Turn on thread page Beta

B1098 – Cycling Helmet Bill 2017 watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B1098 – Cycling Helmet Bill 2017, TSR Government

    Cycling Helmet Bill 2017
    An Act to ensure cyclists wear helmets when cycling on roads

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1: Definitions
    (1) Residential roads are roads in built-up areas where the speed limit is 30mph or less and there are private houses on it, not offices or factories.
    (2) A fixed penalty fine is money that is paid by the offender to the Government.

    2: Helmets whilst Cycling
    Local councils shall be given the power to force people cycling on roads, excluding residential roads, to wear a helmet.

    3: Penalties
    (1) If a person aged 14 or over is found guilty of breaking this law, they shall be forced to pay a fixed penalty fine of £60.
    (2) If a person under 14 is found guilty of breaking this law, their parents, guardian or carer shall be forced to pay a fixed penalty fine of £60 after receiving an initial warning.

    4: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
    (1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
    (2) The provisions of this Act come into force on 1st April 2017 for Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield and Bradford and on 1st October 2017 for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the Cycling Helmet Act 2017.


    Notes
    If local councils decided to force cyclists to wear helmets when cycling on busy roads, 74% of cycling-related head injuries could be prevented. Under this piece of legislation, cyclists will still have a choice of whether they wear a helmet or not when they are on residential roads and in the countryside as the risk of serious injury is dramatically reduced here. However, on busy roads, cyclists can be very vulnerable indeed. Cycle helmets can be purchased very cheaply so cyclists will not have to be concerned about the cost involved. However, in some areas of the country, accidents involving bicycles are very indeed, hence why local councils will decide whether to force people to wear helmets in their respective area, and not the Government. Wearing a helmet on a busy road causes little inconvenience to the cyclist but could have the potential to save their life if they are involved in an accident; the positives simply outweigh the negatives.
    • Section Leader
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Aye. Seems sensible to me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay if someone wants to risk their own life then they should be allowed
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, the more dead cyclists the better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    nay

    http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/defau...videncebrf.pdf
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Nay.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Aye.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    1) What does "built up" mean in this context? Do you mean exclusively private houses? What about offices running out of a person's private house?
    2) It should be are, not shall be. The latter allows for this to apply at some indeterminate point in the future.
    3) Why 14? Why £60? The wording does not make clear whether the warning directly precedes the fine in response to a single instance, or two separate instances. I know what you mean, but it isn't clear.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Though I have plenty of sympathy for this viewpoint

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, the more dead cyclists the better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A dead body on the road does cause a fair bit of inconvenience, so on that basis it's an unenthusiastic aye.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Look into the actual research of the use of helmets - it doesn't necessarily save lives. That might be hard to comprehend, but just have a look..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Such a law would actively discourage, for example, me from cycling because for me it is not simply a matter of 'putting it on and going'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, nanny Labourites.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It's aye from me seems reasonable

    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Look into the actual research of the use of helmets - it doesn't necessarily save lives. That might be hard to comprehend, but just have a look..
    Yeah of course you can still die with or without a helmet on. But with a helmet on it lessens the damage the person could have taken.

    (Original post by ChargingStag)
    Nay. Such a law would actively discourage, for example, me from cycling because for me it is not simply a matter of 'putting it on and going'.
    Why would it discourage you from cycling? :holmes: your not afraid of helmet hair are you?

    Posted from OtherWorld
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    It's aye from me seems reasonable



    Yeah of course you can still die with or without a helmet on. But with a helmet on it lessens the damage the person could have taken.

    Posted from OtherWorld
    Iff the damage is to he head, for damage anywhere else it does a grand total of jack ****.

    As in aside, I've just read that cycle accidents are sexist, with men being the victims about 80% of the time

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Iff the damage is to he head, for damage anywhere else it does a grand total of jack ****.

    As in aside, I've just read that cycle accidents are sexist, with men being the victims about 80% of the time

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah well the head is most important part of the body, any seroius injury to head could be life threatening.

    Tbh most guys cycle you don't get that much females cyclist tbf. Plus most guys are reckless so it make sense for the figure to be high for men

    If you wanna protect the entire body then people should start wearing this lol :teehee:

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Yeah well the head is most important part of the body, any seroius injury to head could be life threatening.

    Tbh most guys cycle you don't get that much females cyclist tbf. Plus most guys are reckless so it make sense for the figure to be high for men

    If you wanna protect the entire body then people should start wearing this lol :teehee:

    And if you make that compulsory, sure, you've probably stopped most of the ~100 deaths a year, but that's because they're at home or on a bus getting diabetes instead.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And if you make that compulsory, sure, you've probably stopped most of the ~100 deaths a year, but that's because they're at home or on a bus getting diabetes instead.
    Well thats one way to stop cyclist from the roads lol :rofl:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Well thats one way to stop cyclist from the roads lol :rofl:
    I prefer just having them get ran over when they break the rules.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 27, 2017
The home of Results and Clearing

1,299

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.