riding a motorbike without a helmet
Paul Pickerill
: What's the maximum fine for riding a motorbike without a helmet? Is it
: endorsable?
It is not endorsable. Depending on the mood of the copper, your
speed and the location you often get off with it. However expect to get
about 15 quid finr for a first offence, doubling on subsequent
occasions.
Going the wrong way down a one way st. at chucking out time on a
Thurs with 20 mates on a stag night and no helmet surprisingly resulted
in a mild bollocking, presumably due to the 20 or so drunken mates
blocking the road and laughing at me!
: How a national no helmet-day sometime in the Summer, say June 1st ?
MAG ran one last summer. Actually this was a Neil Livesaussage
thing rather than official MAG policy as they can't be seen to encourage
law breaking. It was very sunny tho, and there's loads of Fred Hill
memorial demo's on next month.
--
Paul Pickerill <ba...@sussex.ac.uk>
'86 VFR 750 MAG #72530 DoD Ł1663
NABD #125 Ogri-list SERV
UKMC Ł9.1 (never steal version .0 of anything)
O Morgan
endorsable?
I ride occasionally on minor roads without the helmet, it's a completly
different experience, very pleasant. However it would be nice to know
what the damage would be should I get stopped. I'd certainly like to be
able to choose whether to wear one or not, particulalry on smaller roads
(it also makes you drive a lot more carefully).
How a national no helmet-day sometime in the Summer, say June 1st ?
Olly
Wrathchild
<snip>However it would be nice to know what the damage would be <snip>
Depends on who's nailing it around the next corner.
I'm all for free riding and no lid is definately an experience,
however due to the tossers in cages (I am one myself), appaling u.k.
road conditions, and the odd bout of stupidity - I think I now prefer
to wear one. All be it a totally illegal simpson ;)
-----
Jason
If it's got tits or wheels - IT'S GOT TO BE FUN!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------
Ian Vincent
:
: > P.s. Jason wrote:
: > > I think I now prefer
: > >to wear one. All be it a totally illegal simpson ;)
: > From what I understand, It's OK to wear one (helmets don't have to be BS
: > marked, to cover foreigners riding in this country; luckily it applies
: > to everyone), just illegal to sell one for motorcycle use.
: >
: A correction to this (possibly):
:
: While the helmet doesn't have to be BS marked, it does have to be
: "for motorcycle use", i.e. no military helmets or building-site hard-hats.
: The Simpson is a car-racing helmet, so may be deemed illegal.
: I don't know of anyone who's been prosecuted for wearing one tho'.
Second from last time I got stopped, the cop checked my crash helmet for a
kite mark. Seeing its a FM Force 1 it not only had a class A kite but also a
ACU racing gold mark, so that pissed on his firework.
I was also asked why I didn't have my lights on, to which I replied that
there is the possibility of daytime lights confusing other motorists about
your distance from them, so I never rode with lights on in good light
conditions. He answer "Oh ah, didn't know that".
P.S. He didn't get me for anything on this routine check. Routines the word
as well, with at that time SIX routine checks in FOUR months. Same place as
well!
--
_ Ian "Vinny" Vincent <i...@binny.demon.co.uk>
>(o) RnD designer to the stars (and chickens).
( //) Accessing the internet on an A1200 ('030 50MHz)
II Wolf 359 '96 Registration No. 58
Paddy McGIFF
>
> It depends on what you get stopped by.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
Riding with no lid's OK, but don't you find that your eyeballs tend to wobble from side to side after 150mph ?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paddy McGIFF Freelance software trainer/consultant. @ London N8
EMail pa...@phoenixt.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Gray
<fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk> writes
>My personal belief is that riders should not only wear a helmet, but
>protective clothing as well
Out of interest, what do you consider more protective than a proper
padded leather jacket & proper padded leather trousers ?
(Asking for information, rather than as a flame !)
--
[]=- Simon Gray, who lives in Birmingham, UK.
// _-=__-=
_/|] ) ___ \ Yes, I know the wheels make it 5 lines. Go
(_) \___/_(___)_| ahead, sue me !
@ @
Tim Phipps
> ...................................... However it would be nice to know
Trevor G Fleming
>Don't really see that you SHOULD be fined for riding without a helmet.
>After all, it's YOUR head that's likely to get splattered like a ripe
>melon. No-one else is likely to be hurt by a biker not wearing a helmet,
>so what's the problem.
Thank you for your support?
>Just as long as you pick up your OWN medical bills, and don't expect the
>rest of us to pay to keep your life support machine running when you DO
>get your skull caved in!!!
And you would apply this philosophy to drivers of dropheads/softtops
who get their heads injured(it happens) because they were'nt wearing a
helmet and full-harness belts; to drivers who are burned(it happens)
because they're not wearing fire-proof coveralls; to children injured
due to not being restrained(it happens); to rear-seat passenger
injuries(they happen) incurred when not wearing a seat-belt.
Or what about a life-style analogy. Doctor to patient "Sorry mate, you
can't have a heart bypass operation 'cause it's yer own fault yer
arteries are clogged with cholesterol. We told yer not to eat too much
saturated fat and as yer've got no money. Be seeing you (in the
morgue)". Carry the analogies further and I'm sure that, for any
health treatment 'contributory negligence' can be found to support
arguments that it should be paid for by the patient.
This is particularly true when considering injuries caused on the
roads. When can you not add "if only the driver/pedestrian/rider. etc
had been aware of the conditions/other road users/speed limit
etc......this wouldn't have happened" to an accident report.
And, what about the riders who get their necks broken due to wearing a
legal BSI approved helmet, research has shown this has happened. Or,
injuries caused by untrained people removing riders' helmets after
they've had an accident.
The best way to reduce road accidents, and thus minimise the charge to
the health service, is not legislation to treat the symptoms but to
attack the root cause i.e. there are too many bad drivers on the road
because they have not been educated and trained properly in how to
handle the vehicle under their control. Motorcycle riders, have for
some time, undergone a much better training and education programme
than car drivers. The result of this has been a per capita reduction
in accidents involving motorcycles and the government's targets for
this reduction being reached far ahead of time.
My personal belief is that riders should not only wear a helmet, but
protective clothing as well. I argue for, and support, research into
the design of safe helmets and protective clothing. However, I do not
subscribe to the view that 'big brother/sister' knows best.
Choice YES! Compulsion NO!
Trevor Fleming
Political Liaison Officer MAG (UK) North West Region
MAG (UK) Home Page: http://dredd.meng.ucl.ac.uk/mag/mag.html
elmo gatlin
you.
