Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1558
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby The utility cyclist » 22 Nov 2017, 4:06pm

As reported in Road CC
http://road.cc/content/news/232665-mand ... nt-1638069
I'd rather go to prison than be forced to wear a helmet or hi-vis
Norman you're a steaming pile of @@@@ :twisted:
Shouldn't even be on the agenda, oh look, first up cyclists killing pedestrians, second motorists killing cyclists, why that way around.
enforcing the current laws on the primary cause of road casualties would be a start and should take up all the time allotted.
I'm so angry over this!

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16530
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby [XAP]Bob » 22 Nov 2017, 4:24pm

Meh - no personal opinion, up for debate - evidence led.

He was led into the high vis/helmet question- there is no answer other than that they are up for discussion (other than maybe that they are low on the agenda, but up for discussion)

I'm much more interested in who will be in the discussions...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

atoz
Posts: 291
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby atoz » 25 Nov 2017, 11:02am

Have a guess which tabloid paper was slavering at the mouth at the thought- no surprises it's the Daily Fascist - oops sorry the Daily Mail- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... vests.html. As usual, they got overexcited and had to put out a rather different headline later http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/art ... gners.html

Perhaps the next headline will be "Daily Mail hacks told to keep taking the tablets"- lol.

Seriously though, a lot of the rest of the media wasn't far behind, with the honourable exception of the Guardian. There was a pretty feeble attempt at a report on Newsnight last night, but probably most people had better things to do (like hit the hay) than watch it. Had a pro helmet person misquoting statistics, even claiming it helped in Australia - have a guess which body he was representing, yes it's Headway - https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status ... 0867763200 . The green party spokesperson did her best, but no substitute for one of our own eg Chris Boardman.

Interestingly, the first article in the good ol' Daily Anti-Cyclist allowed comments, but the succeeding one didn't- could be that they didn't want loads of comments from well annoyed cyclists, but welcome uninformed ones from elsewhere? Or maybe the avalanche of anti cyclist comments it generated crashed the comments forum? Don't suppose the Mail will let us know.

If I was Jeremy Corbyn, I'd take the opportunity to cycle out of his house helmetless, just to wind them up further- might get Labour even more votes. The slagging off Corbyn Mail campaign certainly helped Labour in June. How about it Jez, and go for a red skinsuit while you're about it..

reohn2
Posts: 30768
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby reohn2 » 25 Nov 2017, 3:24pm

It's obvious to me(YVMV)that the compulsory helmet/hi viz brigade's thrust and intention isn't anything to do with cyclist's safety,but more to do with reducing cyclist's numbers and reducing decent facilities.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Psamathe
Posts: 8878
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby Psamathe » 25 Nov 2017, 4:20pm

reohn2 wrote:It's obvious to me(YVMV)that the compulsory helmet/hi viz brigade's thrust and intention isn't anything to do with cyclist's safety,but more to do with reducing cyclist's numbers and reducing decent facilities.

It does make you wonder why so many are so concerned about what others do. Why is my not wearing a helmet of such concern to so many who do not cycle? Why are they so concerned about taking away my choice?

If they were genuinely concerned about safety and health/well being of others then they'd be campaigning for e.g. NHS or against air pollution or for healthier foods in supermarkets, etc.

Ian

Wanlock Dod
Posts: 237
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby Wanlock Dod » 25 Nov 2017, 4:41pm

Psamathe wrote:...Why is my not wearing a helmet of such concern to so many who do not cycle?...

This affects how motorists feel that they have to behave around you, if you are wearing a helmet then it might be OK to be a bit closer, or a bit faster, than if you weren't. You might also be able to withstand a knock or two, and if your helmet wearing prevents an injury from occurring (e.g. a n hour or two observation in A&E with suspected concussion) then the interfering plod don't need to be getting themselves in other peoples affairs, like charging people with careless driving.

reohn2
Posts: 30768
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby reohn2 » 25 Nov 2017, 5:13pm

Psamathe wrote:
reohn2 wrote:It's obvious to me(YVMV)that the compulsory helmet/hi viz brigade's thrust and intention isn't anything to do with cyclist's safety,but more to do with reducing cyclist's numbers and reducing decent facilities.

It does make you wonder why so many are so concerned about what others do. Why is my not wearing a helmet of such concern to so many who do not cycle? Why are they so concerned about taking away my choice?

If they were genuinely concerned about safety and health/well being of others then they'd be campaigning for e.g. NHS or against air pollution or for healthier foods in supermarkets, etc.

Ian

If cycling head injuries were a big concern in cycling incidents and accidents I could understand their concern,but they aren't.These people are as you say meddlers in other people's freedom,freedom which has a very small percentage of death or injury overall and even smaller head injury record.
IMHO their time(if they are sincere)would be better spent campaigning for better policing of our roads and stiffer penalties for those causing all the deaths and injuries.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13009
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby gaz » 25 Nov 2017, 8:38pm

Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Richard D
Posts: 212
Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 6:16pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby Richard D » 25 Nov 2017, 9:08pm

Missing the point.

Passing a law mandating helmet use and hi viz costs next to nothing, and makes motorists feel okay; it's not their fault that cyclists get killed or injured, it's the fault of the cyclists for not wearing helmets and hi viz.

Whereas enforcing the laws that we already have that are designed to make motorists observe certain minimum standards, and thereby keep cyclists safe, is very, very expensive. Time and again recently I have been reminded - in person, in work, via the media etc - that there is very little enforcement of the law going on at the moment because the country can't afford it. It can afford to let the super rich keep their money safe abroad though.

brynpoeth
Posts: 6581
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby brynpoeth » 25 Nov 2017, 9:33pm

Enforcing the law need not cost money

The penalties could be high enough so that it makes a big profit
Cycling? Of course, but it is far better on a Gillott.. Alternative facts welcome

reohn2
Posts: 30768
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby reohn2 » 25 Nov 2017, 11:57pm

brynpoeth wrote:Enforcing the law need not cost money

The penalties could be high enough so that it makes a big profit

At risk of invoking the "war on motorists" mantra?
And therefore losing votes....
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Psamathe
Posts: 8878
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby Psamathe » 26 Nov 2017, 12:54am

brynpoeth wrote:Enforcing the law need not cost money

The penalties could be high enough so that it makes a big profit

Penalties that cover prosecution costs (or make a profit) make me think "what a good idea" without thinking .... but then I remember the film Brazil and ...

Ian

Bonefishblues
Posts: 4400
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby Bonefishblues » 26 Nov 2017, 7:55am


User avatar
yakdiver
Posts: 1138
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 2:54pm
Location: North Baddesley Hampshire

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby yakdiver » 26 Nov 2017, 9:32am

It ain't gonna happen so why worry
Alias Numbnuts

reohn2
Posts: 30768
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

Postby reohn2 » 26 Nov 2017, 9:43am

yakdiver wrote:It ain't gonna happen so why worry

The fact its being talked about is a good reason to be concerned and to oppose such thoughts by those in power.Cycling is marginalised enough in the UK by the ever present threat of the moton without trying to make the cyclist to blaim.
If you think it can't happen take a look at Australia and their laws on hlemets and the effects it's had on cycling there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.