Government supports Martlew?
View Full Version : Government supports Martlew?
From yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions reported in Hansard:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery- (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-/)
office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040331/debtext/40331-
03.htm#40331-03_wqn5
Q5. [164520] Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) (Lab): My right
hon. Friend will be aware that I have introduced a
private Member's Bill that will make it compulsory for
child cyclists to wear helmets. Is he aware that, in a
recent opinion poll, more than 80 per cent. of those
polled agreed with the aims of my Bill? Is he also
aware that my Bill is supported by 200 hon. Members on
both sides of the House, including some Ministers? So
will the Government give serious consideration to
supporting my Bill?
The Prime Minister: We will give serious consideration to
it. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high priority
for hon. Members and the Government. As he will know, for
children, our target is to reduce deaths and serious
injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010. By 2002, we had already
reduced deaths and serious injuries by 33 per cent.-so a
large number of children have been saved from death or
serious injury. Sometimes when we are talking about speed
humps, speed limits, speed cameras and so on, we forget
that, although those things can be aggravating for the
motorist from time to time, sometimes they have a real point
in relation to protecting our young people and, indeed,
others. So we will certainly give careful consideration to
his Bill, and if we can support it, I am sure that we will.
Tony
Tony Raven wrote:
>
> The Prime Minister: We will give serious consideration to
> it. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high
> priority for hon. Members and the Government. As he will
> know, for children, our target is to reduce deaths and
> serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010. By 2002, we had
> already reduced deaths and serious injuries by 33 per cent.-
> so a large number of children have been saved from death
> or serious injury. Sometimes when we are talking about
> speed humps, speed limits, speed cameras and so on, we
> forget that, although those things can be aggravating for
> the motorist from time to time, sometimes they have a real
> point in relation to protecting our young people and,
> indeed, others. So we will certainly give careful
> consideration to his Bill, and if we can support it, I am
> sure that we will.
A politician's answer. Tells you nothing.
Simon Proven wrote:
>
> A politician's answer. Tells you nothing.
Do you want to rely on that?
Tony
Tony Raven wrote:
> Do you want to rely on that?
In the time I've been away on holiday CCN have come up
with a fairly nifty looking print off and give to your
MP pamphlet.
http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html#bill is
the place to go, it seems to have most of the salient points
and copious references to back them up. Good level of
coverage without being intimidatingly large IMHO. I've just
printed one off myself and I'll hopefully be able to get
along to one of his surgeries next week to deliver it in
person (as suggested on the CCN page, I had originally
thought I'd just write).
If there's folks in Mr. Blair's constituency (I know there
are some Durham folk here) then maybe a copy to him along
with a letter pointing out how the recent answer he gave
quoted here is rather at odds with the leaflet.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:28:04 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk>
wrote:
> If there's folks in Mr. Blair's constituency (I know there
> are some Durham folk here) then maybe a copy to him along
> with a letter pointing out how the recent answer he gave
> quoted here is rather at odds with the leaflet.
I'm the wrong side of County Durham unfortunately.
Colin
--
Simon Proven wrote:
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> >
> > The Prime Minister: We will give serious consideration
> > to it. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high
> > priority for hon. Members and the Government. As he will
> > know, for children, our target is to reduce deaths and
> > serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010. By 2002, we
> > had already reduced deaths and serious injuries by 33
> > per cent.-so a large number of children have been saved
> > from death or serious injury. Sometimes when we are
> > talking about speed humps, speed limits, speed cameras
> > and so on, we forget that, although those things can be
> > aggravating for the motorist from time to time,
> > sometimes they have a real point in relation to
> > protecting our young people and, indeed, others. So we
> > will certainly give careful consideration to his Bill,
> > and if we can support it, I am sure that we will.
>
> A politician's answer. Tells you nothing.
Not quite.
There are a couple of very positive items within the answer.
Firstly the point is made about a 33% reduction in deaths
and serious injuries by 2002. This would be well towards
exceeding their target of 50% by 2010 and it has been
achieved _without_ recourse to compulsoy helmets.
Secondly he raises the effect of traffic management and how
that can protect 'our young people'. It seems he is saying
that speed limits, speed cameras (and unfortunately speed
humps) are already reducing the numbers of deaths and
serious injuries. Again _without_ compulsory helmets.
It is a politician's answer but one which I feel we should
see as being largely supportive of the anti-compulsion
stand. I think he may have been hinting at some of the
points that may be raised when the full debate occurs.
John B
Peter Clinch wrote:
> In the time I've been away on holiday CCN have come up
> with a fairly nifty looking print off and give to your MP
> pamphlet.
Every MP has already been sent one, by CTC.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Every MP has already been sent one, by CTC.
Is that the full 12 page A5 booklet, or just the postcard
summary that was included in the recent Cycle? In any case,
should be worth going along to chat directly about the
contents and the Not Terribly Bright bill.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Every MP has already been sent one, by CTC.
> Is that the full 12 page A5 booklet, or just the postcard
> summary that was included in the recent Cycle?
The booklet, I think, but I'll ask.
> In any case, should be worth going along to chat directly
> about the contents and the Not Terribly Bright bill.
Yup.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> > Do you want to rely on that?
>
> In the time I've been away on holiday CCN have come up
> with a fairly nifty looking print off and give to your MP
> pamphlet.
>
> http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/latest/latest.html#bill is
> the place to go, it seems to have most of the salient
> points and copious references to back them up.
>
> If there's folks in Mr. Blair's constituency (I know there
> are some Durham folk here) then maybe a copy to him along
> with a letter pointing out how the recent answer he gave
> quoted here is rather at odds with the leaflet.
I don't really see that it is at odds.
John B
JohnB wrote:
> I don't really see that it is at odds.
Okay then, precisely how the salient "if" conditionals come
out as "no".
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
> JohnB wrote:
>
> > I don't really see that it is at odds.
>
> Okay then, precisely how the salient "if" conditionals
> come out as "no".
Of course you are right which is why pressure must be kept
up on lobbying I don't believe we should be pessimistic from
the PM's response and I hope that when the debate occurs
most MPs will have understood the issues. His answer hinted
at some possible responses from his ministers.
Unfortunately there are already a number who have already
nailed their colours firmly to the mast and for whom it
would be a massive embarrassment to back-track, eg my own MP
(Sir George Young - the "cycling baronet") who was on the
front page of my local rag last week stating he fully
supported the Bill :-(
John B
Tony Raven wrote:
> Simon Proven wrote:
>
>
>>A politician's answer. Tells you nothing.
>
>
> Do you want to rely on that?
Do you want a politician's answer to that?
I was being rude about Tony not being willing to say
anything rather than being optimistic about what his fence
sitting might mean.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
