Martlew debate transcript now online

Quoted message said:

Now up on Hansard for the full gory details.

Thanks for the link. How interesting that he was motivated by an incident from many years ago that he can't even remember, an incident in which he almost certainly wasn't wearing a helmet and yet somehow came out alive.

Interesting too that even though he has no recollection of the incident, it was "obviously" his fault... his reason for this assumption? Because he was a child!

No wonder he never passed any exams with that kind of reasoning power at his disposal.

d.

davek said:

Thanks for the link

Seconded, thanks Tony.

Quoted message said:

How interesting that he was motivated by an incident from
many years ago that he can't even remember, an incident in
which he almost certainly wasn't wearing a helmet and yet
somehow came out alive.

He was not wearing a helmet (stated elsewhere). I guess he
just /forgot/ to mention this in the debate...

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Tony Raven said:

Now up on Hansard for the full gory details.

parliament.the-stationery-parliament.the-stationery-Open ↗
office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-
01.htm#40423-01_head1

David Millar, you traitor! May your chain fall off in the
TdF prologue, and may you suffer the full curse of the
Puncture Fairy in the mountains!

Quoted message said:

David Millar, you traitor! May your chain fall off in the
TdF prologue, and may you suffer the full curse of the
Puncture Fairy in the mountains!

????

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel
is switched off--

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

David Millar, you traitor! May your chain fall off in the
TdF prologue, and may you suffer the full curse of the
Puncture Fairy in the mountains!

????

Cheers, helen s

Numerous pages into the proceedings, MP Pike of
Burnley said:

[ begin quote from transcript ] Yesterday, I received a fax,
which I am sure that other hon. Members also received, to
say that cycling supremo David Millar supports the Bill. He
is an Olympic hopeful and he joins David Coulthard, who has
done much to support wearing protective headgear. Of course,
a bike is not David Coulthard's normal vehicle but he is a
keen cyclist. He supports the Bill, as does Olympic cycling
medallist Jason Queally. "Mr. Millar challenges the notion
that the measure is unpopular with cyclists. He said, 'If
cycle helmets did not work it would be a different matter,
but they do as a great many cyclists like me appreciate. As
you would expect, I am fully in favour of cycling but
recognise you must undertake the activity for sport or for
pleasure responsibly, particularly if it is someone else's
life. I would not put my child on a bike without ensuring
their safety. I am sure this is the first of many provisions
to be introduced for children, who, let's face it, are
vulnerable because they are novice cyclists and who in many
cases are not aware of potential dangers.'"

[ end quote from transcript ]

Jason Queally did not support the Bill, his agent clarified
his position several days before the debate. See Bikebiz
newspages: bikebiz.co.ukdailyOpen ↗
news/article.php?id=3989

I've no idea whether David Millar's views are accurately
reported or taken out of context.

Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to
newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

????

"Yesterday, I received a fax, which I am sure that other
hon. Members also received, to say that cycling supremo
David Millar supports the Bill. He is an Olympic hopeful and
he joins David Coulthard, who has done much to support
wearing protective headgear."

Quoted message said:

cycling supremo David Millar

So to add to the list of reasons for not taking anything he
says seriously, he doesn't even know the meaning of the word
'supremo'.

d.

In article <408d51c9.0@entanet>,

Zog The Undeniable said:

"Yesterday, I received a fax, which I am sure that other
hon. Members also received, to say that cycling supremo
David Millar supports the Bill.

A professional sports person has to give due consideration
to his sponsors and potential sponsors.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: htmlhelp.com~nickOpen ↗

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:59:17 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Now up on Hansard for the full gory details.

parliament.the-stationery-parliament.the-stationery-Open ↗
office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-
01.htm#40423-01_head1

A thing that struck me while reading it:

"Ms Munn : Can my hon. Friend explain his thinking about
including off-road cycling? Although I do indeed wear a
helmet while cycling to and from the House of Commons, I
might take a different view depending where else, off-road,
I was cycling. I would take a view of the risks involved in
that. Clearly, the impact of a road traffic accident is
likely to be much more serious than the effect of falling
off a bike in a park. If my hon. Friend could tell us his
thinking about that and about including off-road cycling in
the Bill, I should be grateful. aspect that struck"

Given that this MP is taking a considered-risk approach to
this bill, and her own cycling, perhaps a list-member who is
also a constituent of hers could point out that she has the
contexts for effectiveness of helmets the wrong way round?

Perhaps if someone could get the facts under her nose she'd
move from (what looks like to me) a potentially pro-position
to joining us in the definately anti-compulsion camp.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Nick Kew said:

A professional sports person has to give due consideration
to his sponsors and potential sponsors.

A professional sportsperson would probably steer clear of
involvement in a controversial issue such as this unless
they wanted to support one side. As Nationwide has shown,
involvement in controversy is not something sponsors like

TOny

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

A professional sports person has to give due
consideration to his sponsors and potential sponsors.

