Compulsory helmets again!



Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnB wrote:

> Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.
>
> What's going on?

They are going to compare the effectiveness of different vegetables for powering web servers:
http://totl.net/Spud/

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
marc must be edykated coz e writed:

> JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Who'd vote for turning kids into vegetables?
>>>
>>> Most Cub leaders after a pack night!
>>
>> Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.
>>
>> What's going on?
>
> Errr This is one of those tests they throw at you during training sessions isn't it?
>
>
Batteries.
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.
> >>
> >> What's going on?
> >
> > Errr This is one of those tests they throw at you during training sessions isn't it?
> >
> >
> Batteries.

Takes too much equipment if every cub dose sit, takes too long if you do it one by one, and then you
would also need another activity to keep the other busy, but thanks, it's an idea for a science base
at a District event

--
Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
and dealers.
 
marc must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Last night my daughter came home from cubs saying she had to take four vegetables next week.
>>>>
>>>> What's going on?
>>>
>>> Errr This is one of those tests they throw at you during training sessions isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>> Batteries.
>
> Takes too much equipment if every cub dose sit, takes too long if you do it one by one, and then
> you would also need another activity to keep the other busy, but thanks, it's an idea for a
> science base at a District event
>
If there are a lot of them, and they each take 4 veg, connect them in series and use them to torture
a Boys Brigade member, could be a good exercise in field interrogation techniques.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Originally posted by Ian
Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
>>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
>>
>> Seems ...reasonable

> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?

They aren't all responsible.
-

Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless parents?

best wishes
james
 
"Dave" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
> > ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and
> the
> > numbers of children who would be saved by wearing one. The MPs have
> signed
> > an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the latest
> count,
> > by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
>
> <snip>
>
> Has anyone stopped to think of what would actually happen if this became "Da Law" ?..... I can't
> help thinking that it would probably be policed about as well as the "not riding on the pavement"
> law and the "using lights at night" law. Remember, we are all cyclists so don't really matter,
> therefore our precious police time shouldn't be wasted by reinforcing any law that *might* be
> beneficial to cyclists... (no offence intended to law enforcement there, merely politicians and
> they can *all* go fcuk 'emselves ;-). I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned. It
> won't be enforced anyway so if you've got a particular stance with regards to this you can carry
> on going helmetless anyway.....(just means you'll be a criminal in the eyes of the law and join
> all those others guilty of victimless crimes that the Govnt. seem intent on filling our jails
> with)...

But if you're not wearing a helmet the accident will automatically be your fault, since you could
have saved yourself from being crushed under the wheels of a forty ton artic by wearing a plastic
tinfoil beenie. Yes, I know that it wouldn't be enforced except when some bored and truculent bobby
wanted to make an officious nuisance of himself, but it would still be a bad idea.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.
 
Ian <[email protected]> writes:

> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should be
> down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

Not a flame, but why? What good do you think it would do?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.
 
pig pog <[email protected]> writes:

> Richard Burton wrote:
> > ...an Early Day Motion (text below) "That this House notes that every year in the UK
> > approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16 years receive a serious head injury" The
> > 28,000 figure is false. This is the figure for head injuries from ALL causes not from Cycling.
> > The figure recorded from cycling is 1,200.
>
> Do you have sources for either of those figures? There has been some discussion of this on Urban
> Cyclist UK and the same claim (that 28000 is a figure for all serious head injuries) but it wasn't
> attributed either. No one has managed to find a good source for the actual figure for total child
> cycling releated serious head injuries although since legislation would be likely to be restricted
> to on-road cycling it is only fair to compare with the stats for on-road injuries (which seem to
> have the added attraction of existing)

Could you tell us what they are and where to find them?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.
 
Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
>
> Not a flame, but why? What good do you think it would do?
I think it would save some injuries.
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Ian <[email protected]> writes:

> Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> >
> > "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it
> >>> should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under
> >>> 16's.
> >>
> >> Seems a very reasonable position to me.
> >
> > Seems a dangerous extension of the nanny state to me. Something the H&S Nazis are continuously
> > trying to do.
> >
> > What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
> >
> They aren't all responsible.

What counts as 'responible' in this instance? persuading kids that they're 'safe' because
you've given them the plastic equivalent or a tinfoil beenie, or advising them to take care
because you haven't?

'Nanny state' to me is just rhetoric; many people use it without really thinking about what they're
saying. But in a case like compulsory cycle helmets where the benfits are so dubious and equivocal,
and the disbenefits are so clear, there seems to me the strongest of reasons _not_ to take this
action - and those reasons have nothing to do with whether the state should intervene in areas with
established safety benefit.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.
 
Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> What counts as 'responible' in this instance?

It is not a case of "this instance", some parents are not responsible people full stop.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
PK wrote:

> Ah, so you agree that not wearing a helmet is danerous? (;-)

I'm sitting here in front of my Mac and *not* wearing a helmet. It's not dangerous at all.

Damn, the PC in the corner has just crashed ;-)

John B
 
JohnB must be edykated coz e writed:

>
>
> PK wrote:
>
>> Ah, so you agree that not wearing a helmet is danerous? (;-)
>
> I'm sitting here in front of my Mac and *not* wearing a helmet. It's not dangerous at all.
>
>
> Damn, the PC in the corner has just crashed ;-)
>
> John B
>
Was it wearing a helmet?

