UK and Europe · Public discussion

[H*lmet] Avoiding the inevitable

Started by Mark Thompson · · Last activity · 98 posts · 3,084 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
6 November 2004
Last activity
10 November 2004
Original author
Mark Thompson
Posts
98
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,084
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 98
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
    best way of avoiding a helmet law?

    The obvious one is don't get caught. Do we have to stop when ordered to
    do so by a community warden? Are we allowed to ride away if we've
    already stopped? Is it illegal not to stop when requested by a policeman
    on foot?

    If stopped, is it illegal to give false details to a community warden? I
    presume giving a false name or address to a policeman would be naughty.

    Do motorbike trikers have to wear helmets? If not, it would be logical
    for bicycle trikes to be immune. A small third wheel on the bike might
    do the trick. I can see hardcore roadies with a tiny carbon fibre castor
    hanging off their frame.

    As it's unsafe to wear a damaged helmet, and unreasonable to expect a
    cyclist to walk his bike 30 miles home I'm guessing you'll be let off if
    you've damaged the helmet on your ride. A damaged helmet stuffed in a
    pannier might do the trick. Even if they were wise to it ("that's the
    third one this week!"😉 would they have to catch you leaving the house
    with a pre-damaged one? Producing the same helmet every time might give
    the game away. Perhaps bike shops with a sense of humour could act as
    'swap shops' for 'broken' helmets, ensuring a different one can be
    produced every time you're caught.

    Given the amount of cyclists without lights and riding on the pavements
    making it unlikely we'd get pulled[1]; the price of helmets; and the need
    to replace them every 2-4 years it might be cost effective to pay the odd
    fine and live with it.

    [1] Might have to wait a bit whilst the initial high profile enforcement
    campaigns die down.

    --

  2. Mark Thompson said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
    best way of avoiding a helmet law?

    The only important issues I can see will be the knock-on effects such as
    (a) that cyclists who do not wear helmets will probably lose a chunk of
    their compensation due to "contributory negligence" and (b) they will
    get hassled by the pigs if they dare to report dangerous driving etc and
    (c) all organised events will have stricter helmets-only rules. I can't
    imagine any direct enforcement of the law by the police would ever be
    more than a minor nuisance to the likes of me, although no doubt it will
    form a convenient excuse to harrass youths.

    James
    --
    If I have seen further than others, it is
    by treading on the toes of giants.
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

  3. Quoted message said:
    Mark Thompson said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
    best way of avoiding a helmet law?

    You can cut a swathe through any forthcoming legislation/ enforcement and
    avoid prosecution for not wearing a helmet by driving a car - simple, innit?

  4. James Annan said:

    The only important issues I can see will be the knock-on effects such as
    (a) that cyclists who do not wear helmets will probably lose a chunk of
    their compensation due to "contributory negligence" and (b) they will
    get hassled by the pigs if they dare to report dangerous driving

    I can't ever read the phrase "hassled by the pigs" without thinking of
    Neil, from The Young Ones.

    "It's snow, isn't it Neil"
    "No Viv, it's risotto"

    --

    "It is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable
    brutality of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation.
    Both kinds of violence are unacceptable. We cannot
    support one and condemn the other."

    Arundhati Roy

    Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

  5. In news:[email hidden],

    vernon levy said:
    Quoted message said:
    Mark Thompson said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would
    be the best way of avoiding a helmet law?

    You can cut a swathe through any forthcoming legislation/ enforcement
    and avoid prosecution for not wearing a helmet by driving a car -
    simple, innit?

    Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
    Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
    new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
    wear one, I think, and when everyone is wearing one, I don't think it will
    put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.
    --

    Martin Bulmer

  6. quote='James Annan'Mark Thompson said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.


    The only important issues I can see will be the knock-on effects such as
    (a) that cyclists who do not wear helmets will probably lose a chunk of
    their compensation due to "contributory negligence" James
    --

    Hasn' t there been a couple of cases in recent years where insurance
    companies have tried to reduce compensation payment to cyclists who
    have not been wearing helmets and have been hit by drivers in cars.
    Subsequently the judges have ignored the claim of contributory negligence and found in favour of the cyclist.

