Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bruce Banner

Nanny state considering more compulsion.

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113697/Cyclists-wear-helmets-high-viz-vests.html

Cyclists will have to wear helmets and high-viz vests BY LAW in the New Year under proposed new rules

  • A review will consider arguments in favour of forcing cyclists to wear helmets
  • Department for Transport insists it has 'no plans' to make equipment compulsory
  • Moves to make helmets compulsory have often been opposed by cycling groups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113697/Cyclists-wear-helmets-high-viz-vests.html

Cyclists will have to wear helmets and high-viz vests BY LAW in the New Year under proposed new rules

  • A review will consider arguments in favour of forcing cyclists to wear helmets
  • Department for Transport insists it has 'no plans' to make equipment compulsory
  • Moves to make helmets compulsory have often been opposed by cycling groups

British cycling is absolutely dominated by the cycling-as-sport fraternity.  It causes havoc.  

To these guys the 'wear helmet, wear reflective jacket' thing is obvious.  You've got to get properly kitted out for a ride.   Whether 'the ride' be that 8 mile cycle to work (all recorded on Strava) or that excellent 50 miler last Sunday.

But cycling really should be about people popping on their bike to get to the shops, or that 1/2 mile to work, or this Thursdays meeting at the WI.  There is pretty much no point in getting these people to kit up.  They're not going far and they'll not be going fast.  Sure, there'll be lives saved if everyone wore motorbike gear, but not nearly as many as made out by the stats.

Yet it is this second group that would be put off by legal mandate to dress up before cycling, wouldn't be well served by it, and would likely be all the ones getting fined if it did happen.

It is a bonkers proposition, that only makes sense to the exact group that doesn't actually help Britain particularly by cycling around the place*.

[*I suppose they're a bit healthier, but that could equally be achieved by all sorts of means.  Transportation is difficult to do and removing a load of short journeys would make a difference]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dgul said:

 

But cycling really should be about people popping on their bike to get to the shops, or that 1/2 mile to work, or this Thursdays meeting at the WI.  There is pretty much no point in getting these people to kit up.  They're not going far and they'll not be going fast.  Sure, there'll be lives saved if everyone wore motorbike gear, but not nearly as many as made out by the stats.

 

I get all nostalgic when you see a woman sedately cycling  to the shop with with A line skirt billowing in the wind and hair flowing free. Something I occasionally encounter in rural Lincolnshire, say Alford. In the real world it's probably some lycra clad female with helmet zooming past at 25 miles an hour shouting....'You're in the f$$king cycle lane".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

I get all nostalgic when you see a woman sedately cycling  to the shop with with A line skirt billowing in the wind and hair flowing free. Something I occasionally encounter in rural Lincolnshire, say Alford. In the real world it's probably some lycra clad female with helmet zooming past at 25 miles an hour shouting....'You're in the f$$king cycle lane".

Me as well.  Cycling is not about sport, its about movement and transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dougless said:

Me as well.  Cycling is not about sport, its about movement and transport.

It has been turned into a sport and a form of exercise and the participants generally look like they are giving it everything. The equivalent for a walker would be on a permanent jog, and very few pedestrians do that. A pity really, you don't see this very often.........

 

382440DB00000578-3782686-image-m-76_1473

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dgul said:

British cycling is absolutely dominated by the cycling-as-sport fraternity.  It causes havoc.  

To these guys the 'wear helmet, wear reflective jacket' thing is obvious.  You've got to get properly kitted out for a ride.   Whether 'the ride' be that 8 mile cycle to work (all recorded on Strava) or that excellent 50 miler last Sunday.

But cycling really should be about people popping on their bike to get to the shops, or that 1/2 mile to work, or this Thursdays meeting at the WI.  There is pretty much no point in getting these people to kit up.  They're not going far and they'll not be going fast.  Sure, there'll be lives saved if everyone wore motorbike gear, but not nearly as many as made out by the stats.

Yet it is this second group that would be put off by legal mandate to dress up before cycling, wouldn't be well served by it, and would likely be all the ones getting fined if it did happen.

It is a bonkers proposition, that only makes sense to the exact group that doesn't actually help Britain particularly by cycling around the place*.

[*I suppose they're a bit healthier, but that could equally be achieved by all sorts of means.  Transportation is difficult to do and removing a load of short journeys would make a difference]

Exactly and the health benefits of more people cycling - less obesity, fewer heart attacks/strokes etc vastly outnumber the health problems/accidents that can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

Helmet law = fewer cyclists = worse health

It's a similar idea to some of the suicidal cycle lanes they build in this country which actually make the road more dangerous to cycle on than if they didn't bother trying to "help".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habeas Domus said:

Exactly and the health benefits of more people cycling - less obesity, fewer heart attacks/strokes etc vastly outnumber the health problems/accidents that can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

Helmet law = fewer cyclists = worse health

It's a similar idea to some of the suicidal cycle lanes they build in this country which actually make the road more dangerous to cycle on than if they didn't bother trying to "help".