I have worked on an ambulance and I'm a cop. I live in a state with no
helmet law. I had seen many people just as dead with a helmet on as without.
I'm sure in some cases the helmet will help. I think I would rather be dead
than brain damaged. More important is my rights and freedom of choice.
I pay my insurance and I don't want help from the
state if I crash and hurt myself. I know my bare head is not going to hurt
some cager in their auto. I know whats wrong in the states is Goverment
thinking they know whats best for me. I know that a good set of leather is
best for me and not some brain bucket.
a...@aber.ac.uk
|Out of interest, what do you consider more protective than a proper
|padded leather jacket & proper padded leather trousers ?
|(Asking for information, rather than as a flame !)
A car.
Stewart Brinn
>Andy Baxman <bax...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>> No-one else is likely to be hurt by a biker not wearing a helmet,
>>so what's the problem.
>>Just as long as you pick up your OWN medical bills, and don't expect the
>>rest of us to pay to keep your life support machine running when you DO
>>get your skull caved in!!!
> to rear-seat passenger
>injuries(they happen) incurred when not wearing a seat-belt.
Aren't you missing the point. Since seatbelts have been compulsory, a
lot of people who would otherwise be dead are still walking around. I
went to a fatal RTA 2 weeks before Christmas. A 28 year old woman is
now dead who would definately have been alive had she been wearing her
seatbelt. People often think "it won't happen to me." Thanks to some
sensible legislation it may not.
>Carry the analogies further and I'm sure that, for any
>health treatment 'contributory negligence' can be found to support
>arguments that it should be paid for by the patient.
Isn't that what the Tories are trying to do?
>And, what about the riders who get their necks broken due to wearing a
>legal BSI approved helmet, research has shown this has happened. Or,
>injuries caused by untrained people removing riders' helmets after
>they've had an accident.
Nope, the necks were broken in the accident, I think you mean the ones
who are paralysed by idiots removing helmets after a crash.
>Motorcycle riders, have for
>some time, undergone a much better training and education programme
>than car drivers. The result of this has been a per capita reduction
>in accidents involving motorcycles and the government's targets for
>this reduction being reached far ahead of time.
Yeah maybe, but an accident involving a motorcyclist is far more
likely to involve injury.
> However, I do not
>subscribe to the view that 'big brother/sister' knows best.
In the case of helmets it looks as though it does. Although maybe
you're right. Lets allow drinking and driving, take away all speed
limits, let seatbelts be optional again, let lorry drivers drive as
long as they like. In fact lets abandon traffic law altogether.
I wonder if you have any idea just how much it costs to investigate a
fatal accident. How much it costs to keep a brain damaged vegetable
alive for the rest of his/her natural life? It's not just the person
making the decision who has to live with the consequences, it's his
family, friends, the emergency services etc. While an accident can
happen at any time due to the crap driving which is prevalent on the
roads, what is wrong with giving a person as much chance as possible
of surviving an accident?
Incidentally, if caught not wearing a helmet, you will be liable
normally to a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket of 20 quid.
In court, the maximum fine was 1000 quid under the unit system,
although this may have dropped slightly since. Don't count on it
though.
Cheers,
Stu!
Trevor G Fleming
Probably a full set of armour, as worn by those Camelot nutters.
I didn't anything about something more proctective than... If it's
good enough for cows it good enough me. The debate on protective
clothing, type and standards of, is wide ranging and gets quite
technical. I've been asked by my region to produce a briefing document
on this very subject. I'll make it available when it's completed
Chris Des-Clayes
>In article <3105fcb1...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, Trevor G Fleming
><fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk> writes
>
>>protective clothing as well
>
>padded leather jacket & proper padded leather trousers ?
A license suspension?
--
Christopher E. Des Clayes Compuserve 100113,3211(home)
c...@crosfield.co.uk (work) Tel. 01908 661103(home)
Tel. 01442 343547 (work) UKMC#9 MAG, BMF, IAM, XJ900F
Chris Malcolm
>I'm sure in some cases the helmet will help. I think I would rather be dead
>than brain damaged.
In which case do make sure you remove your helmet before a high speed
impact.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@aifh.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" -- Paul Valery
Mr. J.D. Ball
: Aren't you missing the point. Since seatbelts have been compulsory, a
: lot of people who would otherwise be dead are still walking around.
And how many pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are now dead who
would otherwise be alive because motorists feel safe from all harm
with their seatbelts, ABS brakes, air bags etc and therefore take
more risks [with the lives of others] whilst driving.
Jim.
Trevor G Fleming
>fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk (Trevor G Fleming) wrote:
>
>>Andy Baxman <bax...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Just as long as you pick up your OWN medical bills, and don't expect the
>>>rest of us to pay to keep your life support machine running when you DO
>>>get your skull caved in!!!
>
>> to rear-seat passenger
>>injuries(they happen) incurred when not wearing a seat-belt.
>Aren't you missing the point.
No. My response was that if you apply the philosophy of people should
pay for contributory negligence then it should apply in all
situations. This is, of course, not the case. In the examples I quoted
they would not be asked to do so and I have not heard anyone arguing
for that as such. But then maybe you know different?
>Since seatbelts have been compulsory, a
>lot of people who would otherwise be dead are still walking around. I
>went to a fatal RTA 2 weeks before Christmas. A 28 year old woman is
>now dead who would definately have been alive had she been wearing her
>seatbelt. People often think "it won't happen to me." Thanks to some
>sensible legislation it may not.
Seat belt legislation is another example of 'treating the symptoms'
and has, I accept, saved lives. However I venture to suggest,
following on from my example involving motorcycle training, that
better education and training of car drivers would have a greater
effect.
BTW do you happen to know if the estate of the women in question was
charged for calling out the ambulance service, transport to the morgue
or any other associated costs of her contribution to her own death.
This may sound sick but if you follow AB's line of argument then the
inference drawn is that this should be so.
>>And, what about the riders who get their necks broken due to wearing a
>>legal BSI approved helmet, research has shown this has happened. Or,
>>injuries caused by untrained people removing riders' helmets after
>>they've had an accident.
>Nope, the necks were broken in the accident,
If you've read the research you will know that I was referring to
full-face helmets, that are legally approved for use on UK roads,
which were shown to be a contributing factor to head and neck
injuries. i.e. the neck wouldn't have been broken if the person had
been wearing a different type of or no helmet.
>I think you mean the ones
>who are paralysed by idiots removing helmets after a crash.
Isn't that what I said except I referred to them as being "untrained"
and not all injuries incurred in this way result in paralysis.