    I believe this has sent a precedent in English law.

    Michael.

  7. James Annan said:

    I can't
    imagine any direct enforcement of the law by the police would ever be

    Quoted message said:

    more than a minor nuisance to the likes of me

    Yep I think you're pretty safe from British plod in Japan. I don't
    think it would be an extraditable offence ;-)

    Tony


  8. Quoted message said:

    I can't ever read the phrase "hassled by the pigs" without thinking of
    Neil, from The Young Ones.

    "It's snow, isn't it Neil"
    "No Viv, it's risotto"

    Or Neil dressed as a policeman: "Open up it's the pigs"

  9. Mark Thompson said:


    Do motorbike trikers have to wear helmets? If not, it would be
    logical for bicycle trikes to be immune. A small third wheel on the
    bike might do the trick. I can see hardcore roadies with a tiny
    carbon fibre castor hanging off their frame.

    Motor trikes are classified as three wheeled cars I believe so helmets are
    not needed. Often they are built from an old Beetle. If the donor car was
    built before 197? seat belts are not required either. Pedal trike riders
    IMHO will not be immune.

  10. "Martin Bulmer" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:

    Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
    Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
    new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
    wear one, I think,

    I know at least two who would, so you're wrong. Both are car-free...

    Quoted message said:

    and when everyone is wearing one, I don't think it will
    put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.

    I think you're wrong there too.

    Also, many people will be deterred from making a specific journey by
    bicycle (rather than foot or car) when the helmet factor increases the
    hassle factor.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  11. On 6 Nov 2004 02:42:09 GMT,

    Mark Thompson said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
    best way of avoiding a helmet law?

    Become a Sikh and wear a turban.

    Quoted message said:

    Do motorbike trikers have to wear helmets? If not, it would be logical
    for bicycle trikes to be immune. A small third wheel on the bike might
    do the trick. I can see hardcore roadies with a tiny carbon fibre castor
    hanging off their frame.

    Well you have to have a helmet on a bike with a sidecar.

    Quoted message said:

    As it's unsafe to wear a damaged helmet, and unreasonable to expect a
    cyclist to walk his bike 30 miles home I'm guessing you'll be let off if
    you've damaged the helmet on your ride. A damaged helmet stuffed in a
    pannier might do the trick.

    It would be the route I would take. Also if you haven't got any other
    form of transportation how are you going to get to the shops to buy
    another if it is too far to walk and there is no bus.

    Quoted message said:

    Given the amount of cyclists without lights and riding on the pavements
    making it unlikely we'd get pulled[1]; the price of helmets; and the need
    to replace them every 2-4 years it might be cost effective to pay the odd
    fine and live with it.

    What will be the likely fine? What is the fine for riding a motor
    bike without a helmet?

    --
    Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
    "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
    - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

  12. in message <[email hidden]>, Mark

    Thompson (') said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be
    the best way of avoiding a helmet law?

    Let's not surrender before the battle's even fought. We can prevent this
    becoming law, and we will.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    Windows 95:
    You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
    M. Jagger/K. Richards

  13. Mark Thompson vaguely muttered something like ...

    Quoted message said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Not necessarily.

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules !!!
    "A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

  14. Martin Bulmer said:

    Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
    Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
    new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
    wear one, I think, and when everyone is wearing one, I don't think it will
    put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.

    But motorcyclists don't have a sweating problem. In fact quite the
    reverse. They also often travel at speeds where some pretty serious
    face and eye protection against wind, grit, bugs, etc., is
    essential. And when they test motorcycle jackets they don't test them
    for sweatiness, breathability, etc.. They put heavy weights in them
    and drag them down the road on a rope to test road abrasion
    resistance.

    Completely different game, no comparison. I'm as unlikely not to wear
    a helmet on my motorcycle as I'm unlikely ever to wear one on my
    bicycle.
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  15. "Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Why do you say that? Any further information on the status of this
    appreciated.

