Despite repeated opposition to the idea of mandatory helmet laws for cyclists from his own party’s government, one Conservative MP has penned an opinion piece explaining why he believes such legislation should be introduced.
Just last December the Department for Transport insisted that the government has “no intention” to make wearing a helmet while cycling a legal requirement, however Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby in the West Midlands, has said he will “continue to call for change” having first raised the issue in Parliament in June.
The MP who has held his seat since 2010 expanded on the argument outlined during his initial call for legislation earlier this summer, telling the story of a constituent, then-teenage Oliver Dibsdale who suffered a serious brain injury in a cycling crash when he was not wearing a helmet.
“Before I met Oliver, I took the view that a helmet was a matter of personal choice, and that any legal requirement to wear a helmet would be difficult to enforce,” Pawsey wrote in a piece published on Road Safety GB, a road safety organisation last month accused of “victim-blaming” over its promotion of a cycling helmet campaign by another regional group.
“Oliver told me that he usually wore a helmet when cycling and that he bitterly regrets his decision on that occasion to ride without one. He spoke to me in a very moving way about the impact his injury has had on his family and the guilt he feels for the amount of time they have had to spend caring for him. He very much wants to help other families to avoid this fate.”
Pawsey recalls how he and Oliver met Trudy Harrison, the head of the Department for Transport at the time, who engaged in an “excellent discussion” but insisted helmets “should be a matter of choice, not compulsory”, the view still held by the government.
> Government shuts down mandatory cycling helmets question from Conservative MP
“Oliver continued to disagree,” he explained. “And drew my attention to a number of arguments which I have found persuasive. Oliver points out that it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt and that it is compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.
“To this, those who oppose mandatory wearing of cycle helmets respond that there is a health benefit from using a bicycle, and that there should not be any discouragement of cycling. Oliver replies to this that, if people wish to exercise, there are many ways of doing so that present less risk; he points out that people can walk, run, take up a sport or go to the gym.
“Another argument cited by opponents to mandatory wearing of cycle helmets is that legislation would be difficult to enforce. While it would certainly create an additional burden on the police, it does not strike me as particularly difficult to enforce compared with other offences: it is easier to spot a cyclist without a helmet than to spot a driver using a mobile phone, or a car passenger without a seatbelt.
“No one now suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice on the basis of difficulty in enforcing the relevant legislation.”
Pawsey raised the issue during a ‘Ten Minute Rule Bill’ earlier this summer, asking for the government to “require a person riding a bicycle on the public highway to wear a safety helmet”.
“I continue to believe that helmets should be mandatory, particularly for children,” he concluded. “Following my Ten Minute Rule Bill, Headway, who are supportive of my call for mandatory helmets for cyclists, have asked me to become a ‘Headway Parliamentary Champion’.
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
“I will continue to call for a change in the law, and I would encourage all readers who share my view to make the case to their own Member of Parliament.”
Such change seems unlikely, in December the government responding to a written question from fellow Tory MP Mark Pritchard asking for a mandatory helmet law by saying the matter had been considered “at length” during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018, with the Department for Transport holding “no intention” to make it mandatory.
“The Department considered this matter at length in a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018 and held discussions with a wide range of stakeholders as part of that review,” the DfT said.
“The safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. The Department recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, as set out in the Highway Code, but has no intention to make this a legal requirement.”
Research published from Australia in the same week as Pawsey’s ‘Ten Minute Bill’ proposal found that cyclists wearing helmets were seen as “less human” than those without.
The research by Mark Limb of Queensland University of Technology and Sarah Collyer of Flinders University found that 30 per cent considered cyclists less than fully human, and that cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without, while cyclists with safety vests and no helmets were perceived as least human.
127 thoughts on “Conservative MP cites “safety” and attempts to reignite cyclist helmet debate”
Sure, as long as 5 point
Sure, as long as 5 point harnesses, full face helmets and neck restraints are mandatory in cars as that would clearly make drivers safer.
Also, there is no truly safe way to carry a child in a car so children should not be allowed in cars until they are large enough to be protected by the mandatory safety equipment.
Its not about safety, otherwise this clown would be arguing for banning cars from all town centres, 20mph speed limits nationwide, a crackdown on dangerous drivers and massive investment in safe infrastructure. Its about controlling the others so the drivers don’t have to be inconvenienced.
Hmm, how many accidents would
Hmm, how many accidents would be avoided if cars were limited to 5mph, and were required to have 2 flag men accompany it front and rear to alert others and the driver to any hazards?
If it saves one life – and it would surely save thousands – who could possibly have any reasonable grounds to object?
Paul J wrote:
Ah, but that would clearly cause otherwise-law-abiding citizens to lose their minds with frustration and rage. Not to mention fear if they saw scary types on cycles gaining on them. So that would likely increase casualties.
Have you considered how many
crashesaccidents would occur when people had to overtake pedestrians but couldn’t do so quickly – and that put them in the path of oncoming vehicles (at a closing speed of 10mph!)?And there’s the health and safety aspect of forcing the flag people to walk amongst road vehicles. (Your average pedestrians won’t get far trying to sue you on similar grounds – they’ve chosen to walk.)
