United Kingdom – It is that time of year when annual tribute rides take place organised by the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG UK) to commemorate Fred Hill, who made it his mission not to recognise the 1973 motorcycle compulsory helmet law introduced in the UK by Parliament.
Fred refused to wear a helmet which led to him being fined on numerous occasions, which he did not pay because of his convictions, thus ending up in prison.
MAG UK backed Fred throughout his campaign and named him their “Freedom Fighter” as he campaigned against the helmet law and for the freedom of choice of voluntary helmet use.
Motorcycle helmet compulsion introduced 43 years ago, is still an emotive issue for some and something of no concern or consequence for many, but it still has a place in motorcycling history and offers those that are new to the world of Riders Rights an insight into why organisations like MAG UK exist. We start with an update to a previous article from Motorcycle Minds – Lawrence of Arabia and the Helmet Law
This follows with a further article regarding the background to The Motorcycle Helmet Law
The Motorcycle Helmet Law in the UK
Forty three ago, the “Motor Cycles (Wearing of Helmets) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 180), dated 7th February 1973”, was enacted – the statutory instrument came into operation on 1st June of the same year.
On April 5th 1973, the order for this regulation was debated in the House of Commons, with members from either side taking opposite views. Many considered this as a gross infringement of personal liberty.
However, during World War II, Dr Hugh Cairns, a consulting neurosurgeon to the British Army, recommended mandatory helmet use for British Service dispatch riders, who carried instructions and battle reports between commanders and the front lines via motorcycles.
This recommendation was accepted by the British Army and crash helmets became compulsory for all army motorcyclists on duty from November 1941.
Cairns first became concerned about helmet use after treating the war hero T. E. Lawrence—otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia—for a fatal head injury suffered during a 1935 motorcycle accident.
Lawrence of Arabia, Sir Hugh Cairns, and the Origin of Motorcycle Helmets – Click Here – pdf 825kb
Lawrence of Arabia and the Helmet Law – Motorcycle Minds – Click Here
On 31st May 1956, a motion was introduced into the House of Commons – “Helmets to be worn by Drivers and Riders of Motorcycles”, after a lengthy debate, this motion was withdrawn.
Hansard Debate – House Of Commons – Helmets to be worn by drivers and riders of Motor Cycles – Click Here
However, six years later in 1962, in the Road Traffic Bill of that year, there was proposed (on Report) a new clause to give the Minister power to make an order such as the one (wearing of helmets), that had been made and was before the House of Commons.
Hansard – Road Traffic Bill – Click Here
Evening of 1973
In the gallery at the House of Commons on that evening in April 1973, were motorcyclists listening carefully to the debate.
MP Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire South) opened the debate:
“I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Motor Cycles (Wearing of Helmets) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 180), dated 7th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February. Perhaps I should say a word about the form of this motion. It started life as a Prayer against the statutory instrument requiring those riding on motor cycles to wear crash helmets, but before time could be found for it to be debated the 40 days applicable to a Prayer had run out.
(NB: known as an Early Day Motion – EDMs against statutory instruments are known as ‘prayer’ and generally the only type of EDM that leads to a debate.)
Accordingly, my motion has been transformed into one to “take note” of this statutory instrument.
That is the procedure to be adopted, but I assure the House that the last thing I want to do is to take note of this instrument. Since I consider that an important question of principle arises here, having moved that motion, I shall ultimately vote against it and invite my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to adopt the same procedure of principle with me and to vote against taking note of this instrument, that being the only way in which at this stage after the 40 days have passed the House can indicate its dissent from the course that has been taken. (…)”
Enoch Powell
Enoch Powell was noted for his oratorical skills, and for being a maverick. He was a champion of this cause, his powerful intervention in the House of Commons in relation to his opposition to the compulsory wearing of helmets by motorcyclists argued in favour of individual freedom. Although he was not the only MP to oppose this regulation, he was certainly the most eloquent.
Herewith are excerpts from Powell’s intervention in the House of Commons that evening:
“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 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 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. 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”.
Hansard – House Of Commons – Motor Cyclists (Helmets) – Click Here
Reduction of Motorcyclist Fatalities
On March 1st, 1976, in the House of Commons, the Road Traffic (Seat Belt) Bill was debated for a Second Reading (and rejected).
