Jump to content

More useless laws ( that won’t apply to cyclists )


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Seems entirely reasonable to me. I’m old enough to remember pointing and laughing at someone in a cycle helmet. I now stare in amazement when I see someone without one.  I’ve been saved from seve

have you seen some of the women in town. Looks like they are already fitted with airbags...

It’s crap reporting. AGAIN. Here is the draft section. its enabling to make regulations for different classes of vehicles and horses. NOT bicycles. in the RTA 1985 all sorts of vehicles

Posted Images

Seems entirely reasonable to me. I’m old enough to remember pointing and laughing at someone in a cycle helmet. I now stare in amazement when I see someone without one. 

I’ve been saved from severe injury by a helmet; wouldn’t leave home without one now.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the evidence it's needed? Has Noble's been in danger of being overwhelmed - or even had one incident where a helmet would have prevented serious injury. Police given free rein to chase down cyclists instead of 'proper' criminals. Absolute numpties.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Lurker said:

Seems entirely reasonable to me. I’m old enough to remember pointing and laughing at someone in a cycle helmet. I now stare in amazement when I see someone without one. 

I’ve been saved from severe injury by a helmet; wouldn’t leave home without one now.  

Drawback being it wouldn't be compulsory to wear one. I agree, I never go out without mine even though the wording inside the helmet states they are pretty much useless in the event of a crash

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Drawback being it wouldn't be compulsory to wear one. I agree, I never go out without mine even though the wording inside the helmet states they are pretty much useless in the event of a crash

Where does it say that it wouldn’t be compulsory? Is it just guidance if it is not compulsory

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s crap reporting. AGAIN.

Here is the draft section.

its enabling to make regulations for different classes of vehicles and horses. NOT bicycles.

in the RTA 1985 all sorts of vehicles are defined.

however there is this

cycle” means a bicycle, tricycle, or cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle;

so s14 of the amendment act, which puts a new s24 in the RTA 1985 does not apply to push bikes

“24
Protective helmets
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7)
The Department may make regulations that require a person driving or riding in or on a vehicle of a specified class or riding on an animal of a specified class to wear a protective helmet of a specified description.
A person commits an offence if he drives or rides in or on a vehicle or rides on an animal in contravention of regulations made under subsection (1).
The Department may make regulations prescribing, by reference to shape, construction or any other quality, types of helmet recommended as affording protection to a person on or in a vehicle or riding on an animal from injury in the event of an accident.
A person commits an offence if he sells, or offers for sale, a helmet as a helmet for affording protection as mentioned in subsection (3) and the helmet is not of a type prescribed under that subsection.
However, a person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (4) in respect of the sale or the offer for sale of a helmet if he proves that it was sold or offered for sale for export from the British Islands.
Schedule 1 has effect in respect of a contravention of subsection (4).
If the Department is satisfied that safety regulations under Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1991 make appropriate provision for regulating the sale of helmets for use by persons in or on vehicles or riding on animals, the Department may by order repeal any provision of this section (except subsections (1) and (2)) and Schedule 1, and any relevant provision of Part I of Schedule 6, appearing to the Department to be superseded by the said Part II and those regulations.
 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Sadly Neil it’s not just Harmful. There are 8 other idiots, head by HRH The Chief Minister. After Chris Thomas got the boot, I’m sure the COMIN lot will say yes, to every HRH proposal going. It’s down to Legco to sort this mess out.If something isn’t broke why fix it?

If I want to ride a push bike on the open road, or land Freedom of choice allows me to wear a helmet should I want to. From an individual point of view I would wear a helmet.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pure idiocy. Pretty much everywhere else in the world has concluded it's a bad idea.  The law will either be widely flouted or the police will risk losing public support as they end up ticketing respectable 'old maids cycling to evensong' (nevermind the loss of authority if we set about some serious civil disobedience over the issue :devil: ). Hopefully this is just a 'wobble' or yet more crappy reporting. If not, the IoM will quite likely become a laughing stock here. 

[Edit] per John's comment above, it seems that this is indeed crappy reporting. Thank you John. 

Edited by Yibble
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Drawback being it wouldn't be compulsory to wear one. I agree, I never go out without mine even though the wording inside the helmet states they are pretty much useless in the event of a crash

I disagree; I’ve had my skull saved more than once and know others who’ve had their brains spared from being spread over carriageway. 

It strikes me that the arguments against are the same ones that were churned out when motor cycle helmets were made compulsory and seatbelts. They save lives. They also save significant expense to the NHS and tax payer by reducing the severity of injuries. 

The only difficulty I could see would be enforcement amongst kids. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Where does it say that it wouldn’t be compulsory? Is it just guidance if it is not compulsory

if you read the link, Chris Thomas mentioned it

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

if you read the link, Chris Thomas mentioned it

Another Chris Thomas getting it wrong again incident

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...