Never mind the pollution…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Ah, but that would clearly cause otherwise-law-abiding citizens to lose their minds with frustration and rage. Not to mention fear if they saw scary types on cycles gaining on them. So that would likely increase casualties.
Have you considered how many
crashesaccidents would occur when people had to overtake pedestrians but couldn’t do so quickly – and that put them in the path of oncoming vehicles (at a closing speed of 10mph!)?And there’s the health and safety aspect of forcing the flag people to walk amongst road vehicles. (Your average pedestrians won’t get far trying to sue you on similar grounds – they’ve chosen to walk.)
Never mind the pollution…— Paul J
You can’t just look at the downside like that without providing a balanced view of the upside:-
Full employment due to the millions of flag bearers required
Reduced pressure on the NHS due to the exercise the flag bearers get
The explosion of Jeremy Clarkson’s head in disbelief!
Backladder wrote:
Well I wish Mr. Clarkson no ill although I grew tired of the character he created a while back. Presumably that would lower lots of other people’s blood pressure though?
It seems the flag folk are a key community in this discussion. Yes, walking may be good for them – assuming we’ve transitioned to emit elsewhere electric vehicles so they only have to worry about particulates. But what about the battering their mental health will take from the outrageous language they’ll have to listen to (never mind the grammar, the usage…) from a certain segment of the driving community?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Its an ill wind that blows no good.
Since people are so into PPE I suggest ear defenders for those who don’t find it amusing.
In other good news, under this system motorways would be abandoned by motor vehicles due to the real risk of starving to death before the next exit so would be available for use as cycle superhighways 😉
Backladder wrote:
Ah, cycle superhypeways. Wait – you mean actual highways for cycling?? That you don’t have to stop or dodge an obstacle on every 20 metres because some planner was startled by a sudden driveway, or a motorist had to pull over due to an unforseeable emergency planned delivery they’re paid to make?
Backladder wrote:
So can we put a bag over it now, to stop the detritus from his rabid brain infecting any folk nearby when his great ugly jug of a heed goes pop? Even if his noggin doesn’t explode, such a bag would make him better lookin’ than he is now and children wouldn’t be frightened that Mr Potato Head had come to life.
PS I’m agin’ the flag folk as they’ll only find and wave flags that send various signals that will incense drivists, even at 5mph, such that they attempt to drive over the flaggers they don’t care for. Even as a nice cyclist, I will become incensed if someone waves a union jack at me. As for the cross of St George …… Pah! Run them down!!
Cugel wrote:
Yeah, I think national flags could inflame tensions in some areas and I think they’re only really appropriate for showing allegiance to various sporting teams (or possibly support for a separatist agenda).
Luckily, I’ve conducted an extensive marketing campaign to find the best possible flag for use in almost any circumstance (possibly not piracy though, but there’s already a bunch of cool flags for that)
Enough of this cafe-squirrel
Enough of this cafe-squirrel propaganda…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Has bat-squirrel just eaten most of a ladder? And why is Princess Diana of Themysciuridae so much bigger?
TBH when I found this on one
TBH when I found this on one of the many police-boxes-turned-cafes in Edinburgh my first thought was not to analyse the iconography but flee in disgust. (Fortunately I don’t suffer from nut allergies, but taking no chances. And yes,
probably there’s not a cafe in Edinburgh that’s free from rodents.)
The Tory fear the flag men
The Tories fear the flag men because thier flags are red.
“Flaggers” please!
“Flaggers” please!
Which probably sounds more acceptable to the more expensively educated sort of MP…
Perhaps we could pre
Perhaps we could pre-emptively close comments on this one? That would allow everyone to quietly sympathise with someone who has suffered serious injury in a crash on the road (however it occured).
.
And possibly try to consider the idea an MP is doing something they genuinely believe to be an effective measure to help people, having been given some expert guidance. Noting that expert in one field does not expert in another make.
.
Secure in the knowledge that it’s a certainty that no legal changes will occur as a result of this effort.
.
(Sorry Flintshire – I just felt this one somehow needed some of your bollards.)
chrisonatrike wrote:
Just because someone genuinely believes something doesn’t make it true, and his failure to do the most basic research shows that he really doesn’t care, he just wants a photo-op. His “expert guidance” comes from a single, biased, source and he isn’t intelligent enough to ask the people who know more about it than they do.
I’ll just throw in this
I’ll just throw in this factoid – you’re slightly more likely to get into a traffic collision walking one kilometre than cycling one kilometre. So, if it saves one life, let’s get mandatory pedestrian helmets for everyone. Just think how much money that Big Helmet will make…
Fnaaar
Fnaaar
Cousin to Lord Dark Helmet.
Cousin to Lord Dark Helmet.
And walking has the same
And walking has the same death rate per mile as cycling, so why isn’t Pawsey campaigning for walking helmets? He couldn’t possibly be so ignorant as to know absolutely nothing about something he wants to pass a law about could he? Even for a tory, that’s pretty ignorant.
eburtthebike wrote:
The last stats that I saw put walking at a slightly higher death rate per mile than cycling.
Just popping round to the
Just popping round to the corner shop for fig rolls…anyone need anything?
