Cycling Scotland making idiots of themselves!
29 January 2014, 02:34 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cycling Scotland making idiots of themselves!
Cycling Scotland advert banned over 'no helmet'
Instead of just fessing up and saying it was a bit silly to make the ad this way they are making idiots of themselves trying to find reasons why not wearing a helmet is a good idea.
I am surprised all the people in the ad didn't have YouTube vigliante cams fitted though, in fact I should write and complain
Instead of just fessing up and saying it was a bit silly to make the ad this way they are making idiots of themselves trying to find reasons why not wearing a helmet is a good idea.
I am surprised all the people in the ad didn't have YouTube vigliante cams fitted though, in fact I should write and complain
29 January 2014, 08:12 PM
#2
The premise was to demonstrate that vehicle users should give plenty of room and adjust their speed when passing a cyclist or horse. The ASA comments were health and safety gone mad and miss informed. Wearing a helmet(well that is up to the individual rider, given what happened to Schumacher a helmet won't save you from serious injury if hit by a 1 ton car.) Advise riding 50 cm from the kerb edge is ludicrous, given the state of the roads generally and how poor a state the road was in the film.
I ride 1 to 1.5metres from the kerb to give myself room.
I ride 1 to 1.5metres from the kerb to give myself room.
29 January 2014, 08:14 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The premise was to demonstrate that vehicle users should give plenty of room and adjust their speed when passing a cyclist or horse. The ASA comments were health and safety gone mad and miss informed. Wearing a helmet(well that is up to the individual rider, given what happened to Schumacher a helmet won't save you from serious injury if hit by a 1 ton car.) Advise riding 50 cm from the kerb edge is ludicrous, given the state of the roads generally and how poor a state the road was in the film.
I ride 1 to 1.5metres from the kerb to give myself room.
I ride 1 to 1.5metres from the kerb to give myself room.
29 January 2014, 08:53 PM
#6
No not at all, but a cycle helmet is voluntary. Whilst useful against a minor fall won't save you from a vehicle.
Here is a petition appealing the ASA decision to ban the film.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petition...e-parking-lane
Unlike the 5 complaints, 1000s have signed the petition
Here is a petition appealing the ASA decision to ban the film.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petition...e-parking-lane
Unlike the 5 complaints, 1000s have signed the petition
29 January 2014, 09:03 PM
#7
No not at all, but a cycle helmet is voluntary. Whilst useful against a minor fall won't save you from a vehicle.
Here is a petition appealing the ASA decision to ban the film.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petition...e-parking-lane
Unlike the 5 complaints, 1000s have signed the petition
Here is a petition appealing the ASA decision to ban the film.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petition...e-parking-lane
Unlike the 5 complaints, 1000s have signed the petition
I could not find many I died because I wore a bike helmet.
Last edited by The Trooper 1815; 29 January 2014 at 09:07 PM.
Trending Topics
30 January 2014, 12:40 PM
#9
Good news the ASA has seen the light due to cycling pressure
"The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish our decision on our website"
"The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish our decision on our website"
30 January 2014, 01:46 PM
#13
Possibly, but you cant say for definite, maybe even more damaged than he is now, wasn't he just clipped by a wing mirror? This is my point wearing a helmet will help in minor accidents but wont fully mitigate the risk.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
30 January 2014, 01:50 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I find it almost incomprehensible why some of the most vulnerable group of road users are so resistant to simple common sense things like wearing a helmet or having some compulsiory tuition on how to ride etc.
In the cold light of day is it really sensible to allow the people most likely to be hurt on the roads (purely because of their vulnerability due to an obvious lack of protection) to cycle with a) no compulsory tuition as regards using the roads, b) no formal test to ensure their bicycle is roadworthy, c) no compulsory form of protection whatsoever, d) no age limit as to when they can take to the roads!
No, it isn't!
