BHIT Bill



Status
Not open for further replies.
If anyone's interested, the definition of a cycle in the RTA is:

"cycle" means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a
motor vehicle,

So children need plastic hats in case they fall off their tricycles.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Steve Peake <[email protected]>typed

> 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.

I didn't know that! Shame cos a thin silk headscarf under the helmet is a brilliant way to keep the
head & ears warm. The helmet is liable to slip dangerously if its fit is bad. My long thick hair is
fairly slippy anyway.

> 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 can't see a kippah interfering with a helmet (though a spill could turn retaining clips into a
knife). A hijab might keep the wearer warm and could potentially strangle the wearer in a crash,
with or without a helmet if not kept from catching in moving parts...

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

Yebbut might it be the downfall of the Bill ;) ?

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
 
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:36:18 +0000, Steve Peake
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I guess as with motorcycle helmets this would require relevant religious opt outs in the statutory
>instrument?

I have a better idea: those who have a religious belief in magic ghats can wear them, the rest of us
can make up our own minds ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> If anyone's interested, the definition of a cycle in the RTA is:
>
> "cycle" means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case
> a motor vehicle,
>
> So children need plastic hats in case they fall off their tricycles.

But not if they fall off their unicycles.
 
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:12:55 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> So children need plastic hats in case they fall off their tricycles.
>But not if they fall off their unicycles.

Don't be absurd, Bill, how could that possibly happen? I'm sure at least fifty children a day are
slaughtered needlessly in tricycle crashes which could have been prevented simply by wearing a
plastic hat, though.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Guy wrote:
> > If anyone's interested, the definition of a cycle in the RTA is:
> >
> > "cycle" means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any
> > case a motor vehicle,

prompting W K to respond:
> But not if they fall off their unicycles.

Presumably Guy is referring to the RTA 1991. Unfortunately Statutory Instrument 1519, Traffic Sign
Regulations 1994, appendix 7, defines a cycle as: "a Unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, or a cycle having
four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle."

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:32:50 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Presumably Guy is referring to the RTA 1991. Unfortunately Statutory Instrument 1519, Traffic Sign
>Regulations 1994, appendix 7, defines a cycle as: "a Unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, or a cycle having
>four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle."

Nope. I'm referring to the RTA 1988, para 192, as cited in the Martlew Bill, which omits "unicycle."
<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8.htm#mdiv192>

Given the other bollocks in this bill it would scarcely be a surprise if it referred to the wrong
statutory instrument, though :)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:BC2DAC98.9109%[email protected]:

> On 16/1/04 2:45 pm, in article [email protected], "MSeries"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Is it worth emphasising the negative rather than the positive?

Also, is it worth pointing out that whilst you can mandate the wearing of a helmet, you cannot
mandate *how* it will be worn? Here in Western Australia helmets are compulsory and every day I see
helmets worn without the straps being done up (perhaps they're safer that way, they fall off on
impact and remove the risk of increased leverage on the neck :) and sitting at funny angles, e.g.
on the back of the head, or perched on top in a "I've just paid $100 for this hair do and I'm not
ruining it with some poxy helmet!"

You mainly see this on the heads of "non-serious" cyclists, i.e. those who do it for day to day
transport or bimbling around now and again, not the guys in team tops and lycra shorts (there's a
hell of a lot of them here, more so than back home).

Cheers,

Graeme
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> If anyone's interested, the definition of a cycle in the RTA is:
>
> "cycle" means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case
> a motor vehicle,

One is mindful that the only cycle I have that I *always* wear my helmet when riding, my unicycle,
is not included in the definition!

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 [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Steve Peake wrote:

> 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.

That's an idea. We could found a new religion which prevents us from wearing h+lm+ts on, for example
days ending in a "y" (unless we really want to).

Or something.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> 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>

Yes, but do you have real references? Like:

* Links to sources my MP might find compelling, or at least credible?
e.g. CTC/lesberries; medical opinions; studies of Oz/etc.
* Evidence of a link with bhit? If I rubbish b******* without evidence of any connection, I'm
throwing up a strawman.
* URL for the bill itself?

Anyone still got the URL for that Grauniad article from the A&E doctor?

I have absolutely no idea whether my MP has any views on this bill, or indeed on cycling.

--
Nick Kew
 
Graeme wrote:

> e.g. on the back of the head, or perched on top in a "I've just paid $100 for this hair do and I'm
> not ruining it with some poxy helmet!"
>

I wonder what would happen if the beehive hairdo or the old superglued punk spikes came back into
fashion with teenagers. Would they need to have a haircut to wear a helmet? The Martlew Bill seems
to want to define exactly how it is worn so perching it on top presumably isn't enough.

"unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in
regulations, in such manner as may be so specified."

Tony
 
"Nick Kew" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Yes, but do you have real references? Like:
> * Links to sources my MP might find compelling, or at least credible?

http://www.ctc.org.uk http://www.lwsberries.co.uk http://www.cyclehelmets.org

> * Evidence of a link with bhit? If I rubbish b******* without evidence of any connection, I'm
> throwing up a strawman.