On that occasion Enoch Powell returned to the issue of motorcycle crash helmets and used it as an example in order to defeat the proposed Seat Belt Bill. On this occasion, he provided evidence that the introduction of the helmet law made no difference whatsoever in the reduction of motorcyclist fatalities. He argued:
“There is one precedent, and only one in the strict sense, for what we are doing, and it is a significant one. I am referring to the legislation enacted under the previous Administration which made it a criminal offence to ride a motor cycle without a crash helmet. I believe that that was the first instance, and this proposition has not been shaken, when it was made a criminal offence (…).
That precedent in the matter of wearing safety helmets, which this House by about 55 votes to 15 decided to establish, is now being promptly followed. It is being followed within a matter of two or three years. But this will not be the end. These are by no means the only circumstances in which the failure of individuals to take certain precautions in their private lives entails all manner of risk to themselves and, indirectly, consequences which may be tragic upon others. There is the whole realm of sporting activity, such as mountaineering, boating, and so on, where there are precautions which ought to be taken, and which any sensible person will take. We shall be told presently that these, too, have to be regulated. It will not stop there, because it cannot logically stop there.
We shall be told, and rightly, that a man’s habits in life—smoking, the manner in which he conducts his life, indulges himself—affect materially his prospects of survival, as certainly they do. There will, therefore, be increasingly irresistible pressure, once we break through this barrier of principle, to envelop one area of personal decision after another within the criminal law. I believe, therefore, that it is of outstanding importance that, even though this principle has once been breached, it should be reasserted and upheld.
I fear I shall not carry the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South with me on this, but I should not fear to accept the loss of life which might otherwise, by the breaching of that principle, have been avoided. As I said in the debate on the wearing of crash helmets, many lives have been laid down, and are laid down, in order to maintain the essentials of personal liberty in a society living under the law.
Nevertheless, we ought in this debate not to be carried away with the projections and predictions of the Minister. In this context—I am not straying on to the merits—it is instructive to look back at what we were told on the first occasion when we breached this principle—in the matter of safety helmets.
The then Minister said: Our estimate”— that is the estimate of the Minister’s predecessors— taking all these figures into account”— that is taking into account the proportion of people who were already wearing crash helmets— and bearing in mind that there are no longer people of 16 years of age riding the larger motor cycles, is that some 300 to 400 deaths and serious injuries would be saved each year. One half of these casualties would involve teenagers.”—[Official Report, 5th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 771.] It was under that advice, under the impression that the number involved was 300 or 400 a year, that hon. Members, in a thin House, decided in favour of the crash helmet legislation.
We can now apply a fairly rigorous test to the fulfilment of that prediction. On 29th November 1974, the Minister’s predecessor gave me the comparison between motor cycle casualties—deaths and serious injuries—in the 12 months before and the 12 months immediately after the wearing of crash helmets became compulsory. It is here that one has about as straight a comparison as one could hope to get, if one bears in mind the growth of traffic and the estimate, which was stated in the answer to my Question, that the number of motor cycle riders rose between those two years by 12 per cent.
Having noted that, we can make the comparison of the outcome with the prediction. The number of deaths, all ages, for the year before was 505; for the year after, the figure was 506. Of those under 20 years of age, the figure for the year before was 236, while for the year after it was 235. Let us consider the number seriously injured. The number of seriously injured, all ages, was up by 12’3 per cent., while for those under 20 the figure was up by 24 per cent. comparing the year after with the year before. If one takes both figures together, which I think is statistically objectionable, for the statistic of death is a statistic of a different category from the statistic of serious injury, one finds that the number of killed and seriously injured together was up by 11.6 per cent.
In other words, so far as one can judge the matter at all by the out-turn, the legislation had no effect whatever upon deaths and serious injury among those riding motor cycles. If it be said, however, that there is significance in the fact that the number of deaths remained static instead of rising by 12 per cent., and if we suppose that that effect was due solely to the wearing of crash helmets—which I think is clearly an extreme assumption—the number of deaths and serious injuries saved in a year was not 300 to 400, but 40.
