Helmet wearing a vote for compulsion?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Mike Sales, May 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mike Sales

    Mike Sales Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    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
     
  3. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "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
     
  4. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    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
     
  5. "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.
     
  6. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    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
     
  7. 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?
     
  8. "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
     
  9. [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.
     
  10. J-P.S

    J-P.S Guest

    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"...
     
  11. J-P.S

    J-P.S Guest

    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."
     
  12. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...