Yes please: freshly half
Yes please: freshly half-baked tory opinion.
eburtthebike wrote:
Toryspiv opinions are not baked at all but still a gooey clag (complete with many adulterants) in the bottom of a broken bowl with a picture of Queen Victoria on it.
Cugel wrote:
they even admit it by moving to the term “oven ready”
KDee wrote:
do they sell fig rolls in croydon?
I want to make fig rolls.
I want to make fig rolls.
I have a recipe, I’ve made chocolate digestives a few times and they are so much better than any shop brought packet.
Why do they always go for PPE
Why do they always go for PPE as the first thing ?
If it saves one life is a bit of a tenuous argument – ban cars in a lot of urban environments, stop people walking on pavements as people are killed each year when on the pavement.
Hirsute wrote:
Because that involves absolutely no effort to be made by drivers, despite some of them being the direct cause of the danger. It’s also nicely victim blaming, so non-cyclists can smugly throw abuse at any cyclist they seen who’s not wearing a helmet.
Never trust an ignorant Tory
Never trust an ignorant Tory
Ignorant and Tory being
Ignorant and Tory being synonymous…
Is there any other kind?
Is there any other kind?
perce wrote:
Ken Clarke genuinely knows quite a bit about jazz, and…no, that’s all I’ve got.
perce wrote:
Ignorance is a requirement of membership of the tory party.
eburtthebike wrote:
Their two requirements are ignorance and selfishness…and cruelty. Their *three* requirements are ignorance, selfishness and cruelty…and an almost fanatical devotion to the machinery of capitalism. Their *four* …no… *amongst* their requirements are such elements as ignorance, selfishness…
I’ll come in again.
“Cardinal Biggles, bring in
“Cardinal Biggles, bring in the comfy chair.”
“…it is easier to spot a
“…it is easier to spot a cyclist without a helmet than to spot a driver using a mobile phone”. The thing is the former is only a danger to themselves while the latter is a danger to everyone.
jaymack wrote:
Please explain how a cyclist without a helmet is a danger to themself?
While a bit of plastic and
While a bit of plastic and polystyrene is unlikely to be of any use in a collison with a motorvehicle, they do have some utility. For example a neighbour with whom I used to cycle stopped outside his house late one Sunday morning, took his helmet off and waved the rest of our group on our merry way home. He unclipped a foot, slipped and banged his head against the kerb; he died of his injuries later that day. This is the kind of incident that helmets are actually designed for. I’ve watched his kids grow up, he hasn’t. Of course that’s an extreme example but accidents happen and after all you did want an explanation for my comment so please don’t go complaining now one’s been provided. How individuals choose to mitigate risk is a matter for them; if you don’t want to wear one, don’t.
jaymack wrote:
Without wishing to cast aspersions on your story, I’ve never seen or heard of a cyclist taking their helmet off to wave it at departing friends, and while the rest of your story is barely credible, that is less so. It certainly doesn’t prove your assertion that a cyclist not wearing a helmet is a danger to themself.
We appriached his house. We
I didn’t say he waved his helmet at us. You should read what I wrote. For the sake of clarity – we approached his house. We slowed down. He stopped. Took his helmet off. He waved. He slipped unclipping from a pedal. He banged his head. He died. And this isn’t the first time I’ve recounted the incident during a helmet debate on this site. You asked for an explanation, I was able to provide one. Accepting that some people’s views may be different from your own and that they have different but equally valid motivation would perhaps have been a more appropriate way to respond. But each to their own…
I asked you to prove your
I asked you to prove your assertion that a cyclist not wearing a helmet is a danger to themself, and you provide an anecdote about a pedestrian. You seem to have edited your original post to say that he was stopped.
Anecdote about a pedestrian,
Anecdote about a pedestrian, really I thought it was about a cyclist. Still as I’ve said, each to their own. And as for editing no, you simply misread or misunderstood what I wrote. These things happen, it’s no big deal. However
please don’t accuse me of doing a Nigel, that really is a sleight too far.
Seatbelts work.
Seatbelts work.
They are proven to work.
That’s the big difference.
ktache wrote:
Depends what you consider “work” to be. Yes, they save the lives of car occupants, but they transfer the risk to people outside the car, and overall, no lives are saved. Seat belts are approaching the problem from the wrong end, and making drivers feel safer is futile, as they will use the safety gain as a performance benefit, negating or overwhelming the safety improvement.
eburtthebike wrote:
I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate as drivers have been known to hit other drivers and at least a few inanimate objects such as buildings, walls etc. Maybe speed and acceleration limiting of cars would work better though?
A famous experiment matched
A famous experiment matched two sets of cars, the first with every conceivable safety device, the second the same make and model, but with none of the safety extras. The assumption was that the first group would have fewer injury collisions, but the two groups had the same rate, because the drivers of the first group drove faster and closer to cars in front, thus negating the safety benefits.
The safest car would have no seat belts, air bags, anti-skid brakes, or side impact bars, but a large rusty 14″ bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel.
eburtthebike wrote:
It does seem, in the larger scheme of things, that humans often act most in the interests of safety when obviously unsafe things are all about them. Endless studies of safety protection devices, in cars and elsewhere, show the effect of “risk compensation” wherein safety devices induce a grossly over-estimated feeling of safety with a consequent disregard of still-extant risks. However ….
