Once in a while a politician gets it right and understands that their role is not to micromanage our lives. Naturally, when they do this the statists, lobbyists, shroud wavers and control freaks line up to dish out condemnation and proclaim a positive holocaust if their wishes are not followed to the letter.
So it is with Norman Baker.
Any parent knows the maxim “do as I say, not as I do”. But one bold transport minister is attempting to adopt it in government by publicly declaring that he cycles daily without a helmet despite being responsible for cycling safety.
The Groan’s opening paragraph pins their colours to the mast right there – they don’t approve. However, parents are perfectly correct to say from time to time, “do as I say not as I do” for the child may well be too young to follow their parent’s example at that point. I see nothing wrong with a parent insisting that the child wear a cycle helmet while eschewing one themselves, for example. Adults make their own choices and when in charge of the child’s welfare may well make different choices on behalf of the child. Things change as the child grows older and can make their own choices, so it’s a poor analogy. Besides, Mr Baker and his colleagues are not our parents and we are not children.
Mr Baker may well be responsible for cycle safety, but it is not his role to enforce the wearing of helmets and he doesn’t want to do so. Indeed, like me, he prefers to ride bare-headed.
Norman Baker, the minister responsible for cycling, walking and local transport – and lifelong bike enthusiast – has reignited a debate that divides bike lovers. The Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes has declared it his “libertarian right” to put himself at risk on roads by not wearing a helmet, prompting claims from road safety groups that he is unfit for the job.
I’d say it makes him ideally suited for the job.
Baker said: “I don’t wear a helmet when I cycle. The first reason is that I don’t want to. I don’t want to wear something on my head. For me the joy of cycling is to have the wind in your hair, such as I have left. It’s free, it’s unencumbered; I don’t want to be loaded down.”
“It is a libertarian argument. The responsibility is only towards myself. It’s not like drinking and driving where you can damage other people. You do no harm. I’m not encouraging people not to do this, I’m just saying I make a decision not to.”
It is nice for once to hear a politician accurately making the libertarian argument. We understand the risks involved and choose – as sentient adults – to take that risk. Now, nanny, go away.
Brake, the fake charity gets its oar in, naturally:
“Ministers should practise what they preach and when a minister directly responsible for cycling safety refuses to wear a cycle helmet, we then have to look at their suitability for the role.”
As I said, he has demonstrated absolute suitability for the role. Government department lays out the risks and we make informed choices. More like that, please. Oh, and when will the taxpayer cease to fund Brake? I thought we were supposed to be making cutbacks in public spending?
In an interview with the Guardian he also revealed that he had won a small victory for London bus users that he hopes to repeat elsewhere in the country. He has convinced Transport for London to drop what he described as “unnecessary and annoying” safety announcements on buses. “It was a horrible grating female voice which said: ‘Bus stopping at the next stop, please stand well clear of doors.’ TfL agreed to get rid of it,” he said.
This chap is going up in my estimation quite rapidly. Anyone who gets under the skin of the purse lipped, lemon-sucking, humourless goons of the new puritan movement can’t be all bad.
I wonder what the puritans reaction would be if he extended his opinions to the wearing of Motorcycle crash helmets? I have ridden in Texas U.S.A. a Harley Davidson Dyna Glide Lowrider (Phew!) sans Helmet just to experience what it is like to legally ride without a battle bowler, I did not ride more than 35 m.p.h./55 k.p.h. because I did not like the absence of the familiarity of a skid lid, quite apart from the times they have almost certainly saved my life in my younger days and more recently in competition; however there is also a personable responsibility argument in there use and I wonder if this will be exploited by lobbying organisations such as MAG? (Motorcycle Action Group).
Perhaps he could take Boris to task over the transport booze ban while he’s at it.
” Anyone who gets under the skin of the purse lipped, lemon-sucking, humourless goons of the new puritan movement can’t be all bad.”
Indeed! 🙂
The transport booze ban Dick Puddlecote? Whenever I ask about where I’m allowed to drink in public up here in Lancashire I’m seen as either a violent yob or a deranged loon. One of the two.