So, with the best will in the world, the calculations which were genuinely intended to give the best possible guidance to the House, the advice which we were offered when we decided to establish this precedent, have turned out to be repudiated and refuted by the outcome, however generously interpreted.
I hear someone ask whether 40 lives are not worth saving. Of course they are; but I want to know what I am losing at the same time. If, to delay those 40 deaths, I have to assent to a proposition being established which can be applied successively in one area after another of personal behaviour, then I say, as hon. Members in this House and in generations gone by have said, that in the end the principle is what we are here to uphold, and we must not be distracted by the appeal to figures of casualties looked at in isolation.
I do not rest upon the statistics, though my own belief is that the estimates which the Minister with entirely proper intentions and entirely sincerely has been advised to give will probably be found to be grossly exaggerated. As legislators we are here considering what will be the cost in the future of legislation which makes it a criminal offence for a person to endanger himself in circumstances in which thereby he directly endangers no other person whatsoever. That is something which I believe the Legislature should not do”.
Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill – Click Here
Religious Exemption of Sikhs
Moving onto the Religious Exemption of Sikhs to wear motorcycle helmets, during the debate in the House of Commons in January 1975, the MP responsible for this bill was Sydney Bidwell MP for Ealing-Southall who argued that:
“In battle time the Sikh has never been called upon to discard his turban in favour of the war hat or tin helmet worn by other soldiers under battle fire. It has been known for bullets to lodge in the hair of Sikhs. No one would care if at that time a Sikh was not wearing a tin hat. So far as I know, right up to the present time the long hair and turban are freely accepted in the three branches of the British Armed Services. I cannot imagine that the true Sikh is ever told that his services are no longer required in any shape or form.
As citizens of the Commonwealth, many Sikhs from the middle 1950s onwards have come to the United Kingdom. They are hard working and are winning their way in British society. In the past, because of native prejudice and misunderstanding, they have had to struggle for the right to wear the turban, particularly at work. We have overcome objections to the right to wear long hair and the turban, notably in transport in the Midlands and in London. Some factory cases have been fought and overcome. Uniformed caps and helmets are not enforced against the Sikh’s religious belief”.
In November 1976, Her Majesty the Queen gave her Royal Assent to a Bill to exempt turbanned Sikhs from having to wear crash-helmets when riding a motor-cycle: The motorcycle Crash-Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act, 1976.
The Turban Victory – Motor-Cycle Crashhelmets (Religious Exemption) Bill – Click Here
Fred Hill
The consequence of this exemption was that one man, Fred Hill was to provide impetus to the recently formed Motorcycle Action Group (MAG UK) to call for the helmet law to be rescinded.
Fred Hill was born in Yorkshire and spent the war as a dispatch rider before becoming a Mathematics teacher after the war.
Ian Mutch now President for life of MAG UK wrote about Fred Hill and explained his reasons for refusing to wear a helmet and the price this “freedom fighter” paid.
“(…) Fred’s involvement with MAG and the anti helmet law campaign began in 1976 after the Sikhs gained an exemption from the law. There were those at the time who were uncertain about Fred’s motivation, fearing that it might be racist, born of the resentment that an immigrant minority were enjoying preferential treatment. Those who met Fred, heard his speeches, and got to know him a little, were re-assured that this was not the case. If Sikhs did not have to wear helmets then nobody should have to although he rarely ever made any reference to the Sikhs’ preferential treatment.
While Fred’s personal campaign was passive, it was absolute, in that Fred never wore a helmet and never paid a fine. In consequence, huge number of summonses began falling through his letter box, when a journalist from the motorcycle press went to interview him in his home in Hayes, Middlesex.
Fred produced a sizeable suitcase packed with summonses that he kept as souvenirs, all unpaid. It was his refusal to pay the fines, rather than the helmetless riding offence, that led the courts to imprison Fred, the charge being the more serious one of “Contempt of Court”. Although he was always polite to the authorities that pursued and imprisoned him, Fred was totally unimpressed by people in high positions, and was never intimidated by them. On one occasion a woman magistrate was endeavouring to chastise Fred for breaking the law, to which criticism, Fred, implicitly referring to Emily Pankhurst and the female emancipation movement, replied, “if it hadn’t been for a woman breaking the law, you wouldn’t be sitting there now madam”.