I loath our approach to cycling in the UK, like much here it is pretty poor by European standards.  Having cycled in The Netherlands and Germany, you understand just how bad it is here.  And don't get me on the subject of bloody Sustrans - well meant but often useless cycle paths.  One round here goes right next to a river and is shared with pedestrians; that is not a cycle path.  I prefer to stay on the road and make my intentions very clear to other road users (that doesn't mean I swear at them or gesticulate madly, it just means I use hand signals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dougless said:

I loath our approach to cycling in the UK, like much here it is pretty poor by European standards.  Having cycled in The Netherlands and Germany, you understand just how bad it is here.  And don't get me on the subject of bloody Sustrans - well meant but often useless cycle paths.  One round here goes right next to a river and is shared with pedestrians; that is not a cycle path.  I prefer to stay on the road and make my intentions very clear to other road users (that doesn't mean I swear at them or gesticulate madly, it just means I use hand signals).

And it is partly to do with the cycling-sport lobby.  See, a massive proportion of UK cyclists don't want cycle lanes, etc.  They're out doing 100k weekends, not cycling to the middle of Reading to go shopping.  And the majority of 'normal people' (who aren't sports cyclists) don't actually use their bikes particularly (oh, maybe cycle along the canal to the pub in summer, etc), so don't really understand the need.  So, there's no surprise that cycling infrastructure ends up being crap.

I don't really mind the cycling sport thing, but it gives the illusion of the UK as a nation of cyclists* -- whereas the stats are absolutely dire for cycling as a general aid to transportation, as compared with the Netherlands or Germany.

[* I think the quote is something along the lines of  'Britain is a nation of cyclists, whereas the Netherlands is a nation of people who just happen to use a bicycle'.  Can't remember who said that.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say it's now all about the sport, rather than as a mode of transport, and there certainly is a large contingent obsessed with the fitness aspects ... but like everything in this material-obsessed economy, it's also about the kit - ie, all the gear, no idea.

Case in point my brother, who was gifted a super-duper bike by his missus. This served two purposes as I see it. One, it got him out the house. Two, it gave everyone present ideas, which, amongst boomers, is, I'm sure you'll agree, one of the biggest first world problems we have.

Now he has an extensive array of collision avoidance, mitigation and documentation (Go-Pro) equipment, to go with his fancy bike. I reckon he's used it five times i two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2017 at 7:07 PM, Bruce Banner said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113697/Cyclists-wear-helmets-high-viz-vests.html

Cyclists will have to wear helmets and high-viz vests BY LAW in the New Year under proposed new rules

It won't make the slightest difference in the small town where I live. There are loads of cyclists, especially on poorly lit pavements and tarmac paths, but essentially none of them use lights or reflectors, let alone helmets & high viz clothing. As a pedestrian, I have to wear reflective arm-bands and a clip-on light to reduce the chance of being mown down. I would guess the zero-visibility cyclists are due to the complete absence of policing on the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Toast said:

It won't make the slightest difference in the small town where I live. There are loads of cyclists, especially on poorly lit pavements and tarmac paths, but essentially none of them use lights or reflectors, let alone helmets & high viz clothing. As a pedestrian, I have to wear reflective arm-bands and a clip-on light to reduce the chance of being mown down. I would guess the zero-visibility cyclists are due to the complete absence of policing on the streets.

If they make it law that cyclists must wear helmets they'll be bobbies, with cameras, behind every bush. Easy way to get the crime detection figures up and collect on the spot fines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

If they make it law that cyclists must wear helmets they'll be bobbies, with cameras, behind every bush. Easy way to get the crime detection figures up and collect on the spot fines.

Yup.  They chase the easy wins, not the hardened crim.  If this goes through 'riding without helmet' will be the #1 crime for months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More nannying today:

UK drone users to sit safety tests under new law

Quote

The proposed bill - to be published in spring 2018 - would ensure that owners of drones weighing more than 250g would need to register and sit a test.

And that's the real point: to get people to register drones. We just can't be trusted with them, see?

But chemists have understood how nannying states can be for years. The list of chemicals you can own w/o some busybody wanting to know why grows every year. And then they tell us we all need more science.

But legislators don't understand that w/o practicals, science simply becomes another story, and a rather boring one at that.

As a kid, which would you want to know more about:

1 - the electrolysis of water

2 - Moses parting the Red Sea?

