Yet another official "no helmet law must be bad" report

[Peter Fox]

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7102495.stm>

....
It recommends measures including legislation making cycle helmets compulsory, adding water
safety education to the school curriculum, increased enforcement of playground equipment
....

Eurosafe = ??? (85%-ers)
Child accident prevention trust = ??? (85%-ers)

--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

 

[Martin Dann]

Peter Fox wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7102495.stm>
>

Interesting stats. about the safety ratings of the countries. The least
safe are the four southern most counties, with a trend to get safer the
more north you get. (Of course the Netherlands get the top score because
that is where the report comes from).

On the plus side from reading the report it is pushing for a driver
liability law for motorist collisions with kiddies.#

However it appears to be asking for some really silly things like:
> A national ministry/ government department with mandated
> responsibility for child and adolescent fall prevention

Which is a bit silly because children fall over, and by doing so learn
how to fall, and catch themselves.

They also want protective equipment to be used in playgrounds, someone
should really point them towards risk compensation.

Martin.

 

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:50:22 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Interesting stats. about the safety ratings of the countries. The least
>safe are the four southern most counties, with a trend to get safer the
>more north you get. (Of course the Netherlands get the top score because
>that is where the report comes from).

And in the Netherlands nobody wears a cycle helmet...

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

 

[jen]

On Nov 20, 1:29 am, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7102495.stm>
>
> ...
> It recommends measures including legislation making cycle helmets compulsory, adding water
> safety education to the school curriculum, increased enforcement of playground equipment
> ...
>
I gave my 8 year old some great water safety education at the weekend
by not preventing him from falling in our garden pond. He was happily
breaking the ice at the time, overbalanced somehow, and fell in. He's
now learnt that falling through ice is quite cold, and he shall be
more careful in future. I could've told him this before (and I'm sure
I have in the past), but I feel he's learnt more from the actual
freezing experience.

Jen

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Peter Fox wrote:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7102495.stm>
> It recommends measures including legislation making cycle helmets
> compulsory, adding water safety education to the school curriculum,
> increased enforcement of playground equipment

Pathetic, isn't it? The 1st and 4th safest countries have huge levels
of child cycling, with hardly a helmet in sight.

> Eurosafe = ??? (85%-ers)

Don't know. Need to find out.

> Child accident prevention trust = ??? (85%-ers)

Totally in bed with BHIT.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Paul Boyd]

jen said the following on 20/11/2007 10:20:

> I gave my 8 year old some great water safety education at the weekend
> by not preventing him from falling in our garden pond. He was happily
> breaking the ice at the time, overbalanced somehow, and fell in. He's
> now learnt that falling through ice is quite cold, and he shall be
> more careful in future. I could've told him this before (and I'm sure
> I have in the past), but I feel he's learnt more from the actual
> freezing experience.

Ssshhhhh...... you'll have Social Services onto you for exposing your
child to danger. Was he wearing an EU-certified life jacket at the
time, with appropriate immersion suits? Had you performed a risk
assessment before letting your child out into the garden?



--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[jen]

On Nov 20, 12:35 pm, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> jen said the following on 20/11/2007 10:20:
>
> > I gave my 8 year old some great water safety education at the weekend
> > by not preventing him from falling in our garden pond. He was happily
> > breaking the ice at the time, overbalanced somehow, and fell in. He's
> > now learnt that falling through ice is quite cold, and he shall be
> > more careful in future. I could've told him this before (and I'm sure
> > I have in the past), but I feel he's learnt more from the actual
> > freezing experience.
>
> Ssshhhhh...... you'll have Social Services onto you for exposing your
> child to danger. Was he wearing an EU-certified life jacket at the
> time, with appropriate immersion suits? Had you performed a risk
> assessment before letting your child out into the garden?
>
>
>
He wasn't even wearing a helmet. I think he should wear one in the
garden from now on, as he could've knocked himself out and drowned...
The next time he falls in then I can say that the helmet saved his
life

Jen

 

[Coyoteboy]

Martin Dann wrote:
> On the plus side from reading the report it is pushing for a driver
> liability law for motorist collisions with kiddies.#

Which is stupid in its self. It isnt always possible to stop for sprogs
running out, no matter how slow you go - kids coming out of high schools
often dont look at all and act totally unexpectedly. A friend of mine
ran a sprog over (sprog ok fortunately) while he was in a traffic queue
outside a school - he was traveling at sub-10mph and watching the kids
on all sides, front and rear. One kid ran out from behind a car (which
he saw and was in the process of slowing and observing that child when
another ran out and into his wing/A pillar leaving some hefty scratches
and a dent. The police pushed it through as his fault and wanted it to
go to court but the kids parents were kind and honest enough to accept
that their child had been stupid and run into the car.