Fred was sentenced to a total of 31 prison sentences over the eight year course of his campaign, sometimes for as little as twenty-four hours, rising to a maximum of two months, his final spell which he half completed in London’s Notorious Pentonville prison”.
Fred Hill died at the age of 74 in Pentonville prison, during his 31st prison sentence of heart failure on the 10th February 1984.
Motorcycle Action Group – Who Was Fred Hill? – Click Here
Forty Three Years On
Forty three years on, all riders (except Sikhs) are required to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle in the UK and in fact in most countries throughout the world. Generally it is accepted that in a crash scenario helmets help to prevent injuries.
Few people of principle remain from those days in 1973 when the imposition of mandatory helmet use was felt to be unnecessary because the vast majority (88%) of motorcyclists wore helmets anyway and it was felt that this was an abuse of legislative power and removed the freedom of liberties.
The introduction of the helmet law in the UK was a defining moment for motorcycling because it established precedence for “safety” legislation for this form of transport. The latest of which has recently (2012) been enacted into law via the European parliament through the requirement for ABS brakes and mandatory headlights for these vehicles.
Trevor Baird was the General Secretary of MAG UK. He resigned in 2008 and in his farewell speech to the Annual General Conference that year, said:
“(…) 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”.
Lawrence of Arabia and the Helmet Law – Click Here
Elaine Hardy, PhD
Further reading at Right To Ride – Responsible Freedom
What is relevant in this discussion is that – at the time – i.e. in 1973, the government argued that mandatory helmet usage would reduce fatalities.
The jury is still out on this debate, considering that at the time around 80% of motorcyclists wore helmets anyway.
That wasn’t the issue. It was simply that the Minister for Transport made a decision and used fatality rates as his excuse and enacted it through parliament.
So using the same logic of the government at the time, following the introduction of the legislation for helmet usage, fatalities increased. That could have been due to other factors. Research was very basic and limited, so there were very little data or facts to provide a considered view on the subject.
The fact of the matter remains that the introduction of helmet legislation – at the time – didn’t amount to a hill of beans in reducing fatalities.
Read the article – Responsible Freedom
It’s good that this is still being discussed – at least somewhere anyway. Overall I agree with the pro-choice argument, as should be the case with many potentially life-changing decisions in life. Of course, we’ve all seen the idiots on the road with complete disregard for their body’s largest organ (yes, our skin) who don’t seem to be making much use of their brains anyway 😉 Gallows humour aside, laws on tyres, mobile phone use (particularly when obscuring windscreen visibility – even at night on full brightness!!!) amongst other things should arguably be seen of higher risk to road users than helmet choice. Noting the point above about whether certain driving behaviours are considered, or not, to be a threat to life also.
To my point then, whilst I agree with helmet use, particularly when riding for long distances and/or at speed and for many reasons, I do believe in choice still and expect riders would make that sensible choice even if just for comfort! My issue is something not yet considered above, which I think is important to include here…
I have been looking for a place where I might inquire or indeed register a need, for riding without one and have only came across this page (thank you for making it a conversation again). My needs are due to my health as my cervical spine causes me a lot of pain and extra weight on my head is a no-no. In fact, I use an inversion table at home to take the weight of my head off of my neck for relief when it’s bad and it has changed my life. I’m 53, have already had two surgeries on my neck and would love to get back on a bike. I was riding from 8-16 yrs (and far beyond) completely without a lid off-road, never once hurting myself and finding myself really connected to everything by having the ability to see and listen much better but also the ability to turn and manoeuvre my whole body on the bike is infinitely easier without one. I would even abstain in the driving rain and snow (how refreshing… including the needles in the face)!
