Compulsory helmets again!

[Patrick Herring]

Dave Kahn <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:40:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:
|
| Although I agree with just about every word I feel it's far too long and detailed to send to an
| MP. They don't have time to read all that and probably will not bother.

Yes, although it might be worth listing, as an appendix, some easily readable and repeatable
statistics & facts instead of burying them in text.

...
| The cynical side of me suspects that most of the MPs who've signed this motion couldn't give a
| stuff about cyclists or helmets. They simply want to be seen to be concerned about protecting
| children. This is what gives BHIT such an advantage.

This helmet thing is deeply counter intuitive and the argument is difficult enough here, amongst the
mostly experienced. If it ever gets to the stage of MPs voting on it there's very little to counter
the "will somebody please think of the children?" line from the POV of the tabloid-reading public,
which is what MPs are & should be concerned with, so if anything can be done by us it should be to
promote a proper enquiry before anything goes to Parliament.

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

 

[Dave]

"Robert Bruce" <robatanalytical-dynamicsdotcodotyoukay> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
> > 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)...
>
> All very well until some nutter in an SUV breaks both your legs and
his/her
> insurers fail to pay up because you weren't wearing compulsory safety equipment.
>
> --
> Rob
>
...and that varies from current normal practice how exactly ??? ;-)

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:38:25 -0000, Richard Burton <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So more child pedestrians are killed than child cyclists, which begs the question why don't BHIT
> bother themselves with child pedestrians where their actions would be more effective? Unless, of
> course, they are obsessed about the miniscule dangers of cycling.
>
If they went truly cross-modal and wanted to reduce the risk of all children getting head injuries
on their journeys to school (the most likely place where it would be enforceable), they could be the
School-journey Helmet Initiative Trust.

 

[Tim Hall]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:34:25 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'm sitting here in front of my Mac and *not* wearing a helmet. It's not dangerous at all.
>
>You are at higher risk at home than cycling. So put your helmet on immediately.
>

You forgot to take your protein pills too.

Tim
--
In space no one can eat ice cream

 

[Dave]

"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.

<snip>

errr hope you don't mind but I've stolen this to send into the local rag (Express & Star, West Mids)
following their publication of an article entitled "Bicycle Helmets Safety Scheme" with the lead in
reading :- "Midlands parents are being encouraged to make sure their children wear a cycle helmet
when out on their bikes...." It seems to be referring to Stourbridge MP Debra Shipley who is quoting
the 'facts' of the BHIT report. I've stated that I am a cyclist and parent who both wears a helmet
and encourages his children to wear helmets when cycling. However, having listened to the arguments
from both sides I have changed my viewpoint from one of blanket helmet wearing (I know, I know!!) to
one of personal choice and encouraging drivers to recognise their responsibilities. Compulsory law
would deter individuals through perceived increased dangers etc. I have asked the paper to redress
the balance of having misled its readership by publishing inaccuracies, through publication of this
letter, using such wonderful phrases as 'moral obligation' and probably getting their backs right
up, resulting in waste-paper bin filing of said request. Hope that's ok ?, Dave.

 

[Dave]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> > "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.......
>
> I beleive that to be a very naive view, and a dangerous one. It may not be enforced by the police
> or similar bodies but it sure will by
the
> insurance companies.
>
> If you are involved in a collision and injured (or worse), you would
certainly
> have any damages severely cut, perhaps to nothing. Even if it was not your fault you will be seen
> as putting yourself
deliberately
> at risk from increased injury by flouting the helmet law.
>
> As it is, motorists get away with near murder with derisory penalties.
>
Do I need to say more?!!? ;-)

> If you were not wearing a helmet they could simply drive into you and
claim you
> should have been protecting yourself so deserve what you get. The bully
will
> have won. Even if Mr Plod turns a blind eye, I fear the courts would uphold this
view if
> you were helmetless and this law were passed.
>
> John B
>
>
>
That'll be rather than shouldn't have been on road without lights / in the dark / without reflective
clothing / on my side of the road / out of my direct field of view / on a bike / outdoors / alive
anyway / born????....another excuse in the cagers book of how to get away with killing a cyclist
with no comeback....and you call my suggestion naive?...ah well. Dave.

