BHIT Bill

Just zis Guy said:

I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

Sorry about the scan quality.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

When the EDM came up last year I emailed my MP (Colin Challen, Morley and Rothwell) asking him to
think very carefully before supporting it. I pointed out some of the errors in BHIT work and stated
that I believe pro-choice is better than compulsion. His response was that he would not be
supporting the motion, he is a CTC member and supports their stance on the issue. Last weekend I
replied to him to remind him of the Private Members Bill and again ask him to oppose it on my
behalf. He said he would not support the Bill.
--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. mseries.freeserve.co.ukmseries.freeserve.co.ukOpen ↗

you know? said:

I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

Sorry about the scan quality.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

I'm on the CTC mailing list and they have not mentioned the Bill at all. They made such a fuss about
the helmet campaign featuring the skull that I find it odd that there is silence when it comes to
potential legislation.

Guy, you're well connected in the CTC - is there a reason for the lack of comment?

In "]news:[email hidden],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

Sorry about the scan quality.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

by the miracles of OCR:

Protective headgear for young cyclists A bill to Make provision for the wearing of protective
headgear by children while riding cycles; to prescribe offences and penalties, and for connected
purposes. Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, as follows:
1. Causing or permitting child under 16 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear
(2) Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this
subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 16 years to ride a cycle-
(a) on a road;
(b) in any park, garden or recreation ground to which the public have access without payment,
unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in
regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.
(2) Subsection (I) above applies to the following persons-
(a) any person who -
(b) for the purposes of Part I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (e.12),
has responsibility for the child; or (ii) for the purposes of Part II of the
Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37) has parental
responsibilities (within the meaning given by section
1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.36) in relation to, or has charge or
care of the child;
(b) any owner of the cycle, if the owner is above the age of 15 years;
(c) any person other than its owner who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately
before the child rides it if that person is above the age of 15 years;
(d) where the child is employed, his employer and any other person to whose orders the
child is subject in the course of his employment.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction
to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
4. Regulations
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument
(a) Provide that section 1 of this Act shall not apply in relation to children of any
prescribed description, or in relation to the riding of cycles in such
circumstances as may be prescribed;
(b) prescribe for the purposes of that section (by reference to shape, construction or any other
quality) the descriptions of protective headgear to be worn by children of any prescribed
description in prescribed circumstances; and
(c) prescribe for those purposes the manner in which such headgear is to be worn
(2) Any statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be Parliament.
3. Interpretation
(4) In this Act- "cycle" has the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic
Act 1988(c.53); "regulations" means regulations under section 2 of this Act; and
"road" has -
(a) in England and Wales, the meaning given by section
192(1) of the. 4 Short title, commencement and extent
(193) This Act may be cited as the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Act 2004.
(194) This Act, apart from this section, shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary
of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(195) This Act extends to Northern Ireland.

Just zis Guy said:

I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

Sorry about the scan quality.

Disappointingly, I wrote (via the parliamentary email system) to my MP over a week ago when
the intention to bring forwards a bill was made. I have not received an acknowledgement, let
alone a reply.

MP = Tim Yeo, Conservative front bencher, MP for South Suffolk.

I will consider trying again using a quill, ink and pigeon post nearer the vote.

- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

you know? said:

I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

I guess as with motorcycle helmets this would require relevant religious opt outs in the statutory
instrument? A quick check tells me that in the Sikh religion the turban can be worn anywhere from
11 onwards.

Anyone know how this was dealt with in other countries?

Steve

On 16/1/04 2:45 pm, in article [email hidden],
"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Is it worth emphasising the negative rather than the positive?

1. That this bill will ban cycling for under 16's without a helmet?
2. That there is a serious problem with lack of exercise for teenagers
3. That cycling is still comparatively safe even without a helmet
4. That opposing the bill does not prevent anyone from using a helmet if they so wish
5. That the bill will make criminals out of those below the age of criminal responsibility
6. That the number of injuries let alone deaths is less that those by child car occupants or child
pedestrians so is badly focussed.
7. That better training and policing of all road users will have a more beneficial effect than
insidious moves towards 'victim blaming'.

Trying to make the correct but counter intuitive arguement that helmets are not particularly
effective is probably counter productive. The efficacy of helmets is not the point.

..d

I have read the text. It is somewhat horrendous.

Basically, approved protective headgear must be worn anywhere on road or off road in a park, garden
or recreation ground where the public has access without payment.

A cycle hire company is liable (as the owner of the bicycle) if a hirer under 16 is not wearing a
helmet, as are parents and anyone over the age of 15 who had the bike immediately before the
child rode it.

(technically, if you are mugged by a 15 year old who rides off on your bike without a helmet then
you are liable to a fine.)

A cycle is as described by section 192(10 of the RTA 1988 (anyone dig that up?)

This is an enabling bill to allow the secretary of state to make regulations as and when they see
fit. It is up to the secretary of state to bring this into force.

It claims to make provision for the wearing of protective headgear by children when riding cycles.
As far as I am aware, there is no law, let or hindrance preventing children from so doing.

There are many arguements to make against this bill. More later (I have other things to do
right now.)

..d

Not Responding said:

I'm on the CTC mailing list and they have not mentioned the Bill at all. They made such a fuss
about the helmet campaign featuring the skull that I find it odd that there is silence when it
comes to potential legislation.