There’s a significant group of humans with personalities (or whatever you want to call their habitual modes of being) in which risky behaviour is commonplace, with little regard paid to the dangers here and there.
In some cultures, risky behaviour is seen as somehow a brave act denoting a strong and independent person. An example I’m very familiar with is the USA “Don’t need no stinkin’ guard or riving knife on my table saw” resulting in 60,000 serious injuries and many deaths per year in that benighted place. They also like to tote and shoot guns willy-nilly, the dafties!
Even with the steering wheel spikes, some eejits will continue to drive like loons.
In the end, a truly effective solution, dealing with these loons as well as the momentarily careless, is to limit the functions of cars – or to ban the whole notion and technology as it currently exists in favour of transport that has a far, far better safety record. (Rail, bus and even aeroplanes, assuming they can all be made carbon neutral non-polluters, of course).
And lots of bikes, including electric sit-up-and-beggers with capacious panniers, child seats and large buckets to carry your cement mixer. 🙂
Cugel wrote:
For a short period.
“Even with the steering wheel
“Even with the steering wheel spikes, some eejits will continue to drive like loons.”
But not for long, thus improving the safety of everyone else, and the gene pool: win-win.
But before Volvo started
But before Volvo started getting all safe cars were like that, and they drove around like idiots, often pissed, and it is probably lack of power stopping them killing themselves, their passengers and those outside more.
hawkinspeter wrote:
exactly, and removing seatbelts (and potentially replacing with a sharp spike on the steering wheel) would reduce the number of these incidents as
a) drivers would be more careful
b) those that aren’t careful could only do it once
With corresponding reductions in impacts to vulnerable road users
After a while they would
After a while they would start customising them…
Always wore a helmet for
Always wore a helmet for racing.
Two definite points are heat – motorcyclists are trying to hang onto it and a helmet helps, cyclists are often trying to get rid of it – and clutter.
Being required to click a belt which is part of the vehicle is a minimal imposition (although much inveighed against when it was about to be implemented), being required to put on a helmet to walk to the cafe seems entirely excessive (although in Kiev or Karkov or Gaza it might be prudent) and cycling to the shops for buns lies between those, closer to the peacetime walker.
Midgex wrote:
What?
Heat: motorcyclists are
Heat: motorcyclists are generating minimal body heat yet sitting in a high velocity airstream. They have to dress warm. On the other hand, cyclists are generating a lot of body heat and sitting in a low velocity airstream thus the importance of ventilation for us self-propelled types.
See, it did make sense.
Well, it would have made
Well, it would have made sense if the writer understood phrasing and punctuation.
Oh god. Just when you
Oh god. Just when you thought the ignorant MPs were hiding their lights under a bushel until the next election, another one pops up. It’s hard to believe that an MP calling for a law was so stupid as to do so without doing the most basic research, instead relying on an anecdote from a constituent. We can all sympathise with Oliver Dibsdale, but his case proves absolutely nothing, and for an MP to present it as evidence for his personal crusade is frankly obnoxious.
“He spoke to me in a very moving way about the impact his injury has had on his family and the guilt he feels for the amount of time they have had to spend caring for him. He very much wants to help other families to avoid this fate.”
His guilt, totally unearned but probably gained because well intentioned but mistaken people told him he wouldn’t have had the injury if he had been wearing a helmet, is not a reason to make the rest of us ride with a magic plastic hat. If Oliver really wanted other families not to suffer as his has, he’d be campaigning for things that actually worked, like stopping drivers knocking us off, but because of his guilt, he can’t see past his obsession to what really works.
“Oliver continued to disagree,” he explained. “And drew my attention to a number of arguments which I have found persuasive. Oliver points out that it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt and that it is compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.”
It is illegal to drive without a seat belt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but, like cycle helmets, the data supporting the assumption that they save lives is largely absent and that which does exist is arguable. The MP may find that argument persuasive, but when you’re ignorant of the facts, any argument is going to persuade you.
“Following my Ten Minute Rule Bill, Headway, who are supportive of my call for mandatory helmets for cyclists, have asked me to become a ‘Headway Parliamentary Champion’.
We can only hope that Pawsey will get some advice from a rather more impartial source, instead of relying on an extremely biased organisation which does not have the safety of cyclists at heart.
I hope that there is a road.cc constituent of his who will point him in the direction of the CUK briefing on helmets, which starts with the phrase “There is no justification for making helmet-wearing compulsory……”. https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets
I apologise for the length of this, but as you might have noticed, this is a subject close to my heart.
I am Australian and I was a
I am Australian and I was a school commuter when the mandatory helmet laws (MHL) were introduced in the early 90s. Basically overnight our large enclosed, covered bike shed went from 150-200 bikes a day to less than 50. 2 years later the shed was demolished due to lack of use and replaced with all weather bike hoops for the dozen or so kids who still rode to school. Helmets became a point of ridicule in the school yard, with those bullies growing up to become the first generation of cyclist hating drivers.
In terms of improved safety, the Australian Medical Association likes to quote reduced head trauma following MHLs. In absolute numbers there was a small decrease but that was more than offset by the massive reduction in cyclists. The RATE of major head trauma infact increased after MHL. This is arguably due to lower participation rates reducing “safety in numbers”, further marginalising a minor group of diminishing size, greater driver entitlement and greater aggression towards cyclists.
Further to the above is the efficacy of helmets. Data shows that helmet efficacy is most meaningful in slow speed incidents involving no other parties, which represent a very small proportion of incidents causing head injury to cyclists on roads. In cases where vehicles collide with cyclists, helmet efficacy is shown to be close to zero due to the potential energy of the vehicle massively overcoming any protective benefit of a helmet.
MHL advocates also like to make the seatbelt vs helmet argument. However, this is a straw man argument in that the two devices do completely different things. Seatbelts reduce the chance of impact with hard surfaces, helmets reduce the transferred energy during an impact with hard surfaces. The equivalent to MHLs for cycling are MHLs for driving. Data shows that wearing a helmet while driving will reduce the severity of head trauma in the event of head collision with hard internal surfaces of a vehicle. So why do we not advocate MHLs for driving? Because the mitigation measure is disproportionate to the risk, as well as creating unintended negative effects that actually increase the risk. Every driver does their own (usually unconcious) risk assessment every time they get in the car. There are scenarios where they will wear a helmet (motorsport) and those where they won’t. Cyclists should be afforded the same right to personal risk assessment to determine whether wearing a helmet is a meaningful risk mitigation measure.
I remember watching
I remember watching Neughbours in the 90s (dont look at me like that you all did it) and the cyclists all wore their helmets so badly fitted that it was obvious it was a legal mandate not a choice.
Some of us watched it in the
Some of us watched it in the 80s.
Ride On wrote:
You’re thinking of Neighbours. I think Neughbours was the new German spin off which only came later.
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
A lunchtime dose of Scott and Charlene and Harold and Madge got me through my O Levels (1985).
He is so moved by Oliver’s
He is so moved by Oliver’s account of the impact the injury has had on their lives as well as his. Perhaps if he spoke to all the cycling victims of drivers smashing into them he might be moved to change the law to ensure drivers are properly punished and removed from the roads, which would do more for cycling safety than wearing a hat made of plastic and polystyrene. What an ignorant self serving twat.
The comments section is
The comments section is literally full of lefties frothing.
Back to trolling I see.
Back to trolling I see.
Sad.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt
Isn’t Lefties Frothing is a
Isn’t Lefties Frothing is a small village in Suffolk? Just outside Bungay, I think.
I went to Bungay once….
I went to Bungay once…. strange place….
Alas, your sat-nav has
Alas, your sat-nav has misdirected you!
Lefties Frothing is much further west – indeed I think it can be seen from Blandford Forum by those with the Right eyes!
No that’s Gussage St
No that’s Gussage St Winterbottom.
Twatt’s on the right
Twatt’s on the right apparently. (Literally).
I don’t think you understand
I don’t think you understand what literally means
Seventyone wrote:
FTFY
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Interesting how those on the right always complain that the left wants a nanny state where everything is regulated, while at the same time calling for a nanny state for cyclists where we are all mandated to wear a helmet by law.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
The tight righties don’t want a nanny but rather a Wackford Squeers who will bully and abuse all who deviate from the Ayn Randian view of super-selfishness and the casting to the pits of all second-raters. Their freedumbs are for the bigwig tighters only, with everyone else (i.e. 99.99% of the population, who have failed to purchase the right shares) subject to not just faux laws (none of which apply to shared-up bigwigs) but the momentary whims of the bigwigs, especially the Biggest Bigwig.
“Off with their heads! Transport those damned chartists to Rudewunderland!!”
Mind, it’s the same if the loonylefters are in charge. However, I haven’t spotted a truly loonylefter since 1931. In Blighty they were all banned, so became sensible socialists AKA the Attlee government.
The tight righters soon put paid to him! Eventually they spawned The Thatcher Thing and the regression to Victorian times gained pace, so that now we are close to workhouse rules and conditions. Will it continue or will that slightly pink political party go Attlee next year?
We can hope. But The City and similar orcs will want to murder any nanny on her way up the driveway to The Big House, before any of Wackford’s terms and conditions come under review!
Cugel wrote:
Not wanting to disagree with your general points, but there’s at least one Tory MP that has a penchant for nannies
Also, it’s not so much about purchasing the relevant shares, but being born into a wealthy family is the main ingredient for success.
Schrödinger’s Cyclists; “in
Schrödinger’s Cyclists; “in my way but simultaneously appear from nowhere”.
Describe what a ‘lefty’ is,
Describe what a ‘lefty’ is, in C21st terms. Are you relevant or just foul gas from a tight aperature?
Out come the usual suspects
Out come the usual suspects from their caves
Great film. One of the best.
Great film. One of the best. Not the most seminal scene (RIP Fenster). I don’t see the relevance here though.
I agree. Not been on TV for a
I agree. Not been on TV for a while, hope they show it soon.
The real problem with the MPs
The real problem with the MPs position is that he genunely seems to think that the only reason people ride bikes is to get exercise, rather than because they are a means of transporting people from one place to another.
Citing going for a run and going to the gym as alternative, healthy ways to live ignores the benefits of active travel not only for the health of those partaking but also improvements seen by those taking advantage of the increased road space available to them while driving.