 

[Dave]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I am drafting a reply to send to the Legion of the Duped:
>
> [snip]
>
> Most excellent post, which I shall refer to in drafting my own letter. One point you miss, which I
> believe to be worth making: obesity is a serious problem in children and young people today, which
> will lead to an increase in serious heart conditions and diabetes in later life. Children need
> more, not less exercise. As imposing helmets is extremely likely to reduce the numbers of children
> cycling, it's likely to increase deaths from diabetes and heart disease and it's highly likely
> that these deaths will vastly outnumber the number of lives 'saved'.
>
2 major problems currently faced by this country, obesity & congestion. Obvious solution = cycling.
Already lost 1 generation to cycling, lets not scare the next off..... Dave.

 

[Dave]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> marc wrote:
>
> > W K <[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?
>
> John B
>

Girls?!!? at cubs?!!?....sounds a bit dodgy to me....or am I just getting on a bit ?!!?.....soon be
Christmas, then summer again, weyhey!! Nurse...medication...NOW!!

 

[Johnb]

Dave wrote:

> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > marc wrote:
> >
> > > W K <[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?
> >
> > John B
> >
>
> Girls?!!? at cubs?!!?....sounds a bit dodgy to me....or am I just getting on a bit ?!!?.....soon
> be Christmas, then summer again, weyhey!! Nurse...medication...NOW!!

Yes. And she's gone away this weekend for a night with the boys on HMS Belfast with the rest of the
pack (she's 9) Meanwhile my eldest daughter (16) is an Explorer Scout and also a Cub Young Leader.

Times, they have a changed since I wore a woggle and whittled a stick. What we would have done to go
away for the weekend with the Guides ;-)

John B

 

[Dave]

"JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> > "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> > > marc wrote:
> > >
> > > > W K <[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?
> > >
> > > John B
> > >
> >
> > Girls?!!? at cubs?!!?....sounds a bit dodgy to me....or am I just
getting on
> > a bit ?!!?.....soon be Christmas, then summer again, weyhey!! Nurse...medication...NOW!!
>
> Yes. And she's gone away this weekend for a night with the boys on HMS
Belfast
> with the rest of the pack (she's 9) Meanwhile my eldest daughter (16) is an Explorer Scout and
> also a Cub
Young
> Leader.
>
> Times, they have a changed since I wore a woggle and whittled a stick. What we would have done to
> go away for the weekend with the Guides ;-)
>
> John B
>
Indeed!! They'll be allowing female vicars next!!! ;-) and gels will be allowed to ride astride a
'oss instead of side saddle

 

[Richard Corfiel]

In article <[email protected]>, Robert Bruce wrote:
> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
>> OOO, just noticed the best bit, compulsory for bicyclists, not so for tricyclists, so a jaunt to
>> the cafe sans helmet would still be ok for
>> me. So on the great British tradition of "I'm alright Jack" ........
>
> AFAIK, helmets are compulsory for two-wheeled motorcycles but not for three-wheelers, so this
> proposal would be consistent with that. Not that there's any reason that it should be.

Is that just a legal mistake - the laywers forgetting the possibility of more than two wheels when
drafting the law[1], or was that intentional. Recumbent trikes are lower, and you're less likely to
fall off one. Horror would be if they were to mandate seatbelts on them.

- Richard

[1] Perhaps more laywers should learn programming, a sense of logic after all they're programming a
funny sort of legal system. Then again, I expect most trades think that those in power should
have the experience of their trade. I remember a poster campaign for some product with a taxi
driver saying how better the world would be if all politicians tried taxi driving.

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

 

[Richard Corfiel]

In article <BBD131E6.163B9%[email protected]>, Ian wrote:
> 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.

