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.
> that cycling is safe is wrong
And it has been argued that the enforced wearing of helmets makes cycling seem more dangerous than it really is. Most anything has an element of risk, but it is not incorrect that cycling in certain situations is low risk yet we are required to wear helmets in all situations.
Frankly, motorists should wear helmets, how many lives would be saved each year? Yep, all those bad people driving around without helmets on their kids in their cars - how irresponsible! Sounds dumb doesn't it but the analagy is much the same - bah!
> your fundamental tenet that cycling is safe is wrong.
Could you explain that? How is it not safe compared to walking, driving or climbing up a ladder? What makes it not safe? How does forcing everyone to wear a helmet make it less unsafe? Or more accurately, how has it made riding a bike in Australia less safe since the law was introduced? And most important, how do you explain all of those countries with more people using bicycles without helmet laws and doing it more safely than we do?
Well, because if I stop walking, I'm standing still, if I have a low speed fender bender in the car, then I fix my headlight, if I climb a ladder, well I might fall, but then if you follow OH&S regs, perhaps I should be tethered or not be up the ladder in the first place.
On a bike I'm pearched on an inherently unstable device. There is nothing particularly "safe" about being there. If I stop riding then I fall over or off and land heavily on the ground. It doesn't take much of an impact to do damage to the head. Maybe ask David Hookes or the girl who died in Perth last week after being hit by a hockey ball if head injuries can be dangerous or fatal?
Tim if you stopped balancing you would actually fall over -It's no different to a bike both require dynamic balance although on bike it does have a self correcting steering as you lean into a fall it turns into the direction of the fall self correcting (this is actually by design ) - humans having only 2 legs are inherently unstable if you loose conciousness or balance you will fall over. Depending were you are it could result in an injury (especially near stairs or traffic ).
It is a great pity about the hockey injury death those hockey balls cause some nasty injuries(as do the sticks) I came close to getting one in the face once (illegal shot ) if it had actually hit my head it would have probably cost a fortune in medical or dental treatment.
In hockey wearing a helmet is individual choice (goalie pads up as part of the playing rules but it is not a criminal offence to not wear the pads&helmet though it may however result in a forfeit game if your goalie did not comply with club-competition rules).
Back to your question everything we do involves risk, as you note playing hockey , driving a car. Riding a bike is about as safe as walking the same distance really there is no need to pick out and highlight or discriminate against the least harmful means of transport to other people and the environment.
Keep wearing your helmet sure and if you have trouble with your balance maybe try a 3 wheeler bike like this >>
But please don't discriminate against me or others who can balance please - trust other people to make their own choice it's the safest option.