United Kingdom – “Boa and I took the Newark road for the last hour of daylight. He ambles at forty-five and when roaring his utmost, surpasses the hundred.
A skittish motor-bike with a touch of blood in it is better than all the riding animals on earth, because of its logical extension of our faculties, and the hint, the provocation, to excess conferred by its honeyed untiring smoothness.
Because Boa loves me, he gives me five more miles of speed than a stranger would get from him”.
Original Source: T E Lawrence
This 1000cc motorcycle was the prized possession of T E Lawrence, better known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, and the machine on which he was killed in May of 1935.
Lawrence’s Brough Superior was tailor-made by George Brough himself and cost 170 pounds in 1932.
This was the seventh Brough that Lawrence had owned. He named each in succession ‘George 1′ to ‘George VII’, and also referred to some of them, including this model, as ‘Boanerges’ or ‘Boa’ (Son of Thunder). His seventh motorcycle is on display at the Imperial War Museum.
The Brough Superior was the fastest and most expensive machine on the road at the time. It easily reached speeds of over 100 mph and was at the cutting edge of 1930′s design. The motorcycle was Lawrence’s constant companion on the deserted country roads of pre-war Britain. Long distance visits to friends such as Winston Churchill or Lady Astor were achieved in record time. ‘It is the silkiest thing I have ever ridden…’ Lawrence would famously say.
Original Source: Click Here
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, CB, DSO (16 August 1888 – 19 May 1935), was a British Army officer renowned especially for his liaison role during the Arab Revolt against Ottoman Turkish rule of 1916–18. The extraordinary breadth and variety of his activities and associations, and his ability to describe them vividly in writing, earned him international fame as Lawrence of Arabia, a title popularised by the 1962 film based on his life.
Original Source: Click Here
At the age of 46, two months after leaving the service, Lawrence was fatally injured in an accident on his Brough Superior SS100 motorcycle in Dorset, close to his cottage, Clouds Hill, near Wareham.
A dip in the road obstructed his view of two boys on their bicycles; he swerved to avoid them, lost control and was thrown over the handlebars. He died six days later on 19 May 1935.
The spot is marked by a small memorial at the side of the road.
One of the several doctors attending him was a young neurosurgeon, Hugh Cairns.
He was moved by the tragedy in a way that was to have far-reaching consequences. At the beginning of the Second World War, he highlighted the unnecessary loss of life among army motorcycle dispatch riders as a result of head injuries. His research concluded that the adoption of crash helmets as standard by both military and civilian motorcyclists would result in considerable saving of life.
It was 32 years later, however, that motorcycle crash helmets were made compulsory in the United Kingdom. As a consequence of treating T.E. Lawrence and through his research at Oxford, Sir Hugh Cairns’ work largely pioneered legislation for protective headgear by motorcyclists and subsequently in the workplace and for many sports worldwide. (…).
Original Source: Click Here
It is ironic that Lawrence, a man so passionate about motorcycling was, through the manner in which he died, responsible for the Helmet Law.
Fred Hill and the Helmet Law
A former army dispatch rider during WW2, Fred worked for many years as a mathematics teacher before leaving to enjoy what he doubtless expected would be a quiet retirement. Incensed by the compulsory helmet law, Fred rode everywhere in an old beret and collected hundreds of tickets, which he stored in a large suitcase. Fred’s refusal to pay the fines for helmet-less riding constituted ‘Contempt of Court’ for which he was given thirty one custodial sentences.
With the passage of time, police in Fred’s neighbourhood frequently turned a blind eye to his indiscretions, though when he went further afield he would invariably be stopped. In order to cover the necessary distances Fred replaced his Honda 50 with a 250 and on one occasion, he battled all the way to the Gower Peninsula in Wales and back, a distance of about 500 miles in one day despite appalling weather.
