A Reason for H*lm*t Use?

dkahn400

Bryan wrote:
> Paul Rudin Wrote:
> > ... although the courts are required to take into account
> > failure to observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing
> > helmets). The question is whether such failure makes any
> > difference to the outcome on a case by case basis.
>
> Would you care to point out which section of the highway code
> states that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a
> helmet?

There isn't one of course. But as I'm sure you are aware there is a
rule (45) that states that you /should/ wear "a cycle helmet which
conforms to current regulations".

I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.

--
Dave...

Tony W

"Paul Rudin" <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:87hdlmx2zx.fsf@rudin.co.uk...
> >
> > No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
> > decision.
>
> .. although the courts are required to take into account failure to
> observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing helmets).

Rule 45 says 'should' not must or shall.

Tony W

"dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1105544828.326049.327570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.

45 also says you should wear 'reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt,
arm or ankle bands) in the dark'.

I don't always -- but my bike has lots of reflective stuff + 2 bright lights
fore and aft. Friends have commented that I can be seen from miles away --
am I being negligent?

T

Paul Rudin

Bryan <Bryan.1ir5ea@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> writes:

> Paul Rudin Wrote:
>> Colin Blackburn <colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>> [color=blue]
>>
>> ... although the courts are required to take into account failure to
>> observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing helmets). The question
>> is whether such failure makes any difference to the outcome on a case
>> by case basis.
>
> Would you care to point out which section of the highway code states
> that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a helmet?
>

The highway code uses the term "must" when refering to legal
requirements. There is no legal requirement to wear a cycle helmet (as
I think everyone hereabouts knows), but rule 45 of the highway code
tells you to wear one.

Paul Rudin

"Tony W" <tonyremove@chapmore.co.uk> writes:

> "Paul Rudin" <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:87hdlmx2zx.fsf@rudin.co.uk...
>> >
>> > No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
>> > decision.
>>
>> .. although the courts are required to take into account failure to
>> observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing helmets).
>
> Rule 45 says 'should' not must or shall.

Yeah - well I don't really know what were supposed to make of these
nuances of language. Take for example the difference in language
between rule 47 - "Use cycle routes when practicable" - and rule 49 -
"Keep within the [cycle] lane wherever possible."

dkahn400

Paul Rudin wrote:

> Yeah - well I don't really know what were supposed to make of these
> nuances of language. Take for example the difference in language
> between rule 47 - "Use cycle routes when practicable" - and rule
> 49 -
> "Keep within the [cycle] lane wherever possible."

It's confusing but a cycle lane is not the same thing as a cycle route.
I happen to disagree with both these rules too, and I also "fail to
observe" them, as I do rule 45.

--
Dave...

Paul Rudin

"dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Paul Rudin wrote:
>
>> Yeah - well I don't really know what were supposed to make of these
>> nuances of language. Take for example the difference in language
>> between rule 47 - "Use cycle routes when practicable" - and rule
>> 49 -
>> "Keep within the [cycle] lane wherever possible."
>
> It's confusing but a cycle lane is not the same thing as a cycle route.
> I happen to disagree with both these rules too, and I also "fail to
> observe" them, as I do rule 45.

I understand that they're not refering to the same thing... I'm just
highlighting the difference in language.

Richard Bates

On 12 Jan 2005 08:25:48 -0800, "dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Paul Rudin wrote:
>
>> Yeah - well I don't really know what were supposed to make of these
>> nuances of language. Take for example the difference in language
>> between rule 47 - "Use cycle routes when practicable" - and rule
>> 49 -
>> "Keep within the [cycle] lane wherever possible."
>
>It's confusing but a cycle lane is not the same thing as a cycle route.
>I happen to disagree with both these rules too, and I also "fail to
>observe" them, as I do rule 45.

Do you *really* fail to observe them? I would have thought that when
you made a decision not to use a cycle route, it would be because it
was not practicabale - perhaps though geography, perhaps through
disrepair, perhaps through fear of being mugged.