Naturally, I continued riding on the road too until the first surgery aged 34 but now I’ve found some control over the pain and my body (without doping myself completely again) it’s the weight of a lid which is holding me back. I have looked at trikes which would obviously preclude the requirement for a lid anyway but it’s just not the same (there has to be lean and body position/weight control for the physical experience (I have some designs!)). Some kind of halfway sensible ‘guidelines’ about riding without a lid in towns etc would at least see SOME choice and I do believe the advantages I noted above have a very real positive effect on safety! Additionally, for me anyway, ‘green-laning’ would mean a route back to being myself: by getting more ‘bike fit’ again and by being able to get much further into nature – and in a far more connected way. – MUCH more than I have been able to do for the last decade. A choice to ride without a lid could give me back that same sense of freedom that can’t be found elsewhere and one that I’m currently excluded from. In conclusion, at least a choice for low speed roads and green lanes would be life-changing on their own and as for others, as Edward eloquently put it, we’ll always need organ donors! Seriously though, should these other areas become legal I would still be unable to ride anywhere else unless I could be granted an exclusion from that law on health grounds and it should be obvious that riding a Super Sports with my neck cranked in extension or so fast that the air pressure hurts just isn’t for me. That said, changes in law which might allow helmets to be optional based upon limitations of power or classification of road might seem sensible but I’m not sure they would work in practise. Perhaps it should be a blend with exemptions for some for whom it might be safer without one? Then place MUCH harsher penalties for those breaking the law whilst not wearing a helmet and perhaps it starts to look once again more sensible perhaps? Not to mention agreeable for the Govt coffers (I’m not cynical at all, honest).
A great start would be somewhere for all of us to complete a survey so a proper breakdown of requirements could be ascertained from opinion and feedback and this could then be percolated and consolidated into a petition of what may be realistic changes to the existing, draconian measures? Would you guys be the ideal place to start?
I do believe the fact that motorcyclists tend to help and influence each other on the whole anyway is currently underestimated too. In fact, I’m sure the growing number of clubs and associations in the UK and Europe (as well as the multitude of shows, meets and watering holes too) would themselves promote ‘sensible attire’ in a far more visible and positive way along with any pro-choice changes to legislation made.
So…being positive then…
The whole subculture of motorcycling, along with electrification and things such as scooters etc might actually come together as a far greater, safer and stronger whole for the benefit of everyone involved, including British innovation and manufacturing too. You only have to look at the historical rise of small motorised bikes and their subsequent evolution to today and it’s easy to understand why we are a nation of bikers, despite the weather, just waiting for the spark to start in those who have yet to find it! 🙂 I’ll even go further than this to say that we seriously need to help our battery industry and putting a new market in place for a turnover product, such as smaller capacity batteries for small vehicles, would do just that. Not to mention helping the planet breathe cleaner and increasing the customer base for our existing insurance industry…. ALL from relaxing helmet laws and including smaller vehicles into the bike category such as scooters, which would be joining the already growing quadricycle etc.
Personally, I believe we need to look forward and not back on this one… it’ll only grow the country’s band of sensible motorcyclists as people progress from small, electric scooters to larger bikes, electric or not.
It is important to remember that an important part, perhaps the important part of Enoch Powell’s objection was the use of a Statutory Instrument to pass the helmet law. An SI is a blank cheque authorised as a clause in any piece of legislation that permits a Secretary of State to pass a law, without debate in Parliament!
Enoch believed that the use of an SI for a major subject would lead to the erosion of parliamentary powers and the growth of unfettered control of our lives by the Executive. SIs were intended to be for minor administrative updates, not for bypassing the correct legislative process. Enoch was right, as any analysis of the use of SIs since will reveal.
I wear a helmet, but do not believe I should be criminalised if I ride 100 yards without a helmet, better able to listen to my motorcycle for diagnostic clues muffled by a helmet.
I am an ex-soldier and on remembrance Sunday we ride through the town without helmets and the dibbles leave us be. Not sure how this originated but it’s frowned upon to wear an helmet if your Armed Services.
Still I support helmet law.
Thanks Joshua – just had a look at your website link http://www.bikersrights.com excellent information on the United States motorcycle helmet laws by state!
Such an informative post. Got to know the helmet law properly. Thanks for sharing this information.
I do support the wearing of helmets but…… Reference compulsory wearing of motorcycle helmets. Organ donor or not, where is the equality in law? Once you make even one exemption or exception, the law is no longer equal.
