Minister for dangerous cycling?

deptfordmarmoset

There was a quick 5 minute item about whether ministers for transport should wear helmets when cycling at the end of this morning's Today programme on Radio 4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0105yv3 from 2:55:00 (ie last 5 minutes)

I don't know whether I should be happy that Norman Baker took a ''get people on bikes, adults can make their own grown-up decisions about headgear'' perspective or whether I should despair at the thought that I just found myself agreeing with a Tory minister...

Robstar24

Norman Baker is a Lib Dem

bails87

Phew, then everything's going to be ok!

EKE_38BPM

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

...I just found myself agreeing with a Tory minister...

Robstar24 wrote:

Norman Baker is a Lib Dem

Is there a difference?

Kieran_Burns

Robstar24 wrote:

Norman Baker is a Lib Dem

That didn't help

Robstar24

why this assumption that if you're a cyclist you're a liberal/left-wing? whilst i don't particularly like the tory pro-motorist slant i don't let it colour my entire political disposition. i drive as well as cycle and think we could all rub along a bit better with a bit more consideration on all sides and some more proper cycling facilities, for which the cost can easily be justified by taking cars off road and the health benefits, we need to do more to counter the lazy arguments of people like the Taxpayers Alliance/Clarksons.

it also slightly irks me that the green movement has very much hitched their train to the cycling bandwagon. I bet that most people on this forum don't cycle for the green benefits, but for health and financial reasons, as well as not having to put up with packed trains and/or traffic jams. yet the anti-cyclist lot consistently use the 'all cyclists are tree-huggers' argument to try to tar us all with the same brush. if cycling hadn't been used by the green lobby and the fiscal arguments were put forward more forcefully we might gain a more receptive audience from policymakers, drivers and politicians?

notsoblue

Robstar24 wrote:

the anti-cyclist lot consistently use the 'all cyclists are tree-huggers' argument to try to tar us all with the same brush. if cycling hadn't been used by the green lobby and the fiscal arguments were put forward more forcefully we might gain a more receptive audience from policymakers, drivers and politicians?

Cyclists are seen as a marginal group, so its easy to conjure up divisive stereotypes to suit whatever agenda people want to push.

I'm glad the minister defended his decision to be honest. Best way to erode this perception of cycling as being a particularly dangerous activity.

The Rookie

Critical Mass clearly portray a left wing type image (right or wrong) for cycling.

Simon

Fireblade96

I too think the minister did a good job of defending his position, and refusing to be drawn into the "won't anyone think of the children..." argument. John Humphrey s did slightly take the sting out of this by stating up front that he doesn't wear a helmet.

The representative of Brake, on the other hand, could have her position summarized as "people can't be trusted to think for themselves, we must have RULES! "

Cycling is a very safe activity. Get a grip!

deptfordmarmoset

Robstar24 wrote:

why this assumption that if you're a cyclist you're a liberal/left-wing? whilst i don't particularly like the tory pro-motorist slant i don't let it colour my entire political disposition. i drive as well as cycle and think we could all rub along a bit better with a bit more consideration on all sides and some more proper cycling facilities, for which the cost can easily be justified by taking cars off road and the health benefits, we need to do more to counter the lazy arguments of people like the Taxpayers Alliance/Clarksons.

it also slightly irks me that the green movement has very much hitched their train to the cycling bandwagon. I bet that most people on this forum don't cycle for the green benefits, but for health and financial reasons, as well as not having to put up with packed trains and/or traffic jams. yet the anti-cyclist lot consistently use the 'all cyclists are tree-huggers' argument to try to tar us all with the same brush. if cycling hadn't been used by the green lobby and the fiscal arguments were put forward more forcefully we might gain a more receptive audience from policymakers, drivers and politicians?

I was only being tongue in cheek but, while we're on the subject, I think there probably is something about today's UK cyclist that goes against the herd mentality, because they have made their own personal decisions to move away from complete reliance on mass public transport and private motor vehicles, and they've moved towards an independent, ''making my own way in the world'' approach to life. That emphasis on self-reliance may well indicate a strong streak of ''liberal,'' independent thought that would sit uncomfortably with toeing party lines. (When I use the word ''liberal'' I do so in the sense that you can be a liberal socialist, a liberal conservative, hell you could even be a liberal lib-dem!)

Kieran_Burns

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

liberal

liberal - lower case

not LIberal upper case.

There is a big difference (as highlighted by DM's statement)

notsoblue

Call me a cynic, but this was a big win for Brake. By reinforcing a popular view of cycle safety (or lack of it) they've managed to promote their charity. This is all good PR for them.

ndru

I think the minister stood his ground rather well. On the other hand I would really like to see those studies that prove the effectiveness of helmets that have been quoted. I would especially like to see who they have been commissioned by.

Robstar24

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Robstar24 wrote:

why this assumption that if you're a cyclist you're a liberal/left-wing? whilst i don't particularly like the tory pro-motorist slant i don't let it colour my entire political disposition. i drive as well as cycle and think we could all rub along a bit better with a bit more consideration on all sides and some more proper cycling facilities, for which the cost can easily be justified by taking cars off road and the health benefits, we need to do more to counter the lazy arguments of people like the Taxpayers Alliance/Clarksons.

it also slightly irks me that the green movement has very much hitched their train to the cycling bandwagon. I bet that most people on this forum don't cycle for the green benefits, but for health and financial reasons, as well as not having to put up with packed trains and/or traffic jams. yet the anti-cyclist lot consistently use the 'all cyclists are tree-huggers' argument to try to tar us all with the same brush. if cycling hadn't been used by the green lobby and the fiscal arguments were put forward more forcefully we might gain a more receptive audience from policymakers, drivers and politicians?

I was only being tongue in cheek but, while we're on the subject, I think there probably is something about today's UK cyclist that goes against the herd mentality, because they have made their own personal decisions to move away from complete reliance on mass public transport and private motor vehicles, and they've moved towards an independent, ''making my own way in the world'' approach to life. That emphasis on self-reliance may well indicate a strong streak of ''liberal,'' independent thought that would sit uncomfortably with toeing party lines. (When I use the word ''liberal'' I do so in the sense that you can be a liberal socialist, a liberal conservative, hell you could even be a liberal lib-dem!)

self-reliance and independence/individualism is, I'd say, a much more right wing than left wing concept, with the view that we rely on ourselves rather than the state to achieve our goals. i don't think this can really be applied to transport: whilst cyclists may be doing the individualist bit by choosing the less common option and relying on themselves to get to work, we also rely on publicly funded goods such as roads, traffic lights etc to get us there in one piece (which by the way is a great way to undermine the arguments of clarkson et al). my point was just against this 'aggregation of causes' whereby if you do one activity some assume you have a particular political slant.