>>Motorcycle riders, have for
>>some time, undergone a much better training and education programme
>>than car drivers. The result of this has been a per capita reduction
>>in accidents involving motorcycles and the government's targets for
>>this reduction being reached far ahead of time.
>Yeah maybe, but an accident involving a motorcyclist is far more
>likely to involve injury.
The above is the premise from which I concluded that education and
training is the best way to reduce accidents. If you are going to
respond please address the whole argument. Even so there is no maybe
about it. Accidents involving motorcyclist have been reduced and
motorcycling training programs are better. Motorcyclists aren't even
allowed on the road until they've passed their CBT or are accompanied
by a qualified instructor.
>> However, I do not
>>subscribe to the view that 'big brother/sister' knows best.
>In the case of helmets it looks as though it does.
You may think so. I don't. The current repeal of helmet laws in a
number of States in the US shows that this is not a dead issue. Laws,
'with one exception', are never 'writ in stone'.
>Although maybe
>you're right. Lets allow drinking and driving, take away all speed
>limits, let seatbelts be optional again, let lorry drivers drive as
>long as they like. In fact lets abandon traffic law altogether.
This is just fallacious. With the exception of seat belts all the
examples you quote cause accidents. AFAIK no helmet has been
prosecuted for a traffic offence or been the cause of an accident.
>I wonder if you have any idea just how much it costs to investigate a
>fatal accident. How much it costs to keep a brain damaged vegetable
>alive for the rest of his/her natural life? It's not just the person
>making the decision who has to live with the consequences, it's his
>family, friends, the emergency services etc. While an accident can
>happen at any time due to the crap driving which is prevalent on the
>roads, what is wrong with giving a person as much chance as possible
>of surviving an accident?
Why do you presume that I don't know the costs involved, both in
monetary terms and social consequences. However please read again the
general thrust of my argument. I believe that motorcycle riders should
be protected adequately. But then, I also believe that smoking,
alcohol abuse, a fat enriched diet kills or severly injures the body.
All these are self-inflicted and a contributory factor to the injury.
I ask you the question I asked AB. Are you suggesting that people who
contribute to their injuries, no matter how caused, should pay for
their health treatment?
>
>Incidentally, if caught not wearing a helmet, you will be liable
>normally to a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket of 20 quid.
>In court, the maximum fine was 1000 quid under the unit system,
>although this may have dropped slightly since. Don't count on it
>though.
Why should I get caught not wearing a helmet. I thought it would be
pretty obvious that if I believe riders should wear helmets then I
wear one.
Scooter
Ya, a mate of mine used to ride without a helmet. Now spends the day
drooling. Cant talk, hear, see, do anything. If his brain was still alive
I wonder what he would be thinking now.
Hay it's a great day to ride without a helmet I feel like becoming brain
dead.
Cheers
Scooter
Mr D.J. Burbridge
>ol...@festival.ed.ac.uk (O Morgan) wrote:
>>What's the maximum fine for riding a motorbike without a helmet? Is it
>>endorsable?
>>
>>I ride occasionally on minor roads without the helmet, it's a completly
>>different experience, very pleasant. However it would be nice to know
>>what the damage would be should I get stopped. I'd certainly like to be
>>able to choose whether to wear one or not, particulalry on smaller roads
>>(it also makes you drive a lot more carefully).
>>
>>How a national no helmet-day sometime in the Summer, say June 1st ?
>
>After all, it's YOUR head that's likely to get splattered like a ripe
>
>rest of us to pay to keep your life support machine running when you DO
>get your skull caved in!!!
But it's the police that have to find all the bits to put in the black
plastic sack :-)
BTW, having the strap undone counts as not having the helmet on, 'cos it is
no longer adequate head protection.
It may be safe now to mention that when I took my CBT, I put the lid on,
carefully doing the strap up. However, I was having problems with the radio
set, and had to fiddle with it before eventually the instructor went off &
got another one just before leaving the centre. It was only after we
returned that I noticed I hadn't done the strap up again after putting the
new radio set in...
As the instructor hadn't noticed, I wasn't going to bother him over a little
thing like that: after all, I didn't want him getting a ticking off for
negligence... particularly after he'd just signed my CBT certificate :-)
--
David Burbridge, MechEng 3, Imperial College, London (d.bur...@ic.ac.uk)
"The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering spear: and
there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of carcases; and there is
none end of their corpses." [Nahum 3v3] (More biblical road rage?)
Mr D.J. Burbridge
>In article <3105fcb1...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, Trevor G Fleming
><fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk> writes
>
>>My personal belief is that riders should not only wear a helmet, but
>>protective clothing as well
>
>Out of interest, what do you consider more protective than a proper
>padded leather jacket & proper padded leather trousers ?
An armoured car? Complete with serviceable gun, of course :-)
O Morgan
: Excuse me for interfering in this discussion...
: I agree wholeheartedly with those laws which demand that motorbike
: riders must wear helmets. If I expect society to spend large amounts
: of tax money on my medical treatment when I've been injured, I think I
: have an obligation to make a minimum effort to protect myself.
There are two arguments here:
yep you have a civic responsibility to minimise your potential medical
costs to society. As someone has pointed out you can take this to
absurd extremes; the same line of argument could be used to ban
motorbikes as a form of transport.
The second issue is whether helmets are effective in cutting casualty
numbers. I don't think that is at all clear. They reduce the
chance of serious head injuries when there is an impact to the head, but
you must also consider whether your probability of having an accident
increases because you are wearing a helmet. From my own experience I
feel I drive more cautiously when I don't wear a helmet. Ok, maybe
that's just because I'm on the look out for police, good observation,
etc.. :-).
Olly
Dave Robins
>
> Hay it's a great day to ride without a helmet I feel like becoming brain
> dead.
>
This isn't the issue.
The problem is that of compulsion vs freedom of choice.
"Hey, motorcycle riders are more vulnerable than car drivers....lets
ban bikes altogether."
Just because you wouldn't choose to ride without a helmet doesn't mean
that the choice should be taken away.
How do you feel about (so-called) "leg-protectors" ?, daytime headlights ?,
CE marked clothing that our police force rejected as unwearable ?,
100 bhp limits ? Unneccessarily tight noise regs which effectively ban
air-cooled biked ? (rather than just enforcing the current laws),
anti-tampering laws which may even specify what make of tyre you have to
fit and prevent home maintenance?
The helmet law was the thin end of the wedge that all the above is part
of; it was accepted by motorcyclists without much fuss because most of them
wore a helmet anyway......
Dave.
