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.