Compulsory lid legislation?

Discussion in 'Helmet Discussions' started by Drago, 24 Nov 2017.

  1. OP

    Drago Guru

    Central Trumpland
    I don't think anyone disputes measures with a genuine safety benefit, like ensuring machines have guards, stairs have guard rails, dim factory areas are well lit, that sort of thing. Its the Nanny State (tm) end of the spectrum that upsets folk.

    Regulations insisting on fluorescent wear for road workers, when the research carried out by the very same government that introduced the legislation had found no proven safety benefit, would likely fall into that category.

    That's why I'm deeply suspicious when the Government tells us that any helmet legislation form cyclists would be evidence based. They've ignored the evidence of their own scientists and statisticians in the past, so why should we suddenly believe them now?
    mjr, classic33 and Julia9054 like this.
  2. Hitchington

    Hitchington Lovely stuff

    That London
    I agree that any legislation has to come from evidence. If evidence does come to light that helmet wearing improves safety then I will wear mine all the time. If legislation is introduced which makes it compulsory then I will continue to ride and accept the rule.

    Wearing hi viz vests on building sites aren't a problem of personal liberty, are they?
    Last edited by a moderator: 26 Nov 2017
    NickNick likes this.
  3. Hitchington

    Hitchington Lovely stuff

    That London
    Why can't I edit my spelling mistakes in this thread?
    Drago likes this.
  4. YukonBoy

    YukonBoy Veteran

    Hiviz was originally introduced on the railways to enable train drivers to pick out railway workers up to a mile out to allow for the high speed trains and increased stopping distances. Many rail tracks are straight and trains have much longer stopping distances. For the road these conditions do not apply and hiviz is not necessary.
  5. Crackle

    Crackle Pah

    Because it's pre-moderated, you have to report what you want changing.
    Drago likes this.
  6. Cycleops

    Cycleops Veteran

    Accra, Ghana
    numbnuts likes this.
  7. MontyVeda

    MontyVeda a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll

    Dunno... probably not. It depends
    I sometimes cycle on the pavement and I will jump a red light if it's midnight and there's no other vehicles around... some laws are optional in my book.
    Brandane and NickNick like this.
  8. User1252

    User1252 Guest

    The majority of train lines are rural, so a line worker, or group of line workers, in orange will stand out as the sole bright objects against a drab background. The same cannot be said for cyclists in urban settings.
    TinyMyNewt and raleighnut like this.
  9. Profpointy

    Profpointy Guru

    Although it's presumably a tongue in cheek though experiment it would likely save lives, especially pedestrian lives. It is a horrible injustice that those outside the car have to suffer the risk without any benefit whilst those inside are protected and get the benefit
  10. Profpointy

    Profpointy Guru

    It would be good if legislation was based on evidence, but I remain cynical. So many of the pro-helmet organisations use dubious evidence and out and out lies. If you hadn't done any reading up on it you'd naturally assume helmets had a safety benefit, as did I before I looked into it a bit more. A lot of safety regulation is more about vested interest than actual safety in any case. Not all, granted, for the avoidance of doubt I am not proposing a return to pre-victorian health and safety regs
    raleighnut likes this.
  11. NickNick

    NickNick Well-Known Member

    There's a big difference between health & safety laws in the work place and those impacting people going about their day to day life imo.

    There is a disproportionate level of power as things stand between the employer and the worker, so there's good reason to have strong legislation that errs on the side of caution even if its not backed up by sound evidence, as there can be such a gap in time in being able to scientifically prove some of these risks. Your employer has the ability to withdraw you pay check and by default the roof over your head and more, that can force you take all sorts of risks that you are not comfortable with, legislation gives you a stronger chance of not having to take those risks. It therefore imo increases your personal freedom.

    I know some might argue "what about your freedom to take risks at work", but imo the number of people likely to be harmed by being forced to take risks they do not want to take will vastly outnumber those wanting to take those risks voluntarily.

    Outside of the work context however is a very different matter, legislation directly impinges your personal freedom and should only be supported if it protects others from your actions (e.g. speed limits on cars, drink driving, rules around cycling in shared spaces with pedestrians...)
  12. Profpointy

    Profpointy Guru

    I agree with every word of that
    NickNick likes this.
  13. Profpointy

    Profpointy Guru

    Not quite sure why or what you are arguing. You seem to be making the same point as me whilst attacking me for making the opposite point
  14. Julia9054

    Julia9054 Veteran

    Jon George, mjr, raleighnut and 3 others like this.
  15. Hitchington

    Hitchington Lovely stuff

    That London
    Not attacking, but I was questioning why you think the Tories are custodians of freedom but lefties want to spoil everyone's fun with rules and a nanny state.
    FishFright likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice