Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Hypothetically, if the MHL is introduced in say 5 years, what will we
> do? Calmly accept it and obey the law like Aussie cyclists and UK
> motorcyclists, or refuse to wear it and clog up the courts appealing
> against fines and so on?
>

I suspect it would go the way of the Canadian helmet laws and the
English mobile phone law - totally ignored and unenforced.

--
Tony

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

 

[Chris Eilbeck]

Tony Raven wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Hypothetically, if the MHL is introduced in say 5 years, what will we
>> do? Calmly accept it and obey the law like Aussie cyclists and UK
>> motorcyclists, or refuse to wear it and clog up the courts appealing
>> against fines and so on?
>>
>
> I suspect it would go the way of the Canadian helmet laws and the
> English mobile phone law - totally ignored and unenforced.

Other than by lawyers after traffic incidents.

 

[Martin Dann]

raisethe wrote:
> Hypothetically, if the MHL is introduced in say 5 years, what will we
> do? Calmly accept it and obey the law like Aussie cyclists and UK
> motorcyclists, or refuse to wear it and clog up the courts appealing
> against fines and so on?
>
> Would people on this site be prepared to face incarceration for
> persistent non-helmet wearing? Will mass helmetless protests, eg
> organised by ctc be held?

I would not wear a helmet, so I would be prepared to go to court, but
not be jailed. If it got to that point I would stop cycling and buy a
car. I would also make a point that I was taking up more room, and
causing more pollution by being in the car.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I would not wear a helmet, so I would be prepared to go to court, but
> not be jailed. If it got to that point I would stop cycling and buy a
> car. I would also make a point that I was taking up more room, and
> causing more pollution by being in the car.
>
>

Perhaps we should organise a National No Cycle Day to show motorists
what life would be like if we all gave up our cycles and drove for the
day instead ;-)

--
Tony

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

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > well quite, but that doesn't change the fact that people buy the bikes
> > with the intention of using for a hobby, to get fit etc. people buy the
> > bikes to ride up hills, etc. not as transport. while people do use bikes
> > as transport, unless there is massive untapped market. what people want
> > to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades. a
> > quick glance in a bike shop tells you that.
>
> What it tells you is that sporting equipment is what currently sells in
> the UK, but that doesn't tell you what it's sold /for/. 4x4s are sold
> as off-road sporting equipment as far as the packaging and marketing
> goes, but they are /used/ just like any other car for the most part.
> How can you tell that's not the case with bikes as well?
>
> My first adult-size bike was a racer (or at least a racer of sorts...
> Raleigh Olympus). I never raced on it, but I wanted (no, /needed/! ;-))
> a racer, basically for reasons of image and my feeling that *proper*
> bikes had big wheels and drop handlebars and thin tyres. It was used
> almost exclusively for transportational cycling. It's successor was a
> tourer, a good machine for general transport and I did buy it with an
> eye to touring, but a lot of it was still "a *proper* bike has big
> wheels and drop handlebars". The great majority of its usage was
> transportational cycling. It's only in the last few years that I'd
> consider buying and riding something that wasn't something other than a
> machine that marked me as (looking as if I might be) either a sportsman
> or a distance-enthusiast, which is daft but I'd be kidding myself if I
> tried to pretend image didn't guide my buying habits to some degree. I
> don't think I'm alone in that either, and probably less than a lot of folk.
>
> Pete.

well rather was my observation that started this off in the first place.
most people how ever they are riding, are on bikes that have some sort
of pretensions, even the BSO have that. the fact that most will never
see say a mountain is neither here nor there.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Roger Merriman]

Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger
>Merriman wrote:
> >what people want to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or
> >thin blades.
>
> Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
> in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'

hill = desire ie figure of speach.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Marc Brett]

On 18 Oct 2007 12:02:22 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> what people want
>>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.
>
>Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
>in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'

Being more intelligent than your average bear, perhaps you can explain
why San Francisco is one of the best cities for cycling in the USA. It
can't be for lack of hills!

 

[Roger Merriman]

Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2007 12:02:22 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
> Braggins) wrote:
>
> >In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger
> >Merriman wrote: what people want
> >>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.
> >
> >Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
> >in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'
>
> Being more intelligent than your average bear, perhaps you can explain
> why San Francisco is one of the best cities for cycling in the USA. It
> can't be for lack of hills!

smaller roads what i've seen of it, ie movies and photos and what not it
seems to be less massive freeways, unlike LA.

but that is wild shot as i've never been there.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Marc Brett wrote:
>On 18 Oct 2007 12:02:22 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
>Braggins) wrote:
>
>>In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> what people want
>>>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.
>>
>>Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
>>in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'
>
>Being more intelligent than your average bear, perhaps you can explain
>why San Francisco is one of the best cities for cycling in the USA. It
>can't be for lack of hills!

Last time I was in San Francisco I saw no cyclists on most of the roads.
I did see several bike hire places aimed at recreational cyclists.

 

[Dan Gregory]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Perhaps we should organise a National No Cycle Day to show motorists
> what life would be like if we all gave up our cycles and drove for the
> day instead ;-)
>
Or wait for oil to pass the $100 per barrel mark & drive the drivers off
the road.
:-((

 

[David Hansen]

On 22 Oct 2007 15:15:16 +0100 (BST) someone who may be
[email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-

>Last time I was in San Francisco I saw no cyclists on most of the roads.

Given the various activities outlined in http://www.sfbike.org/ I
conclude that your set of roads was somewhat particular.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 18 Oct 2007 12:02:22 +0100 (BST), [email protected] (Alan
> Braggins) wrote:
>
> >In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> what people want
> >>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.
> >
> >Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
> >in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'
>
> Being more intelligent than your average bear, perhaps you can explain
> why San Francisco is one of the best cities for cycling in the USA. It
> can't be for lack of hills!
>

And Vancouver in Canada

--
Tony

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

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
>Last time I was in San Francisco I saw no cyclists on most of the roads.
>I did see several bike hire places aimed at recreational cyclists.

I hired a bike from one of those, for transportation. It didn't have
lights (which was a pain one night) and after a weekend of toing and
froing the rear carrier rack detached near the rear axle (luckily
leaving the machine still rideable).

It was still faster than the public transport, although much more
expensive. For my use a car would have been hopelessly impractical
given the parking situation in most of downtown SF. (I speak from
experience having made extensive use of SF public transport and having
driven there too.)

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657