
>
> If safety was the real concern of the proposed legislation. then it
> might have proved to be more effective if under-13s (if not under-18s,
> as children were mentioned) were banned from using bicycles in public,
> bearing in mind the evidence mentioned above.
>
>
The Porky Chapman Helmet Test.

1] Wear a cycle helmet & allow someone to hit you on the head with a hammer.
2] Repeat, but without wearing the cycle helmet.
Record which one hurts the most & causes most trauma.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/03/2012 10:38, thirty-six wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:43 am, wrote:
>> QUOTE:
>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
>> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>>
>> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
>> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
>> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
>> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>>
>> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
>> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
>> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>>
>> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
>> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates
>> the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher
>> risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they
>> are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."
>>
>> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
>> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
>> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
>> Injury Trust.
>>
>> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
>> CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
>> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
>> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around
>> a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers.
>> This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and
>> other benefits."
>>
>> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
>> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
>> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
>> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
>> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming
>> the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of
>> doubtful effectiveness."
>>
>> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>>
>> --
>> Simon Mason
>
> Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
> stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
> polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in
> future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
> raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
> plastic. And what about knees?

The Porky Chapman Helmet Test.

1] Wear a cycle helmet & allow someone to hit you on the head with a hammer.
2] Repeat, but without wearing the cycle helmet.
Record which one hurts the most & causes most trauma.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 08/03/2012 12:24, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:38 am, > wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 9:43 am, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
>>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
>>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
>>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
>>> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>>
>>> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
>>> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
>>> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
>>> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>>
>>> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
>>> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
>>> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>>
>>> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
>>> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates
>>> the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher
>>> risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they
>>> are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."
>>
>>> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
>>> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
>>> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
>>> Injury Trust.
>>
>>> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
>>> CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
>>> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
>>> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around
>>> a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers.
>>> This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and
>>> other benefits."
>>
>>> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
>>> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
>>> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
>>> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
>>> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming
>>> the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of
>>> doubtful effectiveness."
>>
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>>
>> Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
>> stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
>> polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in
>> future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
>> raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
>> plastic. And what about knees?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Of course, A+E chastised me about not wearing a helmet after I bust a
> *collar bone*.
> They spent more time over that than treating the injury.
The Porky Chapman Helmet Test.

1] Wear a cycle helmet & allow someone to hit you on the head with a hammer.
2] Repeat, but without wearing the cycle helmet.
Record which one hurts the most & causes most trauma.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Mar 8, 5:58*pm, (Tris) wrote:
> In post > "Mrcheerful"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Tris wrote:
> >> If we were to be that seriously concerned with risk, should we be
> >> riding a bike in the first place?
> >> *In post > "Mrcheerful"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> thirty-six wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 8, 9:43 am, wrote:
> >>>>> QUOTE:
> >>>>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> >>>>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> >>>>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> >>>>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill
> >>>>> 2010-11 will be shelved after it failed to receive a second
> >>>>> reading last week.
>
> >>>>> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented
> >>>>> her bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned
> >>>>> legislation seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted
> >>>>> government policy, as well as that of her own party, not to
> >>>>> introduce helmet compulsion.
>
> >>>>> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
> >>>>> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
> >>>>> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>
> >>>>> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
> >>>>> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury
> >>>>> devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children
> >>>>> are at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully
> >>>>> developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads
> >>>>> in general."
>
> >>>>> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
> >>>>> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
> >>>>> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child
> >>>>> Brain Injury Trust.
>
> >>>>> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
> >>>>> CTC's campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
> >>>>> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
> >>>>> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use - typically
> >>>>> around a third, but with much higher reductions among children
> >>>>> teenagers. This amounts to a serious loss of cycling's health,
> >>>>> environmental and other benefits."
>
> >>>>> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
> >>>>> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
> >>>>> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
> >>>>> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
> >>>>> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than
> >>>>> blaming the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective
> >>>>> headgear of doubtful effectiveness."
>
> >>>>>http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Simon Mason
>
> >>>> Hooray. * It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
> >>>> stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
> >>>> polstyrene cap. *When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful
> >>>> in future. *The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
> >>>> raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
> >>>> plastic. *And what about knees?
>
> >>> The problem is that a bump as bad as you describe does irreparable
> >>> brain damage. *Merely heading a football also does internal damage
> >>> that has lifelong consequences. *So why risk it?
>
> >> If we were to be that seriously concerned with risk, should we be
> >> riding a bike in the first place?
>
> >Exactly, but since that is unlikely in the short term, why not take
> >precautions? *A suitable helmet is very cheap compared to the slightest head
> >injury.
>
> Most cyclists are, I believe, quite capable of deciding for themselves
> which precautions they take, so, they should be left to do what they
> want in that regard. But when it comes to children, who we know are
> generally more accident prone, I can see a case for talking some
> precautions on their behalf.

It's an unenforcibubble proposition. Children don't see cycling as
dangerous and by and large, if they keep off the high-speed roads,
there is minimal risk from idiot drivers. The same test that applied
to cyclists should also be put forth for pedestrians, because they
walk along the same roads. Think of the revenue this would generate
for the Children's Helmet Initiative Trust and the Seniors' Helmet
Initiative Trust . <g> Thes ped hemets could also be sold in walking
apparel shops, such as shoe shops. <G>