Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Out of the blue said:

Thanks, I had given up in despair long before the comments section :thumbsup:

Can't blame you. The fruitloops on there make this forum very educated indeed

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Another Chris Thomas getting it wrong again incident

 

Chris Thomas's comment on the IoM Newspapers site was:
 

Chris Thomas · 1 hr ago · REPORT

The bill - even if enacted - does not make wearing helmets compulsory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Yibble said:

 

Chris Thomas's comment on the IoM Newspapers site was:
 

Chris Thomas · 1 hr ago · REPORT

The bill - even if enacted - does not make wearing helmets compulsory.

Didn’t see that. It just highlights the mover having poor grasp of brief. He should have been told about the cycle is not a vehicle provision. Although the explanatory notes are less than useful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside cyclists, is the rest of this paragraph accurate from the report?

Quote

Members voted to support a clause requiring all cyclists, motorbike sidecars passengers, quad bikers and those riding animals or animal-propelled vehicles to wear headgear.

Will this apply only to public roads, or off-road as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legislation like this is extremely dangerous and is the thin end of the wedge.  What on earth has jerked Harmer's chain to even contemplate this?  What next (for cyclists) - knee protectors, shoulder protectors?  Why not a roll-cage around the bike?  Ridiculous, of course, but every aspect of our lives is being legislated to the point of turning us into unthinking, risk-averse, controlled drones.  If you wish to wear a helmet to cycle 50yds to the corner store - feel free.  The same goes for wearing a mask to Tesco.  But if you want to lead a sad, safe, cotton-wool lined life - don't impose your personal fears and fetishes that on me.

Edited by Utah 01
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There would appear to be little point in this legislation unless it links to appropriate construction and standards legislation in respect of safety headwear?

What would be the point of potentially legally compelling drivers/users of whatever to wear head protection that's of little or no use, certainly in respect of RTI? Specifically, cycling helmets and horse rider's hard hats?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Legislation like this is extremely dangerous and is the thin end of the wedge.  What on earth has jerked Harmer's chain to even contemplate this?  What next (for cyclists) - knee protectors, shoulder protectors?  Why not a roll-cage around the bike?  Ridiculous, of course, but every aspect of our lives is being legislated to the point of turning us into unthinking, risk-averse, controlled drones.  If you wish to wear a helmet to cycle 50yds to the corner store - feel free.  The same goes for wearing a mask to Tesco.  But if you want to lead a sad, safe, cotton-wool lined life - don't impose your personal fears and fetishes that on me.

It doesn’t apply to cyclists. The report is wrong. I’ve posted the legislation above

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

There would appear to be little point in this legislation unless it links to appropriate construction and standards legislation in respect of safety headwear?

What would be the point of potentially legally compelling drivers/users of whatever to wear head protection that's of little or no use, certainly in respect of RTI? Specifically, cycling helmets and horse rider's hard hats?

It does. Read my post above where I quote the wording of the legislation. And, again. It doesn’t apply to cyclists.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Josem said:

Leaving aside cyclists, is the rest of this paragraph accurate from the report?

Will this apply only to public roads, or off-road as well?

It’ll certainly apply to roads, highways and paths as defined in s.72 of the RTA 1985. That’ll include bridleways, PRW, and long distance paths as they’re public.

Your back garden or a field that you own? No.

In public, say on the Royal or Southern Shows, or pony club events, or the like? Well you’d be using one there anyway? Wouldn’t you? Same with scrambling on the dead’s ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’ll certainly apply to roads, highways and paths as defined in s.72 of the RTA 1985.

Thanks!

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

Another Chris Thomas getting it wrong again incident

Even if you were right about whether it applies to bikes - and if so, why the fuss in Keys - how is my comment on IOM today.co.im wrong? And when else was I wrong? 

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...