WHy not make cycling against the law?

[DiscoDuck]

Wouldn't that put people at even LOWER risk?
I know I stopped riding my bike because of the law in British
Columbia. Proponants of the law get VERY upset with me when I tell
them that, which doesn't make sense. If thier motive were "pure",
shouldn't that please them since I am at lower risk?

[Peter Keller]

Post by DiscoDuck
Wouldn't that put people at even LOWER risk?
I know I stopped riding my bike because of the law in British
Columbia. Proponants of the law get VERY upset with me when I tell
them that, which doesn't make sense. If thier motive were "pure",
shouldn't that please them since I am at lower risk?

I don't agree. Lower risk of of being hurt while riding a bike, perhaps
(this risk is pretty low already), but higher risk of suffering some
non-fitness damage (20x, according to Hillman in England)
There seem to be few actual statistics on how much the law was responsible
for the reduction in bicycling. The best figures I've seen come from
Perth, where there is apparently one place (Narrows bridge) which everyone
must use to get from one part to another (I don't know personally; I have
never been to Perth). Numbers of bicycle riders on the bridge counted
from just before the law to just after the law seemed to show a reduction
in about 30% of bicyclists overall, and a massive 90% in the reduction of
female bike riders. It took 10 years before bicycling numbers returned to
their pre-law values.
Certainly, here in NZ we don't see many lady bike riders any more, and few
bicycling commuters less than 35 years old.
Disclaimer: I am mainly a commuting bicyclist, not a "recreational"
bicyclist. The beauty of commuting by bicycle is that it is exercise
every day, compared to recreational, which might be just in the weekends
or when the weather is good etc.

Peter

[Dave Kahn]

Post by DiscoDuck
Wouldn't that put people at even LOWER risk?

No, it would put them at higher risk. Cyclists on average live longer
than non-cyclists even allowing for the motorised cull.

Post by DiscoDuck
I know I stopped riding my bike because of the law in British
Columbia. Proponants of the law get VERY upset with me when I tell
them that, which doesn't make sense. If thier motive were "pure",
shouldn't that please them since I am at lower risk?

They get upset because you are a living contradiction of their
assertion that MHLs do not deter cycling. Doesn't BC law also require
cyclists to keep as far as possible to the right?

[Chris Phillipo]

Subject: WHy not make cycling against the law?
Newsgroups: aus.bicycle, ba.bicycles, bc.cycling, nyc.bicycles, uk.rec.cycling
Wouldn't that put people at even LOWER risk?
I know I stopped riding my bike because of the law in British
Columbia. Proponants of the law get VERY upset with me when I tell
them that, which doesn't make sense. If thier motive were "pure",
shouldn't that please them since I am at lower risk?

Are people actually being ticketed off road for not wearing a helmet?
Or are you just trying to prove a point?

[Tony Raven]

Post by Chris Phillipo
Are people actually being ticketed off road for not wearing a helmet?
Or are you just trying to prove a point?

That would have been the effect of the law the pro-helmet campaigners
introduced in the British Parliament and why the uk.rec.cycling
contingent here react so strongly. We are fighting a group that would
have the parents fined for allowing their child to ride without a helmet
in the garden, park or anywhere else for that matter. If the child had
collected his bike from a bike shop and then taken their helmet off
round the corner, the bike shop owner would have been fined. So far the
Government has said helmet wearing rates are too low to introduce
compulsion and not supported the Bill. Which is why we are pushing the
point so hard. At present in the UK everyone wearing a helmet is moving
us closer to those mandatory helmet laws.

Tony

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, ***@raven-family.com
says...

Subject: Re: WHy not make cycling against the law?
Newsgroups: aus.bicycle, ba.bicycles, bc.cycling, nyc.bicycles, uk.rec.cycling

Post by Chris Phillipo
Are people actually being ticketed off road for not wearing a helmet?
Or are you just trying to prove a point?

That would have been the effect of the law the pro-helmet campaigners
introduced in the British Parliament and why the uk.rec.cycling
contingent here react so strongly. We are fighting a group that would
have the parents fined for allowing their child to ride without a helmet
in the garden, park or anywhere else for that matter. If the child had
collected his bike from a bike shop and then taken their helmet off
round the corner, the bike shop owner would have been fined. So far the
Government has said helmet wearing rates are too low to introduce
compulsion and not supported the Bill. Which is why we are pushing the
point so hard. At present in the UK everyone wearing a helmet is moving
us closer to those mandatory helmet laws.
Tony

That is pretty ridiculous, I can't really argue with having to abide by
the rules of an authority or owner that controls a certain area but to
make it as wide sweeping as that, the word Gestapo comes to mind.

[Tony Raven]

Post by Chris Phillipo
That is pretty ridiculous, I can't really argue with having to abide by
the rules of an authority or owner that controls a certain area but to
make it as wide sweeping as that, the word Gestapo comes to mind.

Whoop, whoop.....Godwin Law Alert! Godwin Law Alert!.....Whoop, whoop

But yes you are right, and a group that promote cycling as an extreme
hazard with 5 times as many head injury deaths as actually occur, with
more head injuries from cycling than from all causes and more money
spent on child cyclist head injuries by the National Health Service than
the NHS actually spends in total on children.

Tony

[Dave Kahn]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:35:39 GMT, Chris Phillipo

Post by Chris Phillipo
That is pretty ridiculous, I can't really argue with having to abide by
the rules of an authority or owner that controls a certain area but to
make it as wide sweeping as that, the word Gestapo comes to mind.

And yet it was the proposer of the bill, Eric Martlew, who had the
nerve to call the Association of Cycle Traders "cycling fascists" for
daring to oppose it.

[Dave Larrington]

Post by Chris Phillipo
That is pretty ridiculous, I can't really argue with having to abide
by the rules of an authority or owner that controls a certain area
but to make it as wide sweeping as that, the word Gestapo comes to
mind.

s/Gestapo/Blunkett/

[Dan]

Post by DiscoDuck
Wouldn't that put people at even LOWER risk?
I know I stopped riding my bike because of the law in British
Columbia. Proponants of the law get VERY upset with me when I tell
them that, which doesn't make sense. If thier motive were "pure",
shouldn't that please them since I am at lower risk?

Why cross post this to ba.bicycles? There is no helmet controversy here that
I have heard of. Kids are required to wear a helmet on public streets but I
have never seen it enforced.

[Nick Kew]

Post by DiscoDuck
Wouldn't that put people at even LOWER risk?

[shudder]

Don't suggest it. The present government (UK) has done similarly stupid
things already, more than once:-

* Foot&mouth - close everything that's not a road, thereby forcing
innocent people (including young children) into a dangerous environment.
* Rail hysteria: a crash with as many deaths as in an average day on
the roads, so they cripple the entire rail network for several months
and drive more people into a dangerous environment.

If they can do that without even the excuse of licking Dubya's posterior
or (equivalently) generating business for our armaments industries,
don't give them any more ideas.