Fred Hill was seventy four years old when on the 10th February 1984 he died from a heart attack suffered whilst in custody in London’s Pentonville Prison. His final sentence of 60 days, proving too much to take, was half completed. The prison governor had warned Fred that the harsh prison environment could be the death of him, to which Fred replied that, ‘it didn’t matter where a man died but how.’
Original Source: Click Here
In 2010, the wearing of a helmet is considered a normal state of affairs in Europe and in most other countries throughout the world, with the exception of the USA where the helmet law is decided by state legislators and not all states have legislation making motorcycle helmets mandatory.
Within Europe there is however one organisation that still adheres to the principle of free choice.
Ian Mutch, President of the Motorcycle Action Group and editor of The Road, MAG UK’s members’ magazine explains the founding principle of this Riders’ Rights organisation in an interview in 2003.
“What MAG started out as was something extremely simple, it was a bunch of people who didn’t like being told what to wear and the helmet law was really the founding issue. Up till then – I’d been riding bikes for four years then in 1973 and the helmet law came out. Now I wasn’t aware of any anti biker problems whatsoever, or there may have been some prejudice but I wasn’t aware of it. But when that came out it seemed to me like the end of the world, it was certainly a dramatic change in the world.
I used to wear a helmet probably 70% of the time, but on a day like today if I was riding around in the sunshine, slow old bike that I had then, I wouldn’t wear one and I still wouldn’t today even though I’ve got a much faster bike – although I don’t go that fast but this isn’t really the point.
The point is that what had been challenged was a fundamental civil liberty. Because what the government was saying was “We have the right to make you do what we think is right for your own good” but to neglect that proportion which we’re advocating is not going to harm anybody else and I couldn’t think at that time of another law which in the same way fundamentally attacked the civil liberties of an individual – not in quite the same way.
My feeling was then as it is now, for a law to be legitimate it really has to satisfy a number of criteria. Number one it has to be necessary and if you took a look at the situation just prior to the helmet law about 88% of people were wearing helmets voluntarily, so the number of people being affected was very small”.
Trevor Baird, General Secretary of MAG UK resigned in 2008 and in his farewell speech to the Annual General Conference said:
“We talk about helmets and whether this debate still has a purpose for MAG. The way I see it, helmets keep out the cold; they keep out insects and the occasional pigeon. Whether helmets save lives or not, I don’t know, I ride because it gives me pleasure, and I don’t waste my time worrying about the consequences.
The principle of MAG’s objection to the helmet law is not an umbilical attachment, but a philosophy that underpins MAG’s existence. Thus, every action we have taken, every action we should take, centres around this one fundamental principle. It’s not about whether you wear a helmet or in fact any form of protection, it’s about whether you choose to do so. It’s a way of life that I share with my friends and fellow riders.
The culture of safety and security eats away at everything we do and dinosaurs like myself, find it harder to explain that each of us must stand up and be counted. Helmets, protective clothing, leg protectors, electronic safety devices may or may not save us. Our wits and God’s favour might. But in the end, we must have the right to live our lives as we see fit, respecting our fellow man, but in freedom”.
The death of Lawrence was a catalyst that had profound consequences for motorcycling throughout the world. From Lawrence’s death and over the years, doctors, policy makers, insurers and more recently, motorcyclists themselves, have decreed that safety legislation should now replace the freedom to choose whether we wear a helmet, how we ride our motorcycles and even what motorcycles we should ride: we must be saved from ourselves and consequently, we may see in the not too distant future that all that remains are our dreams.
“All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible”. (T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars Of Wisdom)
Elaine Hardy, PhD
If helmets are so important in saving our lives why is it that cyclists still don’t have to wear a helmet, or roller skaters they still have the choice, also what of those quad bikes or trikes, in fact the only people who have to wear a helmet by law are two wheeled motorcyclists that’s it.
So if helmets are so important shouldn’t the law be applied across the board to all open top vehicles including cars, when driving an open top car you must by law wear a helmet.
The I suspect the reason why only motorcycles were targeted with the helmet law is because at the time the motor car was becoming a popular choice of vehicle but motorcycles still had a huge part of the market and what better way to turn people off of motorcycles than to force them to wear something no other transport needed.
So it was a way of getting rid of the competition between cars and motorcycles.
Helmets on motorcycles don’t save lives they often take lives, in the rare occasion when they actually perform their function it’s due to the fact that the rider is carrying around a huge heavy load on his neck and thus the head is forced into the ground under the weight of the extra load on his neck.
So obviously the helmet forcing your head into the ground then has a duty to protect you from the impact injury it instigated.
At the very least riding around the city motorcyclists should be allowed to wear a bicycle helmet thus keeping cool during the summer and some level of choice in the winter.
More motorcyclists suffer neck injuries than head injuries, so much so that they are looking into ways to produce yet more weight to carry around the bottom of a helmet to support the neck on impact, the simple solution is not wearing a helmet or the very least a bicycle helmet as they are much lighter and offer ventilation.
But under the law a motorcyclist must wear a helmet of an approved type made for motorcycle riding, which means heavy, which means neck injuries and serious health problems when they could be avoided.
Helmet tech has moved on cyclists get to experience that step forward but as a choice motorcyclists are forced to wear something that will injure them in a collision, it’s time for change.
Hi Hardly,
Maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly – I agree with you!! I wrote “They don’t make much difference in severe collisions – the reason is because in those circumstances most fatalities or serious injuries are multiple – so not just head injuries. That’s quite different from falling off your bike or hitting a wall at a low speed and wacking your head – it stands to reason that in these instances – protection offers exactly that”.
May I add that I agree about the G force etc and in that respect the latest developments of experimental helmets include counteracting material that apparently can stop your brain from being mashed against your skull. But that’s as far as these helmets have got I understand – maybe they cost too much to produce or failed to do what was expected of them.
My understanding – corresponding with Jim Ouellet and other people I know more expert than me on helmets, is that the SNELL standard is far below the standards used in for example the UK – i.e. SHARP.
Regards helmet laws in the US – this is of no interest to me – I don’t live there,
What I do know is that I lived in Italy where the introduction of the helmet law came in to force in 2000. Before that I rode around on my scooter – no helmet, no gloves, mini skirt and only fell off once, skinning my knees. It never occurred to me that a helmet could matter – and I suspect I didn’t care anyway. Now everybody wears a helmet – not because they care about the law – who does in Italy? But because they actually believe they make a difference.
So I go back to my original statement – in severe collisions – helmets don’t really make any difference, but in slight (less severe) collisions – they do and I refer to the great Harry Hurt and Jim Ouellet as my source (along with my mates at the FSNI).
All the best.
Elaine
My comments concerned the efficacy of helmets, and I suggest that the technology of motorcycle helmets is very similar worldwide. I hadn’t expected you would take my comments without a fight. After all, I am attacking the motorcyclist religion. However, I had hoped that some folks reading my heretical comments would at least evaluate them by scientific method.
And may I suggest that mandatory helmet laws are a separate issue from the degree to which a typical approved helmet might help prevent a fatality during a crash. Yes, I agree without reservation that helmets protect the head, even in high speed impacts. But there is really no practical way to test the g-force limits to which a human brain can be exposed without causing serious or fatal injury. If we were in Germany in 1942, we would simply strap helmets on human test victims, and measure how much head bashing they could take short of death. We’re not there, and bleeding-heart activists would be quick to complain about such measurements, even if we used inmates on death row. No one seems to know how much energy a human brain can take without injury. It’s not just motorcyclists, but football players (US football as in the NFL, not EU football) who are struggling with the concept of brain protection and permanent debilitating brain injuries.
May I suggest that helmet efficacy doesn’t change from country to country, or standard to standard? Helmet testing is very similar worldwide, with only minor adjustments to the specifications. Tests use theoretical g-force limits for impacts, which are low enough to protect the skull from fractures. And obviously, a helmet will protect the scalp, ears, etc. The big problem is that the human brain is very easily injured. I cannot find anyone who suggests g-force limits to which a human brain can be subjected. The US helmet test, FMVSS-218 allows a 400g maximum impact, without regard to the dynamics of the brain. An accelerometer is mounted rigidly within the headform (typically made of magnesium) in the position representing the center of a human brain. I am not aware of any helmet certification test that treats the head as anything more than a solid mass, not a complex composition of soft squishable tissue inside a flexible bone.
Next time you are conversing with a brain specialist, you might ask if a 400g impact would be survivable.
So, yes, I agree that helmets provide protection. But I suggest that they don’t provide enough protection to cause any significant reduction in the fatality rates–in any country.
And yes, you may put me down as an apostate of the motorcycle faith, no longer genuflecting to the gods of “motorcycle safety” or the religious symbols some worship as adequate countermeasures to the danger.
Hi Hardly,
It looks like you’ve had time on your hands and looked through our stuff. With regards helmets – the simple answer is that they do make a big difference in minor collisions – to protect the rider’s head.
They don’t make much difference in severe collisions – the reason is because in those circumstances most fatalities or serious injuries are multiple – so not just head injuries. That’s quite different from falling off your bike or hitting a wall at a low speed and wacking your head – it stands to reason that in these instances – protection offers exactly that.
Your country’s laws are unique and don’t really matter much here, because here, helmets are mandatory everywhere. Our information comes from road traffic collision investigation units such as the study I carried out with the Northern Ireland Forensic Science Unit.
The 30 times, 40 times more likely to die stuff is misleading, because typically million miles/kilometres travelled is used as the basis for comparison – and that’s “iffy” at best, simply because the surveys to determine this measurement are seriously biased and unreliable – so I prefer to use proportions of parc (registered vehicles on the road) as a comparison.
I return to the previous comments I made to you – it’s all relative depending on which country you live in. There is another matter which relates to standards. My understanding is that the Snell standard in the US is very different from the CE standards used here in Europe. Anyway, maybe that’s another discussion to be had?
Thanks for bringing this discussion to our attention. One important part of the helmet law discussion/debate is the real efficacy of helmets. Do helmets really help avoid fatal injuries? In countries where PPE is mandatory, it’s difficult to answer that question, other than with theoretical studies.
The USA provides an interesting lead into the answer, since there is no national helmet wearing law. Each state in the USA passes Personal Protective Equipment laws independently. Since different states allow some motorcyclists to drive without mandatory helmets, we have a very real experiment worth evaluating. One state, Illinois, has never had a mandatory helmet law, so we could compare IL with surrounding states to see if there is an indication that wearing helmets actually results in a reduction of the fatality rate. But of course there are many different climates and traffic environments in the USA, so only comparing three or four states might not be indicative of the entire nation.
To be more realistic, let’s collect all the crash data from all states, and compare percentages of unhelmeted fatals with percentages of helmeted fatals, averaged over four years to even out the bumps and dips. Let’s look at the average of 2011 through 2014. We will include only motorcycle drivers, not passenger vehicle occupants, pedestrians, or others involved in a motorcycle crash.
total MC driver fatalities unhelmeted MC driver fatalities helmeted MC driver fatalities
4,130 1,674 2,460
unhelmeted as percentage of crashes: 0.35
unhelmeted as percentage of total fatalities: 0.40
helmeted as percentage of crashes: 0.65
helmeted as percentage of total fatalities: 0.60
What the above indicates is that not wearing a helmet during a motorcycle crash results in a 0.05 greater chance of death. Wearing a helmet results in 0.05 less chance of death.
Or, to put this in perspective, helmets do provide an advantage in avoiding fatal head injuries the USA, but it’s not nearly the advantage we wish it were.
