Issue 128 : April - May 2003
MAG News
Helmet Cases
Yamaha YZF-R6
Honda CBR600RR
Screamin' Eagle
Cycling Zealot
| |
|
MAG News
|
First blood to C1 man
Architect Peter Parker, 44 successfully challenged the legitimacy of applying the motorcycle helmet law to him when riding his BMW C1. Mr Parker was represented by Mr Derek Johashen of Pictons in Bedford and was twofold. Firstly the operator sits in not on the C1 since the vehicle has a roof, and secondly the vehicle serves to provide its occupant with an equivalent or greater level of protection than might be provided by a conventional helmet. The following supportive reasoning is published on Peter Parker's website and substantiates his claim that C1 riders deserve special treatment under law. "I do not accept that the lawful definition of a motorcycle or the regulations requiring the wearing of a protective helmet whilst driving on a C1 were written and implemented for a vehicle of this specific design." "The laws and regulations predate the introduction of this vehicle in the UK and therefore require proper investigation to establish (a) if they are applicable and (b) if they are, if the vehicle should be considered exempt. It is my considered opinion that as you drive "inside" a C1, strapped within a safety cell, protected by side impact bars and behind a front impact crumple zone, the regulations requiring a protective helmet to be worn whilst driving "on" a motorcycle do not apply. Aside from this, even if it is argued that the regulations do apply, the specific design features and proven safety tests which currently permit this vehicle to be driven in 15 countries without wearing a protective helmet evidently justify an exemption. So why is it considered illegal to drive a C1 in the UK without a helmet? For one wholly unacceptable reason - the UK Government refuses to even look into the issue "irrespective of the individual merits of the case"! I should state that I have been riding motorcycles for some 28 years and always wear a helmet, but the C1 is different. I consider that in the case of the C1, you should be able to choose if you wear a helmet or not." In finding Mr Parker 'not guilty' the magistrates made it very clear that both arguments must be satisfied and the safety features of the C1 were so comprehensive that it satisfied the purposive argument entirely. Accordingly, unless you are 'in' and can still prove your head is protected by satisfying all the Euro tests you must wear a protective helmet. It is anticipated that the decision will be appealed against. Streetbiker comment
While the C1 clearly offers protection that normal motorcycles do not, Parker's moral case is strengthened by the fact that a helmet will exacerbate whiplash injuries when the rider's body is restrained, as it is in the C1, because the helmet adds considerable weight to the head. While the whiplash effect will be worse in the case of the C1 rider, it is often a factor in all motorcycle accidents. So if it can be argued that Government legislation is aggravating whiplash injuries in this case it opens the door to the argument that. albeit to a lesser degree, helmet legislation could be implicated in aggravated whiplash in many normal motorcycle accidents. It is almost certainly the fear that outrageous libertarians might harness this argument to revisit the helmet law in general that is sustaining the Government's intransigence in the face of European approval of the C1 as a helmet-free zone. Articulate minorities are increasingly challenging laws through the courts where they feel that they are the victims of prejudice. Inconsistencies in the application of justice are being exposed to the spotlight as never before and where emotive rhetoric and presumption gives way to pure reason, the possibilities are fantastic; interesting days . . .  Man jailed for seven days over helmet fineMAG member Trevor Henning of Portreath Cornwall was given a seven day custodial sentence by West Country Magistrates for 'Wilful refusal to pay' a £45 fine imposed for riding his motorcycle without protective headgear. Mr Henning served four days of his sentence before being released early from Exeter Prison. Mr Henning is thought to be the first person to be jailed on this issue of conscience since the veteran campaigner Fred Hill died in custody in 1984. At the time of writing Mr Henning, 37, originally from Co Down Northern Ireland has two outstanding fines for failure to wear a crash helmet having been stopped twice by the same officer. The officer was not sympathetic to the principled stand being taken and subjected Mr Henning to what he describes as 'a very opinionated, insulting and ill-informed lecture for about ten minutes.' As a result of his stand Trevor Henning has been nominated for The Freedom Award, MAG's highest accolade for those who sacrifice their own liberty in the pursuit of riders' freedoms. Streetbiker comment
Critics of the helmet law point to the fact that it represents inconsistency in the application of justice and serves no useful purpose since most people wore helmets voluntarily. Advocates of compulsion have been unable to prove that the withdrawal of choice on helmets has had any benefits for road safety. WE might all ask ourselves how can it be right that burglars and muggers go free while people like Trevor Henning are imprisoned over a clear issue of conscience?  |
|
home | top
| |
A BMW C1 rider who challenged the helmet law has won his case.