New helmet freedom Advertisment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8o1eDFCbTk
This add series was aired by a friend on TV in Brisbane recently. :-)
QLD recently had change of government the original nanny state party is gone so there is now a good chance that there could be a change to the helmet laws either to an NT style exemption or complete exemption for all adults.
It is remarkable that at time when we are about to be hit with a CO2 tax and with all the public concern over global warming and the huge burden on the health system of sedentary lifestyle diseases that the most efficient and healthy form of transport has been and is still being discouraged by helmet laws. As a result of this law the predominant type of riders remaining on our roads seem to be lycra wearing men on racers - this would tend to suggest that repealing this law would result in a huge increase in the number of other people riding especially women (the NT has the highest participation of women riders of any state - it is also the only region with a bicycle helmet exemption for adults ).
At the same time there is a lack of any statistical evidence of effacicy of helmet laws in fact their failure and large deterrent effect on cycling is both used as...
- so why are we still burdened with this counter productive nanny state law.
Even though 1500 people die in car accidents yearly car drivers are not forced to wear helmets, in fact the government takes our tax and gives it away to incompetent car companies who cant balance their books. !
http://afr.com/p/opinion/labor_great_car_industry_betrayal_ZSBFO4nK...
The government's bias is clear, in your car it's air-conditioned comfort but ride a bike and you get will get fined if you refuse to wear a sweat box on your head even at low speed or offroad.
The Labor governments poor judgment and steadfast refusal to admit their bias is obvious - it is simply appalling that this law not only results in thousands of innocent people being fined every year, which is at best a waste of police time and resources. It also deters thousands more from cycling in favour of motor cars which are one of the primary sources of pollution including not just C02 but other toxins which can cause health problems for people living near roads. Motor vehicles are also responsible for the great majority of pedestrians killed each year and over 90% of cyclist fatalities.
Whether you personally prefer to wear a helmet or not please show your support for reform and support the right of others to choose for themselves.
Tags: helmets
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on -
It is not just anocdotal evidence - it is human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Unfortunalty if you tell people cycling is dangerous (which is actually quite false riding can be very safe) they wont ride but will happily die of heart disease, diabetes and suffer stress disorders which could have been prevented by accidental exercise of riding a bike more often.
But also if you tell them they are completely safe wearing a helmet (actually very misleading when you look at the evidence) they will take greater risks.
-
-
Permalink Reply by David Southern on -
The helmet law is no different in principle from the mandatory wearing of seat belts, the mandatory use of correct child restrants, and the like. (Harm minimization.)
I would regard it as a privilege, not a right, to use the roads by any mode of transport other than walking. And, as it is a privilege, I am prepared to abide by the conditions under which that privilege is granted.
BTW, I started wearing a helmet several years before their use was mandated.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alasdair McLellan on -
I wouldn't, and here's why:
The reason we regard the granting of a driver's licence as a privilege is because, when driving a motor vehicle (and in particular a car or anything heavier) we're in control of a vehicle with an insane amount of kinetic energy and which is usually under less control than the driver thinks it is. When cars crash, they damage other cars, routinely kill the occupants and mangle property of all sorts.
The roads are publicly funded. I will not agree that the right to use them is a privilege.
Bicycles are comparitively light, slow and nimble. The only person you're going to damage if you crash your bicycle is yourself. Those who argue that the public health system shouldn't have to deal with people crashing their bikes but that they should have to deal with people eating and drinking and smoking themselves into an early grave with their other batshit crazy lifestyle choices are surely somewhat deluded. Cycling is a net positive for the health system, even if we crash our heads into things on occasion.
-
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on -
"The only person you're going to damage if you crash your bicycle is yourself." - tell that to all the people that have been injured by being hit with a bike and I'm also sure the relatives of the person that was killed by being hit by a bike would not agree with your statement.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Bland on -
Hi Steve ,
Are you implying that you think the Snell standard would be the safer & more appropriate standard for the Australian government to be using ? -
-
Permalink Reply by Adam Williss on -
No one is saying not to wear a helmet. The argument is about choice....
I do take issue with your comment that "thousands of innocent people being fined every year" for not wearing a helment. They are breaking the law so they are not "innocent". However, I agree with your assertion that there could be a better use of police time and resources...
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
You say "They are breaking the law so they are not "innocent""
I ask How can they have committed a crime when there is no victim ?
I would suggest that the only victim in such cases is the person fined, the perpetrator is an intolerant government more interested in revenue raising than civil rights of their own people or of the massive costs to the community caused by this law.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-16/scrap-bike-helmet-law-says-he...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Murray on -
You say "They are breaking the law so they are not "innocent""
I ask How can they have committed a crime when there is no victim ?So car drivers speeding is OK with you ? Or car drivers driving without seat belts? Or running red lights or stop signs without causing a collision? There isn't any victim.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Murray on
-
From the ABC news link:
Associate Professor Chris Rissel, from Sydney University's School of Public Health, ...
"People who ride short trips down to the shops, or ride in parks or just going along quiet streets. Their risks are very, very low."
Sorry but this short trip to the shop thing is rubbish. My local shops are a focal point for cars. There is nothing particularly safe about taking a short strip to them.
Bicycle New South Wales vice-president Richard Birdsey says road safety, not helmet laws, is the biggest turn-off for potential cyclists.
"At the moment it's important that we retain the law, but certainly once we see improved riding conditions for people, where the roads become safer, the governments should look at perhaps seeing whether they can be wound back a bit," he said.
Sounds right to me.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Michael Obviously if you feel you require a helmet then wear one you dont need a law to wear a helmet or any other protective equipment. It may be a very different situation for other people - not all shops are like your's and others will differ in opinion. For many people having to mess up their hair to wear a helmet to goto the local shop is reason enough to take the car instead. !
If we got rid of the helmet law the increase in bike usage vs car usage may make your shops less of a focal point for car's and more bike friendly. !
An unfortunate effect of the bike helmet law's is discouraging short bike trips yet short car trips are worst on the environment as the first few minutes of combustion engine operation make the most pollution.
"At the moment it's important that we retain the law, but certainly once we see improved riding conditions for people, where the roads become safer, the governments should look at perhaps seeing whether they can be wound back a bit,"
98% of other countries seem to manage fine without adult bike helmet laws - If there is some special problem with our roads compared to anywhere else then something is seriously wrong - this is simply a misconception.
What the spokesman is expressing a somewhat paranoid fear when the risk is actually very low (most minor ones are self inflicted and can be easily avoided) and worse still there seems to be the assumption that having adult bike helmet laws has any significant mitigation effect on serious injuries - they don't. !
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Cycle-helmets-useless-in-serio... -
-
Permalink Reply by MARK FERGUSON (SPARTACUS) on -
But then I can drive a car at 200kmh through a 25kmh school crossing at not hit anyone then you say I'm not breaking the law as there is no victim? Perhaps I can fire a machine gun down Rundle Mall but if I don't hit anyone then there's no victim so I'm not breaking the law?
-
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