  16. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Martin Bulmer said:

    Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
    new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
    wear one,

    I would do neither. If our powers-that-be were to legislate away my
    freedom to cycle, I'd get out of the country.

    Quoted message said:

    put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.

    That's different. You're sitting still on a padded seat with full
    suspension, not exercising (perhaps heavily) on a seat and frame
    designed largely for lightness and efficiency.

    --
    Nick Kew

  17. Mark Thompson said:

    Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

    Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
    best way of avoiding a helmet law?


    Wear it on your elbow?
    The urban motorcycle myth. The law said "a helmet must be worn" but did
    not specify where. A few minutes after a copper made him put the helmet
    on his head, said motorcyclist crashed and broke his elbow!
    All the best
    Dan Gregory ;-)

  18. Helen Deborah Vecht said:

    "Martin Bulmer" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:

    Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
    Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
    new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
    wear one, I think,

    I know at least two who would, so you're wrong. Both are car-free...

    Quoted message said:

    and when everyone is wearing one, I don't think it will
    put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.

    I think you're wrong there too.

    Also, many people will be deterred from making a specific journey by
    bicycle (rather than foot or car) when the helmet factor increases the
    hassle factor.

    Quite. If it's raining I don't use the bike to pop into town; there's
    nowhere to store waterproofs securely. If I have to wear a helmet, the
    same will apply for dry days. Besides, a bloke wearing a suit and a
    helmet is one of the most daft sights, IMO.

    I'd probably carry on recreational cycling. But then, I'm saying that
    from a position of never having worn a helmet in any conditions let
    alone after 100 miles in high summer. But unless helmets are as
    unencumbering as their proponents say, even that sounds rather
    unappealing.

  19. " [Not Responding] " <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:

    Quite. If it's raining I don't use the bike to pop into town; there's
    nowhere to store waterproofs securely. If I have to wear a helmet, the
    same will apply for dry days. Besides, a bloke wearing a suit and a
    helmet is one of the most daft sights, IMO.

    Then there are the 'No Helmet' places, like banks and building societies
    that you just may want to visit on your quick trip into town.

    Quoted message said:

    I'd probably carry on recreational cycling. But then, I'm saying that
    from a position of never having worn a helmet in any conditions let
    alone after 100 miles in high summer.

    Whereas I have attended to an Audax rider who fainted in a café queue
    because we'd all been riding fast, then stopped at a café control and he
    didn't take his helmet off.

    It was a warm, muggy night and I think we had a slight tailwind between
    Fishlake and Leeming Bar.
    It was flat and we went like rockets, possibly not drinking enough.

    Quoted message said:

    But unless helmets are as
    unencumbering as their proponents say, even that sounds rather
    unappealing.

    Proponents never think heat stress is a problem; those of us in the real
    world think otherwise...

    I find it strange that the medical establishment accepts helmets cause
    heat stress in soldiers, but not in cyclists. Perhaps we have different
    bodies! (I know the helmets are different, but vents are totally
    ineffective when stationary and of scant use when slogging up a hill at
    3mph.)

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  20. On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:01:32 +0900, James Annan
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    The only important issues I can see will be the knock-on effects such as
    (a) that cyclists who do not wear helmets will probably lose a chunk of
    their compensation due to "contributory negligence" and (b) they will
    get hassled by the pigs if they dare to report dangerous driving etc and
    (c) all organised events will have stricter helmets-only rules.

    Most organised events already have these rules, and I have just read a
    very disturbing paper from the Journal of Personal Injury Law which
    suggests that reductions of 25% are already commonly accepted by
    solicitors representing cyclists based on something known as, I
    believe, the Denning formula, which originally applied to drivers not
    wearing seat belts. The article is suggesting an upper limit of 10%
    based on the evidence of actual effectiveness, and that in court every
    case should be taken individually. Thus far the courts have not
    allowed any contributory negligence that I am aware of, but the vast
    majority of personal injury cases are settled out of court.

    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/download/helmets-contributory-negligence.pdf

    I have not yet got permission to distribute this so might have to take
    it down again.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.