As already pointed out in this comment thread, Australia’s experience with mandatory helmets is a massive reduction in the numbers cycling and a much smaller reduction in the number of head injuries … i.e. a numerical decrease but a proportional increase.
Comparing bike helmets to car seat belts and motorbike helmets is also disingenuous as a bike is very different to a motorbike, as motorbikes accellerate very quickly and are capable of significantly greater speed and energy than a bicycle, as well as being much, much heavier in the themselves. Seat belts, are also designed to solve a different issue (as also already pointed out).
For the record, I always wear a helmet when riding my bicycle, but am under no illusions that it will give me protection in every possible circumstance that might arise while riding, and strongly believe that the [b]evidence shows[/b] that it should remain a personal choice.
Providing better infrastructure reducing the risk of collisions with motor traffic, and properly punishing drivers who are responsible for killing and injuring cyclists would be of much greater benefit to all road users … deal with the cause, not the symptoms.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
+N to those proposals, arguments and sentiments.
Mind, I’m always wary of the “provide better [cycling] infrastructure” argument, since it costs enormous amounts, is rarely proper and isn’t really needed if the problem of car loonery on the roads is dealt with.
Another unintended (but all too easy to forsee) side effect will be that car addicts will feel justified in running over cyclists as, “They should be on the cycle paths, not IN MY WAY.”
Roads for the fast (including even the slower bicycles) and paths for the slow (peds with children, dogs, grannies and others preferring not to get run over by a speeding thing as they amble and play).
Cugel wrote:
Well, it’s always possible that the population will spontaneously stop driving (say) over half their current car journeys. And even drive the remainder not just lawfully but with care and consideration. (Perhaps even without losing concentration, like Zen Motorists).
OR that the next government will fulfil the dystopian nightmares of the “15 minuters” and actually restrict driving somehow. (Yes, drivers are sensitive to any changes – in Wales simply lowering some of the speed limits by 10mph seems like the apocalypse to quite a few. And I mean more than that!)
OTOH it’s also possible that the UK might implement something like what works every day for tens of millions of people across North Sea.
Well, OK, maybe not like over there in NL, let’s be reasonable! Perhaps like what they have in “better” parts of Denmark, Sweden, Finland… Definitely 2nd class infra compared to NL! But “good enough” (and still a bargain compared to road or rail).
Personally I think that the last scenario is more possible than the preceeding ones. I can be pretty confident about that because… it has happened. More than once!
It doesn’t just work in practice though, it works in theory also! There is a possible pathway from here to there. (It will be a difficult one, I don’t know how likely of course.) One compatible with advanced capitalism, our bickering and self-serving lords and masters and the existence of other people overseas who sensibly don’t have our best interests at heart. One that can drive itself along at some point as it unlocks virtuous circles.
I understand how hard it is to believe in here in the UK (I wonder myself…) Like addicts not able to imagine that all the varied small pleasures of life will make up for the horror of parting from the drug (or what you were running from originally). Especially on seeing much current UK cycling and walking infra.
Of course it’s always possible that we get Keir Starmer and he turns out to be an automaton. Or a cheap copy of Dave Cameron, who was a cheap copy of Tony Blair, who was a reboot of Thatcher for the kids etc.
Lots of ways the world could go. I think this one’s possible, and much more probable than “driving stops all by itself”. (Still can’t say about those autonomous pod-taxis or us all entering the Metaverse though…)
How many head injuries occur
How many head injuries occur for activities other than cycling? why is the MP not calling for helmets for these?
Cycling is not the top cause of head injuries presenting in A&E but is uniquely identified as the one where helmets are esential for “safety”
Apparently he is calling for
Apparently he is calling for this because of one data point – his constituent. Hopefully little parliamentary time will be wasted on this because others in the house will point out the lack of any research or statistical analysis that supports his wish to introduce such a law.
Contrast this with the amount of carnage required to have occurred at so called “accident black spots” before any action is belatedly taken.
I did wonder why the takeaway
I did wonder why the takeaway from the accident wasn’t mandatory grippy shoes. If his foot hadn’t slipped he wouldn’t have fallen off.
I think we should have a
I think we should have a ladder test and ladder licencing. Ladder users should need to wear body armour and a helmet and use a fall arrest system if climbing a height of more than 1m. More people are injured in ladder incidents than in cycling crashes in the UK.
Funnily enough in industrial
Funnily enough in industrial situations there’s quite a lot of legislation around the use of ladders. Working at heights directive etc. I think we even have an official ‘ ladder monitor ‘ (not sure that’s the correct term). I do recall him going on a day course and coming back and condemning most of our ladders.
None of this filters down to DIYers because of course that would be a nanny state.
IanMK wrote:
but DIYers would never do anything dodgy with a ladder!
* Shudders *
* Shudders *
quiff wrote:
* Ladders *
Backladder wrote:
How is that ladder not lifting at the foot, rotating about the point where the ties are “holding” it?
brooksby wrote:
Blue tac.
chrisonatrike wrote:
more likely used bubble gum!
Backladder wrote:
But then you’d have nothing to fix the fitting to the ceiling with?
chrisonatrike wrote:
You run out of blu tac you have to go to the shops, you run out of used bubble gum you reach into your pocket for a fresh stick and make it on site, smaller carbon footprint, nice taste, what’s not to like?
