Mr Bone's question in the House

[Mark McNeill]

From Bikebiz -


<url:http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/29186/Government-puts-brake-on-MPs-
helmet-compulsion-campaign>

http://tinyurl.com/2w8quf


which in turn links to the relevant bit from Hansard.

Briefly, Peter Bone asked the Transport Secretary what plans there were
for a childrens' MHL; a Parliamentary Under-secretary replied that at
present there aren't any, because under certain circumstances
[enforcement, one assumes] it might cause cycling levels to fall.



--
Mark, UK
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:12:18 +0100, Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> wrote:

>From Bikebiz -
>
>
><url:http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/29186/Government-puts-brake-on-MPs-
>helmet-compulsion-campaign>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2w8quf
>
>
>which in turn links to the relevant bit from Hansard.
>
>Briefly, Peter Bone asked the Transport Secretary what plans there were
>for a childrens' MHL; a Parliamentary Under-secretary replied that at
>present there aren't any, because under certain circumstances
>[enforcement, one assumes] it might cause cycling levels to fall.

Make him prime minister - the Parlimentary Under-Secretary - not Bone.

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 23, 11:12 am, Mark McNeill <[email protected]>
wrote:
> From Bikebiz -
>
> <url:http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/29186/Government-puts-brake-on-MPs-
> helmet-compulsion-campaign>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2w8quf
>
> which in turn links to the relevant bit from Hansard.
>


One has to wonder where they get their observers from. As we
guesstimated last week a figure of between 60 or 70% or 7 out of 8
cyclists wearing helmets from two sources.

Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.

Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10

 

[burtthebike]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 23, 11:12 am, Mark McNeill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> From Bikebiz -
>>
>> <url:http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/29186/Government-puts-brake-on-MPs-
>> helmet-compulsion-campaign>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8quf
>>
>> which in turn links to the relevant bit from Hansard.
>>
>
>
> One has to wonder where they get their observers from. As we
> guesstimated last week a figure of between 60 or 70% or 7 out of 8
> cyclists wearing helmets from two sources.
>
> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>
> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10

About 50%, but very dependent on time of day.
>
>
>
>

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:12 am, Mark McNeill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> From Bikebiz -
>>
>> <url:http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/29186/Government-puts-brake-on-MPs-
>> helmet-compulsion-campaign>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2w8quf
>>
>> which in turn links to the relevant bit from Hansard.
>>
>
>
> One has to wonder where they get their observers from. As we
> guesstimated last week a figure of between 60 or 70% or 7 out of 8
> cyclists wearing helmets from two sources.
>
> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>
> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10


Below 30%, sometimes as low as 0%. Suffolk rural CTC runs and Suffolk rural
utility cycling.


From my limited visits to the City of London, I suspect that commuting in
dense urban areas has much higher helmet wearing rates.


- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>
> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10

Ian - 0%, 0 out of 3 (out of 4 if you count me), commuter belt surrey.

But then again none of them had lights or hi-vis either, two were
proceeding at barely walking pace, and one was making extremely
strange grinding / squeaking / thunking noises.

Normally I see a couple more cyclists who look like they actually want
to cycle, and then my rate would be 2 or 3 out of 6ish in helmets.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Oct, 08:04, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.

My commute's in two stages- rural Stirlingshire & central Edinburgh.

In Edinburgh helmet wearing is pretty common (this has been cited in
some studies: you may be surprised to hear that head-injury rates
don't appear to be significantly lower in Edinburgh despite
significantly higher helmet usage than elsewhere).
In the rural area I where live there appears (to me) to be a division
between recreational cyclists who often wear helmets and utility
cyclists who often don't- this is a very crude distinction, though. I
tend to classify cyclists who are wearing what are very obviously
cycling clothes as recreational, when I'm sure that some of them are
utility cyclists in disguise!

Cheers,
W.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
> >
> > Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10
>
> About 50%, but very dependent on time of day.
>

About 10-30% depending on where and when

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[David Nutter]

On 2007-10-23, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

*snip*

> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>
> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10

2 out of 5 plus 2 unknown since I couldn't really make them out
against the glare of car headlights behind them. Central Edinburgh.

Regards,

-david

 

[Martin Dann]

David Nutter wrote:
> On 2007-10-23, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
>> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>>
>> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10
>
> 2 out of 5 plus 2 unknown since I couldn't really make them out
> against the glare of car headlights behind them. Central Edinburgh.

The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book

 

[JNugent]

Martin Dann wrote:
> David Nutter wrote:
>
>> On 2007-10-23, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>>> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>>>
>>> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10
>>
>>
>> 2 out of 5 plus 2 unknown since I couldn't really make them out
>> against the glare of car headlights behind them. Central Edinburgh.
>
>
> The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book

???

For what?