I suspect they have been waiting until they have sight of it.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Ambrose Nankivell said:

by the miracles of OCR:

Thanks, Ambrose. Text version now on my site.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Protective headgear for young cyclists

So as they haven't defined "protective headgear" yet, a nice fluffy woollen hat will do in winter,
and maybe a cotton cap in summer. They protect you from the cold and the sun respectively!

Seriously, I can see no benefit whatsoever to this Bill. Let's ban everything children do that might
be dangerous and keep them in a padded cell until they're 21. What's so special about bikes FFS?

Yes, I am a parent, but I would like my child to have the same kind of freedoms I did when I
was young!

Steve Peake said:

you know? said:

I now have the text of the egregious Bill. It's linked from here:
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

I guess as with motorcycle helmets this would require relevant religious opt outs in the statutory
instrument? A quick check tells me that in the Sikh religion the turban can be worn anywhere from
11 onwards.

Anyone know how this was dealt with in other countries?

Following up on my own post.

Of course turbans were excluded from the motorcycle helmet law, because they didn't physically fit
under a helmet. The helmet still stays effective when all other forms of head wear are worn under
the helmet.

This is totally different with cycle helmets when all manufacturers say that nothing should be worn
under the helmet as anything that causes the helmet to slip can cause it to be dangerous.

With this in mind the only way to bring this law in while observing religious freedoms would be to
exclude all persons wearing any religious head wear, from a kippah to a headscarf to a hijab and
everything in between.

I pity the civil servant who is going to have to draft this.

Steve

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 16/1/04 2:45 pm, in article

[email hidden],

Quoted message said:

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Is it worth emphasising the negative rather than the positive?

1. That this bill will ban cycling for under 16's without a helmet?
2. That there is a serious problem with lack of exercise for teenagers
3. That cycling is still comparatively safe even without a helmet
4. That opposing the bill does not prevent anyone from using a helmet if they so wish
5. That the bill will make criminals out of those below the age of

criminal

Quoted message said:

responsibility
6. That the number of injuries let alone deaths is less that those by

child

Quoted message said:

car occupants or child pedestrians so is badly focussed.
7. That better training and policing of all road users will have a more beneficial effect than
insidious moves towards 'victim blaming'.

Trying to make the correct but counter intuitive arguement that helmets

are

Quoted message said:

not particularly effective is probably counter productive. The efficacy of helmets is not
the point.

This is the best post so far that I have seen on this issue. I've been guilty myself of joining in
the "do helmets work or not" debate whilst at the same time completely missing the main poins
which are:

1) children hate wearing helmets in general (sweeping statement I know but not far off the mark)
2) even if they go out with a helmet on, they will take it off round the corner and hang it on the
handlebars meaning parents have no real way of policing this themselves
3) the police barely pay attention to cycling on pavements, let alone worring about kids without
helmets so it won't be policed at all
4) there is nothing preventing helmet use at the moment (as pointed out above)
5) helmet use is generally increasing anyway though media coverage (more mountain biking and bmx on
tv) and parents introducing kids to helmets at a very young age.

David Martin said:

I have read the text. It is somewhat horrendous.

Too right. For example, from my reading it will make the teachers at a school criminally liable if
children take their plastic hats off as they ride round the corner. Imagine the effect that will
have on schools' enthusiasm to promote cycling.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Just zis Guy said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

by the miracles of OCR:

Thanks, Ambrose. Text version now on my site.

No problem.

It is missing a bit of the description of what a road is, but I guess it's not serious.

It's also thanks to my computer, which took more time OCRing it than I did tidying up. Methinks it's
getting a little bit old now 🙁

Ambrose Nankivell said:

It is missing a bit of the description of what a road is, but I guess it's not serious.

I typed it in.

Quoted message said:

It's also thanks to my computer, which took more time OCRing it than I did tidying up. Methinks
it's getting a little bit old now 🙁

I know exactly how it feels (40 on 26 Jan).

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote: ...
| (3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary
| conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

Anyone know what that is?

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.ukOpen ↗

Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:54:13 GMT, [email hidden] (Patrick Herring)

Quoted message said:

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote: ...
| (3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary
| conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

Anyone know what that is?

There are 5 levels of fines, 1 - 5. The actual monetary values can be changed by Sec of State. IIRC
Level 1 = 200UKP.

Oh, and just to show I haven't forgotton the pedants and kilted members; the Scottish standard scale
is not necessirly the same.

Steve Peake said:

This is totally different with cycle helmets when all manufacturers say that nothing should be
worn under the helmet as anything that causes the helmet to slip can cause it to be dangerous.

What about follically challenged people who can't wear a helmet in summer because of the risk of
sunburn through the vents?

Steve Peake said:

Quoted message said:

This is totally different with cycle helmets when all manufacturers say that nothing should be
worn under the helmet as anything that causes the helmet to slip can cause it to be dangerous.

to which Zog The Undeniable said:

What about follically challenged people who can't wear a helmet in summer because of the risk of
sunburn through the vents?

The likes of BHIT would probably then expect us to wear helmets without vents.

I suppose we could always wear helmet covers in summer, though I remember a thread about 10 years
ago (haven't seen it discussed much since) about helmet covers increasing the risk of neck injury in
the event of a meeting between lid and road. The idea is that a smooth, plastic-covered helmet will
slide across tarmac, while a helmet cover will grip the tarmac and stop the helmet sliding, while
the body keeps moving.

All absolute rubbish, of course, because as we all know a helmet couldn't possibly *cause* or
*exacerbate* an injury :-/

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine