First Person: Helmet law attacks motorcyclists' personal choice and dignity
FRED Hill died in custody in 1984 aged 74, halfway through a 60-day sentence imposed under the law that criminalises motorcyclists who fail to wear crash helmets when riding.
A former Army dispatch rider during the Second World War, Fred worked as a mathematics teacher, before retiring.
-
Jolyon Lawson
Incensed by the compulsory helmet law, Fred rode everywhere in a beret.
Fred's refusal to pay the fines constituted contempt of court, for which he was jailed 31 times.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Fred loathed prison life and once wrote a disturbing account of his experiences: "What is a man deprived of his name, his freedom of movement taken away, his every privacy invaded, every move spied upon, locked away in a filthy cell for 23 hours out of the 24 hours – and half of these miserable hours spent in darkness".
A member of the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG), Fred rode on many protest rides all over the country.
Fred made speeches at the demonstrations, dressed in his arrow-patterned prison uniform and exercising his Yorkshire wit.
Once, in the dock of a magistrates' court where a lady magistrate berated him, Fred reminded her that if it hadn't been for suffragettes breaking the law, she wouldn't be sitting where she was that day.
Fred was imprisoned 31 times, his final sentence of 60 days in mid-winter proving too much to take.
The helmet law has made no difference to motorcycle accident fatalities but served to focus attention on surviving accidents rather than preventing them.
In this age of obsessive legislation, many people appear intellectually incapable of distinguishing between a precaution that has some merit and a draconian law enforcing its observation.
The helmet law is an illustration of ill-conceived, disproportionate and ineffective legislation that reflects contempt for those at whom it is directed.
MAG has never been against helmet use, we simply feel that is wrong to criminalise those who choose what to wear when riding.
Road safety is far more about what is inside your head than what you wrap around it.
If we ever concede that the Government has the right to dictate to us in this way then we concede that, ultimately, they have the right to tell us what to ride or drive or what not to ride or drive at all.
Life is ultimately about choice. Withdraw choice and you attack dignity.
Fred Hill defended more than just motorcycling, he defended human dignity.
For more information, visit www.mag-uk.org
24 Comments
View all
by Philp29
Saturday, March 09 2013, 12:02AM
“GarethC2010 - sorry but Kempton is absolutely right. The revenue that the Government receives from tobacco sales far outweighs the cost of treatment. Google it - someone even requested the figures through a Freedom of Information request. Revenue is approx £10bn, cost of treatment about £2bn. I'm not pro-smoking or anything and I think there are plenty of reasons why people should be encouraged to stop. But financial burden on the health services isn't one of them.
http://tinyurl.com/4ofvafh”
by spragger
Friday, March 08 2013, 6:46PM
“Good reminder that Easter is upon us and the annual Motorbiker attrition is about to start, again
- Ride within your ability”
by stevietutes
Friday, March 08 2013, 1:59PM
“Sikh's should have to wear a Trotter's Crash Turban.”
by stevietutes
Friday, March 08 2013, 1:57PM
“RamonaFlowers,
Yes, all those people should have to pay for their own treatment. Or take out insurance if they have a risky occupation. As for Brett Seymour, he should pay for his own treatment, the cars he 'extensively damaged', the fire brigade call out costs and the subsequent police investigation. Depression or not, he's an adult and he knows right from wrong.
And Kempton,
If you're dumb enough to smoke you should pay more tax on cigarettes, not less. That way people like Charlie Hook (7 year old boy with cancer who has been in the HDM many times) and his family wouldn't have to raise £300,000 for specialist treatment abroad, instead of being left to fend for himself by the skint NHS.”
by Sparta_
Friday, March 08 2013, 12:51PM
“Oh, leave it out with the red arrows. l simply don't care one iota what drones think!”
by darkchuck
Friday, March 08 2013, 12:42PM
“I have never seen a Sikh riding a motorbike without a helmet, has anyone else ? do they choose to not ride because they know its not safe ?”
by Sparta_
Friday, March 08 2013, 12:36PM
“l wore a helmet before they became mandatory ... but not all the time. ln summer when we went to the coast, we'd arrive and then cruise around the seafront and the like without our helmets.On the camp and caravan sites we didn't wear them either and when we popped to the local shop ... no helmet. We were not alone doing this, almost everybody did. l wouldn't call that dangerous in the slightest.
Helmets do reduce your vision and hearing. Go into a motorbike shop and put an a helmet, pull the visor down and then walk around the shop ... you'll 'see' for yourself.
Ther's also the fact that helmets (and seatbelts) can kill. This won't be on any stats though, all it will say is 'fatality in a RTA'. I myself was thrown in the back of a Range Rover when it overturned and rolled due to a blowout. lf l'd been wearing my seatbelt l would,ve been killed ... the drivers seat was a mangled mess.
Nowadays we have a myriad of regulations supposedly for your own safety ... all accompanied of course by fines. One has to wonder which is the priority , safety or the revenue? Freedom of choice is not on the agenda!”
by Dolly_me
Friday, March 08 2013, 12:01PM
“Oops I didn't realise this had already been posted as cannot see all comments :D”
by Dolly_me
Friday, March 08 2013, 11:53AM
“Can I just point out that Sikhs are exempt from wearing crash helmets due to their hair/religion but the law is the law right!?
So they have set a president and guess who wins again. We bend the UK rules for others in the name of religion but safety must overrule this surely?”
by Strangley
Friday, March 08 2013, 10:42AM
“Two red arrows to my post, despite the fact that I did not express an opinion either way, on the wearing of crash helmets.
The crux of my post was that statements of "fact" are often made with no reference to the evidence supporting them. A blunt figure on the number of motorcyclist deaths post helmet legislation is meaningless unless you know other information.
Has the number of riders increased since helmet legislation?
What proportion of these deaths where related purely to head injuries?
It would be also interesting to know the rate of none fatal but life changing brain injuries has changed?
PS. Before anyone asks, yes I did ride a motorcycle up to a few years back.”