To put this another way, your chance of being killed driving a motorcycle in the USA while helmeted, compared to driving an automobile in the USA is about 30 times. (not 30% but 3,000%) Not wearing a helmet, you are about 40 times as likely to die driving a motorcycle as when driving an automobile, mile for mile. (4,000%)
So, even if governments decided that helping you save your own life was more important than your personal liberty, helmet laws are not very effective, at least not in the USA. Motorcycling is extremely dangerous (compared to driving a passenger vehicle) and mandatory helmet laws cannot make a dent in that.
I am a biker of some 35 years standing. When I was 17, I had a VERY serious motorcycle crash, courtesy of white van man, in which I very nearly got killed. I was wearing a minimal standard crash helmet which whilst legal, actually contributed to my injuries as it was a full-face polycarbonate type but critically, it had no cutaway at the back of the head to allow for neck flexion. I was extremely lucky not to have suffered a broken neck, but the direct impact resistance of that type of helmet was not sufficient to prevent my skull from being fractured.
If I’d worn NO helmet, you wouldn’t be reading this. I’d have been dead for 34 and a half years. If I’d been wearing a proper full-face helmet, like the ones I’ve always worn since, I’d not have had my skull fractured.
So in my particular case, wearing a helmet worked out best for ME. Given the CHOICE, I’d be inclined to wear one anyway. But as a member of MAG, I’ll defend anyone’s RIGHT to be able to make that choice for themselves.
In case you are wondering what I do for a living: I am a Driving Instructor. One who continually EDUCATES his students to be Bike Aware!!!
I do not believe that the rider should have the onus of avoiding a collision laid SOLELY with him/her. DRIVER AND RIDER EDUCATION is what is needed. Not draconian legislation affecting one party only.
Further to the above article. When the helmet issue was being debated in the House of Commons, what is absolutely fascinating is that the champion of the cause of liberty and freedom of choice was Enoch Powell (Rivers of Blood fame) – he fought against the helmet law.
The link to the debate held in April 1973 here http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1973/apr/05/motor-cyclists-helmets
However, below is part of that debate, which (I think) all MAG people should read considering the fact that the organisation celebrates its 40th year.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)
It is a matter for censure, for censure upon the manner in which the House conducts its business, that we have been unable to avail ourselves of the opportunity provided by statute for having a proper debate upon these regulations, a debate which could be brought to a conclusion in a proper way. None of us can take any satisfaction from the fact that instead we are debating a motion in formal terms and that the Division which will take place will be a means not of deciding whether the regulations are to remain in effect, but of expressing an advisory opinion.
Another ground for regret about this debate is that, for reasons which we well understand, the attendance in the 757 House is not one which matches the importance of the issue, and is likely to be interpreted outside as indicating that we disregard either the opinions or the interests of a considerable section of our fellow citizens.
All hon. Members have had considerable correspondence on this subject in recent weeks. Whatever conclusion they have reached, they will have been impressed with the responsible attitude which virtually all their correspondence showed, and by the fact that most of the people from whom it came were people who have had long experience of motor cycling and who place the strongest emphasis on example as well as personal practice in taking all reasonable precautions when motor cycling.
§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this has been compounded because a Prayer was tabled on the raising of the age—another important matter for motor cyclists—but that Prayer was not debated. Motor cyclists feel that they have been totally neglected by the House.
§ Mr. Powell
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that we cannot debate issues at the time when we have ourselves laid down that they should be debated.
The correspondence showed a greater grasp than many of my hon. Friends of the real principle that is at issue in these regulations. The writers of the letters realise that the law is making it a criminal offence for a person to behave in a way which endangers solely the person concerned and in no way places any other person at risk. At no stage, either in this discussion or on the previous occasion to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) referred, has it ever been suggested that a motor cyclist by wearing or not wearing a helmet increases or diminishes the risk to other road users.
§ Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Middleton and Prestwich)
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if another party is involved in an accident with a motor cyclist who is not wearing a helmet and that motor cyclist perishes, the other party might suffer considerable mental anguish for the rest of his life?