 

[[email protected]]

JNugent wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>> The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
>> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book
>
> ???
>
> For what?

For making it fricking impossible to see anything else on the road.

Someone will be along to claim that they're not too bright, they're just
badly adjusted. To which I respond that they're too bright for the
direction they're pointing in and frankly I care little which of the two
attributes is changed to make them sensible provided that at least one
of them is.

You'd say the same thing about super-powered flashing rear leds on
bicycles that make it impossible to judge their speed or distance, I'm sure.


-dan

 

[Clive George]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> JNugent wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>> The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
>>> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book
>>
>> ???
>>
>> For what?
>
> For making it fricking impossible to see anything else on the road.

And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent appears
to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars and the beam
pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in other threads
indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of the law being
punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no problem accepting that
people with "too powerful" lights should be charged under the appropriate
laws since they do present a real danger as well as simply being illegal.

cheers,
clive

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:42:27 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Martin Dann wrote:
>> David Nutter wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-10-23, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> *snip*
>>>
>>>> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>>>>
>>>> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10
>>>
>>>
>>> 2 out of 5 plus 2 unknown since I couldn't really make them out
>>> against the glare of car headlights behind them. Central Edinburgh.
>>
>>
>> The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
>> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book
>
>???
>
>For what?

For breaking the law, perhaps?

 

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Martin Dann wrote:

>>> The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
>>> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book
>
>> ???
>> For what?

> For making it fricking impossible to see anything else on the road.

> Someone will be along to claim that they're not too bright, they're just
> badly adjusted. To which I respond that they're too bright for the
> direction they're pointing in and frankly I care little which of the two
> attributes is changed to make them sensible provided that at least one
> of them is.

> You'd say the same thing about super-powered flashing rear leds on
> bicycles that make it impossible to judge their speed or distance, I'm
> sure

....whereas I am sure that I cannot imagine lights on a bike which I
would regard as too bright.

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>>
>>>> The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
>>>> with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book
>>>
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> For what?
>>
>>
>> For making it fricking impossible to see anything else on the road.
>
>
> And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent
> appears to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars
> and the beam pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in
> other threads indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of
> the law being punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no
> problem accepting that people with "too powerful" lights should be
> charged under the appropriate laws since they do present a real danger
> as well as simply being illegal.

Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in
(wide) use?

If there are any, I'd agree that there should be a crackdown.

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:42:27 +0100, JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>>>David Nutter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2007-10-23, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>*snip*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>2 out of 5 plus 2 unknown since I couldn't really make them out
>>>>against the glare of car headlights behind them. Central Edinburgh.
>>>
>>>
>>>The wonders of bright car lights in urban situations. People driving
>>>with too powerfull lits on urban roads should be bought to book
>>
>>???
>>
>>For what?
>
>
> For breaking the law, perhaps?

Is that what the PP said?

 

[Clive George]

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

>>> For making it fricking impossible to see anything else on the road.
>>
>>
>> And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent
>> appears to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars and
>> the beam pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in
>> other threads indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of the
>> law being punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no problem
>> accepting that people with "too powerful" lights should be charged under
>> the appropriate laws since they do present a real danger as well as
>> simply being illegal.
>
> Is there any evidence that non-approved, over-bright, lamps are in (wide)
> use?
>
> If there are any, I'd agree that there should be a crackdown.

There's definitely evidence that such lamps are for sale - see ebay or your
local motor factors for examples of those for sale. "Not for road use" are
the words you're looking for. If you're naive enough to believe that that
isn't sufficient evidence that they're being used, then try listening to
conversations about such things - google groups will probably find you some,
or many car forums, if you need online rather than real life sources.

clive

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, clive@xxxx-
x.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> And fortunately there are rules determining these things. Mr Nugent appears
> to have forgotten that the maximum power of headlamps on cars and the beam
> pattern emitted by them are both regulated. Since he has in other threads
> indicated that he is keen on even technical breaches of the law being
> punished, regardless of danger caused, he'll have no problem accepting that
> people with "too powerful" lights should be charged under the appropriate
> laws since they do present a real danger as well as simply being illegal.
>

What's the chance of that? Halfords sells over powered bulbs and given
that even blatantly visible breaking of the rules such as driving while
using a mobile phone is ignored, what are the chances of someone with
overpowered headlights being stopped for them?

OTOH how many of us can talk - how many of us have front lights limited
to 2.4W which is the legal limit?


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 23 Oct, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> Straw pole: Add your observed rates of helmet use on daily journeys.
> x
> Sniper: 65% - 6 / 7 out of 10


Helmets: 1 out of 5
Woolly hats: 1 out of 5
Cloth caps: 1 out of 5

Lights: 4 out of 5 (the lone offender was dressed head to foot
in black and riding on the pavement)


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|