(ex) CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCILLOR, ANDREW BURNS; FOUNTAINBRIDGE/CRAIGLOCKHART WARD 'EDINBURGH LABOUR GROUP' LEADER; & 'THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL' LEADER.
--- just very brief comments (both work & personal), as often as possible, that's all :-)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Quiet news day!
Oh dear, oh dear - you can definitely tell it's a local holiday weekend ...
Many thanks for the comment - and I don't disagree with your thoughts (in your own blog) about the courtesy of the Police etc. I was totally relaxed about being handed cycle security information etc.
... but I do disagree (didn't say to the Officers that morning, as they were just doing their job) with the premise for stopping cyclists being that they don't have a helmet and/or high visibility clothing?
I'm persaonlly very, very concerned that there's a growing assumption that helmets SHOULD be worn - in Australia this eventually led to compulsion with catastrophic consequences for the uptake of cycling - and equally catastrophic consequences for wider health issues.
If the Officers had stood (say) at the lights on Forrest Road, as it joins George IV Bridge, they would have had a much more fruitful morning in terms of 'changing' truly dangerous cycling behaviour ...
The exercise (certainly the impact) is much wider than helmets and visibility. Just the presence of the police has a deterrence and prevention effect - both to crime and cyclists breaking the rules of the road.
And I am aware of the down under experience and agree that it would be totally inappropriate to legislate on helmets.
Where they choose to prioritise the road check location is a judgement call - for them.
3 comments:
Much ado about - a quiet news day. You are not the only councillor stopped en route to work.
http://tinyurl.com/l8nhfb
Cameron
Many thanks for the comment - and I don't disagree with your thoughts (in your own blog) about the courtesy of the Police etc. I was totally relaxed about being handed cycle security information etc.
... but I do disagree (didn't say to the Officers that morning, as they were just doing their job) with the premise for stopping cyclists being that they don't have a helmet and/or high visibility clothing?
I'm persaonlly very, very concerned that there's a growing assumption that helmets SHOULD be worn - in Australia this eventually led to compulsion with catastrophic consequences for the uptake of cycling - and equally catastrophic consequences for wider health issues.
If the Officers had stood (say) at the lights on Forrest Road, as it joins George IV Bridge, they would have had a much more fruitful morning in terms of 'changing' truly dangerous cycling behaviour ...
Andrew
Appreciate the detailed reply.
The exercise (certainly the impact) is much wider than helmets and visibility. Just the presence of the police has a deterrence and prevention effect - both to crime and cyclists breaking the rules of the road.
And I am aware of the down under experience and agree that it would be totally inappropriate to legislate on helmets.
Where they choose to prioritise the road check location is a judgement call - for them.
Best wishes, Cameron
Post a Comment