Similarly, when you decide not to ride within the cycle lane, it is
possible that your decision is based on the fact that riding in the
lane would make you more unsafe.

They both seem reasonable "excuses" for me, and therefore quite within
the HC guidelines.


--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?

dkahn400

Tony W wrote:
> "dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1105544828.326049.327570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly
> > looks like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of
> > our resident lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.
>
> 45 also says you should wear 'reflective clothing and/or
> accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark'.
>
> I don't always -- but my bike has lots of reflective stuff + 2
> bright lights fore and aft. Friends have commented that I can be
> seen from miles away --
> am I being negligent?

I wouldn't have said so personally. However, the question is whether
you are failing to observe the Highway Code. It certainly looks that
way to me.

--
Dave...

David Martin

On 12/1/05 3:47 pm, in article
1105544828.326049.327570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "dkahn400"
<dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Bryan wrote:
>> Paul Rudin Wrote:
>>> ... although the courts are required to take into account
>>> failure to observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing
>>> helmets). The question is whether such failure makes any
>>> difference to the outcome on a case by case basis.
>>
>> Would you care to point out which section of the highway code
>> states that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a
>> helmet?
>
> There isn't one of course. But as I'm sure you are aware there is a
> rule (45) that states that you /should/ wear "a cycle helmet which
> conforms to current regulations".
>
As there are no regulations stating which form of cycle helmet (if any) must
be worn, rule 45 is somewhat moot (or, scarily, ahead of it's time).

I'd ask which cycle helmet the insurers think the victim should have worn
that is certified for preventing head injury in a collision with a car.

...d

Mark Thompson

> [1] A point hammered home rather well in recent documentary film "The
> Corporation", leading to the conclusion that a company / corporation is
> inevitably driven by the rules to act as a psychopath, no matter how
> individually decent its directors might be.

I'm wondering if the problem is inflated shareprices making the dividends
too low to justify the price. To prevent a collapse in shareprices the
company must justify the higher price by promising increases in profits
year on year. It is this drive for higher and higher profits that leads to
the "psychopathic" behaviour - costs slashed and growth sought whatever the
impact on stakeholders.

Does a company get any benefit from people buying shares from existing
holders and selling them on when they've risen in price?

JLB

dkahn400 wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>>Paul Rudin Wrote:
>>
>>>... although the courts are required to take into account
>>>failure to observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing
>>>helmets). The question is whether such failure makes any
>>>difference to the outcome on a case by case basis.
>>
>>Would you care to point out which section of the highway code
>>states that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a
>>helmet?
>
>
> There isn't one of course. But as I'm sure you are aware there is a
> rule (45) that states that you /should/ wear "a cycle helmet which
> conforms to current regulations".
>
> I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.
>
Not having a HC to hand, I can only go on your quotation. The dependence
of this rule on a helmet that "conforms to current regulations" makes
it important to establish what "current regulations" are. It seems to me
that there are no current regulations that describe a helmet that is
required to be worn by a cyclist. Hence, this rule is void.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB

dkahn400 wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>>Paul Rudin Wrote:
>>
>>>... although the courts are required to take into account
>>>failure to observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing
>>>helmets). The question is whether such failure makes any
>>>difference to the outcome on a case by case basis.
>>
>>Would you care to point out which section of the highway code
>>states that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a
>>helmet?
>
>
> There isn't one of course. But as I'm sure you are aware there is a
> rule (45) that states that you /should/ wear "a cycle helmet which
> conforms to current regulations".
>
> I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.
>
Not having a HC to hand, I can only go on your quotation. The dependence
of this rule on a helmet that "conforms to current regulations" makes
it important to establish what "current regulations" are. It seems to me
that there are no current regulations that describe a helmet that is
required to be worn by a cyclist. Hence, this rule is void.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen

On 12 Jan 2005 07:47:08 -0800 someone who may be "dkahn400"
<dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-

>I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
>like not observing the HC to me.

Take a look at Rules 61 and 62.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml#61

How can one observe both of them?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.