[H*lmet] Avoiding the inevitable

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:08:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Let's not surrender before the battle's even fought. We can prevent this
becoming law, and we will.

Quite.

I really do think there is something profoundly wrong in the world at
the moment. Tossers like Smith are allowed to force the Government
into promising not to allow enforcement of the law unless four people
have died, but measures which have been incontrovertibly shown to be
absolutely useless in increasing cyclist safety are accepted by many
as perfectly reasonable, presumably because it does not affect them
personally.

The truth about laws is that either they are enforced, in which case
there is a massive drop in cycling and no change in %HI for cyclist
injuries, or they are not enforced, in which case they are pointless,
and merely become another excuse for individual policemen to single
out their favourite minority.

Pavement cycling is illegal. Has that stopped it? Riding without
lights is illegal. Has that stopped it? Why do people think that
making everybody wear plastic hats will (a) be any more effective than
the above or (b) prevent people driving and riding stupidly, which is
what causes most crashes in the first place?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Not Responding said:

But unless helmets are as
unencumbering as their proponents say,

They are not.

Quoted message said:

Why do you say that? Any further information on the status of this
appreciated.

They only have to be successful once. Think of the children. Most
people are idiots. It's an emotive issue. They've got more money than
we have. An organised campaign of misinformation. Common sense. Ours
is a vaguely complicated argument. Everyone else has done it and people
like being sheep. 'They' don't cycle. Good press coverage for 'em. If
it only saves one life it's worth it. As long as they're _seen_ to do
something.

I'm guessing that the status of the thing is that BHIT and probably many
well meaning people have successfully lobbied the BMA who tasked someone
not quite competent enough to look into it. The only reason the BMA
didn't support compulsion was because of the drop in cycling, so the
constant lobbying of members and one crappy report meant they could
change their policy. It will be a popular change - it's not as if
cyclists are of one mind on the issue themselves. Just look at how long
it took this group to get a consensus.

Another private members bill is unlikely to get through, but only 'cos
CTC etc did lots of work, combined with the natural disinclination of MPs
to have their time wasted. There is _very_ little stopping the
government from passing the legislation tho - it would be done already if
more people wore helmets.

Martin Bulmer said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson wrote:
> Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared

I don't think that is necessarily the case, but it does need heading off at
the pass.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would
> be the best way of avoiding a helmet law?

Quoted message said:

Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.

I've tried them. No problem if you want one, but I don't like it.

Quoted message said:

Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the
number of new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not
give up rather than wear one,

It would be yet another hassle to have to carry a helmet. Sensible utility
runs, such as to the local station to catch a train may go; having to carry
a helmet on the train (along with the other things I'd have for work)
possibly tips the balance of practicality for me. The alternative is yet
another car journey as its a one hour walk each way to the station.

Quoted message said:

I think, and when everyone is
wearing
one, I don't think it will put new cyclists off, any more than the
motorbike helmet law does.

The motorcycle helmet law reinforces the view that motorcycling is
inherently dangerous. This contributes to a decline in the choice to use
that as transport. A cycle helmet law will have the same effect.
We can already see the effect of the perception of danger - see the thread
earlier about the chap whose children have helmets; there is a comment there
about parents at a school accusing those whose children come to school on
cycles of near child abuse for placing the children in dangerous situations.

Perception matters. Cycling is "normal sensible transport" in Denmark and
the Netherlands because nearly everyone does it. Its rapidly becoming
perceived as a "dangerous sport" in the UK, be it the perception that anyone
cycling on the open road will be hit by a truck, or the perception that all
urban cyclists spend their time running red-lights and going the wrong way
up one-way streets (a game of urban chicken?).

- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

you know? said:

Journal of Personal Injury Law which
suggests that reductions of 25% are already commonly accepted by
solicitors representing cyclists based on something known as, I
believe, the Denning formula,

Quoted message said:

Thus far the courts have not
allowed any contributory negligence that I am aware of

I don't understand why, in the absence of any precedent, these
reductions are being accepted. Laziness on behalf of the cyclists'
solicitors?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Most organised events already have these rules, and I have just read a
very disturbing paper from the Journal of Personal Injury Law which
suggests that reductions of 25% are already commonly accepted by
solicitors representing cyclists based on something known as, I
believe, the Denning formula, which originally applied to drivers not
wearing seat belts. The article is suggesting an upper limit of 10%
based on the evidence of actual effectiveness, and that in court every
case should be taken individually. Thus far the courts have not
allowed any contributory negligence that I am aware of, but the vast
majority of personal injury cases are settled out of court.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/download/helmets-contributory-negligence.pdf

That's actually an extremely long, well written and carefully researched
article, IMO, with much of use to 'us' in it, so I hope it can stay up!
Disturbing to note that insurers are routinely deducting 25% for injury to
non-helmet wearing cyclists (hardly surprising, since they'll use any excuse
to weasel out of or reduce their liability) and that claimants are routinely
accepting it (which does seem somewhat surprising, but I suppose it's a case
of them wanting to settle with the most speed and least hassle)

Rich

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:53:36 -0000, "NC" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It would be yet another hassle to have to carry a helmet. Sensible utility
runs, such as to the local station to catch a train may go; having to carry
a helmet on the train (along with the other things I'd have for work)
possibly tips the balance of practicality for me.

