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 If the law is repealed the bike share schemes will actually get used so they can continue to exist may expand and do not become a white elephant to be shut down the moment the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

Tags: Helmets, law

Views: 3598

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clive Palfrey on June 17, 2012 at 21:48

Theres a male cyclist, obviously Indian and wearing a turban rode the last Amy's ride, lot's of police around on that day.

Permalink Reply by stephen on June 17, 2012 at 23:17

Hi Clive

FYI There is an exception to the laws under SA legislation - seems the Sikh community have been active in attaining exemptions - good on them I say. Look down to rule 26.

"26—Sikhs exempt from wearing bicycle helmets 
For the purposes of rule 256(1) and (2) (Bicycle helmets), a person of the Sikh religion who is wearing a turban is exempt from wearing a bicycle helmet."

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20(ROAD%20RU...

I think the above is still current.

Permalink Reply by Clive Palfrey on June 17, 2012 at 23:24

I assumed that was the case Stephen, i believe the same rule applies in the UK for motorcyclists

Permalink Reply by Tim on June 16, 2012 at 17:19

All evidence cited in “City Cycling” shows that helmet laws discourage cycling so much that the reduced health benefits from less cycling are much greater than any alleged safety benefits of helmet laws.

Michael I think you may have missed what Pucher was saying. His comment about the helmet debate was directed at those who are in jurisdictions without helmet laws where people are proposing that helmets and helmet laws are some sort of panacea for cyclist safety - which of course they aren't. (BTW I posted a comment in the infrastructure thread about Sydney cycle lanes which is interesting).

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Champion on June 16, 2012 at 20:07

I just wanted to be the 200th reply.

Permalink Reply by Charles on June 16, 2012 at 20:15

Thats fine Jeremy, but I hope you had your helmet on when you did reply.

Permalink Reply by Charles on June 17, 2012 at 21:17

Individuals are by and large responsible  for their own level of fitness and how they achiev this.Society, on the other hand is responsible for ensuring people are safe on the roads. I think the elephant in the room is that cycling is not a safe activity, hence we have helmet laws.

Permalink Reply by Doddsy on June 17, 2012 at 22:16

cycling is safe charles,  automobiles are the danger on our roads.

cycling friendly cities are the safest cities

Permalink Reply by Jilden on June 17, 2012 at 22:30

Cycling by yourself on a flat dry clean empty road in good daylight is safe, how often do you get that around Adelaide?

Permalink Reply by Doddsy on June 17, 2012 at 23:34

 Yes, cycling is safe, driving is dangerous. the problem with road safety in Australia is people don't ride bikes. People that overlook active transport drive more often.

Riding will never be for everyone, but that doesn't change the fact that 52% of Australian motorvehicle journeys are less than 5 kilometres. Australia falls well behind best practice: The developed countries where 10-20% of journeys are made by bicycle are generally the safest, Australia is less than 2%.

Don't underestimate the importance of encouraging active transport.

 

Permalink Reply by Charles on June 17, 2012 at 22:34

Sometimes I think I must be cycling on another planet or dimension. I am astounded  by comments suggesting cycling is safe, There happens to be many motor vehicles on the road, ergo cycling is not safe.  This is the reality for Adelaide, and most other parts of Australia 2012.

Permalink Reply by stephen on June 17, 2012 at 23:03

Charles 

Actually cycling is very safe especially if one discounts intentionally reckless activity which can make any activity dangerous even walking.

FYI the greatest danger to most bike users is being injured in a motor vehicle collision - that is the cause of over 90% of fatalities, and having helmet laws has not changed that at all. By discouraging bike usage with helmet laws means increased motor traffic thus it's more likely for both pedestrians, and bike users to be injured by motor vehicles.

If there is any sense this discriminatory helmet law will be repealed and more emphasis placed on better infrastructure, driver awareness and bike user training. These would be far more effective and encourage bike usage leading to improved infrastructure and safety and driver awareness of bike users.

Helmet laws on the other hand do little else but make bike usage less convenient, comfortable, popular and subject bike users to penalties which don't actually make them safer.

Given the main risk to bike users and pedestrians is motor vehicles. The Ironic thing i come across is the bike user who complains about lack of infrastructure for bike users but simultaneously berates or even try's to deny the existence of people who want free choice in regards to wearing of bike helmets. The more people who ride the more demand there will be for infrastructure from pedestrians, drivers and bike users - it seem to me they should make a choice which leads to more infrastructure and thereby better safety rather than admonish people who may want the free choice whether to wear a helmet or not.

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2013   Created by Gus K.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service