Backladder wrote:
I guess you’re right. Although since I ran out of bubblegum I’ve just been chewing blue tac.
EDIT – that’s three posts now, I hope swdlxer is well?
BLU TACK
brooksby wrote:
His weight is centred between the two sets of straps so both sets of straps are in tension, if he was standing on a step above the top straps (or the top straps were moved below his feet) then it would need a lot of friction at floor level to stop what you describe happening.
OldRidgeback wrote:
How many pedestrians are almost run over by a ladder rider though? Or been unpleasantly startled as a ladder suddenly shot across in front of them, without the operator even having belled their rung?
Mind you, they probably have to endure some abusive comments by entitled ladderists – or at least scaffold-fanciers…
Thinking further – perhaps this serious oversight is because we’re a nation of ladder users? Do we have more ladders than people? Maybe in this sector safety regulation never gets off the ground because it’s been normalised?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Apparently modern ladders are now built with wider spaces between the rungs as people are getting taller. It’s due to climb-it change
“To this, those who oppose
“To this, those who oppose mandatory wearing of cycle helmets respond that there is a health benefit from using a bicycle, and that there should not be any discouragement of cycling. Oliver replies to this that, if people wish to exercise, there are many ways of doing so that present less risk; he points out that people can walk, run, take up a sport or go to the gym.”
No, no and something else, ah yes, no!
My only exercise that is somehow cardio is my commute to work. My other exercise is walking for errands. I find it super boring having to do exercise just for exercise. So the above claim is kind of false and the long-living walking japanese are a good proof, that you can stay fit without losing precious time to work out.
P.S. I ride with helmet for 99% of my miles and as a guy who falls frequently, I find it super necessary. But if (inexplicably to me) a helmet law stops people cycling, then the small safety benefits will be offset by losses in riders health, air quality, climate change, money sent to Emirs etc, etc.
cyclisto wrote:
Leaving aside the rest of your post (which I completely agree with) I wonder which sports they had in mind? Maybe football or rugby? No brain injuries sustained as a result of either of those…
Of course no body has ever
Of course no body has ever fallen and banged their head running or walking.
I note that taking a shower every day has limited health benefit so I’m not sure there’s any argument against shower helmets.
I don’t believe in government
I don’t believe in government either banning things or making things mandatory. I do know the evidence points to helmets being a sensible precaution for cyclists to take and I wear one and I approve of encouraging other cyclists to wear them. For those who point out that per mile travelled pedestrians are more likely to be injured I would say quite true but per 15 minutes cyclists are more likely to be injured. That is one mile of walking and what 3-5 miles on a bike, If you quote numbers you can often make them say what you want. The UK stats show that over a period where helmet wearing increased by 6% it saw a reduction in people admitted to hospital with head injuries of 7%. Equally while there was a reduction in pedestrian head injuries over that time period it was not of the same order as the reduction in cyclist admissions. Of course it could be better brakes came in or some other factor causing a change. Testing of helmets has improved but ultimately whether they protect you or not will come down to the specific collision they are involved in. I personally wear a helmet and have reason to be grateful that I do and I would always recommend others did. However I would never seek to force them to wear one.
JLasTSR wrote:
The issue is more that the conversation around road safety is dominated by cycle helmets when they’re not even in the top ten things that improve road safety.
Whilst this might be a
Whilst this might be a sincere and heartfelt campaign based on the tragedy of one of Mark Pawsey, MP’s constituents, the reality is that enforcement of this will be carried out by lazy police forces to meet their targets whilst demonstrating no leniency whatsover.
Meanwhile myriad much more serious driving offences that we all witness or experience daily will continue to be ignored by the police or are treated with extreme leniency at the roadside and yet further leniency in the rest of the justice system should they even get that far, despite the existence of the points system which itself is a way of treating motorists more leniently.
He should spare a thought for what to do about all the existing laws that don’t get enforced before trying to add yet another one to the statute that will just be used by police and others to harass cyclists who already face continual harassment on the roads with little or no legal protection.
Never underestimate the
Never underestimate the depths of ignorance a politician will stoop to, in the pursuit of votes. Plan For Drivers is the green light for legitimate Carnage From Drivers. When they can move outside of the inevitable self-inflicted traffic jams. For cyclists, horse riders, mobility scooter users and pedestrians, the next step in the Plan For Drivers is the mandatory requirement for those not driving, to wear body armour. This armour should meet the requirements of being hit by a driver at 30mph, who has lost concentration due to the demands of a 20mph zone. Not wearing body armour and helmet will lead to contributory negligence claims from the driver’s insurers, to further increase their profits within a failed ‘free market’ economic system.
Hopefully this dolt of an MP
Hopefully this dolt of an MP will lose his seat at the next election. Even better if he then gets caught having had his fingers in the till when the new government starts investigating all the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I want to see the contents of Bacon Tax Sunak’s WhatsApp messages – they’ll be enlightening…
…what’s that you say? All deleted?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/02/sunak-fails-to-hand-whatsapp-messages-from-time-as-chancellor-to-covid-inquiry
You need to read Private Eye,
You need to read Private Eye, the Sunak whatsapp group is hysterical.
There we are then – 1 day,
There we are then – 1 day, 100 posts and I’m sure that’s now solved the questions of head-worn PPE for cycling to everyone’s satisfaction.
Great stuff!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Ever the optimist!
Dibsdale? Anagram of Disabled
Dibsdale? Anagram of Disabled. Is this story for real?
Sriracha wrote:
Not in the best of taste, old chap.
I honestly thought it was
I honestly thought it was made up. Apologies, my mistake.
“No one now suggests that
“No one now suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice , , , “
I do, for drivers only though and only if the drivers airbag is deactivated by not plugging in the seatbelt. Let them experience the consequences of their selfishness that the rest of us have to deal with.
The most dangerous ones would be gone quickly and there would be less headlines like ‘Driver kills passengers in crash but survives’.
Better – you can switch the
If only you could still prevent / mitigate the lesser kinds of injuries and just ensure people were killed off and didn’t need expensive care if they incurred more serious ones…
This is getting a bit dark – let’s just have sustainable safety principles instead!
No one blinks when Health
No one blinks when Health damage from cars and vans costs £6 billion annually to the NHS and society (2018 estimate) so I don’t see why ‘no seatbelt’ injuries should be any different.
Also anyone in intensive care isn’t behind the wheel so if we assume a lot of them are dangerous drivers we’ll save some money (& lives) from that.
I googled Oliver Dibsdale and
I googled Oliver Dibsdale and came across this petition that he started in 2021.
“My name is olly and I sustained a TBI (traumatic brain injury) in 2015 due to not wearing a helmet while riding my bike. Right so, Google states that there is no British law to compel cyclists, of any age, to wear helmets when cycling, google also states that wearing a cycle helmet reduces risk of serious head injury by almost 70% and fatal head injury by 65% and 33% for face injury. And that’s why I as many others strongly believe that the UK government should make helmet wearing a mandatory requirement. Yes, they are not 100% reliable but they are more than 50% reliable, and it would save a lot of our amazing NHS’s time and the taxes of us British people.
Yes, they say many traumatic brain injuries would have not been prevented by a helmet, as your brain can shake in the skull causing lots of little bleeds all over the brain (like my own). However, all cars are fitted with working seatbelts by law, which are only 60% effective in reducing the likelihood of death and serious head injury, but you would not consider changing this law due to the amount of lives that are saved by them everyday. But the same amount of lives would be saved by enforcing bicycle helmets as law!
The only argument provided by the UK Government for not making helmets law is that it would discourage people from riding bikes and staying fit. Although, this is obviously very important it is not as important as the 45,000 people who sustain serious head injuries annually after crashing their bicycles without wearing a helmet. There are plenty other solutions for people to stay fit, which do not require the use of a helmet to stay safe such as running, using an exercise bike, swimming or plenty of other things.
It should be made a finable offence, so the first time you are caught without one you get a warning, the second time A £25 pound fine and then it keeps going up by £25 each time and all the profits go to rehab like C.E.R.U, where I recovered.
This law will save a lot of unnecessary tears from families like my own. I don’t think my sister will ever forgive me for taking mum away from her at a vital point in her life, and I know there’s no way I can turn back the clock, so I just want to change it now, so other family’s don’t have to go through what mine has been through.”
The misunderstanding, misinformation and misrepresentation is clear and obvious, and the flaws in his arguments are plain to anyone with any knowledge of road safety. While I don’t doubt his sincerity, he really does need to look at the evidence, not base everything on his own personal experience, but sadly, I think that’s unlikely.
It got 1,574 signatures.
If you look at the stats for
If you look at the stats for injury it will show that more head injuries occur to occupants of cars. Therefore if you extrapolate the argument anyone travelling in a motor vheicle needs to wear a helmet.
As a politician, they never let facts get in the way of a sound bite, or a desperate attempt to try and get some voters are not swayed by the crazy policies of The Sunak.
The Giblet wrote:
If it saves one life…
After the tragic death of the
After the tragic death of the lady in wales lately, I’m lobbying for a ban on marsh mallows…. save every soul!
Looking at the specifics of
Looking at the specifics of this, if someone can demonstrate;
1. that cycling has a head injury problem (statistically higher risk than other methods of transport / activity)
2. that this problem is impacting quality of life / is a significant burden to the public
3. that cycling helmets will effectively mitigate against that head injury problem
…then I am happy to concede that manditory helmet legislation would be a good idea.
However, from where I am sitting, it all falls down on point 1, we don’t even need to go down the rabbit hole of helmet effectiveness.
Yeah, but “cycling”, innit?
Yeah, but “cycling”, innit? 😉
brooksby wrote:
Indeed – but it isn’t just the loony Toryspiv MPs or Daily Liar readers who like to get all judgemental about cyclist hats. A huge proportion of the faux-racer strava-striving wannabees are very pro-polystyrene bonnet and get very red-faced totalitarian about the matter.
“The pros all wear one and so should you”. “A helmet saved my life!” (Following a stupid crash as the striver takes mad risks with kerbs and drystone walls to knock 1 second off a strava datum). And it just saved him a worse headache (perhaps) – but not the £300 for the next daft hat.
Wearing a helmet should be
Wearing a helmet should be your choice !
I wear one everyday