Absolutely. It's pouring a teacup of water over the head of a man who
is already contemplating drowning. One fundamental problem is the
handrwingers' fear and distrust of cycling. They don't do it because
they are scared to, they know they should do it for their health and
for the environment, and this is a way of proving to themselves that
it really is too dangerous to contemplate.

Martlew is reportedly a very unpleasant character: he now hates
cyclists because they stopped him becoming St Eric of
Thinkofthechildren. Everyone I have spoken to who knows him has him
down as one of those black-and-white types: you are either for him or
against him.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:24:36 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't understand why, in the absence of any precedent, these
reductions are being accepted. Laziness on behalf of the cyclists'
solicitors?

I'm guessing so, it's all a game really - an offer is made out of
court, and as I understand it if the plaintiff rejects the offer and
the court then imposes a settlement of that or a lower amount, the
plaintiff is liable for all the legal costs of both sides in the
trial. The judge is not allowed to know an offer has been made, and
some friends of mine ended up suing the Lord Chancellor's Department
(and winning!) when the fact of an offer was made known to the judge
after the defendant had been caught out with an inconsistent story in
the trial.

I have asked Roger what the CTC's solicitors do. I hope it's better
than that, but they will be at the mercy of what the courts might say
so may be forced to go along with it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Not Responding said:

Besides, a bloke wearing a suit and a
helmet is one of the most daft sights, IMO.

We have a couple of Mormons who do that round here. At least it gives
everyone ample notice of their arrival so we can all get in the bath
and/or fail to hear the doorbell etc.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Mark Thompson said:

Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
best way of avoiding a helmet law?

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
the law.

In any case, I imagine such a law would be enforced about as strongly as
the recent law that was passed to ban the use of mobile phones while
driving - ie hardly at all.

d.

davek said:

We don't condone breaking
the law.

Who is "we"?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law.

Well, yeah. I think it would be more "flout" the law really.

Quoted message said:

We don't condone breaking the law.

:-) I do.

you know? said:

Martlew is reportedly a very unpleasant character: he now hates
cyclists because they stopped him becoming St Eric of
Thinkofthechildren. Everyone I have spoken to who knows him has him
down as one of those black-and-white types: you are either for him or
against him.

Which is a round about way of saying that he has no redeeming
qualities at all.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:33:52 +0000, davek <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
the law.

I don't know who you claim to represent with your 'we', but isn't
there a well-documented point of view that one has a duty to break a
bad law? Thoreau, perhaps?

James Annan said:

davek said:

We don't condone breaking
the law.

Who is "we"?

James

The Queen? :-)
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.

elyob said:

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

Quoted message said:

Why do you say that? Any further information on the status of this
appreciated.

I don't see how you can prepare your lawyer for the court case when
the legislation hasn't even been enacted. I suspect if you tried he
might advise you that you were being a bit premature :-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Al C-F said:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:33:52 +0000, davek <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
the law.

I don't know who you claim to represent with your 'we', but isn't
there a well-documented point of view that one has a duty to break a
bad law? Thoreau, perhaps?

Smith, Paul.

James Annan said:

[Not Responding] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides, a bloke wearing a suit and a
helmet is one of the most daft sights, IMO.

Quoted message said:

We have a couple of Mormons who do that round here. At least it gives
everyone ample notice of their arrival so we can all get in the bath
and/or fail to hear the doorbell etc.

There used to be an academic monk in Edinburgh who wore very long
flowing robes. He also rode a small bicycle. You couldn't see what
kind it was because most of it was concealed under the robes. At first
glance it looked like some kind of holy levitational powers. The
effect would have entirely spoiled by a cycle helmet, which would
probably have been against his monkish dress code.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

davek said:

Mark Thompson said:

Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
best way of avoiding a helmet law?

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
the law.

Quoted message said:

In any case, I imagine such a law would be enforced about as strongly as
the recent law that was passed to ban the use of mobile phones while
driving - ie hardly at all.

There's a law against using motorcycle helmets of the hinged-face
type, with the face hinged up. It's widely disregarded by
motoryclists, including motorcycle police. Of course it's stupid and
dangerous at speed, but a pointless restriction when dawdling
along. The only reason the law was ever passed was because without it
one could not guarantee a motorcyclist would be clever enough to shut
it when appropriate, and that would have made it impossible to
legislate these helmets as being safe and therefore wearable at
all. And they're very popular. Especially with police
motorcyclists. Because you can open them when you're dawdling around
on a bike. Which is illegal.

Safety legislation looks like it is becoming deranged by a kind of
social insanity to me. Does anybody know what the prognosis is? I fear
that unless it is checked it will get worse. We'll end up having to be
accompanied by a licensed pedestrian leader to walk Out of Doors.
These laws will be passed by obese bureaucrats whose office chairs
will be fitted with electric stand-up assistance.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

Safety legislation looks like it is becoming deranged by a kind of
social insanity to me. Does anybody know what the prognosis is? I fear
that unless it is checked it will get worse. We'll end up having to be
accompanied by a licensed pedestrian leader to walk Out of Doors.
These laws will be passed by obese bureaucrats whose office chairs
will be fitted with electric stand-up assistance.

It's only the oddballs and eccentrics who have anything to worry about.
Mass-participation dangerous sports will probably always be immune from
nonsensical nanny-statism. You only have yourself to blame for not
conforming...

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/