In the cold light of day is it really sensible to allow the people most likely to be hurt on the roads (purely because of their vulnerability due to an obvious lack of protection) to cycle with a) no compulsory tuition as regards using the roads, b) no formal test to ensure their bicycle is roadworthy, c) no compulsory form of protection whatsoever, d) no age limit as to when they can take to the roads!
No, it isn't!
Last edited by f1_fan; 30 January 2014 at 02:11 PM.
30 January 2014, 02:02 PM
#15
Sorry, but I find it almost incomprehensible why some of the most vulnerable group of road users are so resistant to simple common sense things like wearing a helmet or having some compulsiory tuition on how to ride etc.
In the cold light of day is it really sensible to allow the people most likely to be hurt on the roads (purely because of their vulnerability due to an obvious lack of protection) to cycle with a) no compulsory tuition as regards using the roads,Cycling proficiency through schools(all my kids have done it) b) no formal test to ensure their bicycle is roadworthy Again cycling proficiency only allow you on the course if your bike is road worthy/ or parent with half an ounce a brain power, not difficult , c) no compuslry form of protection whatsoever- Well personal choice, d) no age limit as to when they can take to the roads!- Any decent parent would only allow their kid once they were competent to do so
No, it isn't!
In the cold light of day is it really sensible to allow the people most likely to be hurt on the roads (purely because of their vulnerability due to an obvious lack of protection) to cycle with a) no compulsory tuition as regards using the roads,Cycling proficiency through schools(all my kids have done it) b) no formal test to ensure their bicycle is roadworthy Again cycling proficiency only allow you on the course if your bike is road worthy/ or parent with half an ounce a brain power, not difficult , c) no compuslry form of protection whatsoever- Well personal choice, d) no age limit as to when they can take to the roads!- Any decent parent would only allow their kid once they were competent to do so
No, it isn't!
30 January 2014, 02:24 PM
#17
Why does everything have to be compulsory? Must you wear running shoes, to run. must you walk towards oncoming vehicles at all times.
Cycling is a fun pastime that needs not to be regulated to death. Perfectly safe when vehicle users abide with good road manners and slow down, give a wide berth when the opportunity is there to overtake. You would do it for a horse and rider, so as not to spook them, so why not a for cyclist, a youngster so as not to spook them also.
Cycling is a fun pastime that needs not to be regulated to death. Perfectly safe when vehicle users abide with good road manners and slow down, give a wide berth when the opportunity is there to overtake. You would do it for a horse and rider, so as not to spook them, so why not a for cyclist, a youngster so as not to spook them also.
30 January 2014, 02:50 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because cycling on the road is a potentially dangerous pastime at the best of times and the fact you can do so legally with no tuition on a poorly maintained bicycle with no protection at the age of 6 is clearly f**king stupid! It's all very well saying that people woudln't do that as they'd employ commeon sense, but that is clearly not the case as otherwise we wouln't need any legislation for anything!
Then again I suppose you could argue that anyone who takes to the roads on a bicycle without a helmet on is clearly braindead already if they think that is a good idea! :lo1l:
Then again I suppose you could argue that anyone who takes to the roads on a bicycle without a helmet on is clearly braindead already if they think that is a good idea! :lo1l:
30 January 2014, 02:53 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cycling is a fun pastime that needs not to be regulated to death. Perfectly safe when vehicle users abide with good road manners and slow down, give a wide berth when the opportunity is there to overtake. You would do it for a horse and rider, so as not to spook them, so why not a for cyclist, a youngster so as not to spook them also.
However, when the uneducated unhelmeted buffoon swerves into the path of my vehicle because he/she has no idea of how to cycle on the roads who is going to come off worse? Clue, it isn't me!
As it happens I give cyclists an extremely wide berth for precisely the reason I have no idea if they have the slightest idea what they are doing!
Last edited by f1_fan; 30 January 2014 at 02:55 PM.
30 January 2014, 03:33 PM
#21
Where am I saying I wouldn't do that?
However, when the uneducated unhelmeted buffoon swerves into the path of my vehicle because he/she has no idea of how to cycle on the roads who is going to come off worse? Clue, it isn't me!