Hugh McGill
In article <4e7imi$n...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, Scooter (bi...@dircon.co.uk) writes:
>In article <4e2d3d$5...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, ol...@festival.ed.ac.uk says...
>>
>>endorsable?
>>
>>I ride occasionally on minor roads without the helmet, it's a completly
>>different experience, very pleasant. However it would be nice to know
>>what the damage would be should I get stopped. I'd certainly like to be
>>able to choose whether to wear one or not, particulalry on smaller roads
>>(it also makes you drive a lot more carefully).
>>
>>How a national no helmet-day sometime in the Summer, say June 1st ?
>>
>>
>
>Ya, a mate of mine used to ride without a helmet. Now spends the day
>drooling. Cant talk, hear, see, do anything. If his brain was still alive
>I wonder what he would be thinking now.
How about: "I wish my mate wasn't so smug"
I have an expensive full face and an open face helmet, I do most of my
riding on short journeys, around town. I wear the open face helmet
because the difference in my awareness of what is happening around me is
huge. If I didn't have to, I wouldn't wear one at all for such journeys
on the other hand I wouldn't consider any longer, higher speed journey
without one.
Unfortunately, I am not able to choose a course of action suitable for
my needs and the traffic/weather conditions.
Freedom to choose, Hugh
PS A good friend of mine is an enthusiastic cyclist and can easily travel
at nearly 50mph on his bicycle with no helmet, no protective clothing, no
insurance, tax, or test of roadworthiness!
>
>Hay it's a great day to ride without a helmet I feel like becoming brain
>dead.
>
>Cheers
>
>Scooter
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh C McGill hmc...@hertford.win-uk.net
The National Computing Centre hu...@ncc.co.uk
http://www.ncc.co.uk/ London, England.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
]ke Eldberg
I agree wholeheartedly with those laws which demand that motorbike
riders must wear helmets. If I expect society to spend large amounts
of tax money on my medical treatment when I've been injured, I think I
have an obligation to make a minimum effort to protect myself.
However, we have much worse threats just around the corner. There
are some very active lobbyists in the EU (formerly EEC) who are
attempting to legislate a number of bad things.
One such is "leg protectors"; a device which they want us to mount
on bikes to protect our legs in case of accident. Tests have shown
that these devices actually make injuries _worse_. Not to mention
that they are ugly.
Another threat is of course the nitwit idea of a law maximizing
power to 100 hp. But you all know about that one.
Last but not least, demands have been raised to make it compulsory
for us to wear a special protective suit. Padded and armored, and
approved by the authorities. While I myself would never ride
without leather coveralls, legislating such things looks very
much like a ploy from those who manufacture that sort of equip-
ment. Who would of course raise their prices the moment it
became compulsory.
What all this boils down to is: Join your national rider's
association! These people are fighting for us!
]ke
IA. Nichols
: The problem is that of compulsion vs freedom of choice.
The problem is that too many people here seem to think that the compulsion
vs freedom of choice dichotomy is completely polar: it isn't, it's a
compromise. You make value judgements and set limits. If you're part of
a society, you argue over what the limits are and a concensus comes out
eventually. For what it's worth, I'm pro-helmet law, pro-seat belt law,
but not pro-enforced-use-of-body-armour. That's about where I set my limit.
: The helmet law was the thin end of the wedge that all the above is part
: of; it was accepted by motorcyclists without much fuss because most of them
: wore a helmet anyway......
Which means that a concensus appeared! (note: a concensus is not
necessarily a unanimous agreement, as some seem to think).
--
________________________________________________________________________
* | |
| / | |/-\ | Ian A. Nichols |
| | | | | | '91 XJ900 |
| \-/| | / | i.a.n...@bris.ac.uk |
| * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam L. Thomson
> >injuries(they happen) incurred when not wearing a seat-belt.
> lot of people who would otherwise be dead are still walking around. I
> went to a fatal RTA 2 weeks before Christmas. A 28 year old woman is
> now dead who would definately have been alive had she been wearing her
> seatbelt. People often think "it won't happen to me." Thanks to some
> sensible legislation it may not.
Didn't the Italians reject/oppose helmet laws under some kind of "enforced
health care" deal? Which helmets/seat-belts, in effect, are. I would
personally wear one anyway... after all, who hasn't been hit by a stone or
something chucked up from a car tyre? Stone travelling a few miles an hour
towards you, you doing 70... yeah, ouch! But I do agree it should be a
choice. As a rather more widespread parallel(ish) you could argue that
legislation to ban smoking would save a hell of a lot lives (far more than
helmets.) Ditto alcohol. Wouldn't happen though would it.
--
Adam L. Thomson (Aberdeen, Scotland)
a...@core.wintermute.co.uk http://www.wintermute.co.uk/users/core
- Be happy, stay single -
Steve Hunt
fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk (Trevor G Fleming) writes:
> If you've read the research you will know that I was referring to
> full-face helmets, that are legally approved for use on UK roads,
> which were shown to be a contributing factor to head and neck
> injuries. i.e. the neck wouldn't have been broken if the person had
> been wearing a different type of or no helmet.
Well, maybe. But I suppose (*) the number of people whose
injuries are exacerbated by a helmet are outweighed by
the number whose injuries are reduced. So on balance it
is a good idea to wear it.
(*) When I say I suppose, I mean that if there was a shred of
evidence to the contrary, the issue would have a far higher
profile than it does.
It does remind me of people who do not want to wear a seatbelt. They
always come up with some crap argument like "I know someone who knows
someone who has heard of someone who was in a crash and was KILLED BY
HIS SEATBELT or WOULD HAVE ESCAPED IF HE HADN'T BEEN WEARING IT or
WASN'T WEARING IT AND WAS THROWN CLEAR". Well, I'm sure it does
happen that in a few accidents, a seatbelt increases injuries, but the
statistics still make it obvious that your chances are far better with
it than without it.
> Choice YES! Compulsion NO!
Choice is OK, but IMO the type of people MOST likely to not wear a
helmet are the sort of kids who ride around in T-shirts and shorts.
They are far more likely to be influenced by their own (crap) ideas of
street cred and coolness than any consideration of the pros and cons
of the safety argument.
-- Steve
--
Steve Hunt - Online Media - Cambridge, UK
st...@omi.co.uk +44 1223 518563 IRC: Daff
Julian
fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk "Trevor G Fleming" writes:
> And you would apply this philosophy to ... children injured
> due to not being restrained(it happens)
Slightly different as the victim is not the one responsible - I would
lock the *parents* up and throw away the key...