It was a fantastic day in my home town. Blue skies, warm weather and a lushly decorated garden in our lovely town square. I fancied a wee picnic with maybe a beer or two. It’s Sunday and it’s deserted. I planned to buy a bottle of two of beer and sit there, with my little picnic.
No, can’t do that. Because, under a law that was originally intended for violent yobs, drinking in public is illegal in that area. No ifs. No buts. (Or butts, probably, come to think of it.) What you want to do is verboten. Never mind that it harms no-one and would be lovely and convivial. I would be causing no inconvenience to anyone else whatsoever. Prohibited. Sieg Heil!
I’ve raised this issue with one of the local councillors (who happens to be my uncle) and apart from him subtly assuming I’m deranged has agreed to look into this for me by sending me a list of the local Alcohol Exclusion Zones. I don’t expect to receive this information. The local council – as are all councils – are secretive and suspicious of any public scrutiny of its affairs.
So I went on my way home, denied a pleasurable lunch out in the open that is quite normal in most of the rest of Europe.
It’s disgraceful. Our country desperately needs its inconsistent, problematic, authoritarian and ultimately counter-productive attitude to alcohol sorted out.
If what he does upsets those sanctimonious puritans at Brake he has to be a good minister.
Bravo!
I have a rather sinking feeling that, given the government’s inability to govern without consulting the newspapers, that Mr. Baker will be quietly reshuffled. I would smile for an entire morning though if we were given a statement from the High Command supporting his right to choose on this matter!
No. I’ve thought about it and I can’t see it; and that’s without rehashing all the statistics about cycle helmets making cycling MORE dangerous on the roads…
Dunno about the taxpayer, but I do know that brake is largely bankrolled by the private bus companies – the idea being to make driving a very unpleasant thing to do, thereby “forcing” people onto buses. Kerching!
And another thing, its’ founder Mary Williams tells us that she lost her fiance when he was run down by a “speeeeeeeding” driver.
Not quite all the facts there.
The section of road had been closed that day for a motor sport event and had been clearly marked as such and out of bounds for pedestrians as the speed limit did not apply for the duration of the event. This chap decided to ignore the signs and walk along the road and was hit by one of the competing cars.
The chap who told me this was involved with brake for a couple of years at the very beginning before switching to Safespeed ans was, until recently emigrating, a consultant at one of the main hospitals in Manchester. A chap who is highly unlikely to go round telling porkies of this nature.
Under no circumstances do or will any of my children wear a cycle helmet. Nor do I, but in the spirit of “do as I say, not as I do,” that’s irrelevant. So why not? Because I recall a childhood where a bike was basically an extension of your body. You dived out of the house and onto your bike almost in a single motion, and spent the rest of the day on and off it. This was not a dangerous way of living, requiring protective gear to guard against the ever present risks and dangers. It was a joyous one, and one I will not deny to my children.
That sounds a bit like my childhood.
Good start.
Now perhaps he can stop the stupid train announcements that say “Please mind the gap…” at every single station.
God that gets on my nerves.
And while he’s about it, switch OFF the bloody overhead motorway signs unless there’s something useful to say. Today I learned that “soft tyres waste fuel”, and also “Driving in winter keep your windscreen clear” – because of course, it doesn’t matter in summer. Piss off, nanny.
/Rant
Ciaran. Will you be my Dad?
Must admit to the same attitude, although no kids yet.
Did you also pile bricks under one end of a plank and play at Evel Kneivel? Most excellent!
Announcenents. Our local bus station has one of these orrible devices telling us that for “our comfort and safety there is monitored cee cee tee vee” and that it is “illegal” to smoke in the bus station and that those wishing to do so should leave the bus station.
It all reminds me of the Central Scrutinizer on Frank Zappas “Joe’s Garage” album.
“The white zone is for loading and unloading only.
If you wish to load or unload, go to the white zone.
You’ll love it!
It’s a way of life!”