According to the Grauniad of 1 September, the DfT is calling for expressions of interest in the Monitoring of Cycle Helmet Wearing Rates.
The first line of the advert (page 61 of the jobs section) reads "Research has shown that helmets are an effective way of reducing the incidence and severity and head injuries to pedal cyclists, particularly children (DfT Road Safety Report no.30 - 2002)".
Anyone care to guess why they might want to do this count? Surely it could not possibly be part of a "compulsion when wearing rates are high enough" agenda...
Anyone care to guess why they might want to do this count?
Very possibly a perfectly innocent agenda. Someone put in a funding bid for that as a research project, and wined&dined the right people.
Quoted message said:
Surely it could not possibly be part of a "compulsion when wearing rates are high enough" agenda...
The Scottish Parliament have published a rather good overview. That may not be directly relevant, but the idea that the Westminster Idiots Club could take it as far as legislation without that coming to their attention seems unlikely. Particularly since the (UK) minister David Jamieson also appears to have a clue on the subject.
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:59:51 +0100, [email hidden] (Nick Kew) wrote (more or less):
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
Just zis Guy said:
Anyone care to guess why they might want to do this count?
Very possibly a perfectly innocent agenda. Someone put in a funding bid for that as a research project, and wined&dined the right people.
Quoted message said:
Surely it could not possibly be part of a "compulsion when wearing rates are high enough" agenda...
The Scottish Parliament have published a rather good overview. That may not be directly relevant, but the idea that the Westminster Idiots Club could take it as far as legislation without that coming to their attention seems unlikely. Particularly since the (UK) minister David Jamieson also appears to have a clue on the subject.
Alastair Darling (Minster for Transport) said, in a letter to me* regarding 'compulsory bicycle helmet wearing', that the 'Department [for Transport] promotes the use of cycle helmets' and that 'the proportion of all cyclists wearing helmets on major roads rose ... to 25%. However this was not true of teenage boys, only 12% of whom wore helmets'
'The Government is concerned that ... there could ... be real difficulties for the police in enforcing compulsion when such a low proportion of children currently choose to wear helmets voluntarily.'
the idea that the Westminster Idiots Club could take it as far as legislation without that coming to their attention seems unlikely.
I seem to recall when the Martlew debacle^^^debate happened, they were well aware of the balance of evidence but chose to only promote the parts of the evidence that suited their cause and essentially called their opponents child-murdering scum.
the idea that the Westminster Idiots Club could take it as far as legislation without that coming to their attention seems unlikely.
I seem to recall when the Martlew debacle^^^debate happened, they were well aware of the balance of evidence but chose to only promote the parts of the evidence that suited their cause and essentially called their opponents child-murdering scum.
d.[/QUOTE] Anyone remember all that Bull Bar 4x4 stuff a few years back, still see child killers on the front of what are predominately staus symbols for the school run. You can only enforce a law that is enforcable. Most policemen hate writing and tickets are mostly a waste of time for cyclists. Sniper8052
According to the Grauniad of 1 September, the DfT is calling for expressions of interest in the Monitoring of Cycle Helmet Wearing Rates.
The first line of the advert (page 61 of the jobs section) reads "Research has shown that helmets are an effective way of reducing the incidence and severity and head injuries to pedal cyclists, particularly children (DfT Road Safety Report no.30 - 2002)".
Anyone care to guess why they might want to do this count? Surely it could not possibly be part of a "compulsion when wearing rates are high enough" agenda...
According to the Grauniad of 1 September, the DfT is calling for expressions of interest in the Monitoring of Cycle Helmet Wearing Rates.
The first line of the advert (page 61 of the jobs section) reads "Research has shown that helmets are an effective way of reducing the incidence and severity and head injuries to pedal cyclists, particularly children (DfT Road Safety Report no.30 - 2002)".
Anyone care to guess why they might want to do this count? Surely it could not possibly be part of a "compulsion when wearing rates are high enough" agenda...
Ditto. I think Mr Martlew & BHIT did cycling a great service. If it wasn't for their activities I would not have researched the topic and would probably still be wearing a lid and believing it was protecting me. Having got through the barrier of being without my "blue blanket" I now find lidless cycling much more enjoyable than when I wore a lid. Just have to watch the sunburn now on top!
Ditto. I think Mr Martlew & BHIT did cycling a great service. If it wasn't for their activities I would not have researched the topic and would probably still be wearing a lid and believing it was protecting me. Having got through the barrier of being without my "blue blanket" I now find lidless cycling much more enjoyable than when I wore a lid. Just have to watch the sunburn now on top!
'Me too' to all that (including the sunburn - I was wearing a hat for much of the summer). I was partly prompted by the research (which TBH I had been aware of for some time) but also a new helmet seemed even heavier and hotter than the old one. I do find I need a headband to keep sweat out of my eyes but that is an indication of how disgusting the helmet used to get.
Saw your letter on IPOnline, btw. Crook and Fake's evasiveness and dishonesty is a rather unedifying spectacle - I'd expect it directly from the industry and paid lackeys, but not supposedly independent scientists.
James -- my other signature is wittier (but not much)
Having got through the barrier of being without my "blue blanket" I now find lidless cycling much more enjoyable than when I wore a lid.
Ditto also. I'm going lidless increasingly often. It's weird though - I've become so accustomed to wearing it that I feel slightly odd without it. More comfortable, less hot, but still a little odd. And I do now have the problem of nothing on my forehead to the sweat dripping into my eyes (note to self: get a buff).
I still wear the lid for the Sunday morning club run, but it's expected (not sure if it's actually a club rule) and I still don't feel established enough as a club member to start challenging the conventions.
Ditto also. I'm going lidless increasingly often. It's weird though - I've become so accustomed to wearing it that I feel slightly odd without it. More comfortable, less hot, but still a little odd. And I do now have the problem of nothing on my forehead to the sweat dripping into my eyes (note to self: get a buff).
Cycle cap - acts as a substitute blue blanket on your head and deals with the sweat
