The helmet under 16 … And for “workers bike”
I imagine that you have been following all this paraphernalia that was mounted in Congress about the mandatory or not, cyclist helmet, at what age, and so forth. It has been published in many blogs and media.
The final conclusions are reflected in a document of proposed amendments to the future Law on Traffic and Road Safety (PDF). It seems that with respect to the hull, the amendment 145 of CiU will be approved, as already they point in Valencia bike. the emphasis added CiU proposed amendments to the original text.
AMENDMENT NO. 145
Catalan Parliamentary Group
For the purposes of paragraph eight modify the single article
Modification of the articulated text of the Law on Traffic, Motor Vehicle Traffic and Road Safety, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 339/1990 of 2 March.
The second paragraph of paragraph 1 of Article 47 shall read as follows:
Drivers and, where appropriate, the TECHNOLOGY-WIKI of bicycle light and cycles generally be required to use protective helmet in urban, intercity roads and cruises, in cases and under the conditions established by regulation, being mandatory use in any case, for those under sixteen years and also by those circulating on intercity roads.
Attendees also will be required to wear helmets on urban roads those drivers and occupants of bicycles and cycles they belong to a group that makes use of bicycles during working hours as this is your work vehicle. ”
And ole. You did not notice anything unusual?
The “collective” bike users as “work vehicle”, who are they?
On the one hand CiU proposes that the helmet you have to wear those under 16 compulsorily, but on the other introduces the need for workers who use bicycles as a “work vehicle” have to carry at all times. And because?
This amendment is twofold. First, the mandatory helmet use is set to cyclists under 16 years and those under 18, as the bill states.Notably, except in Finland and Slovenia, the use of helmets on bicycles is not required, and in some European countries, the same compulsory for minors is established, being majority the limit of 15 years. Therefore, consistent with our neighboring countries and taking into account the experience of many states suggest that such strict helmet use by cyclists, regulation is a brake on the introduction of the bicycle in urban environments, we consider that it is best to reduce that requirement to 16 years.
And secondly, the amendment seeks to establish the mandatory use of helmets by those occupants of bicycles and cycles, using the same as a work vehicle.
In other words, because CiU it looks good. There is no explanation why choose 16 and not 14, 15 or 21. It is proposed period.
And the worst is the second. The proposal to wear a helmet to “bike workers” has not been addressed in the papers, not justified, is complicated in its writing, and may pose a problem if there are accidentsin itinere.
If someone is delivery, we can take it that the bike is your work vehicle and probably already use helmet without anyone having to compel by law. Still, being generous could overlook the obligation as the least unacceptable.
But if someone is intern or commercial, or any other profession, and uses a bike to do a job message, what ‘s wrong? If someone has an accident without a helmet going bike to work, under this wording could refuse the insurance to provide compensation? Is it sufficiently clear wording of the amendment, in this regard?
It seems to me that not.
And worse, no change is made about the position of the cyclist on the track, an issue that is probably more important for the safety of the cyclist who hull, as it can prevent accidents helmet -and we know not.
Moreover, we consider that the law minimum fixed after the DGT develop in the Traffic Regulations that accompany this Law. So, much as the law allows certain issues, the DGT in Regulation could pose more stringent conditions. amendments to this wording alone do not guarantee anything.
We almost year and a half with this issue. What has served all this pamema?