Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1098 - Cycling Helmet Bill 2017 (Second reading) Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Cycling Helmet Act 2017 (Second Reading), TSR Government



    Cycling Helmet Bill 2017 (Second Reading)
    An Act to give local councils the ability to set more stringent regulations on road safety where appropriate.



    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) "fixed penalty notice" is as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988.
    (2) "classified unnumbered roads" and "unclassified roads" are as defined by the Highways Agency.

    2: EMPOWERMENT OF LOCAL COUNCILS
    (1) Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be renamed: Restriction of carriage of persons on bicycles and miscellaneous provisions
    (2) The following shall be added to Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
    • (4) Local councils shall have the power to implement regulations such that all those cycling on road types not specifically exempted by Section 3 of the Cycling Helmet Act 2017 must where bicycle helmets whilst in transit.
      (5) The Secretary of State with responsibility for Transport may make regulations prescribing (by reference to shape, construction or any other quality) types of helmet recommended as affording protection to persons riding bicycles from injury in the event of accident.
      (6) Where such regulations are implemented it shall be an offence to breach them.



    3: EXEMPTIONS
    Classified unnumbered roads and unclassified roads are exempt from this Act.

    4: PENALTIES
    (1) If a person aged 14 or over is found guilty of committing an offence under Section 2 of this Act, 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.

    5: 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 most 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 common 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.

    Classified Unnumbered Road – third class of classified road, and a tier in the roads classification system. Identified by the local highway authority and approved by the Secretary of State. No number is officially associated with a classified unnumbered road, although the local highway authority is entitled to develop its own methods to identify it.
    Unclassified Road – fourth and lowest class of classified road in the classification system. If not stated otherwise, roads are assumed to be unclassified. No number is officially associated with an unclassified road, although the local highway authority is entitled to develop its own methods to identify it.

    - Department for Transport

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n-guidance.pdf
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/24


    Changes for the Second Reading:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    • 'Residential roads' changed to be less ambitious by using current road classifications.
    • Mechanism for approving which kinds of helmets are appropriate has been introduced by emulating the legislative situation that exists for motorcycle helmets.
    • Clarity as to how the fine works introduced by rewording.
    • Notes amended slightly and section giving more detailed definitions of road types added.

    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I very much like this idea.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    adam9317 It seems private messaging has been savaging the bill formatting. Could we get the spaces inbetween sections in there please?
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    adam9317 It seems private messaging has been savaging the bill formatting. Could we get the spaces inbetween sections in there please?
    Sorted, formatting can be strange sometimes!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    Sorted, formatting can be strange sometimes!
    Thanks.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I very much like this idea.
    I see the muzzle's been removed
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What a waste. Why don't we set up the department of Bicycle safety next. ffs. If I don't want to wear a helmet and put myself in risk, I shouldn't have to pay a fine for it. Can't you find another way of extorting money from me? Taxes are already high enough.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Totalitarianism doesn't arrive in jackboots. It entices you with a dead-eyed smile and a slowly tightening grip. The State has no business in whether I elect to wear a safety helmet or not. Nay.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    What a waste. Why don't we set up the department of Bicycle safety next. ffs. If I don't want to wear a helmet and put myself in risk, I shouldn't have to pay a fine for it. Can't you find another way of extorting money from me? Taxes are already high enough.
    Basically this, it's a victimless crime, the only person suffering in a bike crash without a helmet is the idiot on the bike, this shouldn't incur a fine...

    Nay.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    What a waste. Why don't we set up the department of Bicycle safety next. ffs. If I don't want to wear a helmet and put myself in risk, I shouldn't have to pay a fine for it. Can't you find another way of extorting money from me? Taxes are already high enough.
    (Original post by jape)
    Totalitarianism doesn't arrive in jackboots. It entices you with a dead-eyed smile and a slowly tightening grip. The State has no business in whether I elect to wear a safety helmet or not. Nay.
    When was the last time either of you consciously elected not to wear a safety helmet for the sake of not doing so, rather than thinking 'I can't be bothered/I'm not going that far/I'm not going on a road'?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    When was the last time either of you consciously elected not to wear a safety helmet for the sake of not doing so, rather than thinking 'I can't be bothered/I'm not going that far/I'm not going on a road'?
    I don't cycle much, although when I did I generally didn't bother to wear a helmet. Not that that's here or there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    You see how we design things that are meant to reduce risk, but do not actually reduce risk, because those who use it think they can get away with doing something riskier, that is, the so called risk compensation.
    Surely the big towns and cities should be improving their infrastructure in order to take cars and lorries off the road. In fact, the 1960s rail cuts should never have happened. The car shouldn't have been so heavily marketed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    When was the last time either of you consciously elected not to wear a safety helmet for the sake of not doing so, rather than thinking 'I can't be bothered/I'm not going that far/I'm not going on a road'?
    It seems you've missed the point about totalitarianism. Even if I can't be bothered, so what? Doesn't mean the government should force me to be bothered.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Totalitarianism doesn't arrive in jackboots. It entices you with a dead-eyed smile and a slowly tightening grip. The State has no business in whether I elect to wear a safety helmet or not. Nay.

    And yet - and perhaps my history is rusty - totalitarianism does arrive in jackboots. It arrives with secret police, political prisoners, the demonisation of minoritites and the dissemination of propaganda. Your distaste for government does not justify your being hysterical.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Basically this, it's a victimless crime, the only person suffering in a bike crash without a helmet is the idiot on the bike, this shouldn't incur a fine... Nay.
    Then, by your own logic, it isn't victimless, for one can be one's own victim. Furthermore, I'd suggest that anyone involved, even in the smallest way, in an accident were an unhelmeted cyclist died would be very much affected.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I yearn for the day that we have to wear helmets in automobiles too, per an edict by this progressive government, of course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, I feel that this would dissuade many people from cycling at all, especially if it is to work or social events.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Basically this, it's a victimless crime, the only person suffering in a bike crash without a helmet is the idiot on the bike, this shouldn't incur a fine...

    Nay.
    If people would make poor decisions on their own, the state has a moral obligation to intervene and help or force them to make the correct ones.
 
 
 
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: February 5, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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