> And, what about the riders who get their necks broken due to wearing a
> legal BSI approved helmet, research has shown this has happened. Or,
> injuries caused by untrained people removing riders' helmets after
> they've had an accident.
>
That's not the point. Are you honestly saying that a rider who suffers
head injuries *with* a helmet could miraculously be better off without?
---------------------------------------------------
Julian Hayward jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
'Booles' on FIBS +44-1344-640656
---------------------------------------------------
Q. Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip?
A. To get to the same side.
---------------------------------------------------
Julian
el...@delphi.com "elmo gatlin" writes:
> I pay my insurance and I don't want help from the
> state if I crash and hurt myself.
You forget that in the UK most accident victims *do* want - and get - help
from the state. And in that case those of us who subsidise the state,
myself included (L7000 or so a year) should also have a say in which
expensive freedoms should be granted to minorities, and which withheld
for the financial good of the majority.
Trevor G Fleming
>In article <3105fcb1...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>
>> And, what about the riders who get their necks broken due to wearing a
>> legal BSI approved helmet, research has shown this has happened. Or,
>> injuries caused by untrained people removing riders' helmets after
>> they've had an accident.
>>
>That's not the point. Are you honestly saying that a rider who suffers
>head injuries *with* a helmet could miraculously be better off without?
>
Precisely, though I wouldn't use the word miraculously.
See my reply:
Reference ID:<3107c2a1...@pubnews.demon.co.uk> to
fy...@dial.pipex.com (Stewart Brinn) dated 25/01/96.
Trevor G Fleming
Sorry to send this again I hadn't noticed that Steve had removed the
crossposting in his Follow-up field. It is relevant to both groups
st...@omi.co.uk (Steve Hunt) wrote:
>In article <3107c2a1...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>
>fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk (Trevor G Fleming) writes:
>
>> If you've read the research you will know that I was referring to
>> full-face helmets, that are legally approved for use on UK roads,
>> which were shown to be a contributing factor to head and neck
>> injuries. i.e. the neck wouldn't have been broken if the person had
>> been wearing a different type of or no helmet.
>
>Well, maybe. But I suppose (*) the number of people whose
>injuries are exacerbated by a helmet are outweighed by
>the number whose injuries are reduced. So on balance it
>is a good idea to wear it.
>
>(*) When I say I suppose, I mean that if there was a shred of
>evidence to the contrary, the issue would have a far higher
>profile than it does.
It is this 'suppose' which is the problem. Does your conclusion follow
the premise? A paper, 'Government Policy on Motorcycles and Related
Matter', published by the Department of Transport, February 1995 said,
on Motorcycle Helmets:
"All motor cyclists whether experienced or not are among the most
vulnerable of all road users. The introduction of compulsory helmet
wearing has been one of the few ways in which that vulnerability can
be offset. That is why successive Governments have taken the view that
helmet wearing should be required by law. The measure is designed to
protect riders, not to penalise them. There are no plans to repeal
this requirement".
It is interesting to note that this is the full extent of the
reference to helmets in a 7000+ word document and that in the majority
of other headings in the document research data has been referred to.
I venture to suggest that successive Governments 'believe' they are
right and have no interest in publishing or promoting research
contrary to their own view.
>> Choice YES! Compulsion NO!
>
>Choice is OK, but IMO the type of people MOST likely to not wear a
>helmet are the sort of kids who ride around in T-shirts and shorts.
>They are far more likely to be influenced by their own (crap) ideas of
>street cred and coolness than any consideration of the pros and cons
>of the safety argument.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I would suggest that
if you are looking at 'street cred' that most young riders are
influenced by role models in the world of motorcycling sport. Why else
would their be such a large market for replica gear? I am not
suggesting that no-one rides around in unsuitable apparel but as I
have mentioned before training and education have shown themselves to
be a far more effective method in reducing accidents than legislation.
BTW I think you'll find that the majority of riders who don't want to
wear helmets are experienced riders, who are well aware of the
potential dangers are not particularly interested in 'street cred'.
Ian Vincent
:
:
: PS A good friend of mine is an enthusiastic cyclist and can easily travel
: at nearly 50mph on his bicycle with no helmet, no protective clothing, no
: insurance, tax, or test of roadworthiness!
I assume you are saying downhill. Even Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree would
have trouble attaining 50MPH on the flat.
I used to be a serious cyclist (when I lost my licence funnily enough).
Sometimes I rode with a helmet, sometimes without. I always felt vulnerable
without it but on some trips it was more trouble than it was worth (i.e.
slow touring trips). The fact is, I had a choice and whenever I fell off I
never hit my head (and I had a helmet on in these cases). Whenever I have
crashed a motorcycle, I have also never hit my head. I'm going to agree with
the choice not compulsion mob. My personal preference? I would NEVER ride
without a helmet on, on a motorcycle but thats MY choice. I have once (in
Corfu) and it scared the crap out of me.
--
_ Ian "Vinny" Vincent <i...@binny.demon.co.uk>
>(o) RnD designer to the stars (and chickens).
( //) Accessing the internet on an A1200 ('030 50MHz)
II Wolf 359 '96 Registration No. 58
elmo gatlin
>>numbers. I don't think that is at all clear. They reduce the
>>chance of serious head injuries when there is an impact to the head, but
>>you must also consider whether your probability of having an accident
>>increases because you are wearing a helmet. From my own experience I
>>feel I drive more cautiously when I don't wear a helmet. Ok, maybe
>>that's just because I'm on the look out for police, good observation,
>>etc.. :-).
Do you in England have to have a driving test for each bike or size of bike
you ride?
Andy Baxman
>
>While car drivers feel safe I think the a major hazard is from
>lorry driver who tail gate cars know damn well that in accident they
>will more than likely walk away uninjured, with the car, and its
>owner, crushed under the lorry. Perhaps if lorry cabs were
>lowered to car level lorry driver would drive a bit more carefully !
>
Yeah, thats true enough.
A few months ago, I was driving along an unfamiliar road at night, in
poor visibility (drizzle), as I had no real idea as to when the next
corner would loom up, so I was keeping my speed quite low ( c 45 mph in a
60mph single c/way ). I had this f'ing twat in a lorry about 6' from my
rear bumper for about 6 miles, until I found a place to pull in and let
the tosser past. Perhaps it should be made law for lorry drivers to have
a pound of Semtex (tm) under their seats, primed to go off in the event
of an accident, that'd make the bastards feel less safe.
Andy
Andy Cowie (Apps Centre,Stockport,Manchester,UK)
>Jim Ball said:
>
>>And how many pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are now dead who
>>would otherwise be alive because motorists feel safe from all harm
>>with their seatbelts, ABS brakes, air bags etc and therefore take
>>more risks [with the lives of others] whilst driving.
