If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
No wonder some cyclists are hated
A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
Why do they do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MP's bill to make cycle helmets compulsory for under-14s fails
QUOTE:
A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation, officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11 will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week. Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy, as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion. At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine. "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general." The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain Injury Trust. Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers. This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and other benefits." He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low, particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups. Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in these communities, while the money involved would be better spent tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of doubtful effectiveness." http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...nder-14s-fails -- Simon Mason |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MP's bill to make cycle helmets compulsory for under-14s fails
On Mar 8, 9:43*am, wrote:
> QUOTE: > A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law > that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and > below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation, > officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11 > will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week. > > Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her > bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation > seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy, > as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion. > > At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those > cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a > helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine. > > "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective > Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates > the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher > risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they > are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general." > > The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet > Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical > Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain > Injury Trust. > > Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with > CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where > attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle > helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around > a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers. > This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and > other benefits." > > He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low, > particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups. > Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in > these communities, while the money involved would be better spent > tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming > the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of > doubtful effectiveness." > > http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls... > > -- > Simon Mason Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed plastic. And what about knees? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No wonder some cyclists are hated
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:40:58 -0000, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road. >Why do they do this? > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU Looks like they may be racing on the public highway. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
No wonder some cyclists are hated
On Mar 8, 9:40*am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road. > Why do they do this? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was still sufficient space for cars to pass? What do you think they were obstructing (to use the legal term)? It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very simple fellow you are! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MP's bill to make cycle helmets compulsory for under-14s fails
thirty-six wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:43 am, wrote: >> QUOTE: >> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law >> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and >> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation, >> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11 >> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last >> week. >> >> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her >> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation >> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy, >> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion. >> >> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those >> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a >> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine. >> >> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective >> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury >> devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children are >> at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully >> developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads >> in general." >> >> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet >> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical >> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain >> Injury Trust. >> >> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with >> CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where >> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle >> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically >> around a third, but with much higher reductions among children >> teenagers. This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, >> environmental and other benefits." >> >> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low, >> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups. >> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in >> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent >> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than >> blaming the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective >> headgear of doubtful effectiveness." >> >> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls... >> >> -- >> Simon Mason > > Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it > stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a > polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in > future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that > raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed > plastic. And what about knees? The problem is that a bump as bad as you describe does irreparable brain damage. Merely heading a football also does internal damage that has lifelong consequences. So why risk it? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
No wonder some cyclists are hated
"thirty-six" > wrote in message
... > On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote: >> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road. >> Why do they do this? >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU > > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the > video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to > the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was > still sufficient space for cars to pass? What do you think they were > obstructing (to use the legal term)? It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are > deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very > simple fellow you are! And you are a psycholist |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MP's bill to make cycle helmets compulsory for under-14s fails
On Mar 8, 10:38*am, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:43*am, wrote: > > > > > > > QUOTE: > > A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law > > that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and > > below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation, > > officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11 > > will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week. > > > Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her > > bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation > > seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy, > > as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion. > > > At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those > > cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a > > helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine. > > > "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective > > Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates > > the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher > > risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they > > are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general." > > > The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet > > Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical > > Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain > > Injury Trust. > > > Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with > > CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where > > attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle > > helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around > > a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers. > > This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and > > other benefits." > > > He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low, > > particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups. > > Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in > > these communities, while the money involved would be better spent > > tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming > > the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of > > doubtful effectiveness." > > >http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls... > > > -- > > Simon Mason > > Hooray. * It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it > stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a > polstyrene cap. *When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in > future. *The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that > raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed > plastic. *And what about knees?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Of course, A+E chastised me about not wearing a helmet after I bust a *collar bone*. They spent more time over that than treating the injury. -- Simon Mason |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
No wonder some cyclists are hated
thirty-six" > wrote in message
... > On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote: >> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road. >> Why do they do this? >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU > > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the > video Narrowly missing the **** cycling in the middle of the road. There was insufficient space for the car following the cyclists to pass them safely. As this was a narrower road, the cyclists should have ridden in single file to make it easier for the car to pass them. They could then have resumed riding two-abreast once the car had passed. The Highway code recommends cycling in single file on narrower roads. This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards other road users. Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like these? Consideration for other road users goes both ways. > what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to > the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was > still sufficient space for cars to pass? What do you think they were > obstructing (to use the legal term)? It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are > deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very > simple fellow you are! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Boy Named Hughes -- your parents must have really hated you | L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III[_3145_] | Auto Photos | 1 | September 8th 07 12:30 AM |
A Boy Named Hughes -- your parents must have really hated you | L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III[_3215_] | Auto Photos | 0 | September 8th 07 12:30 AM |
A Boy Named Hughes -- your parents must have really hated you | L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III[_3213_] | Auto Photos | 0 | September 8th 07 12:30 AM |
A Boy Named Hughes -- your parents must have really hated you | L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III[_3071_] | Auto Photos | 0 | September 6th 07 12:08 AM |
A Boy Named Hughes -- your parents must have really hated you | L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III[_3020_] | Auto Photos | 0 | September 5th 07 09:17 AM |