metro article on helmets

[Titan yer tummy]

Because it has been written by people conned into believing that helmets are a panacea for road ills.

Do try to understand though that it is anti compulsionists not necessarily anti helmeters.

You can't be serious. This document is used in the courts of this country as the basis for sending folk to prison.

Please tell me this is a joke!!

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[MontyVeda]

If you anti helmeters are correct would you please explain why this rule appears in the highway code:

59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

Your comments will interest me!

Kind regards

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

it says 'should', not 'must' ... it's advice, not an instruction. Advice that people can choose to take or not, it's up to them.

 

[MontyVeda]

soz

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

You can't be serious. This document is used in the courts of this country as the basis for sending folk to prison.

Please tell me this is a joke!!

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Really?


Want to cite a case where this has happened?

Who wants odds on the answer/run away split?

 

[StuartG]

You can't be serious. This document is used in the courts of this country as the basis for sending folk to prison.
Please tell me this is a joke!!

Absolutely not as the HC makes clear - please read before quoting.

To spell it out to you (as the HC does) that when the HC uses the words MUST/MUST NOT they refer to a legal requirement. It is that law that enables people to be fined or imprisoned not the HC and it would still be the same if the HC didn't exist.

In the case of helmets the word SHOULD is advisory. There is no legal requirement, you can't be fined or imprisoned for not wearing one. Ignoring HC advice can be used as a measure of liability in an accident. But even you must realise that even if the wearing of a helmet mitigated a head injury it would take very strange circumstances to be a cause of accident - so unlikely that it is not reasonable for a rider to anticipate that.

To take an example what might affect liability in an accident in the same rule is the wearing of hi-viz clothing. If you were not wearing in the case of an accident you would, again not be fined, imprisoned or whatever. However, if a car hit you in the dark the driver may be entitled to argue that it was difficult to see you and a sympathetic magistrate might take this into account in finding him guilty of careless or dangerous driving or of reducing the penalty.

Hope this makes things clearer.

BTW I am agnostic on whether helmets are a help or hindrance. As a statistician I can say that the evidence presented by both sides is far from conclusive. They nearly always vastly overstate their case.

 

[ufkacbln]

If you anti helmeters are correct would you please explain why this rule appears in the highway code:

59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

Your comments will interest me!

Kind regards

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Oh, dear, TyT once again is being a right TyT and runs in totally misquotes and misrepresents something then runs away again.

 

[ufkacbln]

You can't be serious. This document is used in the courts of this country as the basis for sending folk to prison.

Please tell me this is a joke!!

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This has been explained to you before (back in January) when you were trolling on another thread.

.....the Highway code.... it is an enabling document in British Law and as such is a guide. If it states that you "must" carry out a particular act and then quotes a law including section then it is a legal requirement to do so.

For instance rule 124

124

You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table above). The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified.
[Law RTRA sects 81, 86, 89 & sch 6]​

The requirement to do so though is from the established law and not the Highway Code

Other sections use the word "should". These are guidance only and have no standing in law or otherwise. The only contribution is that it can be used to establish whether a road user is acting in a way that could be expected of a reasonable and competent driver.

125

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when:

• the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
• sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists
• weather conditions make it safer to do so
• driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users

You could not be prosecuted for any of these acts in rule 125 on the authority of the Highway Code

 

[Red Light]

You can't be serious. This document is used in the courts of this country as the basis for sending folk to prison.

Please tell me this is a joke!!

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I think you need to find out the difference between the Highway Code and the law.

The Highway Code can though have an influence in deciding civil liabilities and AFAIR whenever the situation has come up the Courts have never found that a helmet would have made any difference to the outcome.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Hmmm. So just remind me why this rule is in the highway code:

59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

TyT



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[MontyVeda]

the answer is in the post just before you said "you can't be serious"

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Hmmm. So just remind me why this rule is in the highway code:

59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

TyT



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's written by tyts who know nothing about cycling, the DRIVING standards agency.

 

[col]

Good grief. That is beyond absurd.

Oh dear

Not by the standards of
a) Helmet debates.

and

b) Col.

Oh dear dear

 

[ufkacbln]

We could also remind you to answer the following question that you have been avoiding since early January


You stated clearly that you were upset by paying for NHS treatment of cyclists who were not wearing ahelmet.

You have been asked on several occasions whether it is only cyclists, or whether you object to other "preventable injuries" being tretaed bythe NHS as well?

However most of us at least we have the decency and courtesy to answer..... and will not lower to your standards

This is in the Highway Code due to a consultation process....it was reduced in both extent and wording from original and CTC and other groups formulated the following:

“* Consider wearing a cycle helmet. Remember that cycle helmets are not designed to give protection in collisions with motor vehicles, and can be dangerous if fitted incorrectly.”

The present wording is an agreement between the various lobbies and groups that had an interest.One of the DfT comments on the final consultation was how many respondents had erroneously assumed that these were in fact law!



The reason it is in the Highway Code is because it was a compromise statement. It is also not more strongly worded as there was an acknowledgement that helmets have limitations and are not effective in all accidents.

However it remains advice and as explained above is non-enforceable

 

[Red Light]

Hmmm. So just remind me why this rule is in the highway code:

59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

TyT



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

So TyT's like you can experience an orgasm?

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1775674, member: 45"]
I take it you've got an idea of the kind of people who are admitted to hospital with head injuries? I do, I used to work on a neuro unit.
[/quote]


So do tell, how many people did you see admitted with head injuries as pedestrians (assaults, falls, hit by motor vehicle etc), motorists & cyclists? If you wanted to maximise the reduction of people in hospital with head injuries would it be motorists, pedestrians or cyclists which you would get to wear helmets first?