>
>'safe' for their occupants these days that they are entirely cut off from
>the world around them. Do away with the seat belt and put a sharpened
>spike in the centre of the steering wheel. Miraculously (sp?) watch the
>accident rate come down. Also there's the concept of risk compensation,
>where the human subconcious needs some external danger to keep active.
>Make cars safer, and the risks taken, intentionally or otherwise become
>greater and greater to keep up the stimulus. Soon you wont be able to
>fart or sneeze in a car without the airbag and/or some other safety
>device being triggered.
Having had this same argument on various occasions I am now firmly
convinced that the risk compensation theory is invalid. It doesn't apply to
everyone. There are some serious dickheads out there. Therefore, sadly, we
need helmet laws.
The people it does apply to, don't need the law, but how do you
categorise them?
Have you ever seen an airbag go off? Safe is not the word I would use.
Don't disconnect the Yellow wires!
Andy
FZ,Guzz,NoValve
Ian Vincent
:
: In article <19960128.E...@binny.demon.co.uk>, Ian Vincent (i...@binny.demon.co.uk) writes:
: >Hugh McGill (hmc...@hertford.win-uk.net) wrote:
: >:
: >:
: >: PS A good friend of mine is an enthusiastic cyclist and can easily travel
: >: at nearly 50mph on his bicycle with no helmet, no protective clothing, no
: >: insurance, tax, or test of roadworthiness!
: >
: >I assume you are saying downhill. Even Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree would
: >have trouble attaining 50MPH on the flat.
: Hi Vinny
:
: Yes. Downhill - 48mph is his top speed so far (if his speedo is to be
: relied upon) apparantly he gave the car doing about 40 quite a shock!
: Imagine your out for a nice quiet drive to Holmfirth on Sunday morning
: and some 6'6 loonie on a pedal bike looms up in your rear wiew mirror!
: :)
Its fun, I used to race cars down hills as well :-).
:
: >I used to be a serious cyclist (when I lost my licence funnily enough).
: >Sometimes I rode with a helmet, sometimes without. I always felt vulnerable
: >without it but on some trips it was more trouble than it was worth (i.e.
: >slow touring trips). The fact is, I had a choice and whenever I fell off I
: >never hit my head (and I had a helmet on in these cases). Whenever I have
: >crashed a motorcycle, I have also never hit my head. I'm going to agree with
: >the choice not compulsion mob. My personal preference? I would NEVER ride
: >without a helmet on, on a motorcycle but thats MY choice. I have once (in
: >Corfu) and it scared the crap out of me.
:
: I have similarly ridden without a helmet and felt much more at ease -
: funny isn't it. However, I would never tackle a motorway or fast
: road without one - just towns.
Well its personal preference isn't it. :-) Its that "choice" word again.
--
############################################################################
I I I
I Ian "Vinny" Vincent <i...@binny.demon.co.uk> I An Amiga and a Playstation I
I Accessing the Internet on an AMIGA I What more does anyone need I
I Registered as No.58 Wolf359 June 1996 I in the way of computers? I
I I I
############################################################################
Andy Cowie (Apps Centre,Stockport,Manchester,UK)
>In article <960124205359...@delphi.com>
> el...@delphi.com "elmo gatlin" writes:
>
>> I pay my insurance and I don't want help from the
>> state if I crash and hurt myself.
>
>You forget that in the UK most accident victims *do* want - and get - help
>from the state. And in that case those of us who subsidise the state,
>myself included (L7000 or so a year) should also have a say in which
>expensive freedoms should be granted to minorities, and which withheld
>for the financial good of the majority.
And most accident victims have actually paid a bloody fortune in NI
contributions over the years and are perfectly entitled to that help.
Andy
FZ,Guzz,NoValve
Barry Heath
> Do you in England have to have a driving test for each bike or size of bike
> you ride?
Not yet - but they're working on it!
--
bazza aka Barry Heath at the spare room <hea...@innotts.co.uk>
The original and genuine; look for the trademark; accept no
imitations.
Mileages cannot be guaranteed. No warranty as to fitness for
purpose.
Opinions are mine, but may be freely distributed. No refunds without
pop.
Mr Paul Duley
the mercy of fellow road users and suicidal children. It doesn't matter how
good a defensive rider you are there will always be a possible situation you
can do nothing about. In towns you are arguably more likely to have someone
pull out on you and a head hitting a door pillar without a lid will not look
pretty afterwards.
I've had five falls of my bikes and only hit my head in one. BUT on that
occasion I landed on my face and slid like that from 50mph down to a stop.
Seeing tarmac that close to your face at that speed is a humbling experience.
Full face lids are the thing to wear.
I don't agree with 'choices' being forced upon us but you have to bear in mind
the impressionable youngster that'll see 'Easy Rider' think it's cool without a
lid and ride to impress, a recipe for disaster and gruesom news stories. Not
the PR that motorcycling needs in the face of much more serious compulsory
legislation from Europe.
And by the way I'm not a wrinkly with no fun in his bones! I'm a meer 21.
Mr D.J. Burbridge
>>>The second issue is whether helmets are effective in cutting casualty
>>>numbers. I don't think that is at all clear. They reduce the
>>>chance of serious head injuries when there is an impact to the head, but
>>>you must also consider whether your probability of having an accident
>>>increases because you are wearing a helmet. From my own experience I
>>>feel I drive more cautiously when I don't wear a helmet. Ok, maybe
>>>that's just because I'm on the look out for police, good observation,
>>>etc.. :-).
>Right on brother!
>
>you ride?
Not yet, but I hear the distant drums for it. :-(
Alasdair Baxter
dave....@controls.eurotherm.co.uk "Dave Robins" writes:
>
> From what I understand, It's OK to wear one (helmets don't have to be BS
> marked, to cover foreigners riding in this country; luckily it applies
> to everyone), just illegal to sell one for motorcycle use.
Does that mean I could wear a bicycle helmet on my motor scooter and get
away with it? I somehow doubt it.
--
Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel: +44 115 970 5100; Fax: +44 115 9423263.
"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it".
Leigh Blue Caldwell
>
> In other words, it is, as you can see, quite possible for a
> safety measure to reduce the casualty rate while not affecting in the
> slightest the number of a certain category of injury. It is even
> possible, as should be obvious to the uninjured brain, for helmets to
> reduce total deaths, yet to increase the number of brain damaged
> accident victims in hospital.