And biology if you don't mind causing a media scandal - now which bits are more conductive than
others? ;-)

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

 

[Ian]

Richard Corfield must be edykated coz e writed:

> In article <BBD131E6.163B9%[email protected]>, Ian wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And biology if you don't mind causing a media scandal - now which bits are more conductive than
> others? ;-)
>
> - Richard
You can induce more pain through the armpits and the tongue than the genitalia. No I don't want to
expound on that.
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[John Hearns]

I'm just back from a week in Holland, sadly without my bike.

We all of course know that plenty of people cycle in Holland - there are bikes everywhere, bike
racks outside shops etc.

One thing that struck me was the total difference in cycling styles. Most Dutch people I saw on
bikes had on normal clothing, and were cycling along slowly on 'sit up and beg' bikes, many with
chaincases or chainguards. When you see cyclists in the UK, me included, they tend to have
specialised clothing on.

And not one person did I see with a cycling helmet - they were just popping out to the shops, or off
to school and work. My feeling is that any compulsory wearing of helmets here in the UK will just
make people not cycle. "Hey cycling is dangerous" "Hey - I need a strange looking and expensive bit
of kit jsut to go down the shops"

I should say that I often wear a cycling helmet myself, and in no way am a fanatic about helmets
either way. Just really reporting what I've seen abroad.

 

[Richard Corfiel]

In article <BBD276BA.16540%[email protected]>, Ian wrote:
> You can induce more pain through the armpits and the tongue than the genitalia. No I don't want to
> expound on that.

Good conduction path, lots of nerves? At least that gives a potential use for tongue piercings.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

 

[Tony Raven]

My letter to the EDM sponsor Alan Meale MP

Dear Sir

I notice that you are the sponsor of an early day motion in the House on bicycle helmets for
children. I am a helmet wearing cyclist but I fear you have been severely duped by the BHIT in
sponsoring this motion. Please check their statistics on child cyclist head injuries against the
government's statistics and you will find that the figures BHIT have given you are massively wrong.
Government figures record 594 child cyclists killed or seriously injured on the roads in 2002 making
BHIT's claim of 28,000 serious head injuries implausible.

That BHIT are prepared to mislead so badly on simple factual data should lead you to have serious
concerns about the reliability of the rest of their case. I would urge you to withdraw a motion
based on such unreliable information and instead, if you have an interest in supporting safe child
cycling, work with reputable organisations such as the Cyclist Touring Club, the principle
membership body for cyclists in the UK.

Yours sincerely

Dr Tony Raven

 

[Guy Chapman]

[email protected] (Nick Kew) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Is it possible to find out what MPs cycle for real?

You could ask Jane Griffiths, MP for Reading Mybit (I think East), who is chair of the parliamentary
cycling group.

griffithsj at parliament dot uk - she usually responds fairly quickly.

Guy

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

> My letter to the EDM sponsor Alan Meale MP
>
> Dear Sir
>
> I notice that you are the sponsor of an early day motion in the House on bicycle helmets for
> children. I am a helmet wearing cyclist but I fear you have been severely duped by the BHIT in
> sponsoring this motion. Please check their statistics on child cyclist head injuries against the
> government's statistics and you will find that the figures BHIT have given you are massively
> wrong. Government figures record 594 child cyclists killed or seriously injured on the roads in
> 2002 making BHIT's claim of

If you haven't yet send this, it might be better to phrase that '...22 child cyclists killed and
fewer than 600 seriously injured, of whom not all had head injuries...'; phrased as you have it it
suggests to the casual reader that quite a number of those 594 have been killed, and that all of
them might possibly have been saved from injury by helmets.

--
[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.

 

[Guy Chapman]

"Simon Galgut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> May I steal this to use for similar purposes ?

Feel free.

Guy (working in London today)

 

[Tony Raven]

Guy Chapman wrote:
>
> You could ask Jane Griffiths, MP for Reading Mybit (I think East), who is chair of the
> parliamentary cycling group.
>

And Reading is also where BsHIT are based

Tony