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
JohnB wrote:
>
> Damn, the PC in the corner has just crashed ;-)
>

Dear Abbey

I keep crashing my PC and its making my head hurt. Should I be wearing a helmet?

Yours

Bill
 
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>In news:[email protected], Richard Burton
><[email protected]> typed:
>> Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
>> ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved by
>> wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at the
>> latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
>
>To find out if your MP's signed it, go to the following page
>
>http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=1783
>
>(it took me a fair bit of teomaing to find it, so I thought I'd share that.)

Mine hasn't signed it - is there any point writing encouraging him to oppose it? The main page
describes EDM's as "not generally expected to be debated", but on the other hand it says "Members
may also table amendments to existing motions".
 
Henry Braun <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Richard Burton wrote:
> > Some misguided MPs are being led by the nose by BHIT, which is back to its old tricks of making
> > ridiculous claims about the efficacy of helmets and the numbers of children who would be saved
> > by wearing one. The MPs have signed an Early Day Motion (text below) which has been signed, at
> > the latest count, by 54 of them, including Glenda Jackson, who I thought knew better.
> >
> > Attached is a copy of a letter from a CTC member to his MP re the EDM on helmets which might be
> > useful as a template if BCC members want to respond similarly. The general thought is that this
> > EDM will fail due to lack of time, but might be being used as a marker for inclusion in a road
> > safety bill expected next year.
>
> As I understand it Early Day Motions can't really "fail" or succeed: they are merely a way for MPs
> to register their political opinions and draw attention to issues that concern them. They don't
> get any parliamentary time at all, unlike the more significant Private Members' Bills (which do
> usually fail for lack of time), and it would take many more than the 50-odd signatures that this
> EDM has gathered to push the government into proposing a new law. As it stands we know that about
> 1 MP in 13 would be minded before the debate to vote for compulsion---not a great threat.
>
> It's perhaps not entirely a bad thing, wherever you stand on helmets, if 54 MPs are sufficiently
> engaged with the matter to put their names to one side of the debate; they are certainly opening
> an invitation for people to write to them on the issue.

www.faxyourmp.co.uk

A good site for anyone wanting to sent a fax to their M.P. on this or any other matter. Iain
 
pig pog must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian wrote:
>> Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>>>
>>> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:bofptk$jp8$1-
>>> @hercules.btinternet.comnews:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it
>>>>> should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under
>>>>> 16's.
>>>>
>>>> Seems ...reasonable
>>> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
>> They aren't all responsible. -
>
>
>
> Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless parents?
>
> best wishes james
>
>
>
> --
> best wishes james
>
> best wishes james
>
>> --------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com
Yes.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> pig pog <[email protected]> writes:

> > > ...an Early Day Motion (text below) "That this House notes that every year in the UK
> > > approximately 28,000 children under the age of 16 years receive a serious head injury" The
> > > 28,000 figure is false. This is the figure for head injuries from ALL causes not from
> > > Cycling. The figure recorded from cycling is
> > 1,200.
> >
> > Do you have sources for either of those figures? There has been some discussion of this on Urban
> > Cyclist UK and the same claim (that 28000 is a figure for all serious head injuries) but it
> > wasn't attributed either. No one has managed to find a good source for the actual figure for
> > total child cycling releated serious head injuries although since legislation would be likely to
> > be restricted to on-road cycling it is only fair to compare with the stats for on-road injuries
> > (which seem to have the added attraction of existing)

> Could you tell us what they are and where to find them?

I don't know about these figures but the government tell us that in
2002: 22 child pedal cyclists were killed; 594 killed or seriously injured and a figure of 4,809 for
'all severities' so I don't see how 28,000 kids could have got serious head injuries!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_506510.xls

Nik
 
Ian <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> > Ian <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
> >> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
> >
> > Not a flame, but why? What good do you think it would do?
> I think it would save some injuries.

Well, it might. Wrapping the kids in cotton wool and hanging them on the wall might, too. When I was
a kid we rode far further on our bikes than kids do now, and I can't recall anyone who suffered
_any_ serious injury in a push-bike accident. None of us wore helmets, or cycling gloves.

The only injury I've *ever* suffered in a push-bike accident (in over forty years of cycling) was a
badly gashed thumb that needed stitching[1], and a helmet would not have made a happence worth of
difference to that. So we're not talking, here, of mitigating a menace which is decimating the cream
of the nation's youth. We're talking about a measure which might - might - save a couple of deaths,
and ten times that number of injuries a year, but would be highly likely to greatly reduce the
number of people cycling (as, for example, such legislation has been shown to have done in
Australia) thus increasing the obesity of children and thus the number of early deaths from diabetes
and heart disease.

In other words, the net saving of life is likely to be nil and may well be negative, and the impact
on general health is certain to be negative. There seems to me _every_ reason to oppose this
legislation.

[1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in time
to take the bend.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of bytes. Any opinion or meaning
you find in it is your own creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Replies
363
Views
11K
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
S
Replies
0
Views
718
UK and Europe
Steve McGinty
S