Now if you make it the drivers liability at all times we would have
claims left right and centre that were totally unfair, purely because
people can make a quick buck on it.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Coyoteboy <[email protected]>:
>Now if you make it the drivers liability at all times we would have
>claims left right and centre that were totally unfair, purely because
>people can make a quick buck on it.

No-one's forcing you to endanger children by driving outside schools.
That's a choice you make and it's a selfish and irresponsible one.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Saturday, November - a weekend.

 

[iarocu]

On 20 Nov, 09:48, David Damerell <[email protected]>
wrote:

> No-one's forcing you to endanger children by driving outside schools.
> That's a choice you make and it's a selfish and irresponsible one.


All my regular journeys pass have to pass one of the schools in the
area. So are we supposed to stay home because schools are built beside
main roads? Perhaps the irresponsible choice was building schools
beside main roads and without any off street parking for parents?

Iain

 

[Jeff]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Coyoteboy <[email protected]>:
>> Now if you make it the drivers liability at all times we would have
>> claims left right and centre that were totally unfair, purely because
>> people can make a quick buck on it.
>
> No-one's forcing you to endanger children by driving outside schools.
> That's a choice you make and it's a selfish and irresponsible one.
You're right.

Everyone knows that children are only seen near schools. They are never
seen anywhere else.

And it is terribly selfish and irresponsible of me to drive past a
school on my way to pick up some elderly friends in order to take them
on errands.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, pf-0507
@eminent.demon.co.uk says...
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7102495.stm>
>
> ...
> It recommends measures including legislation making cycle helmets compulsory, adding water
> safety education to the school curriculum, increased enforcement of playground equipment
> ...
>
> Eurosafe = ??? (85%-ers)
> Child accident prevention trust = ??? (85%-ers)
>

It seems even the famously helmet shunning Dutch are not immune from the
mandatory helmet fanatics:

"The European Child Safety Alliance is a Programme of EuroSafe and is
hosted and supported by the Consumer Safety Institute in The
Netherlands."
http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/csi/eurosafe2006.nsf/wwwVwContent/l2europeanc
hildsafetyalliance.htm

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[[email protected]]

In message <[email protected]>
Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

> Everyone knows that children are only seen near schools. They are never
> seen anywhere else.

Driving to and from Sutton at around 3pm ish yesterday, schools were
turning out. Wet, windy and dark.

I saw not a single pupil on a lit bike, though there were quite a few
of them .

I saw also a Mum and 3 children crossing Grand Drive at the Beverley
roundabout.

Not a light item of clothing between them.

Is the best strategy to write to School Governors, LEA and HSE where
these can be identified?

(we did see 3 lit adult cyclists - one on the pavement, one with a
feeble front lamp, one witha blinking front light (but black clad from
top-to-toe)

Surely these are the sort of things CSOs and Traffic wardens could
ignite wity on-the-spot fines?
--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[marc]

[email protected]m wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Everyone knows that children are only seen near schools. They are never
>> seen anywhere else.
>
> Driving to and from Sutton at around 3pm ish yesterday, schools were
> turning out. Wet, windy and dark.
But not lighting up time , yet.
>
> I saw not a single pupil on a lit bike, though there were quite a few
> of them .
>
> I saw also a Mum and 3 children crossing Grand Drive at the Beverley
> roundabout.
>
> Not a light item of clothing between them.
>
> Is the best strategy to write to School Governors, LEA and HSE where
> these can be identified?
>
> (we did see 3 lit adult cyclists - one on the pavement, one with a
> feeble front lamp, one witha blinking front light (but black clad from
> top-to-toe)
>
> Surely these are the sort of things CSOs and Traffic wardens could
> ignite wity on-the-spot fines?

