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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXw_t172BKY

http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/group/helmetlessriders

Tags: helmets

Views: 5774

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

You're out of line here.  This is a cycling group and we are not allowed to mention other forms of exercise because if we did it would nullify the point that the MHL laws stopped people riding bikes and thus caused an explosion in obesity rates.

Sorry my bad

It is a testimony to the total lack of planning or study done when the helmet law was hastily introduced whent he politicians saw a few million dollars waved in front of them that no effort was made to even find out what the before and after effects were at the time.
No doubt some walked some got in their cars other took public transport some got taxis , in the past many children rode or walked to school these days more of them get driven thanks to helmet laws and the associated rhetoric.

Parents say it too dangerous for children to walk or ride their bikes to school because of all the cars. One reason there are more cars is because of all the parents are driving their children to school. ! 

And the elderly - some of them are now using little mobility scooters instead - so they don't have to wear helmets.

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/invasion-of-the-scooters-...

QUOTING From the above article.

************************** START 

But one academic working in the field warns that if scooter use is regulated too much it may turn people off riding them altogether. "How many old ladies who get their hair permed every week would be happy to put on a helmet?" she says.

"If it means they would rather save their hair than wear their helmet they'll probably not use their scooter so much and so this would have a large health and welfare impact on their life."

Scooter rider Giovanna Pawson says she would ignore any rule that made her wear a helmet. "That's a load of old tosh and I for one will resist it and cheerfully go to prison on principle," she says. "On a hot day, my golly, can you imagine? It doesn't bear thinking about."
******************** END

Here is the report cited if you wan to look.

http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=985925&am...

Some people are still driving their 1.5 tone mobility scooters as they don't require a helmet either. !

Would you send old people to jail if they don't want to wear a bike helmet on their mobility scooter why is it ok  to do that to bike riders. ?

First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

In this case it translates to wearing a helmet in your car. People claiming it's absolutely no inconvenience and helps them keep cool with no deterrent effect here is your opportunity to show you are for real.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high...
Please respond with a photo and let us know how it goes.

First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.


You should take some of your own advice. I've become so sick of your zealotry and ridiculous claims that I no longer believe you have a genuine reason for your stance - maybe it's not wonder you were turned down by the authorities.

No, I'm not a confirmed believer in MHL, but there is no way I'd support their abolition based on the sort of utter bollocks that you continually serve up. Maybe MHL haven't achieved what other zealots claimed they would, but neither do they have the negative effects that you pretend they do.

+1

Gosh there's a lot of froth and bubble in this discussion thread. And in the iPod one.

The zealots hack me off. Every time there's a discussion of cycling safety the helmet crowd emerge to push their barrow. I don't think they realise just how insane they sound when they try to steer the conversation onto their obsession. Let alone when they write huge screeds addressing every phrase of every comment which has a differing point of view.

"Every time there's a discussion of cycling safety the helmet crowd emerge" IMHO that should be anti-helmet crowd :)

I seem to recall a recent discussion about the safety of listening to music while riding that never mentioned helmets and another two threads about bicycle lanes and where to ride on the road, don't think they had any mention of helmets either, several other discussions about cyclists interaction with buses have occurred, don't recall those being steered into a discussion about helmets  so could you explain what you mean by "Every time"?

You've got a cool name by the way

This one is my favourite

Lock them all up and throw the key away! LOL

Hi Paul thanks for the video.
It's pretty clear based on these random Q&A that if they bought in mandatory helmet laws they could reduce bike usage and make riding more dangerous just like our helmet laws have been doing for years.

Our nanny state paranoia based helmet laws create a very effective negative feedback loop which discourages bike usage. Our laws are not just ridiculous but lead to many thousands of innocent people being treated like criminals - the law takes away our right to make even the most trivial of decisions.

Helmet laws are a clear case of intrusive government interference discouraging a healthy activity and even making it more dangerous.

RSS

Support our Sponsors

ad1

300x250

© 2014   Created by Gus K.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service