This is quite correct - in fact it is recorded that precisely this
happened in the First World War when metal helmets were first
introduced to soldiers in the trenches. Head injuries went up
considerably, but deaths were much reduced.
Incidentally, those with personal injury cover on their motorcycle
insurance (or private healthcare cover) should be aware that riding
without a helmet is likely to invalidate that portion of your
cover. Check your policies if this concerns you.
A few people have asked why Admiral does not cover motorcycles -
check http://www.admiral-insurance.co.uk/intermic/risk.html for
the answer (or email me if you have no WWW access).
Regards,
Leigh.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internation represents Admiral on the net -
direct motor insurance with discounts for Internet quotes.
http://www.admiral-insurance.co.uk/
0800 600 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Ashdown
wrote:
{snip}
>
>I want to buy a GPZ or GPX600 from England but I live in Eire. Can
>anybody recommend a good bike shop in the greater London area. I
>want a shop with a large selection of decent used bikes. MCN lists a
>few but I would prefer to get a personal recommendation.
>
I use Hamiltons in Streatham. They get my vote for the friendly
service. None of the "We've got your money, now fuck off" attitude so
prevalent in the bike industry. Always give me a loan bike at very
reasonable rates (10 pounds a day for a 900 diversion)whenever mine is
in for a service.
Colin Ashdown co...@ashdown1.demon.co.uk
DoD# RF900RR
What ya want a bike that goes that fast for, eh?
The speed limit's 70 y'know.
Hugh Davies
> It also rules out Simpsons (probably) since they are intended to be car
>racing helmets and nowhere in their literature do Simpson mention bikes.
Do you (someone?) have a brief summary of what the law is regarding
helmets generally? There was an article in one of the car mags recently,
after which I was more confused than before...
The reason is that I go drag racing occasionally, have to wear a helmet
and my colleague is getting pissed off with me borrowing his spare, so
I'd like to buy one.
--
Regards,
Huge.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh J.E. Davies, Bedfordshire, England.
"Dissatisfied regular user of public transport"
Tony Fletcher
wrote:
>Fellas, lets bury that "motorcycle helmet" thread. Talk about flogging
>a dead horse. How about some new topics in this folder. Its in bad shape
>and Im not just being cynical.
>Im gonna ask a question just to start the ball rolling.
>
>I want to buy a GPZ or GPX600 from England but I live in Eire. Can
>anybody recommend a good bike shop in the greater London area. I
>want a shop with a large selection of decent used bikes. MCN lists a
>few but I would prefer to get a personal recommendation.
>
try motorcycle action in acton 0181 992 2823
or HGB harrow 01895 632234, two of the bigger shops in West Lopndon,
both pretty friendly
Steve Hunt
dave....@controls.eurotherm.co.uk (Dave Robins) writes:
> Then they completely ruined it all with a pathetic 'joke' with Alain
> DeCadenet ( has he got a lot to answer for or what ? ) being splatted by a
> car door being opened. Why ? What was the point of that ?
> Except perhaps to persuade the audience who'd been thinking of getting a bike
> to stick with their nice warm, safe car ?
I assumed it was to remind drivers to watch out for cyclists
George Christofi
>
>>I want to buy a GPZ or GPX600 from England but I live in Eire. Can
>>anybody recommend a good bike shop in the greater London area. I
>>want a shop with a large selection of decent used bikes. MCN lists a
>>few but I would prefer to get a personal recommendation.
>
>One shop I've looked at a reasonable recently is
>Rex Judd (Edgware,Burnt Oak) They have a selection of used
>bikes and seem OK, (nothing to do with me etc.)
>
>Don't touch Mach Motorcycles (Kenton), very unfriendly and
>would sell me a bike with cash discount, lied about labour
>charges when they did some work on my bike.
>
Funny world innit!!
Rex Judd were done a while ago for clocking bikes.....and Machs have
never let me down for parts or service.
Another one to try is Loyd Coopers in Queens Road Watford, again,
never a problem with their work!
GSXR 1100 WN All Balls....No Bullshit
FZ600 For Sale £1700 ono.
Mag Member #83920
TGWU 1/727/1210 Shop Steward
Amateur Radio G0JKZ local bbs GB7BST
Tony Sumner
Mr Paul Duley <ee3...@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>I don't agree with 'choices' being forced upon us but you have to bear in
mind
>the impressionable youngster that'll see 'Easy Rider' think it's cool without
a
>lid and ride to impress, a recipe for disaster and gruesom news stories. Not
err, I thought that t=both protected and unprotected riding took place in
"Easy rider" I'm sure I remember mr nicholson wearing a helmet with WWI german
insignia on it.
Time to go home, dig out the flares, joss sticks and CSNY albums and watch a
vid......
Tony
Maxine Wesley
: I would never ride without a lid, especially in towns when you are much more at
[snip]
: I've had five falls of my bikes
If i'd fallen off 5 times I guess I'd resort to a helmet! I guess I ought
to state at this point that I think it should be a matter of personal
choice - the legislation probably being bought into effect by a
politician with shares in Kevlar!
: the impressionable youngster that'll see 'Easy Rider'
ageism encroaches on the subject..
: And by the way I'm not a wrinkly with no fun in his bones! I'm a meer 21.
and again.. who says you have to be old to be dull..or should I say Dulley?
Maxine
ps. Sorry didn't mean to be offensive kiddo!
The night shall be filled with music
And the cares that infest the day m...@dmu.ac.uk
Shall fold their tents like the Arabs http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~mxw/
And as silently steal away. Honda CB250 RS
H.W. Longfellow
Martin Sheil
: m...@dmu.ac.uk (Maxine Wesley) wrote:
: >ps. Sorry didn't mean to be offensive kiddo!
: Maxine, a small pointer. Do NOT, under any circumstances, apologise on
: wreck.moto. E-mail if you feel you need to apologise. Otherwise how
: will we keep our creds as mean spirited Brits?
: I hope this helps.
Er, Gaye, how come you didn't write this until tomorrow? Are you getting
ahead of yourself again?
BTW. Maxine doesn't like her RS being called a small poiner. The
suspension isn't *that* bad.
Martin
GOLO #3
Gaye Oliver
>ps. Sorry didn't mean to be offensive kiddo!
Maxine, a small pointer. Do NOT, under any circumstances, apologise on
wreck.moto. E-mail if you feel you need to apologise. Otherwise how
will we keep our creds as mean spirited Brits?
I hope this helps.
