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 Edward @bikeadelaide on -
Glen,
When you say "When the Anti-MHL people can produce a set of modern studies that show wearing helmet are bad - I will read them", you completely misunderstand the point. Show me one person who has ever said wearing a helmet is bad. Helmets are great. It is the law that is a failure.
Equating choosing not to wear a helmet with drug addiction is hardly a good analogy.
You are correct that cycling levels have increased. I think it has taken 20 rather than 5 years though. But as has been said repeatedly, the make up of cyclists is entirely different. They are primarily males on racing bikes in specialist clothing. Also , while the number of cyclists has increased, as a proportion of the population they have not recovered.
Which is the question nobody wants to answer?
And can you answer me this question? How do other countries survive? Why are their streets not littered with broken heads? -
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on -
You mean to say that when you (anti-MHL people not you personally) litter your arguments with statements like "helmets are dangerous", helmets contribute to the obesity explosion, helmets stop people exercising (by not riding a bike), helmets make people think cycling is dangerous, helmets are ... that you actually mean wearing a helmet is good? Well knock me over with a feather.
Do not ever complain about people acting the same as you. You seem to think that's its OK to not read what other people write properly and take your misinterpretation of what they said as truth.
Go and get a new pair of glasses and read what I said, again you people need to take english classes. I never equated wearing helmets with drug addiction. I said people with drug addictions could use the same argument.
This is the first time that I can remember the composition of the cycling population being an issue. Can you please link to at least one other thread in Adelaide Cyclists about helmets where this change has been discussed?
"...as a proportion of the population they have not recovered.". Can you produce any sort of figures that show the Australian population has grown by over 32% since 2001? If the answer is Yes the what are the figures.
The question I asked is the sentence that has a question mark after it. In English thats how we indicate questions in writing. In speech its generally inicated by a rising tone at the end of the sentence. Here is an example of a question - Do you understand?
The answers to your last three questions in order are
Yes (because you used the singular I would be interested to know which of the following two questions you mean. Common convention would indicate that it's the first of the following questions but given your lack of command of english I'm not sure)
They don't survive as well as Australia. In a simple Google search anyone without bias can find several simple statistics that show there are more cyclists injured in other countries than in Australia.
Your last question is interesting. It assumes that Australian Roads are littered with broken heads. I've been commuting for upwards of 20 years and I have yet to see a broken head. Apart from that their streets are the same as Australian streets and not littered with broken heads. (This is not an opportunity for you the pounce and say they have better infrastructure) its a statement about broken heads and streets.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Edward @bikeadelaide on
-
Glen,
Ooh. A tad aggressive perhaps. I am sorry I was not clear.
Re: drug addicts. I raised that because I disagree that drug addicts could use the same argument. More accurately, they could use the argument but it would be silly. The two cannot be compared.
The composition of the cycling population is well known. I was responding to the remark that while cyclists numbers dropped when helmet laws were introduced they have since recovered. They may have recovered but they are constituted differently. That change cannot be ignored. The 32% growth point was something entirely different. I understood you to be saying that cyclist numbers have apparently grown 32% in the past year. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I just don't think that proves a great deal. A 32% increase on a 1% modal share is not that much.
Thanks for the punctuation tip. Looking through your posts, there are lots of sentences ending with a question mark. When you said "I actually asked a question which no one wants to answer", I honestly couldn't work out which question you meant. Perhaps I'm just thick. Could you help me out please because I can only guess which question you mean.
Now Glen, you have been a little hostile I think - unnecessarily so. It is perfectly acceptable to have this debate and to have it calmly and rationally. After all, Australia, NZ, the UAE and Guam are the only countries in the world with all ages mandatory helmet laws for cyclists. I see no problem in asking why that is and why so many other countries do not feel the need for them, especially those countries that have the most people using bicycles. There are not more cyclists injured in those countries than in Australia. Your remark about the unbiased Google search is plainly ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that countries without helmet laws (and I'm thinking of the Nertherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc) have more cyclist injuries (head injuries that is) than we do? Let's assume for a minute they do? Why should we automatically assume the difference is down to helmet laws?
I'm not sure we can take this a lot further. Perhaps we should stop. -
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on
-
Edward I had just finished a post that said I got pissed off when people misquoted me and didn't read what I wrote and you misread that post, misquote me and totally ignore what I said
I'm entitled to be pissed off with you. You have your head in the sand and you either misquote or ignore anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint and you don't like people using the same argument methodologies as you do.
You have totally ignore all of the questions I have asked because you can't answer them You are AGAIN not reading what I wrote and AGAIN you are misquoting what I said.
I am not getting hostile about the debate I am getting hostile about your misreading what I say and misquoting it and totally ignoring any facts that you disagree with.
A simple arithmetic lesson for you, 2001 occurs 11 year before 2012 not 1 and the population of Australia has gone from approx 19 million to just under 23 million. As this is an increase of around 20% and in the same period the number of cyclists have grown 32%.. well work it out for yourself if you can. BTW We were not discussing how big the percentage increase was because you said there wasn't one at all and in fact it decreased.
I'm bloody sure this could be continued until you stop misreading what I write and misquoting me and because you have been shown you are wrong you want to stop now!
OK - see I can read what you write - we can stop now and I will not respond to any of your posts again.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Tim on -
Hey GlenM I know artifice when I see it and you seem to be doing your level best.Pitching your tent in no man's land is all well and good. But really what is the point? Most sane people think that their opinions are correct and draw them from their beliefs and knowledge. You seem to think your position is well informed and any contrary position nonsense, but when questioned, you hide behind the "it's just my opinion and reason and consistency are not required" gambit. Not much use to anyone, is it?You draw a parallel between being against helmet laws and drug addicts then when called to task offer an English lesson - an impolite one at that.You introduce the division and stigmatism of us and them - the anti-MHL people - as though its a cohesive group to be pilloried.You conflate helmet wearing with helmet compulsion which is disingenuous at best, but since you do it deliberately it is a device meant to mislead and disrupt.I wonder if you think you are being clever.As I said this is not the basis for reasoned discussion or really any sort of rational interaction.After filtering the chaff, your position seems to be that helmets are great, QED helmet laws are even greater.Here is a homework exercise for you:-- what are the utilisation and injury rates for the bike share schemes in London and Paris?- what are the utilisation and injury rates for the bike share schemes in Melbourne and Brisbane?Apart from the astounding differences in utilisation, are there any differences in injury rates? If not, why not? Helmet compulsion should without doubt make an appreciable difference that would be obvious in the statistics - shouldn't it?You say compulsion is a boon - I say it is a bane. That's it. There is no point in playing along.
Oh BTW, for one so gifted in the English language (and obviously a pedant to boot) there are a couple of sics in here for you "I haven't checked by I don't think that the Australian population has increased by more than 32%. The information seems to indicate that those statements are wrong. Saying this sort of thing damages there case more than it helps."Toodle-oo, over and out. -
-
Permalink Reply by Charles on -
Ah, what was that all about mate, I'm just s simple cyclist what wears his elmit cause the coppers says I gotta, which is gooda nough 4 me
-
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on
-
Hey Tim
It seem you need to learn to read as well. two points from your reply
"You draw a parallel between being against helmet laws and drug addicts" - I actually said that drug addicts could use the same argument How do you get to I've drawn a parallel between the two groups? (Oops - I'm sorry you don't like answering questions seeing you've totally ignored the ones I asked you).
"your position seems to be that helmets are great, QED helmet laws are even greater" Your mate Edward totally disagrees with you he says (and I quote) "Show me one person who has ever said wearing a helmet is bad. Helmets are great. It is the law that is a failure." Hmmm, I sense a slight disagreement there.
As for the population figures. The population rose from approx 19 million in 2001 to just under 23 million in 2012, and increase of approx 19 to 20%. It was so obvious to me that the population hadn't grown by a third in 10 years I didn't think I needed to actually supply the figures for you.
I know you hate questions (because you don't answer them) but why have you now narrowed your discussion of injuries down to 2 very specific niche markets instead of the population as a whole?
In the Netherlands in 2006 the population was 15.5 million and 216 cyclists died
In Australia in 2006 the population was 19.8 million and approx 37 cyclists died
I know which country I prefer to ride in.
Oh, just in case you wondered - When you start answering my questions I'll start answering yours.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Murray on -
In the Netherlands in 2006 the population was 15.5 million and 216 cyclists died
In Australia in 2006 the population was 19.8 million and approx 37 cyclists died
I got a figure for the Netherlands of 2.5km a day ridden on average so looks to me like 1 death per every 65 million km ridden.
For Australia I can't find numbers. But the 2006 census supposedly reports 189,392,000 km ridden commuting to work for the year. Say we double that to 400,000,000. Which looks like 1 death for every 11 million km ridden.
Has anyone got accurate figures for Australia for how far you have to ride before you die, on average ?
I used figures from:
http://bikeafrica.net/Site/Economic_Benefits_of_Cycling.html
http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2008/10/16/bicycle-death-statistics-...
Hhm. Another report here
http://www.bicyclensw.org.au/files/u1/_Safety_consequences_of_chang...
estimates total travel per year on average in 2002-2006 to be
1,240,000,000 km in Australia
That is a lot more than the commuting rate. If we take that number then it is 1 death per roughly every 30 million km ridden.
Be nice to have accurate numbers.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Dickson on -
If helmets were not compulsory, I'd still wear one.
If car seat belts were not compulsory, I'd still wear one.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on -
Just a thought, maybe when the MHL came in, and apparently hoards of people stop riding so as not to get helmet hair or look goofy, maybe just maybe instead of getting in cars they possibly took public transport or heaven forbid they took the oldest mode of transport there is and WALKED. just a thought.
-
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
