Breaking the law...

[Redvee]

According to the uploader of a YT video in Bristol, not wearing a helmet is breaking the law, he also has a presence on Twitter and I've asked for the law that states cycle helmets must be worn when riding but he hasn't replied some 13 hours later.

[nez]

He cant spell so wy tek him serious?

[Vantage]

I'd give my left leg to know how not wearing a lid puts others at risk. Maybe they'd die from the shock of us breaking non existent laws?

[maxcherry]

I'd give my left leg to know how not wearing a lid puts others at risk. Maybe they'd die from the shock of us breaking non existent laws?

Maybe your golden locks of flowing hair will sparkle to brightly in the sun, blinding all the drivers behind you

[bovlomov]

I'd give my left leg to know how not wearing a lid puts others at risk. Maybe they'd die from the shock of us breaking non existent laws?

I can't exactly remember how it goes, but...

John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle's states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". And some would like to extend the definition of 'harm' to include the upset of others - especially relatives and friends.

The trouble with that wider definition is that it could justify any law, from cycle helmets to net curtains. You're upsetting someone now - let's make a law.

[nez]

Yes but if we are to be guided by Victorian liberal principles we'll end up back in the Irish famine.

[bovlomov]

Yes but if we are to be guided by Victorian liberal principles we'll end up back in the Irish famine.

I'm not suggesting we SHOULD. It's only that Mill's Harm Principle is a common reference point in discussions about the limits of personal freedom. What is more interesting to me, is that the wider definition is gaining traction by stealth.

Many reasons are given why I must wear a helmet, and some are nothing to do with my health. These other reasons include: the upset and inconvenience to my wife and dependents, if I was to die or be seriously injured; upset to paramedics and witnesses; and the bad example that I send to impressionable people (especially the children). The unspoken reason is that they are exceedingly angry that I'm not doing what they think a normal person should do. If only there was a law against me, they wouldn't get so angry.

We are approaching this wider definition of 'harm' with some of the arrests made for causing offence on Twitter. It isn't too far fetched to think that, if legislators can't make a case for mandatory helmets on grounds of safety for the rider, they would make the case on the grounds of upset to the wider public.

[beardy]

Why waste time with peripheral concerns like helmets, they should just go for the real objective and ban cyclists because they cause great upset to many law-abiding, hard-working drivers.

They probably kill more drivers through pre-mature heart failure (caused by the stress of being delayed a few seconds), than motorists kill cyclists by hitting them with their vehicles.

[nez]

I agree with you about not being forced - it's the unintended consequences of hard and fast positions I was referring to.

[bovlomov]

they should just go for the real objective and ban cyclists because they cause great upset to many law-abiding, hard-working drivers.

You can make that case to your MP, and I'm sure you'll receive a sympathetic hearing. It's just the kind of eye-catching idea that an anonymous backbencher needs to make a name for him or herself.

[bovlomov]

I agree with you about not being forced - it's the unintended consequences of hard and fast positions I was referring to.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a few carefully selected hard and fast positions. But it's true, hard and fast positions often lead to disaster - and to the spouter of said positions tying himself in knots.

[bovlomov]

That video might be a joke, or a college project. The spelling is so bad it's Molesworthian.

[AlanJ]

I'd give my left leg to know how not wearing a lid puts others at risk. Maybe they'd die from the shock of us breaking non existent laws?

Well in my case it's easy, without the lid the light would shine off my head and dazzle drivers, think of the carnage!

[Heltor Chasca]

Why waste time with peripheral concerns like helmets, they should just go for the real objective and ban cyclists because they cause great upset to many law-abiding, hard-working drivers.

They probably kill more drivers through pre-mature heart failure (caused by the stress of being delayed a few seconds), than motorists kill cyclists by hitting them with their vehicles.

Funny. [emoji48]

I honestly can't believe this warrants debate. And there I go joining in. I'm off to get on with life...

[Audax67]

Still choking on the spelling & grammar here. Heimlich manoeuvre, quick!