As it happens I give cyclists an extremely wide berth for precisely the reason I have no idea if they have the slightest idea what they are doing!
However, when the uneducated unhelmeted buffoon swerves into the path of my vehicle because he/she has no idea of how to cycle on the roads who is going to come off worse? Clue, it isn't me!
As it happens I give cyclists an extremely wide berth for precisely the reason I have no idea if they have the slightest idea what they are doing!
Your described experience seems to have tainted your impression that all cyclists behave erratically all the time. In all walks of life there are numpties
30 January 2014, 03:41 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly, but you cant say for definite, maybe even more damaged than he is now, wasn't he just clipped by a wing mirror? This is my point wearing a helmet will help in minor accidents but wont fully mitigate the risk.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
30 January 2014, 03:57 PM
#23
Possibly, but you cant say for definite, maybe even more damaged than he is now, wasn't he just clipped by a wing mirror? This is my point wearing a helmet will help in minor accidents but wont fully mitigate the risk.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
He was "clipped" by a 55mph wing mirror.
Having seen the evidence of death from being "clipped" by a car doing far less I would have been mighty happy wearing a helmet.
More and more people are cycling and the stats show that more and more get injured but they are more likely to survive than not with a helmet on.
30 January 2014, 04:03 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is how do I know if the one I am approaching is a numptie or not? After all he/she doesn't needs any qualificaton or training to be on the road.... therefore just in case I give them all a wifde berth as I don't want to be involved in maiming them or worse and (more importantly
) I don't want them damaging my car
30 January 2014, 04:09 PM
#25
There are so many factors which could lead to an accident, wearing a helmet is not going to reduce that accident from happening, courteous behaviour and segregated lanes for cyclists is far more important.
30 January 2014, 04:43 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Possibly, but you cant say for definite, maybe even more damaged than he is now, wasn't he just clipped by a wing mirror? This is my point wearing a helmet will help in minor accidents but wont fully mitigate the risk.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
Cycling to the shops on a quiet road should be perfectly safe(well people have been doing it for decades) if vehicles abide with good road manners, whether wearing a helmet or not.
I personally wear a helmet but only started in the last year to do so, cycled since I was a kid without one.
I realy dont get the argument against it tbh are people that scared of messing up their hair?
30 January 2014, 11:02 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I find it almost incomprehensible why some of the most vulnerable group of road users are so resistant to simple common sense things like wearing a helmet or having some compulsiory tuition on how to ride etc.
In the cold light of day is it really sensible to allow the people most likely to be hurt on the roads (purely because of their vulnerability due to an obvious lack of protection) to cycle with a) no compulsory tuition as regards using the roads,Cycling proficiency through schools (all my kids have done it) b) no formal test to ensure their bicycle is roadworthy Again cycling proficiency only allow you on the course if your bike is road worthy/ or parent with half an ounce a brain power, not difficult , c) no compuslry form of protection whatsoever- Well personal choice, d) no age limit as to when they can take to the roads!- Any decent parent would only allow their kid once they were competent to do so
No, it isn't!
In the cold light of day is it really sensible to allow the people most likely to be hurt on the roads (purely because of their vulnerability due to an obvious lack of protection) to cycle with a) no compulsory tuition as regards using the roads,Cycling proficiency through schools (all my kids have done it) b) no formal test to ensure their bicycle is roadworthy Again cycling proficiency only allow you on the course if your bike is road worthy/ or parent with half an ounce a brain power, not difficult , c) no compuslry form of protection whatsoever- Well personal choice, d) no age limit as to when they can take to the roads!- Any decent parent would only allow their kid once they were competent to do so
No, it isn't!
30 January 2014, 11:11 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doh! I think you will find that was Andy adding his comments to my post, pretty obvious really as he bolded them to help you, but I shall ask him to spell it out in really simple terms in future as he probably doesn't realise how hard of thinking you are!
30 January 2014, 11:14 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 January 2014, 11:37 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank God you don't have kids then.