758
§ Mr. Powell
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is not trying to strengthen my argument. Certainly, his intervention must direct hon. Members’ minds to what precisely is at issue and what this criminal offence is concerned with. It is not concerned with the effect upon other people’s minds, upon their emotions, upon their feelings. The issue is whether any increase of risk whatsoever to any other road user is involved, and no one has claimed that it is.
§ Mr. Money rose—
§ Mr. Powell
No, I cannot give way. We have to be brief, and my hon. Friend’s previous interventions were not such as to encourage his colleagues to permit their repetition.
In creating this criminal offence we are doing something for which at present there is no parallel. There is no criminal offence to be found on the statute book the nature of which endangers the safety of the person concerned and no one else.
Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) can quote innumerable cases—
§ Mr. William Shelton (Clapham)
Suicide.
§ Mr. Powell
Suicide is not a criminal offence.
§ Mr. Norman Fowler (Nottingham, South)
Drugs.
§ Mr. Powell
I am aware of the point about drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock can quote innumerable instances where an employer or a person who sells an article or offers a facility is required to behave in a particular way with a view to the potential safety of the employee or the purchaser or whatever second or third party it may be; but we shall look in vain for a parallel to this criminal offence where the individual himself is solely concerned and inflicts no risk upon any other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) mentioned drugs, and I admit that this is the nearest we have come to establishing a criminal offence such as I have defined. Nevertheless, even there the nature of drug-taking in many cases is such that it cannot but inflict harm upon others. I am not saying that can be absolutely 759 stated, and I concede that we have an approach to this nature of criminal offence in the context of drugs; but certainly in no other area has a criminal offence of this nature been created. We are debating something which is new and which is a major departure of principle; and it is at any rate right that we should recognise that we are doing it and consider why.
§ Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is very courteous in doing so. He has sought to draw distinctions between industrial safety legislation, where the onus is laid upon the employer, and this proposed measure. Would he favour extending the law to, for example, employers of people in a motor cycle dispatch organisation—those employed by an organisation to carry messages?
§ Mr. Powell
Certainly, where one person employs another, although I must look at the details, I am prepared in principle to say that it should be made an offence to employ a person if at the same time one does not provide for his health, safety, and the rest.
§ Mr. Whitehead
And insure?
§ Mr. Powell
And insure as far as an employer can. I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman in that. His intervention has helped to bring out the new character of what is being done here and the essential importance of the line which is being crossed.
On what ground are we invited to do this? We are told, first, that avoidable accidents—and nearly all accidents are in one sense or another avoidable—increase the cost imposed on the National Health Service. That is a fallacy, because the cost is not determined by the demands on the NHS but upon the supply, by what we decide from year to year to spend upon the Service.
But then it is said—and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said it in a previous debate—that it shifts the resources of the NHS from one sort of case to another. Of course we could enter into endless consideration of the reasons which brought patients to be treated under the NHS—all manner of avoidable accidents, unwise courses of 760 life, unwise behaviour of every kind. Are we to make all these criminal offences because the consequences might be to divert the use of resources inside the NHS?
At other times the argument is broadened. We are told that every one has people who are dependent on him— most of us do—or linked with him humanly in one way or another, and that therefore we ought to create a criminal offence in order to punish a person for endangering the support or affectionate feelings of those with whom he is linked, or to prevent him from doing so.
The House must perceive how far we shall be taken if we embark upon that course. There is hardly a single decision which a man can take, certainly no important decision, no decision even about what sport to engage in, without affecting potentially the welfare of his family, the interests of his friends and the affections of those with whom he is linked. If we do this thing on such grounds, we shall be laying the basis for a series of new laws which will reach right into every act, every form of behaviour, every choice of the average citizen.