A professional sportsperson would probably steer clear of
involvement in a controversial issue such as this unless
they wanted to support one side.

... or were asked to support one side by someone with
purse-strings.

Quoted message said:

As Nationwide has shown, involvement in controversy
is not something sponsors like

(a) It took some time and effort for that to happen
(b) That was customers, not sponsors. Lots of people with no
axe to grind, as opposed to someone getting indirect-
advertising.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: htmlhelp.com~nickOpen ↗

Gawnsoft <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Perhaps if someone could get the facts under her nose
she'd move from (what looks like to me) a potentially
pro-position to joining us in the definately anti-
compulsion camp.

It depends somewhat on what she means by off-road. If it
includes rough stuff or overhanging branches a helmet might
well be a good idea. If it's just a ride through the park on
paved surfaces, as it seems to me she meant, then a helmet
would be completely irrelevant.

--
Dave...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tony Raven said:

Now up on Hansard for the full gory details.

parliament.the-stationery-parliament.the-stationery-Open ↗
office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-
01.htm#40423-01_head1

Martlew really is an idiot. My favourite part is his oft-
repeated: ``The very fact that legislation is in place will
encourage most people to ensure that children obey the law.
It is one thing to tell teenagers they should wear a helmet,
and another to be able to say, "You must wear a helmet
because that is the law."'' or variations thereof. Oh yes,
that will explain why people under 18 don't get hold of
alcohol, people under 16 don't get hold of cigarettes and,
perhaps more importantly, why

low as it is.

ian

Moreover, the very fact that legislation is in place will
encourage most people to ensure that they obey the law. It
is one thing to tell people they should adhere to speed
limits and another to be able to say "You must adhere to the
speed limit because that is the law".

Er, hang on...

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Dave Larrington said:

Moreover, the very fact that legislation is in place will
encourage most people to ensure that they obey the law. It
is one thing to tell people they should adhere to speed
limits and another to be able to say "You must adhere to
the speed limit because that is the law".

Quoted message said:

Er, hang on...

Quite. And in any case, no offence would be committed by a
person aged 16 or under riding without a helmet. The offence
would be committed by whatever hapless adult the forces of
Law'n'Order decide is reponsible at that time.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

On 27 Apr 2004 03:36:40 -0700, [email hidden] (Dave Kahn) wrote
(more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote
in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Perhaps if someone could get the facts under her nose
she'd move from (what looks like to me) a potentially
pro-position to joining us in the definately anti-
compulsion camp.

It depends somewhat on what she means by off-road. If it
includes rough stuff or overhanging branches a helmet might
well be a good idea. If it's just a ride through the park
on paved surfaces, as it seems to me she meant, then a
helmet would be completely irrelevant.

Quite - she currently /does/ wear on-road, and /does not/
wear off-road.

That's pretty much the wrong way round, if you're going to
be selective avout helmet-wearing, as helmets are good for
drops to the ground, but not much cop for being hit by cars.

It suggests she's not in possession of the facts as we
have discovered them to be, and that she would be amenable
to a fact-supported approach to risk-assessment in her own
helmet-wearing.

And her own helmet-wearing seems to be a factor in her view
towards this bill.

So...

Anyway - is she the MP for any of the list members?

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

Quite. And in any case, no offence would be committed by a
person aged 16 or under riding without a helmet. The
offence would be committed by whatever hapless adult the
forces of Law'n'Order decide is reponsible at that time.

``Put my pocket money up, or I'll ride around without a
helmet and get you in trouble.''

ian

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gawnsoft said:

That's pretty much the wrong way round, if you're going
to be selective avout helmet-wearing, as helmets are good
for drops to the ground, but not much cop for being hit
by cars.

I've done local rides on the road without a helmet. I always
wear one on towpaths, as being clouted by overhanging
branches is bad enough but tunnels and bridges really,
really hurt.

I've recently plastered my (black) helmet with Orange
Scotchlite tape. I suspect that, on the road, using it as a
carrier of visibility aids is actually doing me more good
that the expanded polystyrene.

Tangentially, I recently bought the new Haynes book of cycle
rides around Birmingham. One of the people on the front
cover photograph is a long standing friend of mine. She says
of the photograph:

``Oh, and cycle helmet. Pubisher's rules.''

ian

Gawnsoft said:

That's pretty much the wrong way round, if you're going
to be selective avout helmet-wearing, as helmets are good
for drops to the ground, but not much cop for being hit
by cars.

My personal other reasoning for wearing off just about
always but increasingly less on is that if I'm on the MTB or
the Muni I /expect/ to be falling off: it goes with the
territory for me. Of course, different off-road riding
styles/skill levels may not expect this degree of separation
probability! ;-)

I do not expect to fall off while on the road.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