Halfords- pro speeding and anti-cyclist.

Hi Folks,

Those who have followed the recent passage of the Governments 'road
safety' bill through parliament may have noticed that Martlew (that
well know hater of 'cycling fascists', meaning those who speak up in
defence of cyclists rights) mentioned that Halfords is now supporting
the idea that allowing children to cycle without a polystyrene hat
should be made a criminal offence.

According to the Bikebiz site ' Barbara Cadd, head of corporate and
brand management at Halfords, told BikeBiz.com that the decision to
support helmet compulsion for children was made at board level a month
ago.'

Given that Halfords also turn a tidy profit selling equipment designed
to allow habitual speeders to evade detection, so giving them the
'freedom' to drive at whatever speed they think fit wherever they think
fit, is is obvious that Halfords are of the opinion that the burden for
avoiding being killed should fall on vulnerable road users and not
those irresponsible drivers who actually pose the danger in the first
place.

What make this attitude even more repugnant is that helmets are simply
not designed to offer protection from the sort of impacts that result
from being hit by a motor vehicle travelling at speed. (A motor vehicle
that was quite possibly travelling at an illegally high speed
'protected' from the risk of prosecution by camera detection equipment
purchased from Halfords).

I would urge all cyclists to protest about this decision to Halfords
head office and to boycott all Halfords stores, be this for cycling or
car related equipment. I certainly won't be putting any business their
way ever again.

Regards,

Howard Peel
Hull
www.thebikezone.org.uk

On 14 Mar 2005 02:29:33 -0800, wrote:

According to the Bikebiz site ' Barbara Cadd, head of corporate and
brand management at Halfords, told BikeBiz.com that the decision to
support helmet compulsion for children was made at board level a month
ago.'

Yes, I noted that. Here is my reply:



Barbara Cadd
Head of corporate and brand management
Halfords Plc
Redditch
Worcestershire
B98 0DE


14 March 2005

Dear Ms Cadd,

I noticed in the bicycle trade magazine BikeBiz that you believe it
would be unethical not to support a helmet law for children.

I welcome any retailer who takes an ethical approach to brand and
product issues. You seem to acknowledge that the law is not in your
commercial interest, and I salute you for this even though I disagree
with your policy - I agree with you that helmet laws deter cycling,
but having gone into it in some depth it seems to me they achieve
little else. Whether this is because, as recent research shows,
helmeted children take more risks, or because helmets are simply not
designed to be effective in road traffic crashes, I don't know.

I have no doubt that you have been equally supportive of measures to
outlaw radar and camera detectors, devices designed solely to allow
drivers to evade the law. At the very least those selling such
products are colluding in the widespread flouting of an important road
safety measure.

But why wait for legislation? There is no reason why you should not
take the lead and remove these law-evasion products from your shelves
right now. For a motor retailer of Halfords' standing to do this
would send an important and unequivocal message, and I am sure you
will gain some excellent publicity from it. Drink-driving is now
socially unacceptable, and you could take a lead in doing the same for
speeding.

I am confident that your decision to back a helmet law despite the
conflicting evidence was taken from the best of motives. The evidence
linking speed, and speeding convictions, to both frequency and
severity of crashes, is much more clear-cut. More importantly,
measures to cut speed address the cause of the problem rather than its
victims. Who knows, if everybody slowed down, maybe the collision
energies would drop to a level where helmets make a difference.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

wrote:
Hi Folks,

Those who have followed the recent passage of the Governments 'road
safety' bill through parliament may have noticed that Martlew (that
well know hater of 'cycling fascists', meaning those who speak up in
defence of cyclists rights) mentioned that Halfords is now supporting
the idea that allowing children to cycle without a polystyrene hat
should be made a criminal offence.

Hmm.

Sounds like we're in JP Morgan territory he

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...gan156089.html

"A man always has two reasons for doing
anything: a good reason and the real reason."

This compulsory helment lark would
seem to be likely to allow Halford's
to sell a few hats.

BugBear

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
The evidence
linking speed, and speeding convictions, to both frequency and
severity of crashes, is much more clear-cut.

No it's bloody well not.

Severity yes - frequency - no.

wrote:

Given that Halfords also turn a tidy profit selling equipment designed
to allow habitual speeders to evade detection, so giving them the
'freedom' to drive at whatever speed they think fit wherever they
think fit

You really think that's what radar/GPS detectors allow you to do?

How many cyclists die on rural roads from speeding motorists vs those who
die after being hit by vehicles doing 30mph.

I see your point - to an extent - but on the other hand, IMO, what a load of
sensationalist twaddle.

dwb wrote:
wrote:


Given that Halfords also turn a tidy profit selling equipment designed
to allow habitual speeders to evade detection, so giving them the
'freedom' to drive at whatever speed they think fit wherever they
think fit


You really think that's what radar/GPS detectors allow you to do?

What other purpose do they have, other than for criminals to avoid
detection?

R.

Richard wrote:

You really think that's what radar/GPS detectors allow you to do?

What other purpose do they have, other than for criminals to avoid
detection?

Potentially pay far more attention to what's coming up.
Of course they can be used to speed - but that's not their ONLY use.

Halfords also sell wheels which can invalidate insurance, obnoxiously loud
speaker systems, spray paint that can be used for graffiti, oil for making
roads slippery, hammers and implements for assisting breaking and entering
and toxic substances, amongst other things.

Hell, lets ban the whole shop.

Suggesting that the idea for children ( not everyone ) to wear helmets is
the same as selling other (currently legal[1]) systems is not a like for
like comparison in my mind shrug


[1] still likely to be banned, whereas the helmet thing probably won't
happen.

Howard:
the decision to
support helmet compulsion for children was made at board level a
month
ago.'

Given that Halfords also turn a tidy profit selling equipment snip

I wonder if the two facts are related.

d.

dwb wrote:
You really think that's what radar/GPS detectors allow you to do?

What other purpose do they have, other than for criminals to avoid
detection?


Potentially pay far more attention to what's coming up.

How so?

If one has a radar detector and it beeps unexpectedly, what's the first
thing the driver looks at? the road ahead or his/her speedo? I submit
that it's the latter. At 70 mph, how far do you travel in the (say) 1s
to look at the speedo and 1s to compare it with the local speed limit?


Of course they can be used to speed - but that's not their ONLY use.

Halfords also sell wheels which can invalidate insurance, obnoxiously loud
speaker systems, spray paint that can be used for graffiti, oil for making
roads slippery, hammers and implements for assisting breaking and entering
and toxic substances, amongst other things.

However, these can be used in perfectly law-abiding ways. The radar
detector is only ever useful if you are committing a crime.

R.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:31:23 -0000, "dwb"
wrote:

The evidence
linking speed, and speeding convictions, to both frequency and
severity of crashes, is much more clear-cut.

No it's bloody well not.
Severity yes - frequency - no.

Is the wrong answer. TRL421 showed that for roads of a given type,
the probability of a crash rose with average speed. Quite why this
should be contentious is a mystery to me - "ye canna' change the laws
of physics" and given that the driver must think and brake it is
inevitable that the faster the driver is going, the greater the
chances of running out of room.

And those drivers stopped for speeding or flashed by a speed camera
have around double the incidence of recent crash involvement.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound