David Cameron on bike (again)

UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron is well known for riding his bike to get around. Here, he’s seen arriving at Parliament on March 11th. Can anybody picture U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner riding his bike to Capitol Hill?

David Cameron Arrives At Parliament For Prime Ministers Questions

33 Comments

  • mildstallion
    March 19, 2009 - 7:21 am | Permalink

    His helmet would do him more good on his head.

  • mildstallion
    March 19, 2009 - 2:21 pm | Permalink

    His helmet would do him more good on his head.

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 8:23 am | Permalink

    what you don't see here is the car following him carrying his papers etc.

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 3:23 pm | Permalink

    what you don't see here is the car following him carrying his papers etc.

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 3:23 pm | Permalink

    what you don't see here is the car following him carrying his papers etc.

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 8:28 am | Permalink

    Not using his helmet could well land him in some political hot water given recent uk trial judge findings on contributory negligence for cyclists who are injured in collisions while not wearing a helmet, see http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets for more details..

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Not using his helmet could well land him in some political hot water given recent uk trial judge findings on contributory negligence for cyclists who are injured in collisions while not wearing a helmet, see http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets for more details..

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 9:04 am | Permalink

    Mike, I saw the news about that ruling. Ridiculous, isn't it?

    I thought Cameron pledged not to have his car follow him anymore?

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Mike, I saw the news about that ruling. Ridiculous, isn't it?I thought Cameron pledged not to have his car follow him anymore?

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Mike, I saw the news about that ruling. Ridiculous, isn't it?I thought Cameron pledged not to have his car follow him anymore?

  • Tony Rocha
    March 19, 2009 - 10:01 am | Permalink

    At least he's using hand signals… and not of the bad nature.

  • Tony Rocha
    March 19, 2009 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

    At least he's using hand signals… and not of the bad nature.

  • Tony Rocha
    March 19, 2009 - 5:01 pm | Permalink

    At least he's using hand signals… and not of the bad nature.

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 10:10 am | Permalink

    Rule 1-never trust a politician
    Rule 2-refer to rule 1.

    He's on his way to work and doesn't have a bag or apparenly no panniers. Go figure.

    Helmet ruling should hopefully be challenged by ctc, they've done good work in the past.

  • Mike1727
    March 19, 2009 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Rule 1-never trust a politicianRule 2-refer to rule 1.He's on his way to work and doesn't have a bag or apparenly no panniers. Go figure.Helmet ruling should hopefully be challenged by ctc, they've done good work in the past.

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 10:22 am | Permalink

    Which brings us back to my absolute opposition to any kind of helmet legislation for road riding, or even belittling those who choose to ride helmetless when partaking in low risk activities like riding with traffic to Parliament. Doing such creates a culture that helmets for safe activities are normal and expected, and before long there's the legal contributory negligence thrown in in which the VICTIM IS BLAMED in car vs bike collisions.

    "The cyclist was crushed and dismembered under the wheels of the 18 wheeler when the driver, who said he didn't see the cyclist in broad daylight, drifted into the shoulder. The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, was declared dead at the scene. No charges were filed against the driver. Although state law requires helmet use, police declined to cite the cyclist. The cyclist's family consulted an attorney about a possible civil suit against the driver but they were advised they could not get any damages because the cyclist contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet."

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Which brings us back to my absolute opposition to any kind of helmet legislation for road riding, or even belittling those who choose to ride helmetless when partaking in low risk activities like riding with traffic to Parliament. Doing such creates a culture that helmets for safe activities are normal and expected, and before long there's the legal contributory negligence thrown in in which the VICTIM IS BLAMED in car vs bike collisions."The cyclist was crushed and dismembered under the wheels of the 18 wheeler when the driver, who said he didn't see the cyclist in broad daylight, drifted into the shoulder. The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, was declared dead at the scene. No charges were filed against the driver. Although state law requires helmet use, police declined to cite the cyclist. The cyclist's family consulted an attorney about a possible civil suit against the driver but they were advised they could not get any damages because the cyclist contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet."

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Which brings us back to my absolute opposition to any kind of helmet legislation for road riding, or even belittling those who choose to ride helmetless when partaking in low risk activities like riding with traffic to Parliament. Doing such creates a culture that helmets for safe activities are normal and expected, and before long there's the legal contributory negligence thrown in in which the VICTIM IS BLAMED in car vs bike collisions."The cyclist was crushed and dismembered under the wheels of the 18 wheeler when the driver, who said he didn't see the cyclist in broad daylight, drifted into the shoulder. The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, was declared dead at the scene. No charges were filed against the driver. Although state law requires helmet use, police declined to cite the cyclist. The cyclist's family consulted an attorney about a possible civil suit against the driver but they were advised they could not get any damages because the cyclist contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet."

  • Anonymous
    March 19, 2009 - 10:51 am | Permalink

    Boehner would never bike to work.

    Unless the bike came with a cigarette lighter.

  • Anonymous
    March 19, 2009 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Boehner would never bike to work.Unless the bike came with a cigarette lighter.

  • Anonymous
    March 19, 2009 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Boehner would never bike to work.Unless the bike came with a cigarette lighter.

  • Warren T
    March 19, 2009 - 11:59 am | Permalink
  • Warren T
    March 19, 2009 - 6:59 pm | Permalink
  • Warren T
    March 19, 2009 - 6:59 pm | Permalink
  • MikeOnBike
    March 19, 2009 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

    I don't think he sets a bad example by not wearing a helmet.

    I DO think he sets a bad example by having stuff dangling from his handlebars. Isn't that what racks and panniers are for? ;-)

  • MikeOnBike
    March 19, 2009 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

    I don't think he sets a bad example by not wearing a helmet.I DO think he sets a bad example by having stuff dangling from his handlebars. Isn't that what racks and panniers are for? ;-)

  • MikeOnBike
    March 19, 2009 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

    I don't think he sets a bad example by not wearing a helmet.I DO think he sets a bad example by having stuff dangling from his handlebars. Isn't that what racks and panniers are for? ;-)

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    I guess a related question: Does Nancy Pelosi ever ride a bike to her office?

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 8:20 pm | Permalink

    I guess a related question: Does Nancy Pelosi ever ride a bike to her office?

  • Yokota Fritz
    March 19, 2009 - 8:20 pm | Permalink

    I guess a related question: Does Nancy Pelosi ever ride a bike to her office?

  • Kiwehtin
    March 19, 2009 - 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Yokota – I agree partly with your comment about "low risk activities", but I think the real problem is that it is always one particular low risk activity – biking – that is singled out for this attention, and never other similar or even slightly higher risk ones (according to injury and fatality statistics) such as household injuries (including stair and ladder falls), walking near motor traffic, or indeed travelling inside a motor vehicle even while belted.

  • Kiwehtin
    March 20, 2009 - 2:11 am | Permalink

    Yokota – I agree partly with your comment about "low risk activities", but I think the real problem is that it is always one particular low risk activity – biking – that is singled out for this attention, and never other similar or even slightly higher risk ones (according to injury and fatality statistics) such as household injuries (including stair and ladder falls), walking near motor traffic, or indeed travelling inside a motor vehicle even while belted.

  • Kiwehtin
    March 20, 2009 - 2:11 am | Permalink

    Yokota – I agree partly with your comment about "low risk activities", but I think the real problem is that it is always one particular low risk activity – biking – that is singled out for this attention, and never other similar or even slightly higher risk ones (according to injury and fatality statistics) such as household injuries (including stair and ladder falls), walking near motor traffic, or indeed travelling inside a motor vehicle even while belted.

  • Leave a Reply