Fashion police? Fined for not wearing the right clothing, or not using a
lit light outside of the statuatory times?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:Ftp*[email protected],
David Damerell <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> Quoting Coyoteboy <[email protected]>:
>> Now if you make it the drivers liability at all times we would have
>> claims left right and centre that were totally unfair, purely because
>> people can make a quick buck on it.
>
> No-one's forcing you to endanger children by driving outside schools.
> That's a choice you make and it's a selfish and irresponsible one.

Not driving outside a school would seriously limit my movements. Something
to do with living opposite one.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Krankieburgh): Would the Prime Minister
care to comment on a report in today's Guardian that he: "arrived
late for a meeting with Jacques Chirac, smelling of alcohol, and
with body language suggesting a total disregard for the rights
of ethnic minorities, lone parents and laboratory animals"?

 

[David Martin]

More symptom treating that will have a negative efffect.

Victim blaming par excellence. Most road deaths are caused by people
over 20. Targetting under 20's with traffic information is like
tackling gun crime by teaching kids how to avoid bullets.

There are some worthwhile measures - water safety being one (every
child should be taught to swim at primary school) but much of it is
the usual misguided platitudes and hand wringing.

...d

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]m says...
> In message <[email protected]>
> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Everyone knows that children are only seen near schools. They are never
> > seen anywhere else.
>
> Driving to and from Sutton at around 3pm ish yesterday, schools were
> turning out. Wet, windy and dark.

And an hour before sunset, so no legal requirement to use lights.
>
> I saw not a single pupil on a lit bike, though there were quite a few
> of them .
>
> I saw also a Mum and 3 children crossing Grand Drive at the Beverley
> roundabout.
>
> Not a light item of clothing between them.
>
> Is the best strategy to write to School Governors, LEA and HSE where
> these can be identified?
>
> (we did see 3 lit adult cyclists - one on the pavement, one with a
> feeble front lamp, one witha blinking front light (but black clad from
> top-to-toe)
>
> Surely these are the sort of things CSOs and Traffic wardens could
> ignite wity on-the-spot fines?
>
They have more important things to do, like arresting people for making
idiotic posts to newsgroups.

 

[Coyoteboy]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Coyoteboy <[email protected]>:
>> Now if you make it the drivers liability at all times we would have
>> claims left right and centre that were totally unfair, purely because
>> people can make a quick buck on it.
>
> No-one's forcing you to endanger children by driving outside schools.
> That's a choice you make and it's a selfish and irresponsible one.

PMSL, I can't believe you are serious in half of your posts. You really
do think the world is black and white don't you. That no-one lives
near/next to a school. That everyone can get to their house without
passing a school. That children magically disappear or behave rationally
as soon as they have moved from within a specific radius of the school.
When you return to the real world let us know.

 

[Martin Dann]

marc wrote:
> [email protected]m wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>
>> Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Driving to and from Sutton at around 3pm ish yesterday, schools were
>> turning out. Wet, windy and dark.
> But not lighting up time , yet.
>>
>> I saw not a single pupil on a lit bike, though there were quite a few
>> of them .
>>
>> I saw also a Mum and 3 children crossing Grand Drive at the Beverley
>> roundabout.
>>
>> Not a light item of clothing between them.
>>
>> Is the best strategy to write to School Governors, LEA and HSE where
>> these can be identified?
>>
>> (we did see 3 lit adult cyclists - one on the pavement, one with a
>> feeble front lamp, one witha blinking front light (but black clad from
>> top-to-toe)

Apparently feeble because it was 3pm.

>> Surely these are the sort of things CSOs and Traffic wardens could
>> ignite wity on-the-spot fines?
>
> Fashion police? Fined for not wearing the right clothing, or not using a
> lit light outside of the statuatory times?

School uniform?
Most uniforms I see tend to be dark. Some uniforms even have a dark coat.
If the kiddies had lits at 3pm, they would not drastically increase
their visibility as most appear dim this long before lighting up time.

However too many car drivers have their main headlits on at this time,
which reduces visibility.

 

[Coyoteboy]

Martin Dann wrote:
> However too many car drivers have their main headlits on at this time,
> which reduces visibility.
>
It increases their visibility, but certainly not that of the child I
agree! Modern bright lights totally mask small bike lights and
pedestrians with no lights. But then if we didnt have them people would
walk out into cars and claim they didnt see them as they had dim
headlights. Theres no accounting for people with no common sense or
personal responsibility.