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

Post Reply
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

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

Post by The utility cyclist »

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: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

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

Post by [XAP]Bob »

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: 583
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

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

Post by atoz »

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: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

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

Post by reohn2 »

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

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
User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 577
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

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

Post by Wanlock Dod »

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: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

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

Post by reohn2 »

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

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

Post by gaz »

High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Richard D
Posts: 298
Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 6:16pm

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

Post by Richard D »

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.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

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

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Enforcing the law need not cost money

The penalties could be high enough so that it makes a big profit
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

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

Post by reohn2 »

Cyril Haearn 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....
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

Cyril Haearn 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: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

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

Post by Bonefishblues »

yakdiver
Posts: 1466
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 2:54pm
Location: North Baddesley Hampshire

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

Post by yakdiver »

It ain't gonna happen so why worry
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

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

Post by reohn2 »

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply