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 Don (Who's lost?) Nairn on -
Those facts and figures are not relevant because helmet technology and even standards have changed. the author even admits to doctoring the figures so the article is academically dishonest.
To present academically dishonest information suggests that author is uniformed or can find no good information to present.
Until you can come up this some recent peer reviewed articles that suggest wearing a helmet increases your chance of head injury I will think of you people as misguided at best.
The issue of how many more people would cycle if there were no helmet laws in this case is irrelevant because this is a site for cyclists so we all cycle anyway.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Turner on -
I haven't had time to look at all the facts and figures on the site but the ones I did look at didnt seem to drive home a pro-MHL message.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Edward @bikeadelaide on -
If anyone is still reading this thread after 22 pages, this is a good opinion piece (not scientific evidence - just an opinion piece):
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/helmets-in-cars...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Don (Who's lost?) Nairn on
-
So your logic is because you don't have to wear a helmet in a car you shouldn't have to wear on on a bike?
Are you suggesting that seat belts, air bags and the car body offer the occupants of a car no protection in the event of an accident?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Edward @bikeadelaide on
-
Not at all. They do offer protection but a properly designed helmet would likely reduce the extent of head injuries on top of that.
My logic is not that because don't have to wear a helmet in a car I shouldn't have to wear one on a bike. It is that the unintended negative consequences of an all ages mandatory helmet law have outweighed any expected benefits, particularly given that effectively nothing else is done to keep cyclists safe.
-
-
Permalink Reply by MARK FERGUSON (SPARTACUS) on -
OMG is this discussion still going?
-
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on -
Yep - I'm off my meds and having fun replying to the stupid statements some people make
-
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Turner on
-
Yep...and you just became a part of it mate.
-
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on
-
All of the statement I made, including the part about my medications, is true.
-
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