When I hear of people complaining about this or that regulation (usually designed to save lives), of course I sympathize, but I do wonder whether they have any idea about the kind of regs chemists across the world have faced.

Take this:

31Jys8FRx7L._SX342_.jpg

 

"What chemical is that, SH?" you ask. "Looks empty."

But it's not what's in the flask that faces restriction by government. It's merely the flask itself.

Quote

Like many other common pieces of glassware, Erlenmeyer flasks could potentially be used in the production of drugs. In an effort to restrict such production, some U.S. states (including Texas) have made possession of common flasks illegal in schools without permit, including Erlenmeyer flasks, as well as chemicals identified as common starting materials

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

More nannying today:

UK drone users to sit safety tests under new law

And that's the real point: to get people to register drones. We just can't be trusted with them, see?

But chemists have understood how nannying states can be for years. The list of chemicals you can own w/o some busybody wanting to know why grows every year. And then they tell us we all need more science.

But legislators don't understand that w/o practicals, science simply becomes another story, and a rather boring one at that.

As a kid, which would you want to know more about:

1 - the electrolysis of water

2 - Moses parting the Red Sea?

When I hear of people complaining about this or that regulation (usually designed to save lives), of course I sympathize, but I do wonder whether they have any idea about the kind of regs chemists across the world have faced.

Take this:

31Jys8FRx7L._SX342_.jpg

 

"What chemical is that, SH?" you ask. "Looks empty."

But it's not what's in the flask that faces restriction by government. It's merely the flask itself.

 

Policy borne of ignorance.  It seems to be increasingly common (from Internet regs to chemicals, etc).

I guess, to be fair (which I don't think is necessary or appropriate), the politicians don't need to be ignorant -- they just need to placate an ignorant electorate.  But I do think they are often ignorant as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

More nannying today:

UK drone users to sit safety tests under new law

And that's the real point: to get people to register drones. We just can't be trusted with them, see?

But chemists have understood how nannying states can be for years. The list of chemicals you can own w/o some busybody wanting to know why grows every year. And then they tell us we all need more science.

But legislators don't understand that w/o practicals, science simply becomes another story, and a rather boring one at that.

As a kid, which would you want to know more about:

1 - the electrolysis of water

2 - Moses parting the Red Sea?

When I hear of people complaining about this or that regulation (usually designed to save lives), of course I sympathize, but I do wonder whether they have any idea about the kind of regs chemists across the world have faced.

Take this:

31Jys8FRx7L._SX342_.jpg

 

"What chemical is that, SH?" you ask. "Looks empty."

But it's not what's in the flask that faces restriction by government. It's merely the flask itself.

 

I'm sure I donated sperm in one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

I'm sure I donated sperm in one of those.

1000ml?  That's just wishful thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 12:05 PM, dougless said:

I loath our approach to cycling in the UK,...

I prefer to stay on the road and make my intentions very clear to other road users

I feel safer on the road. Forcing 2-way traffic onto a 3ft wide strip with blind corners, kerbs, walls, trees, and street furniture is a recipe for disaster. On top of that the paths are never swept, and it is never ending stop-start-dismount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cycle helemts are probably a good idea, but compulsory? **** off. As for the idea of high vis vests, **** off even more. Whilst cycling in the dark with no lights or reflectors is a recipe for disaster they're all completely unnecessary in the daytime (and lights and lightish clothing is enough in the dark). Drivers who miss that will miss someone dressed up like a garish scarecrow anyway (and shouldn't be on the road in the first place). It's not the lack of being visible that's the issue, it's the lack of ability for some people to notice what they can see. In any case high vis has become so over-used it's almost camouflage due to being a common part of the scene.

Anyway, it's a Wail story and doesn't chime with that DoT comment, so probably just the Wail stirring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everything the few spoil it for the rest.... irresponsible cyclists who never look around them, never indicate, no lights on bike, forever jumping red lights and not stopping at zebra crossings.....some are a hazard on the road, can't be trusted......;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

To my mind, any law designed solely to protect people from themselves is an infringement of civil liberty.

Pretty much (obviously we're not talking about responsibilities towards young children, although IMO they go too far there sometimes). Make sure you include anything that tries to put responsibility for someone else's behaviour on your shoulders too, like cases where the railway gets held responsible for idiots on the tracks getting hit by trains and the litigatious society which results in organisations putting up large collections of garish signs stating the bleeding obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

To my mind, any law designed solely to protect people from themselves is an infringement of civil liberty.

I've been runover, twice, by cyclists. As far as I'm concerned the government can legislate a man has to talk in front of them with a red flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 407 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.