Helmet wearing a vote for compulsion?

Parliamentary Question. 28.01.03 "Mr.Donaldson asked if there are plans to introduce legislation to
compel cyclists to wear personal protective equipment. Minister David Jamieson:2 We have no current
plans to make the wearing of personal protective equipment by cyclists compulsory. The Highway Code
advises..... We have engaged TRL to monitor wearing rates. The latest study showed that in 1999 the
overall wearing rate was 22% on major built up roads. This is not a high enough level of public
acceptance to introduce compulsory wearing. There would be enforcement difficulties and it could
have adverse effects on the level of cycling. However, we will continue to monitor rates and will
review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time." "

At the Cycling Forum for England in early April David Rendell M.P. said "the government is moving
towards helmet compulsion." But later, David Padfield of the DfT said, "It is my understanding that
ministers have not decided to move towards helmet compulsion. Nothing's ruled out, but nothing's
ruled in either."

I think that those of us who are pro choice need to be wary and alert.

Mike Sales

 

Mike Sales wrote:

> I think that those of us who are pro choice need to be wary and alert.

Yes, but it's still a dumb idea to refuse to ever wear a helmet (and also to exaggerate the
arguments against them) just because you wouldn't want them made compulsary.

~PB

 

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Sales wrote:
>
> > I think that those of us who are pro choice need to be wary and alert.
>
> Yes, but it's still a dumb idea to refuse to ever wear a helmet (and also to exaggerate the
> arguments against them) just because you wouldn't want them made compulsary.

I think the idea is that people want to be able to not wear them if they choose not to for any
number of reasons, this has nothing to do with being dumb and all to do with being an
enlightened grown up.

Pete

 

Peter B wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Sales wrote:
>>
>>> I think that those of us who are pro choice need to be wary and alert.
>>
>> Yes, but it's still a dumb idea to refuse to ever wear a helmet (and also to exaggerate the
>> arguments against them) just because you wouldn't want them made compulsary.
>
> I think the idea is that people want to be able to not wear them if they choose not to for any
> number of reasons, this has nothing to do with being dumb and all to do with being an enlightened
> grown up.

I said refuse JUST because you wouldn't want them made compulsary - which would hardly be the action
of a grown up. Of course it's not a dumb idea to go without if you don't think they'll work or find
them uncomfortable or impractical, etc.

~PB

 

"Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote: ( >> Yes, but it's still a dumb idea to
refuse to ever wear a helmet (and ) >> also to exaggerate the arguments against them) just because
you ( >> wouldn't want them made compulsary. )
( Isaid refuse JUST because you wouldn't want them made compulsary - which ) would hardly be the
action of a grown up. Of course it's not a dumb idea ( to go without if you don't think they'll
work or find them uncomfortable ) or impractical, etc.

Do you know of anyone who refuses to wear a helmet "JUST" because they wouldn't want them made
compulsory, or are you exaggerating -- because that might hardly be the action of a grown up.

 

Geraint Jones wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> wrote: ( >> Yes, but it's still a dumb idea to
> refuse to ever wear a helmet (and ) >> also to exaggerate the arguments against them) just because
> you ( >> wouldn't want them made compulsary. )
> ( Isaid refuse JUST because you wouldn't want them made compulsary
> - which ) would hardly be the action of a grown up. Of course it's not a dumb idea ( to go
> without if you don't think they'll work or find them uncomfortable ) or impractical, etc.
>
> Do you know of anyone who refuses to wear a helmet "JUST" because they wouldn't want them made
> compulsory

Yes.

~PB

 

With unwonted eloquence, "Pete Biggs" <[email protected]> expounded at length: (
Geraint Jones wrote: ) > Do you know of anyone who refuses to wear a helmet "JUST" because ( > they
wouldn't want them made compulsory ) ( Yes.

Is it you?

 

"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> writes:

>Mike Sales wrote:

>> I think that those of us who are pro choice need to be wary and alert.

>Yes, but it's still a dumb idea to refuse to ever wear a helmet (and also to exaggerate the
>arguments against them) just because you wouldn't want them made compulsary.

Exactly. The sensible reason for not wearing a helmet is that there's plenty of evidence they don't
do what's written on the tin.


--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205

 

[email protected] (Chris Malcolm) wrote: ( The sensible reason for not wearing a helmet is that
there's plenty ) of evidence they don't do what's written on the tin.

I think I can safely say that wearing a tin helmet on a bicycle is not a particularly good idea,
unless of course you are under small arms fire.

 

On Tue, 6 May 2003 21:13:33 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm scrawled: ) Exactly. The sensible reason for
not wearing a helmet is that there's plenty ) of evidence they don't do what's written on the tin.

I thought there was only evidence that was open to interpretation, that, while showing possible
risk homeostasis for the entire population of bike riders, did not provide outright convincing
reasons for this, and certainly did not imply risk homeostasis demographic by demographic or
cyclist by cyclist.

Perhaps it's already been through the interpretive mill for you and you've made your mind up. Like
interpretive dance, only with fewer gay hand gestures and more grinding of wheat.

J-P
--
Andy Mueller-Maguhn has been talking to AOL about children's internet access and filtering same. It
was all going well, lots of agreement about unsuitable content, and then someone suggested filtering
adverts and "it all went quiet"...

 

On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:57:56 +0000 (UTC), Geraint Jones scrawled: ) I think I can safely say that
wearing a tin helmet on a bicycle is ) not a particularly good idea, unless of course you are under
small ) arms fire.

I've always wondered about this. Is small arms fire anything to do with
http://www.theonion.com/onion3502/very_special_forces.html ? In which case I refuse to worry about
it, tin lid or otherwise. I'll just learn the contents of "We All Sing With The Same Voice" and have
that at my fingertips as a distraction.

J-P
--
"Yes, well, a man with a concretized view of the world may only be able to see numbers that 'Don't
add up,'" said a haughty Sullivan. "But someone whose perceptions are not always chained to reality
- a stock analyst, say - may see numbers that, like the human spirit, aspire to be greater than
they are."

 

In news:[email protected], Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Exactly. The sensible reason for not wearing a helmet is that there's plenty of evidence they
> don't do what's written on the tin.

I'm 100% with you there. Mine says "Giro" on it but the Post Office refused point blank to cash it.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer