CTC and Sustrans launch online petition to fight helmet compulsion

I don't see what the issue is here, I wore a helmet, got hit ny a car. The helmet saved my life.

Ask yourself this, if you have young children like me, would you happily let them cycle without a helmet?

mowatb

Look at Australia. Compulsory helmet laws have caused a reduction in cycling. The safest thing for cyclists is more cyclists. Look at Holland and Denmark - people cycling in clothes, not cycling clothes and safetly gear. Why? Because cycling is not dangerous there. Why not? Because so many people are cycling.

I have cycled since a very young age, most of the time without a helmet. Yes, I would let my children if/ when I have some cycle without helmets because I would want them to enjoy it.

I agree cycling does appear safer in many other countries but in the uk drivers, police & councils have a completely different attitude to cyclists. Until that changes the last line of defence is a helmet, I'm 90% sure I wouldn't be writing this right now if I didn't have one.

Yes, I wear a helmet, yes it has saved my head from damage. No to compulsion, for all the obvious reasons stated by those that oppose. Next up would be compulsion to wear fluorescent/reflective clothing.

I'm sure I read somewhere that incidence of injury increases with compulsory helmet usage, not least because cars drive closer if we're helmeted (is that a word) and give us a wider berth if we aren't. However, I could be imagining that. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

Cycling in Australia seems to be heaving to me. Slightly too many in the lycra brigade on a weekend, but can't complain.

What I find odd is that it's compulsory even though, here in Perth, there are so many cycle paths away from motor vehicles. Which in my opinion also means motorists don't know how to cope with cyclists on the road, which causes more accidents.

Maybe someone should make it compulsory for cars to be made of big soft sponges

not exactly - the incidence of head injury is lowest in countries with the lowest helmet usage. some people put that down to the 'safety in numbers' argument which i'm sure is a factor, but i'd mainly put it down to the fact that those countries with high cycle usage invariably have their infrastructure sorted.

and next after that would be the compulsion to not cycle at all, since it's so 'dangerous'

I wear a helmet as that is my choice,I am against making it law as this is personal choice.If not where will this stop, pedestrians wearing hi-vis and body armour ! Or maybe car drivers need helmets too as there is a high instance of head injuries when crashing.

We seem to do this to protect car drivers, in court you will hear about how the cyclist killed was not wearing a helmet, hence the driver that hit him at 80mph is not to blame.

If they feel the need to pass a law how about some protection for cyclists from bad and irresponsible drivers,or stiffer penalties that stick for a change.

Right , how do i get off this horse its rather taller than i expected

It won't be changing in a hurry if we approach the problem by putting the onus on potential victims to wear saftey gear rather than on the people in charge of the hazards to take more care.

2. -(1) The Department shall by regulations -

(a) prescribe for the purposes of section 1 (by reference to shape, construction, appropriateness for wearer and such other qualities as the Department thinks fit the descriptions of protective headgear to be worn; and

(b) prescribe for those purposes the manner in which such headgear is to be worn.

(2) Before making any regulations under this section the Department shall consult such representative organisations as it thinks fit.

Even putting aside the for and against arguments, the police don't have the ability to determine whether a helmet actually offers any worthwhile protection, just that it is being worn and appears reaonably helmet-like, which is a totally pointless exercise.

If it came to organising a protest, I would suggest cyclists turn up attired in all sorts of inappropriate helmets & headgear and ask the MPs to determine what meets the standards of 'appropriateness'.

So Pat Ramsey is surprised at the cycling organisations responses to compulsion ? Does that mean that he proposed a new law on cycle helmets without bothering to consult ? I am not sure about Sustrans but the CTC has been vocal pro-choice, anti-compulsion for at least 2 decades, and a quick look at their website will show this.
And the reason the UCI enforced helmets was to keep the manufactures happy: it had nothing to do with safety.

I suspect that Mr Ramsey does not have much experience of riding in a bunch. I think cycling helmets are quite good at preventing minor head injuries which you get from bunch crashes where someone touches wheels. You see fewer pictures of pros with bloody heads these days. (Maybe there would be even fewer if they had their chin straps done up properly.)

If this idiocy spreads I shall start wearing a fez with the words 'this is a helmet' painted on. After all, unless the legislation clearly defines what a helmet is, how it should be worn and what standard it should conform to, one magic hat is as good as another.

@mowatb - if I had young kids I would spend time and money training improving their road skills before I misled them into placing their faith in a polystyrene hat.

@mowatb, I have young children (9 months and 2.5 years), and they won't be getting up in piles of day-glo orange and sodding great helmets just to make their way to school, or wander round a park. If they start using major roads competitively, or at speed, I may well think again, but I don't see many compelling statistics telling me that they're so badly at risk from head injury while cycling compared to (for example) walking on a pavement.

(I cycle very day, an easy 4.5 mile commute, which I do in work clothes with no helmet or high-viz - it's made me acutely aware of how easy it is to look very, very stupid on a bicycle once you start adding all these largely ineffective safety devices.)

From what I understand, Sustrans, like the CTC is pro choice, anti compulsion, and this is a stance I firmly agree with.

I ride a beautiful quick road bike most of the time, to commute and compete. I wear a helmet and have no issues about doing so, as I travel at high speeds and were I to come off, be it my own fault or not, I'd like a bit of extra padding.

However not everyone travels as quickly and not everyone rides on the road - there is an ever increasing network of off road routes out there for our riding pleasure, which should be used at lower speeds, given they are enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians, and horse riders. The need for a helmet there is not so pressing, although consideration for all is needed.

As for kids, I believe that all kids should be given cycle training and it be left to the parents to decide if they want to helmet them up. If we stop the kids from riding (which helmet compulsion may lead towards) then they will not grow in to the next generation of adult cyclists. And that would be bad!

Your story is a lovely anecdote and I'm pleased for you

However for every person avoiding injury through helmet use there are *many* others who are injured or die as result of head injuries too powerful for a poxy bit of poly or from injuries to other parts of the body.

I wear a helmet every day for my commute - because it makes my non-cycling wife a bit happier - NOT because I believe it'll make a jot of difference if some half-awake eejit in 2 tonnes of metal doesn't look at a junction.

NO to compulsion

I think CTC and Sustrans, and ervyone else for that matter, should also lobby the BMA, because advocates of helmet compulsion get undeserved succour from doctors, individually or as a trade body.

I have always thought the "helmet saved my life" argument particularly spurious because is it entirely anecdotal - how can you know whether it did nor not, with all the other variables? How can you know that an unhelmeted cyclist might not have been more badly hurt if he had been wearing one (rotational injuries etc)?

Much medical support comes from head trauma surgeons in hospitals. It is more scientific in that they have their case papers to draw conclusions from, but as the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation observes, studies like this have their own flaws.

But more to the point I am amazed at the tunnel vision so often displayed by doctors, and indeed the BMA, whose focus seems to be entirely on the head injury aspect - have they asked the heart surgeons, diabetes physicians, dieticians,oncologists, psychiatrists etc etc for their view of the impact of reduced incidence of cycling on cardiovascular fitness, obesity, cancer risk, general 'happiness' etc? It doesn't sound like it.

Exactly. It's an immutable law that any discussion of this type will invariably feature at least one participant (frequently more) claiming that their helmet has saved their life. I don't doubt that they have had a nasty experience, but just because their helmet (larger surface area don't forget) made contact with a hard surface that does NOT equate to a near death experience. In fact, if you were to add up all the individuals who make this claim I suspect that it would compare very oddly with the death/serious injury rate from the time before helmets became common.

If you feel better wearing one, that's fine, but there is no substitute for good road sense and training and no-one should be under the illusion that wearing one is the key to being safe.

Indirectly you've reinforced the point that vanity is the reason that prevents or discourages some people from cycling, forcing helmet wearing isn't going to help.

It also shows the problem with selling bikes and cycling as a fashionable lifestyle choice, which is the main thrust of marketing in this country, as opposed to just a practical method of transport as you have in countries like Holland. If you try and appeal to people's vanity by telling them something is on-trend or the in-thing then it makes it vulnerable to fickle changes in taste or the fact that'll just react against that marketing push and reject it

Has the impact you suffered damaged your reading ability?

CTC & Sustrans are against compulsion.

I am quite capable of deciding whether my kids should wear helmets on their bikes or anywhere else, I don't need a bloody law (based on contradictory research) to tell me they have to. Experience tells me I also shouldn't take the opinion of doctors at face value. The medical profession aren't always right.

Emotion clouds the issue and stifles rational discussion. Those working in A&E, for instance, see lots of distressing cases come through the door but those that possibly could be averted by helmet wearing are a very small number. They only see the bad news (it must be a bit like reading the Daily Wail), not the many good things that happen every day.

If I was a doctor I'd call for cigarettes to be banned before anything else, that would save many more lives.

Read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ first, if you can be bothered.

Don't worry, you can look perfectly stupid without hi-viz clothing, though your comments do suggest you are somewhat insecure. What does your shrink say?

Seriously, I'm not pro hi-viz because if drivers were paying attention you wouldn't need it. They need to see people, not merely watch out for bright yellow clothing. However, I wouldn't advocate wearing black or dull colours either if riding on the road, especially in the darker months, as I still want to be visible. On country lanes I use I find dark green and dark brown shades are dreadful colours for camouflage. I don't care what is the 'in' colour this season, I avoid wearing them as I want to be alive next year.

It has been demonstrated that being lit up like a Christmas Tree and wearing hi-viz does not prevent SMIDSY or other dangerous driver behaviour. I'd be quite happy to wear a jersey with a big logo that said "Warning: Police Cyclist Carrying Firearm", which I'm sure would focus their minds!

Well, I get to see mad dress even without hi-viz, admittedly! No, I'm just going from the general principle that getting to work / getting around by bicycle should be little different to taking a walk. It's great to see more and more people cycling, but every now and again I fight back the urge to be mean about the strange clothing combinations people choose. (And every now and then I see somone happily getting along looking really smart, so I guess I shouldn't complain!)

Does anyone have any stats on what the current proportion of helmet wearers amongst cyclists is? And what proportion of those who took up cycling, say, this year wear helmets? One key argument seems to be that making people wear a helmet will stop people from cycling (or from taking it up), so I'd be interested to know if there is data on this. Pretty much all the new cyclists in my workplace get themselves a helmet with their cycle to work bike, and dont mind wearing it. Very few members of my club seem to ride without helmets either. In fact, the main group I see riding helmet-less are very experienced riders who have been cycling avidly for many years (long before helmets were commonplace) and would not be stopped from cycling by having to wear one.

I can't make my mind up whether I care about compulsion, but I'd love to see some more data for both sides of the debate.

I dont think the argument is that compulsory helmets would put committed cyclists off as much as people who would use a bike nipping down the shops, riding a mile to school, going for a pootle to the local cafe etc. where they otherwise might have driven.

Interesting point step-hent, not at all a scientific observation, but riding around central London last week I was struck (if that's the right word) by how many of my fellow cyclists weren't wearing helmets. The majority I'd have said were wearing normal non-cycling clothes too.

@mowatb

I do have children, though whether they are like you I cannot be sure. I do not make them wear a helmet when cycling, just as I don't make them wear a helmet when walking, running, climbing trees, playing football, watching TV, playing with the dog, swimming or a variety of other activities.

@andykk

That's precisely the problem with these laws, they reduce cyclists to only the "Lycra-brigade" (of which I'm a fully paid up member incidentally) when what we need are more ordinary cyclists using the bike to get around. Cycling can only be accepted as normal in this country if ordinary people do it, instead of just the weekend warriors.

Perhaps fear of injury - and the desire to wear a helmet - declines with the popularity or modal share of bicycle use for personal transport. If there are a large number of people cycling around you, mostly dressed in casual clothing, then where's the need for hi-viz?

I didn't bother with any cycling kit for the easy 5 miles through the town centre but when the office moved so I was riding further and on busy A-roads my family badgered me to wear a helmet. I still don't bother wearing it for casual, quieter rides.

The place where I find good colour contrast really has an impact is on 60mph country two-lane roads with a significant amount of traffic. More vehicles means more chances of an incident, but also that they don't see you so far in advance. Many drivers on country roads aren't expecting cyclists on the road. I was knocked off once at a junction because I didn't stand out sufficiently. I'd rather that didn't happen again so I wear a white or yellow jersey or my purple jacket.

I see stacks of people in London in normal clothes for cycling but, interestingly, my perception is that most wear a helmet (most meaning more than half - I would have said around 70:30). That said, that is at peak times - in the middle of the day, I'd say the 'helmeted' number goes down, especially as none of the couriers seem to wear helmets.

Out of interest, are those who are against helmet compulsion (sounds like a psychological disorder) also against motorcyclists and moped/scooter riders having to wear helmets (even on mopeds/scooters) and car drivers having to wear seatbelts? I can see that people have 'anti-nanny-state' arguments against those things too, but I'd be interested to know if the views tend to coincide.

It's not necessarily a valid comparison - motorcycle helmets are significantly stronger than bike helmets and a seatbelt will certainly stop you from smacking into the steering wheel or going through the windscreen. The benefit from helmets is much more tenuous and the risk associated with cycling doesn't merit compulsion.

It isn't so much an argument about the 'nanny state', it's more about the way that compulsion paints cycling as being dangerous and shifts the emphasis away from other safety measures, such as better driver training, more thorough enforcement of the Highway Code and a more considerate driving culture.

Quite right that motorcycle helmets are stronger than bike helmets - but if we accept that that makes motorcycle/moped helmets justifiable, then doesn't that just mean that we should have similar helmets required when cycling on the road? The reason I keep mentioning mopeds and scooters is that their speeds are much lower and could therefore be perceived to be less dangerous. The main risk of serious injury cycling on open roads isn't to do with the cyclist's own speed - it is related to the likelihood of being hit by something (usually a car or other heavy, fast moving object).

I don't think it is wearing a seatbelt (or having airbags) that makes people think driving is a safe activity - they get that impression from having driven around lots without having had an accident that injures them.

So, I think that the idea that having to wear a helmet automatically portrays the activity as dangerous is a misperception (and one that is made worse by negativity towards helmets). Helmets are simply one of a number of easy, cheap ways to reduce the risk of injury - along with paying attention to the road conditions, and making sure your bike is well maintained. I totally agree that helmet compulsion shouldn't detract from other, probably more important, safety measures, but it doesn't have to - we could have both.

Actually, the kinetic energy your body has when travelling at 30 mph (motor scooter) is a lot more than when travelling at 20 mph (fast cyclist); 2.25 times more in fact. This is why helmets are necessary for motor cyclists - you have enough energy to deliver serious injury without the involvement of another vehicle. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed. When compared to a slower cyclist travelling at 15 mph, the 30 mph scooter rider has 4 times the kinetic energy.

@mowatb - did you read about those people who have been paralysed due to the effect of a helmet in an accident. Helmets protect in specific form of accidents and in others they can be a downright risk.

oh also my sons don't wear a helmet but they are taught bike control, awareness of surroundings and the like. They also climb run and generally do things that children have been doing for centuries with out a helmet.

I ride a bike, drive a car, in fact I have licenses for both car and motorbikes and the best skill I bring to riding a bike is the skills learnt riding a motorbike specifically the road awareness you get from the training and actual riding of a motorbike. The same things happen on a motorbike that happen on a bicycle but only quicker and with greater impact.

while I am on this rant. Bicycle helmets only work under 10mph, I have read - whether this is true or not I have no idea but it goes to show how information or research can be skewed to suit any argument.

I have been on bikes all my life. I know if helmets are made compulsory I will dump my bikes and withdraw the cycle training and fitness rides from my companies portfolio. The choice is mine not the anyone else as no one has proved that helmets work.

I take the point that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed - but (a) I travel at well over 20mph on my bike at several points on my commute, and regularly over 30mph(and I am not especially fast), and (b) if I hit my head on a stationary object even at 20mph, I am likely to do myself a nasty injury.

The thing I can't get away from in this debate is that cycling on the roads *is* potentially dangerous, even when no other traffic is involved. I'm still not convinced by the arguments that try to distinguish cycling so clearly from other on-road vehicles. Thing is, I don't think that level of danger is unacceptable - life is full of danger - but the risks do exist and can be mitigated using a number of methods.

I think I'm concluding that I am anti-compulsion, but only from a political 'pro-freedom' point of view, rather than because I'm not convinced by the safety-based arguments against compulsion.

I think your first point is incorrect due to the principle of 'risk compensation'. John Adams has some really interesting research about this here:
http://john-adams.co.uk/

I think your second point is also incorrect. There is no possible reason for wearing protective equipment other than to mitigate risk, unless you accept vanity or advertising as genuine reasons. Helmets indicate danger and I can't see how you would come to any other conclusion.

Incidentally, cycling's modal share has apparently dropped in every country that has tried helmet compulsion.

No, I'm in favour of the nanny state... sometimes. In the case of cycle helmets the evidence to support the case for compulsion is not there. It has some value in low speed falls onto hard surfaces but is totally ineffective when hit by 2 tonnes of car at speed.

The answer is: Education, education, education.

So I was annoyed when as part of the Sustrans Bike It involvement my kids' school sent home a "design your own helmet" drawing. Of all the safety-related things they could have done.....

I am not sure sure is that this is an argument to force ALL cyclists to wear a helmet. Most casual cyclists do not reach 30mph. My wife barely gets above 10mph, my kids too. People riding where there is a high proportion of bicycles sharing the road rarely fall off, are rarely knocked off by anything and we have a reflex action that prevents the head hitting the floor in a fall.

For driving a car I'm sure a seat belt is a good idea. My Dad knocked the windscreen out of our VW Beetle in one piece after a head-on at 15mph in fresh snow. He had a sore head.

I would most definitely NOT ride a motorcycle (except tootling around the streets in 1st gear) without a top quality helmet and invariably good quality handmade leathers. My Arai helmet saved me from a concrete fence post. There's absolutely no doubt I'd be dead if I had been helmetless.

Go on a CTC ride or an audax and you might have a different view.

Yes roadies tend to wear helmets, especially because they are now compulsory in UCI races and roadies want to look pro.
Audaxers and CTCers and tourers, who tend to be an older age group with a lot more years on the road, are far more likely to be wearing cycling caps.

I notice it when I ride out around Surrey/Kent when I'm home. I usually give a nod or a wave to other riders but I find the roadies ignore me because I'm not wearing a helmet so I'm not one of them, whereas the older and often helmetless guys tend to respond.

At what point does a helmet cease to be a safety device intended for the good of the wearer? Some say 12 mph, some 20 mph. I say when it becomes compulsory by law. Then it is transformed in to something else entirely. That will be when I stop wearing mine.

The tiresome argument about whether bike helmets make a difference misses the point entirely. I have a simple test for those who want to quantify in detail whether a helmet makes a difference at 10mph, 20 mph, 30mph - or being hit by a car, bus or meteorite. Come around to my house and let me whack you on the head with a heavy wooden mallet - once wearing the helmet and once without and you can decide whether helmets protect the head at all.

I suspect that most of the time - especially in accidents involving larger, harder, faster vehicles a helmet makes no difference at all - but if I'm out on fast rides I wear one as even tiny odds in my favour are better than nothing and I'd rather meet the road head first with one on than not. I met the road without and I don't want to repeat that experience.

Illogically when I pop to the shops I don't wear one and I will defend everyone's right not to wear one.

Illogically I also defend people's right to smoke and drink themselves to death as well - even though the cost to the NHS of those two habits are hugely more than dealing with head injuries from people not wearing helmets.

perfect. couldn't have put it better myself, (so i wont bother trying either).

Quite - these are the experienced people I was talking about.

Nicely put MercuryOne - I find the freedom argument against compulsion more persuasive than any of the safety arguments. I'll continue to exercise my choice to wear a helmet most of the time (I dont wear one on Boris bikes, for example), just as those who decide not to can exercise theirs (and hopefully we can all continue to do so).

I am similarly illogical.

Surely any helmet law would have a negative impact on the cycle hire scheme in London and elsewhere, and be impossible to enforce. Maybe number plates for bicycles would be the next thing on the list...

Certainly difficult to enforce (as are all the other traffic laws (for any form of transport, which is clear from a quick ride around central london).

As for the effect on the bike hire scheme, I was recently approached when hiring a boris bike by a man from TfL doing a survey on helmet usage. They were apparently looking into the provision of helmets with the bikes, possible using a disposable helmet or helmet liner to deal with perceived (or actual) hygiene issues. But again, I agree that compulsion would be likely to have a negative impact on the scheme - it reduces the perceived convenience, and I suspect lots of people just won't want to mess up their hair for a quick trip down the road!

If number plates are next, 'road' tax couldn't be far behind...