My MP said it was being drafted by BHIT, but I'll ask.

> * URL for the bill itself?

It's on my website, but I haven't seen it on parliament.uk yet (early copies are being faxed around
by helpful MPs)

> Anyone still got the URL for that Grauniad article from the A&E doctor?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,3605,270081,00.html

Searching for it I also found this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,963866,00.html
Andthis (note date!) http://www.globalideasbank.org/wbi/WBI-127.HTML

> I have absolutely no idea whether my MP has any views on this bill, or indeed on cycling.

Who's your MP?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Graeme wrote:
> Also, is it worth pointing out that whilst you can mandate the wearing of a helmet, you cannot
> mandate *how* it will be worn?

Are you sure? When I learnt to ride a motorbike I was told that if the strap is not properly
fastened then legally you are not wearing a helmet. It shouldn't be hard to define a few rules
covering how the helmet is warning.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:05:54 GMT, Graeme
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, is it worth pointing out that whilst you can mandate the wearing of a helmet, you cannot
>mandate *how* it will be worn?

The Bill seeks to do just that.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> That's an idea. We could found a new religion which prevents us from wearing h+lm+ts on, for
> example days ending in a "y" (unless we really want to).

My religion states that I have to wear a tight fitting skull cap made of tin foil. Stops all those
alien rays from frying the brain you know.

Cheers,

Graeme

...one advantage in being given the job of feeding my 1 month old son in the middle of the night. I
can post cr*p like the above at 12:20am without my wife screaming for me to get off the computer as
she's zonked out asleep. On the other hand, I now know why sleep deprivation is used as a means of
torture :-/
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:05:54 GMT, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Also, is it worth pointing out that whilst you can mandate the wearing of a helmet, you cannot
>>mandate *how* it will be worn?
>
> The Bill seeks to do just that.

The bill, as many such items, is worded deliberately vaguely on this. This is undoubtedly to
simplify and shorten the wording of the bill, with a view to additional clarification later. However
I would not like to be the one writing any legal description of how a helmet should be worn. The
vast majority of us know how a helmet should be worn because it just looks right, but do legal
definitions not have to be rather more precise than that? If so, how on earth would this aspect of
this ridiculous proposed law be policed?

So, anyone up for a guess at how it would be worded? Here's my bash - "The helmet should be worn
with any straps correctly aligned and fastened" Lots of room for interpretation there and I've no
clue how to word it to stop the "back of the head" style.

Cheers,

Graeme
 
Graeme wrote:

> So, anyone up for a guess at how it would be worded? Here's my bash - "The helmet should be worn
> with any straps correctly aligned and fastened" Lots of room for interpretation there and I've no
> clue how to word it to stop the "back of the head" style.

Howzabout "according to the manufacturer's published guidelines", since I think safety equipment has
to be sold with a bit of blurb these days. And if not you've already got an excellent precedent of
Bloody Stupid legislation on helmets to make some more, c/o the BHIT 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 [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in news:400EA765.7030408
@dundee.ac.uk:

> Howzabout "according to the manufacturer's published guidelines", since I think safety equipment
> has to be sold with a bit of blurb these days.

I'd thought of that one, but they can be a bit vague too. I wish I could remember where it was I
read the guidelines for one helmet. The wording was along the lines of "If you hit your head whilst
wearing this helmet and are injured, tough luck." Fair enough sentiments I thought, but it showed to
me that even the helmet manufacturers don't share the view evangelical view of BHIT (I know it was
probably just a "don't sue us" legal get-out, but I felt it was refreshingly honest).

Cheers,

Graeme
 
Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:

| "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
| news:[email protected]:
|
| > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:05:54 GMT, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:
| >
| >>Also, is it worth pointing out that whilst you can mandate the wearing of a helmet, you cannot
| >>mandate *how* it will be worn?
| >
| > The Bill seeks to do just that.
|
| The bill, as many such items, is worded deliberately vaguely on this. This is undoubtedly to
| simplify and shorten the wording of the bill, with a view to additional clarification later.
| However I would not like to be the one writing any legal description of how a helmet should be
| worn. The vast majority of us know how a helmet should be worn because it just looks right, but do
| legal definitions not have to be rather more precise than that? If so, how on earth would this
| aspect of this ridiculous proposed law be policed?
|
| So, anyone up for a guess at how it would be worded? Here's my bash - "The helmet should be worn
| with any straps correctly aligned and fastened" Lots of room for interpretation there and I've no
| clue how to word it to stop the "back of the head" style.

All you need is "The helmet must be worn according to its designed intention". If someone doesn't
like it, they pay the lawyer.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
Replies
8
Views
830
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
L
Replies
6
Views
652
UK and Europe
Zog The Undenia
Z
Z
  • Locked
Replies
0
Views
681
UK and Europe
Zog The Undenia
Z
T
Replies
0
Views
553
T
D
Replies
3
Views
721
J
J
Replies
37
Views
2K
M
I
Replies
20
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Richard Corfiel
R
I
Replies
21
Views
927
UK and Europe
Richard Corfield
R