Free Style Cyclists Seeking to reform the State and Territory Mandatory Helmet Laws.
http://www.freestylecyclists.org
Is a new initiative by a group of people seeking to reform the State and Territory Mandatory Helmet Laws. The first priority is to gain an immediate helmet exemption for the Melbourne and Brisbane Bike share schemes. Freestyle Cyclists campaign to repeal bicycle helmet laws, to allow cycling in Australia to flourish.
I hope some people will support this cause - doing so will help restore the bicycle to it's rightful place as practical means of transport for many more people.
If you are only a sports cyclists you should also support this even though you may typically wear a helmet yourself.
WHY ?
Encouraging other people to cycle who would not otherwise ride will help make YOU and ME and other people including pedestrians,cyclists and motorists safer.
HOW ?
1. Car drivers who have riding experience may be more aware of other bike riders and how they behave on the roads.
2. There will be less traffic to contend with if more journeys are by bike - that means less exhaust fumes for all road users and nearby people and it reduces audible noise and pollution, and leaves more parking space for people who do need to drive and park.
3. Larger volumes of bike riders mean motorists even ones who don't ride actually become more aware of bike users and less likely to hit them.
4. More bike journeys and less car journeys may reduce risk to pedestrians from motor traffic.
5. If the law is repealed the bike share schemes will actually get used so they can continue to exist may expand and do not become a white elephant to be shut down the moment the council funds run out. Next time you visit these cities you and other tourists can actually use the bikes without having to buy or find a helmet which you may only use for 15 minute ride then have to dispose of. !.
I limit myself to these 5 points for now. :-)
Don't forget we have a helmetless riders forum with similar aims on adelaide cyclists so you can also show support by joining that group too.
http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/helmetlessriders
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by heather on -
Patrick, know what you mean. I chose not to read this thread until wanting to read Michael Murray's words posted today.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Lucas Pittaway on -
I will continue to follow the rules if I choose to cycle likewise with the rules on seatbelts in most cars.
This is a push to give everyone the choice to not wear a helmet and still be within the law. -
-
Permalink Reply by David Southern on -
I do not know that the introduction of MHL did, in fact, result in a dramatic drop in the numbers of people riding bikes on our roads for general transport and recreational cycling. The numbers (and proportion) had been declining for many years for reasons unrelated to helmets. And as people changed from using bikes to cars, so the infrastructure that had supported cyclists was allowed to decay, or deliberately disabled.
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on -
Hi David
Where do you get your information from ? According to metrics i have seen all indications were that cycling usage was increasing prior to the law and declined as a result of it.
Some artefacts of this decline are quite apparent for example
Australia has a highly skewed bike user population it is very male dominated (~4:1) and very much racing sports dominated - in a healthy cycling transport culture sports cyclists are minority and M:F distribution is near 1:1. The age groups disparity is also highly skewed with most riders in the 25-30's this means the younger and older people are under represented compared to other populations in particular children have little exposure to bike transport - this effect was dramatic and associated with helmet law introduction and scaremongering campaigns which lead to parents stopping children from riding to school.
Based on this observation -
If we had as many female bike users as male we would increase bike usage around 70%.
If we had a normal sports to transport distribution an increase of over 100%.
If we had normal bike user age distribution another 100% increase.Regards Infrastructure it is better than ever - there are more white line bicycle lanes than ever and more paths and most are multi use paths , urban speed limits are now 50 and they used to be 60.
Bicycles are cheaper more comfortable, lighter and safer than ever in the past (as evidenced by higher sales than ever) .
It really is an anomlay that we have seen the actual bike usage practically stagnate with almost no increase since the helmet laws came in.
If it were not so tragic it would make good material for a comedy where the most obvious and simple solution (ending the law and rhetoric which is known to have resulted in the decline and failed to improve safety ) is routinely ignored while the characters come up with the most obscure and far fetched ideas possible to try and explain their failure and completely random plans fix the very problem they caused.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/#hash
-
Permalink Reply by David Southern on
-
I am one who rode to work in the city for all of my working life, apart from about 3 months when I commuted by car (in 1970), until I got sick of it and went back to riding the bike, which was quicker anyway over the 7 miles.
My observations about declining cycling for general transport/commuting are based on the declining utilization of staff cycle parking facilities in the GPO basement. The staff bike park in the (Grenfell Street) Central Mail Exchange was also heavily patronised. Parking at the Gouger St facility was also initially well used, but that also decreased steadily. As the older (mostly male) cycle-commuting staff retired, their younger replacements did not cycle.
I was regarded as something of an oddity by my colleagues in 1970, when I sold my car and went back to riding the bike. I was also the only one among my fellow apprentices willing to get on the clerical assistant's (official) bike to go across the city to get from the PMG Iron Shop such things as steel or brass bars that we needed in our workshop for repair of machinery. Others would wait until a vehicle was available from another section.
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Hi Don
The only certain answer can be answered by an actual trial repeal or actual exemption enacted with some metrics in place to verify effect. Recently Manfred Neun, the president of the European Cyclists Federation commented that that cycling numbers would treble if WA scrapped its compulsory bicycle helmet laws.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13656583/fremantle-in...
But even if the effect is only lead to an initial 50% increase it would be a welcome increase and of benefit to many people - any increase in bike usage is a positive thing for both existing riders and of course new riders.
http://www.ecf.com/news/helmet-law-to-have-a-large-unintended-negat...
-
Permalink Reply by Rob W on -
Dare I bring up the state of our roads and poor driver education system? Will this be instantly fixed with the same pen that revokes the law?
-
Permalink Reply by Tim B (the running man) on -
Hear hear, I think the infrastrucure issues are far more pressing and will have a much bigger influence on cyclist numbers and cyclist safety.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Murray on -
Don't forget we have a helmetless riders forum with similar aims on adelaide cyclists so you can also show support by joining that group too.
Instead of starting another long series of posts on MHLs why not gather together the tens of thousands of people like you who feel strongly about this (there are tens of thousands right?) and go for a helmet free ride. Make sure you finish on parliament steps for speeches and general rabble rousing. Make sure the TV and police are alerted. If the TV won't do it ride without helmets or clothes that should do the trick.
-
Permalink Reply by Dstone on -
I am always suprised by how much power such a little thing can have over people. Really, blaming a helemt for not riding a bike? gimme a break. If you dont want to wear a helemt when you ride then sack up and dont. realaise that you are making a choice and that you are except all consequences of your choice.
-
Permalink Reply by Lucas Pittaway on
-
(Sack up and don't ride, or sack up and don't wear a helmet? Your comment is challenging to make sense of.)
The whole point behind this cause is to revoke the law, hence giving people the choice as to wether or not they wear a helmet. If this came to be I would then choose to not wear a helmet along my commute, shop runs and family rides. I would still choose to wear my helmet whilst riding through the hills, on long distance rides, and basically any ride where I foresee a higher chance of injury.
You can still choose to wear your helmet everytime you ride and I'm sure majority of Adelaide's current cyclist will choose to. I'm sure you would much rather make up your own mind than be forced to wear a helmet everytime you pedal.
Personally I've been booked three times for this offence. My first fine is as mentioned above. The second offence was on the way to work for the 400th time and for the first time since buying my helmet I was in such a rush and simply forgot, I had no reason to argue that fine. The third "criminal offence" occurred out the front of my house at the end of a culdesac whilst testing and adjusting the chain tension on a fresh build. A local heroine reported me to the forces whom abruptly wrote me a ticket for my failure to adhere to the law, I wasn't even on the bike when they rounded the corner!
My point is that as a conscious human I will support the push for the law to be revoked, giving me the right to choose to wear a helmet.
I'd much rather have that right than have it forced upon me.
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
