No wonder some cyclists are hated

A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
Why do they do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU

QUOTE:
A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.

Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.

At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.

"We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates
the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher
risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they
are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."

The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
Injury Trust.

Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around
a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers.
This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and
other benefits."

He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming
the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of
doubtful effectiveness."

http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...nder-14s-fails

--
Simon Mason

wrote:
> QUOTE:
> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>
> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...nder-14s-fails

Good. Glad it has been shelved. Now, a far better law would be one which
obliges children under 13 to undergo cycling proficiency training and to
pass a test. That was standard practice in my day, in the 1960s (not
compulsory of course) but I doubt if anyone expects kids to do this now, and
our roads are more dangerous than they were.

Coincidentally, in the London Metro newspaper today.....

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892453-h...says-new-study


‘Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or
not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,’ said Dr Carwyn
Hooper, from St George’s University of London. His team pointed to evidence
in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were
wearing helmets. However, he said children should be made to wear them
because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they
are more prone to.

On Mar 8, 9:43*am, wrote:
> QUOTE:
> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>
> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>
> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>
> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates
> the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher
> risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they
> are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."
>
> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
> Injury Trust.
>
> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
> CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around
> a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers.
> This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and
> other benefits."
>
> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming
> the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of
> doubtful effectiveness."
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>
> --
> Simon Mason

Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in
future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
plastic. And what about knees?

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:40:58 -0000, "Mr Benn" > wrote:

>A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
>Why do they do this?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU



Looks like they may be racing on the public highway.

On Mar 8, 9:40*am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
> Why do they do this?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU

O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
still sufficient space for cars to pass? What do you think they were
obstructing (to use the legal term)? It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
simple fellow you are!

thirty-six wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:43 am, wrote:
>> QUOTE:
>> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
>> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
>> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
>> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
>> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last
>> week.
>>
>> Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
>> bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
>> seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
>> as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>>
>> At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
>> cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
>> helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>>
>> "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
>> Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury
>> devastates the lives of individuals and their families. Children are
>> at a higher risk because not only are their brains not fully
>> developed but they are less experienced at cycling and on the roads
>> in general."
>>
>> The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
>> Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
>> Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
>> Injury Trust.
>>
>> Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
>> CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
>> attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
>> helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically
>> around a third, but with much higher reductions among children
>> teenagers. This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health,
>> environmental and other benefits."
>>
>> He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
>> particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
>> Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
>> these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
>> tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than
>> blaming the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective
>> headgear of doubtful effectiveness."
>>
>> http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>>
>> --
>> Simon Mason
>
> Hooray. It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
> stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
> polstyrene cap. When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in
> future. The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
> raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
> plastic. And what about knees?

The problem is that a bump as bad as you describe does irreparable brain
damage. Merely heading a football also does internal damage that has
lifelong consequences. So why risk it?

"thirty-six" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
>> Why do they do this?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
> the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> still sufficient space for cars to pass? What do you think they were
> obstructing (to use the legal term)? It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> simple fellow you are!

And you are a psycholist

On Mar 8, 10:38*am, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:43*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > QUOTE:
> > A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> > that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> > below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> > officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
> > will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>
> > Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
> > bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
> > seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
> > as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>
> > At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
> > cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
> > helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>
> > "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
> > Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates
> > the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher
> > risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they
> > are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."
>
> > The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
> > Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
> > Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
> > Injury Trust.
>
> > Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
> > CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
> > attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
> > helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around
> > a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers.
> > This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and
> > other benefits."
>
> > He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
> > particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
> > Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
> > these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
> > tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming
> > the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of
> > doubtful effectiveness."
>
> >http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> Hooray. * It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
> stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
> polstyrene cap. *When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in
> future. *The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
> raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
> plastic. *And what about knees?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course, A+E chastised me about not wearing a helmet after I bust a
*collar bone*.
They spent more time over that than treating the injury.

--
Simon Mason

thirty-six" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
>> Why do they do this?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> video

Narrowly missing the **** cycling in the middle of the road.

There was insufficient space for the car following the cyclists to pass them
safely. As this was a narrower road, the cyclists should have ridden in
single file to make it easier for the car to pass them. They could then
have resumed riding two-abreast once the car had passed. The Highway code
recommends cycling in single file on narrower roads.

This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards other
road users. Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like these?
Consideration for other road users goes both ways.

> what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
> the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> still sufficient space for cars to pass? What do you think they were
> obstructing (to use the legal term)? It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> simple fellow you are!