Gaye
UKMC#9
Mike Fleming
tsu...@atml.co.uk "Tony Sumner" writes:
> In article <4eniqt$r...@info-server.surrey.ac.uk>,
> Mr Paul Duley <ee3...@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> >I don't agree with 'choices' being forced upon us but you have to bear in
> mind
> >the impressionable youngster that'll see 'Easy Rider' think it's cool without
> a
> >lid and ride to impress, a recipe for disaster and gruesom news stories. Not
>
> err, I thought that t=both protected and unprotected riding took place in
> "Easy rider" I'm sure I remember mr nicholson wearing a helmet with WWI german
> insignia on it.
The helmet he starts off wearing is an Amaircan football helmet.
--
Mike (DF) Fleming MAG #79794 DoD #4446 Greenpeace #567708F
JKLO #004 KotWP7 UKMC #9
In this world of rapacious greed, protection is spread very thin
Dolphins and birds are looked upon as distant deserving kin
John Wright
Christofi) wrote:
>
>Rex Judd were done a while ago for clocking bikes.....and Machs have
>never let me down for parts or service.
>
>never a problem with their work!
>
I bought my bike from Lloyd Cooper too, seem a good bunch of guys to me. My
ex bought her GPz 305 from them too and seems very happy with their
service. Since she doesn't service her own bike she probably uses them more
than I do.
John Wright VFR 750F
Danny Thompson
>What's the maximum fine for riding a motorbike without a helmet? Is it
>endorsable?
>
>I ride occasionally on minor roads without the helmet, it's a completly
>different experience, very pleasant. However it would be nice to know
>what the damage would be should I get stopped.
It depends upon what stops you. If it is the ground or any other
solid object against your head the damage is likely to be rather
large. I have a Shoei in which I had a very slow-speed "get off" two
years ago (I've kept it as a souvenier). I was shunted by another
motorcycle as I exited a roundabout doing less than 20mph. The helmet
is grazed to half it's thickness (visor too). Had I been doing what
you do I would have lost much of the right hand side of my face and
skull.
> I'd certainly like to be
>able to choose whether to wear one or not, particulalry on smaller roads
>(it also makes you drive a lot more carefully).
This is preposterous. There is enough evidence that even a low-speed
accident involving your head is enough to cause severe damage or
death. The anti-helmet argument is totally discredited and will never
be proved.
>How a national no helmet-day sometime in the Summer, say June 1st ?
On yer bike mate!
| Danny Thompson |
| It's a Bird, innit!. It's a bloody sea bird...... |
| .. it's not any bloody Flavour. Albatross! |
Danny Thompson
>On 1 Feb 1996 16:51:29 GMT, eei...@eei.ericsson.se ( Darren Dunphy )
>wrote:
>
>>Fellas, lets bury that "motorcycle helmet" thread. Talk about flogging
>>a dead horse. How about some new topics in this folder. Its in bad shape
>>and Im not just being cynical.
>>Im gonna ask a question just to start the ball rolling.
>>
>>I want to buy a GPZ or GPX600 from England but I live in Eire. Can
>>anybody recommend a good bike shop in the greater London area. I
>>want a shop with a large selection of decent used bikes. MCN lists a
>>few but I would prefer to get a personal recommendation.
>>
>try motorcycle action in acton 0181 992 2823
>or HGB harrow 01895 632234, two of the bigger shops in West Lopndon,
>both pretty friendly
Or in south London you could try Cosmopolitain Motors or City
Motorycles. Both are very good (Cosmo's are my fave).
Andy the Pugh
Pa...@triagonl.demon.co.uk says...
>Yup, when they are delared surplus I want a Fox.
>
>4WD, 7tonnes, 4.2 Jag 6 cyl. engine, 5 speed pre-select gearbox (no
>reverse gear, just a forward/reverse leaver), 30mm RARDEN cannon
>(80rpm), 7/62 GPMG, 7'x7'x16'6", run-flats. Good for 90mph :)
>
Give those Volvos a taste of their own medicine :-)
--
ap
Paul Hounslow
[...]
>But it's the police that have to find all the bits to put in the black
>plastic sack :-)
[...]
Bollocks do they. _Never_ in 11 years as a fireman did I ever hear of
such a thing. Bloody police just stand around taking notes and making
official complaints about some poor fireman trying to make light of
the situation before he throws up. All he did was hold the end of the
victims arm up and say; "he's a handy fellow". BTW there were no
members of the public present.
[...]
73's de Paul
----
Pa...@triagonl.demon.co.uk G4YFE@GB7RDG DoD #0573 BOOF #18 UKMC #9
Reading, England <URL:http://gilgamesh.rdg.ac.uk/people/pmh/>
The Smelling Pisstakes are all mine :)
Paul Hounslow
>In article <VWx5RaBs...@mahayana.demon.co.uk> Simon Gray <si...@mahayana.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>In article <3105fcb1...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, Trevor G Fleming
>><fle...@mail.internexus.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>My personal belief is that riders should not only wear a helmet, but
>>>protective clothing as well
>>
>>Out of interest, what do you consider more protective than a proper
>>padded leather jacket & proper padded leather trousers ?
>An armoured car? Complete with serviceable gun, of course :-)
Yup, when they are delared surplus I want a Fox.
4WD, 7tonnes, 4.2 Jag 6 cyl. engine, 5 speed pre-select gearbox (no
reverse gear, just a forward/reverse leaver), 30mm RARDEN cannon
(80rpm), 7/62 GPMG, 7'x7'x16'6", run-flats. Good for 90mph :)
73's de Paul
john relph
A.C....@shef.ac.uk "Andy the Pugh" writes:
> In article <8249886...@triagonl.demon.co.uk>,
> Pa...@triagonl.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >Yup, when they are delared surplus I want a Fox.
> >
> >4WD, 7tonnes, 4.2 Jag 6 cyl. engine, 5 speed pre-select gearbox (no
> >reverse gear, just a forward/reverse leaver), 30mm RARDEN cannon
> >(80rpm), 7/62 GPMG, 7'x7'x16'6", run-flats. Good for 90mph :)
> >
>
> Give those Volvos a taste of their own medicine :-)
>
Have a gooood day, burn a Volvo, it only takes half a gallon.
Thirsty man
Mike Fleming
Pa...@triagonl.demon.co.uk "Paul Hounslow" writes:
> Bollocks do they. _Never_ in 11 years as a fireman did I ever hear of
> such a thing. Bloody police just stand around taking notes and making
> official complaints about some poor fireman trying to make light of
> the situation before he throws up. All he did was hold the end of the
> victims arm up and say; "he's a handy fellow". BTW there were no
> members of the public present.
Seems like an armless thing to do. Bit mean to finger him for
it. Just not humerus, these police. Give 'em the cold shoulder.