As said, the issue is the 'compulsion' of wearing a helmet not the wearing of one. I wear one soley because it puts my girlfriend's mind at rest. The problem is, my lid is not going to protect me when some motorist ploughs into me at 50+mph!!! Sadly, it is the vunerable road user who is being forced to take measures to protect themselves from the motorist and if Mr Ramsey and others have their way will find themselves breaking the law - what next, ban pedestrians from walking along country roads?!

Motoring bodies and politicians would be better of addressing the shoddy standards of driving in the UK - not trying to give the image that cycling is an 'inheritently dangerous activity' by helmet legislation!!! And when has anyone seen the tv motoring programmes advocating safer driving?? All you get is speed, power slides and huge bhp from the petrolheads!!

If this gets the green light and somebody down the line has the misfortune to get bounced and has the audacity to make a claim against the driver. Can anyone guess the loophole the insurer will use to crush the claim? Yep, the integrity of the helmet and if it was worn correctly will be questioned regardless of the motorist not paying attention to a highly visible, lidded cyclist. Oh and more than likely speeding!

The CTC should stick to the personal freedom aspect when fighting helmet laws.

There are so many myths recirculating among the anti-helmet folks that unfortunately they actually start to believe them. Then when they actually get to public hearings they repeat these myths, but those in favor of the helmet laws have actual facts.

There has _never_ been a reduction in cycling levels as the result of a helmet law. In Australia, ONE highly flawed study, conducted soon after a helmet law was implemented, claimed such a reduction, but even those behind that study admitted that future counts showed that cycling levels quickly recovered and soon exceeded pre-helmet law levels (that's not a claim that the helmet law caused an increase in cycling, correlation is no the same as causation).

Similarly, every study by ER personnel, comparing the level of injuries of helmet wearers versus non-helmet wearers involved in similar types of crashes, showed a very large reduction in injuries and fatalities.

We should not be forced to wear helmets. But using junk science and statistics in an attempt to stop helmet laws is not only dishonest, it doesn't work.

x

Well stated.

The endless attempts to use "science" and statistics to "prove" that helmets don't work, are amusing, but they also play right into the hands of the compulsion folks because they are so weak.

The government should encourage people to eat less fatty foods, not smoke, wear seat belts, wear helmets etc., but unless the behavior has a direct negative impact on others (i.e. texting while driving or driving drunk) their role should end at "encouragement."

While you could correctly argue that we all pay for irresponsible behavior through higher health care costs, the solution is still not legislating behavior. There could be financial incentives for responsible behavior like keeping one's weight within certain limits, wearing helmets, not smoking, etc.

I am a professional cycling instructor. Before I trained, I religiously wore a helmet. After I qualified, I stopped wearing one. I just didn't feel the need any more. When I asked myself why, the answer seemed to be that previously a helmet had made me feel safer, but when I thought about it, I hadn't actually been doing anything to decrease the risks of a collision. I also drive a car from time to time, and when I do, although I am wearing a seat belt and it has a driver airbag, I focus on the same thing: reducing the likelihood of a collision rather than surviving one. I'm glad for anyone who has avoided serious injury or death by wearing a helmet, and I've nothing against people wearing them if they choose to, but day in and day out I see people clad head to foot in hi-viz gear making basic mistakes in on-road positioning, failing to be aware of other road users, particularly behind them, failing to communicate properly with other road users, and wearing helmets that would be useless in a collision because they are not properly fitted. Off-road and in sport cycling, different ball game, and I'd probably wear a helmet. I've now clocked up over 20,000 miles on-road in London, and the miles since I stopped wearing a helmet have been a lot more relaxed and far less risky, imho. In a nutshell, my view now is that how you ride is a lot more important than what you wear. Making people wear helmets won't reduce the risk of collisions, and head injuries are caused by collisions.

There's plenty of junk science on both sides of the argument. Despite what you might think, there's good science in both camps too. What there plainly isn't is any kind of concensus in the data, like that which has backed up other compulsory safety measures like seatbelts and motorbike helmets. The data is massively culturally specific, because it's infrastructure, legal frameworks and people's attitudes to cycling – not helmets – that make the biggest difference to casualties. Helmets are a red herring and any money spent on compelling people to wear them could be better spent actually making cyclists safer.

The biggest myth is that there is an 'anti-helmet' lobby. No-one is anti-helmet, just anti-compulsion.

Great Idea. I quite like the idea of a collinder. I could then have a picknic and wash my sald at the same time