How does a religious exemption become law? All religion is subjective in that no scientific or other evidence exists to qualify it as being fact-based. Yet we allow exemptions in legislation to be based on this religious premise.
Of course the UK, the self-promoted mother of democracy (actually it’s Iceland the country, and not the high street retail chain that has that distinction), elects a government that about two thirds don’t actually vote for. So I guess we get what we don’t actually vote for.
Also just puzzled why a helmet wouldn’t reduce head injury’s to cyclist. Plus drivers that fail to stop and drive like a maniac often get their disqualification period increased, despite not having a license in the first instance. You can race at high speeds with impunity in a 1.5 ton vehicle but it’s not considered endangerment to life. Who knew.
As a “returning rider” after a 20 year hiatus I am very much regretting disposing of my ancient Stadium Achillies helmet as I cannot find a replacement that I can even get on my head let alone use comfortably for a few hours.
The only helmets that I can fit into are HJCs in size 5xl – no that is not a misprint, it is XXXXXL or 70cm. Unfortunately it is only DOT approved and thus illegal in the UK/EU.
Where is my exemption ? It is not my fault I have a comically large bonce. Sikhs are exempt from the helmet laws. Morbidly obese people are exempt from seat belt laws based on nothing more than a letter from their GP.
I do not care if the largest sized HJC helmets have not been tested and I am happy to wear them. The smaller sizes (XS to XXL have been tested and passed).
If the police look at my helmet they will see it does not have the requisite labels. They will charge me with failing to wear a helmet leading to fines and penalty points. If they seize my helmet then I will be stranded at the roadside.
No vile racist in that speech Enoch said we should have no first class and second class citizens!!!
Also Enoch refused to go into a club which refused General ciprianti (spelling may be not exact) who was an Indian gentleman!!
Motorcyucle Minds – via Wikipedia – “In 1944, when Powell was visiting Poona with another member of the Joint Intelligence Committee, an Indian, General (later Field Marshal) K. M. Cariappa, he refused to stay at the Byculla club once it became clear that Cariappa as an Indian would not be allowed to stay there.”
So lets get the facts right!!
Enoch was an amazing, principled man, spoke 14 languages!
Youngest PROFESSOR in commonwealth!
Youngest Brigadier in Army etc ,etc!
In that trial by tv pst death Sam Sharmi an Indian who knew Enoch supported him!!!!! – Motorcycle Minds – Not sure what this is referencing
Motorcycle Minds – We have allowed this comment as a direct response to the previous comment.
However Enoch Powell said a lot of things which the commentator has left out and which are readably accessible..
The article and the inclusion of Enoch Powell is simply there because they are the facts, they do not dwell on his thoughts beyond the helmet law at that time in “history”.
Therefore we will NOT put up any more comments that are outside the scope of the article.
I concur with Mr Enoch Powell’s comments on allowing the large Majority of us to think for ourselves, he was correct about excess legislation that stops people from having to think for themselves and look what followed in 1977, the 30 mph moped laws which created 25 mph mobile road blocks and the 12 bhp, 125cc law of 1981 which left people with newly purchased illegal to ride Motorcycles of over 12hp that dealers could not pay a fair price on as they became awash with them, while I wear a helmet there may be the odd time when I might ride a Bike around the cul desac where I live helmet less to pin point a rogue noise I wish to fix and that is now illegal as the only policeman I have seen in 17 years down my road informed me!!
More tolerance of people doing things differently is needed, not more laws, please no legislation against open face helmets as in a heat wave the perceived greater risk some people have of an open face helmet is not present.
This article really shows very well how over the passing decades people have grown used to being told what to do and have less leeway for thinking for themselves today.
Interesting article.
I’m very much a supporter of helmet laws myself (partly to protect those who will not take the responsibility for themselves, and partly to protect all of us from them wasting precious NHS resources), but I appreciate reading the arguments from all perspectives. (What a shame for the anti-helmet law camp that it has the embarrassment of having been championed in Parliament by a vile racist).
It is tempting to believe that helmets would have rapidly become the norm among 100% of riders anyhow in due course, though looking at the idiots I see on the road today in cheapo, open-face helmets and little more than a vest and shorts, you do have to wonder.
Still, we’ll always need organ donors!