The last and the most beguiling argument—and I imagine it is the argument which operates upon those hon. Members who will reject my argument and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South—is that if this crime is created there will be fewer road casualties from this cause. That is the most alarming argument of all that could be used in this House of Commons: that because by doing so we could reduce the number of deaths from a particular cause—not deaths inflicted by other people’s carelessness, not deaths resulting from the omission of precautions which those who manufacture articles or sell them could have been caused to take, but deaths resulting from private and uniquely personal decisions—therefore we can make it a crime to take that sort of risk.
That argument is the most dangerous because it is the most beguiling. When one bastion after another of individual freedom, of independence, is breached, it does not happen in an unpopular context. It does not happen when the reasons for doing so are unattractive. It does so when sentiment and emotion and the 761 feelings of all of us are engaged. None of us likes to contemplate the notion of a young man whose life could have been saved being lost because he was not wearing a crash helmet. Our first natural instinct and reaction, having legislative power in our hands, is to use that legislative power.
But that is where the danger lies. The abuse of legislative power by this House is far more serious and more far-reaching in its effects than the loss of individual lives through foolish decisions. [Interruption.] I say just that and I repeat that, as a Member of the House of Commons speaking to the House of Commons. The maintenance of the principles of individual freedom and responsibility is more important than the avoidance of the loss of lives through the personal decision of individuals, whether those lives are lost swimming or mountaineering or boating, or riding horseback, or on a motor cycle.
We are sent here to make laws and to preserve liberties. If we allow this regulation to stand, we shall have failed in the duties we were sent here to perform.
Thanks Mark for your comments, but that wasn’t the point of the article. The point was to give background to the helmet law and an insight into a specific organisation that chose the helmet law as a case in point regarding civil liberties. Ultimately in a collision, a helmet is part of protective clothing and can in some circumstances, save lives. In many other circumstances it is useless. The best protection is prevention. That’s the message to get across.
I have ridden motorcycles for over 40 years and always wear minimum helmet, jacket and gloves for protection. For me, this is not due to the laws (Australian) which require a helmet, I believe it is safer to wear the correct gear and if some have to be led there by the nose all well and good. People have freedom of choice if you do not want to wear the gear then you do not have to ride a bike.
Ride safe and I hope you will get many more years to enjoy the road.
Where does this end?
Should children be given helmets when going out to play.
Goverments need to learn to let people decide what is in their best interests, not continually forcing us to follow what they believe.
In the end people will be forced to make a choice.
Become a robot or rebel, so they can think for themselves.
I believe that TE Lawrence is still the most famous person to have died as a result of a motorcycle crash—and that happened 77 years ago. RIP.
Delightful article. And thanks so much for the pointer to the TEL letter…fascinating.
Apparently TEL was whizzing off to the Post Office to send a reply to a telegram he had received from that intriguing author Henry Williamson when the accident happened.
Such little decisions, such significant results.
Elaine, thanks for forwarding the link to Outer Canuckistan! Great to hear from you again.
If you think your government in Britain is intrusive, come to Canuckistan again. In this Soviet Socialist Republic, the amoeba-like ever-growing bureaucracy has to find something to justify its useless and monumentally expensive existence, so impinging on individual freedoms is an everyday occurrence. This happens despite the fact that the right to those freedoms is enshrined in our “Charter or Rights and Freedoms” – in effect, our constitution.
Unless organisations like MAG stand up to these faceless, grey-suited leeches living on the wealth generated by those few entrepreneurs who actually do create something, we will indeed eventually lose all of the freedom of choice we hold so dear.
Keep up the good work! We’re doing our bit over here…
Cheers,
Richard.
(Former BC Safety Council – a private, non-profit group).
Great article, god or whatever diety you may believe in protect us from ourselves. The safety nazis are winning via their overstating propaganda war.
Because we get beaten about the head with so called safety measures it is quite possible that the end of free thinking will come about sooner rather than later in almost every occupation or social and personal activity in which we participate.
The highlight of our day will be watching the funerals go by of our departed friends and commenting that “eh I remember when they used to be able to think for themselves”.
Ian Lee