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. !
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.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Hopefully that is not something that you can't change.
Why is it you think everyone else should be forced to wear a helmet, not everyone acts like they are competing in some kind of race where speed comes second to safety you know. ?
It's ridiculous that when riding a bike is so safe and healthy we would have a law which discourages many people from riding (according to a recent heart foundation survey over 2 million are discouraged by bike helmet laws).
It is ridiculous that many people are ignorant of or support the misappropriation of police time by ill-conceived law which compells them to prosecute thousands of innocent australians each year for the supposed crime of riding without a helmet - almost no other country mistreats adults like that look it up if you want.
Our helmet law for bike riders is kind of like burka laws for women in Iran - I came across this article and it seems that Bike helmet law supports who ride themselves are a bit like the "black cows" in the article who repress their own kind.
Take a look overseas sometime and consider giving your fellow Australian's a fair go please.
Notice in the video in other places people of all types ride bikes, over here entire demographics have been marginalised by bike helmet laws and the associated scaremongering used to justify this ridiculous nanny state law.
Could you please supply a link to the Heart Foundation Survey. I find it hard to believe that just under 10% of Australians don't ride a bike because they don't want to wear a helmet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws_by_country also lists a number of other countries that have mandatory helmet laws in one form or another (most are not enforced) including one country that makes helmets mandatory ion certain situations for everyone except "professional cyclists"
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/26/iran-the-burka-police-enforces-t... You should read the fine print at the bottom of the page its quite interesting especially the bit that says "this is a satirical website"
"Researchers from Lancaster University questioned 1400 people over three years to see what deters us from cycling to work.
Arriving with ‘helmet hair’ stopped 27 per cent of women from cycling, while 19 per cent said they wouldn’t want their work colleagues to see them without make-up.
Over half of the women questioned said arriving ‘hot and sweaty’ was the main reason not to get on their bikes and 38 per cent said they didn’t want to have to carry a change of clothes.
Professor Colin Pooley, who led the research, said the results can be partly explained by the fact that people prefer not to "stand out as different".
In fact, research commissioned by Cycling England has found that two thirds of all women never cycle and just two per cent ride a bike every day.
But as cycling burns up 350 calories in 30 minutes, perhaps it’s time we learn to love flattened hair and test out those wheels?"
Strangely enough, without mandatory helmet laws Darwin seems to be leading the way in female cycling participation.
Still i don't like talking about cycling safety, i'd rather talk about road safety. People ride bikes when streets are safe.
According to the Bureau of statistics 52% of Australian motor vehicle journeys are less than 5 kilometres. That is the cause of our biggest road safety concern.
Interesting survey for the UK as you don't have MHLs ?
The European slow cycling tradition seems to solve a number of these issues. They don't have MHLs, you wear ordinary clothes so need need to carry a change, you don't get so sweaty because you move more slowly, more cycle paths (and more other cyclists) make it safer and you don't stand out as different of course as lots of people cycle.
Yep, as mentioned earlier. Many places without MHL's still have up to 80% of their riders wearing helmets.
Japans slow footpath cycling tradition seems to have a similar outcome to that of Europes. Not sure how Darwins footpath legal cycling Compares, probably too stinking hot.
Yes, I have seen the videos of these congested slow cycling environments, no one looks particularly happy. I suspect most of them would drive if they could.
"I suspect most of them would drive if they could"
They could easily but they cycle because it is cheap, easy and fast. Nobody is forcing them. If it were made difficult and unpleasant, as it generally is here, they would drive. They're not all "cyclists". They just take that form of transport because it is quick, safe and easy. People react to their environment. It is one of the reasons so many people drive here.
" no one looks particularly happy "
I expect they look no more or less happy than most people commuting to work do. At least parking will be cheap when they get there.
"... i'd rather talk about road safety. People ride bikes when streets are safe." is a really good point and it's one that a lot of people seem to miss.
Maybe when society doesn't put so much emphasis on women looking attractive all the time, as well as getting better infrastructure, we will get more women riding bikes.
I realise many people have trouble with mathematics so.
Have a link to the survey and an explanation of the 2.4 million.
Notice in the survey write-up PDF they carefully ignore this factor - not stating it said more about it than almost anything else.
Note in table 11 it is 15.7% while lack of shower change rooms and lack of time is similar. Also note most of the top reasons given are perceptual based on fear/danger this is promoted and created by helmet laws supporters as justification for helmet laws, they help to create and rely on these misconception's to justify the law and in doing so discourage millions from riding !
Some others can be solved with little effort i.e. borrow or buy a bicycle only ~$200 second hand. Some such as "to hilly" we can't really fix them at all anyway.
The helmet question stands out because it is a direct factor and can easily be changed by repealing the law it would not cost anything at all. !
Regards the Sheik website fine print, please read all of it !.
"I realise many people have trouble with mathematics so." - This applies to the people that write for helemtfreedom.org as well, going on the article you linked to. A number of the points they make are mathematical fallacies.
Having read the Heart Foundation survey (not the extremely anti-MHL cherry picking viewpoint put forward by the website you linked to) I noticed a couple of things. Wearing a helmet is 13th on the list and only 4 of those above it are not readily/easily fixable.
The extrapolation of the 15.7 percent to apply to the whole population is stretching the friendship a bit, children were not included in the survey so anyone under 18 needs to be excluded and there are other segments of the population that should be excluded such as those in high level aged care. As it was pointed out in the linked article the results in that table do not sum up to 100%. Each result can be anywhere between 0 and 100% so you can't add them up. Assuming the MHL's were repealed you can't assume that the 15.7% would start riding a bike. A reasonable percentage of them already have other excuses to not ride a bike (they had multiple reasons why they don't ride a bike) and then they say "The 2.4 million extrapolation is probably conservative" with absolutely no justification in sight
This quote out of the linked article is the best example of the bias they have
"We see that there are only really three things that can realistically be improved upon:
They totally ignore things that would be easier to fix than repealing the MHLs.
Like "don't own a bike", do what has been done in England and encourage bike ownership by discounts and tax rebates
and "don't feel confident enough" - run free "How to ride a bike" courses in local community venues similar to how literacy courses were run for people who couldn't read or write
and then they lump everything else under the heading of road conditions/safety which is incorrect for the reasons given above.
Everything, with one exception, on the list of reasons why people don't ride bikes in that article can be fixed, its just that people would not be prepared to take the actions required to fix the problem.
There are very few things that cost nothing and they do not include repealing a law.
As for the Sheik website - I did read all of the fine print and a number of other articles on their website.
OMFG , did these guys learn maths off the back of a wheeties box ?
Seriously failed logic there.
Just to highlight the failure a little.
The initial survey for approx 50% of 1000 people surveyed would like to ride a bike. Out of that 16% said MHL's were a deterrent.
The correct way to extrapolate that would be to determine the total population pool in the age range surveyed, say we can assume 18+ . There are 14 million people of the AEC roll, so lets use that as the base.
So we then calculate 14million X 50% who would like to cycle more X 16% who are put off by MHL's = approx 1.12 M
That's completely ignoring the rest of the flaws in surveying methodology.