Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

So do I. Make all the cycling helmets wear helmets. 

Cyclists Lives Matter (CLM) - and it's unfair to dilute that fact by stating that  All Lives  Matter (ALM). The fact of the matter is that the cyclists' matter is the bit that matters. 

The matter, besides being grey, is located in their head, so it should be protected. Anybody who jumps on a pedal cycle and chooses to mix it with hard, heavy vehicles on roads with no upper speed limit is, by definition, a little light on grey matter in any case. So we must legislate to protect the matter of those who cannot protect themselves. They can take care of their own helmets.

Donations to CLM@...ORG

  • 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

6 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

The matter, besides being grey, is located in their head, so it should be protected. Anybody who jumps on a pedal cycle and chooses to mix it with hard, heavy vehicles on roads with no upper speed limit is, by definition, a little light on grey matter in any case. So we must legislate to protect the matter of those who cannot protect themselves. They can take care of their own helmets.

On the same basis, it's surely about time that pedestrians were required to wear Kevlar body armour and to be fitted with airbags?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yibble said:

On the same basis, it's surely about time that pedestrians were required to wear Kevlar body armour and to be fitted with airbags?

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they wasting time looking at this, when there's a massive road safety elephant in the room? Cycle helmets are great if the cyclists falls off - but not much help in a collision with a car. Our road safety record is woeful. Making the very few cyclists who don't already wear helmets wear one is not going to make a dent in the 1000 RTC's per year.

There is some research by Bath University that suggests drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets. The theory is that drivers assume a rider with "all the gear" is experienced, so they can pass closer than they would to an inexperienced rider, with obvious consequences.

This hit and run driver has not been found:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/police-appeal-after-rtc-involving-a-cyclist/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I will say is, with all the very real problems this Island has, Covid19 and financial, surely there is a better time and place for this sort of trivia.

Wearing something protective on your head while balancing on two wheels in a potentially dangerous situationon, a road, competing with other two, four and more wheeled vehicles far larger and heavier than you are is either simple common sense or in the case of children, strong parental guidance.

End of.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Neil Down said:

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

Pulrose dole day ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all illustrative of the paradoxical world of Manx legislation thanks to the brains trust in Keys. 16 year olds can vote, but can't buy alcohol or tobacco - 'kin nonsense; cyclists don't require a helmet but motorcyclists do. I appreciate the difference between a licenced vehicle with an engine and a push bike, but this is about safety, not the nature of the vehicle; only last week I saw a cyclist on the drop from the Creg to Brandish overtake two cars...the bike was easily achieving 40+ mph. Plenty of scope to turn your head into guacamole if you drop it. (The rider did have a helmet). I'm not sure if those riding horses on the highway are required by law to wear a helmet, but if they are, and cyclists aren't, that's ludicrous. OK - you're falling further from a horse than a bike, but unless the nag has bolted the bike is travelling at least ten times faster.

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

It's all illustrative of the paradoxical world of Manx legislation thanks to the brains trust in Keys. 

Not really. Pretty much all other countries have concluded that cycle helmet legislation is not a good idea. Most non-nutters do the same after having given a little thought to the arguments. There is a mass of stuff out there on this so I'm not going to statr repeating the arguments here though, beyond posting a few 'starter links'.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a freedom of choice, at least for adults. I sometimes do and sometimes don't wear a helmet. On my now short commute to work (about a mile) I don't. If I'm doing more purposeful riding per se  or if I was riding in company with others I probably would.  My rationale is my own perceived risk, which as an adult, I think I am entitled to make.

I understand that the proposals do not mean that cycle helmets are going to be compulsory which I welcome. I do worry though that these decisions which are debated by MHK's are done so from a standpoint of ignorance. Do they all ride bikes?, are they considering any evidence such as IOM hospital statistics or the situation in other countries or is it just deciding on a gut feel.

I would hate to see a situation whereby politicians deem that cycling at circa 10mph requires a helmet by law but driving motor vehicles  at unlimited speeds on two way twisting single carriageways was perfectly acceptable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Isle of Man Newspapers piece is really odd.  While it's dated the 10th it actually refers to a Keys debate that took place on the 2nd, rather than the previous day.  That's why it's illustrated with a captioned photo of Harmer, because he wasn't replaced till the following day  So it must have been him piloting the Bill through the Keys (Hansard for that part of the sitting isn't up yet).

It also means that there's no excuse that it was a new Minister spouting rubbish because he hadn't been properly briefed.  So presumably he didn't know that the legislation didn't apply to cyclists or couldn't be bothered to tell his fellow MHKs, so misleading the House.  Maybe the DoI are hoping to make people think they have the power and do so anyway.

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...