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 maya on -
Wow, this is a damning indictment of Australian democracy according to you Stephen. A number of laws are passed without referendum and consultation because doing so in every instance would be rather costly to the government and in turn, to the tax payer.
If you are embarrassed to call yourself Australian to foreigners because of 'nanny state laws' then I would invite you to stop doing so.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Palfrey on -
Oh dear the atrocitie of being fined by a hired thug for not wearing a helmet.
The children that have been sacrificed.
Up to this point I held a degree of admiration for your perservereance tempered with a considerable degree of frustration of your misuse of poorly constructed studies, your outright lies on statistics/people fined/hundreds dead etc. However your suggestion that police that do not uphold road traffic laws that they don't entirely agree with are nothing more than hired thugs, leads me to the conclusion that I feel that I cannot voice as it would be seen by some to lower me to the same level as yourself.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on -
Patrick - Clive
I see you find my style of argument a little harsh - Apologies it was not intended to upset but when the government keep pushing you eventually have to push back.
Now you have thrown the gauntlet down I must explain. I always try to use actual figures and i don't make this stuff up.Yes the children one always strikes a nerve it should. ! When the government say "bike helmet's save lives" to justify helmet laws they carefully ignore such cases writing them off as if somehow it's ok to do that they also seem to ignore that there is a lack of evidence showing they save lives. It's Government propaganda they say something enough times and eventually everyone believes it without question. But they can't hide the truth that easily though follow the link it;s all there.
I used the term hundreds dead also - well since ~1992 we have around 35 people die riding bikes each year from 1993 to 2011 the road toll database indicated 778 cyclists killed ~80% of them wearing helmets that is ~622 people wearing helmets have died that is hundreds ! I just stated what we know from road toll data provided by the ABS look it up yourself if you want. !
http://statistics.infrastructure.gov.au/atsb/login.do?guest=guest&a...
And Police are expected to show some discretion when upholding the law we expect it from them especially given the myriad of stupid law's government seem to come up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion
So yes if they do things like this >>>>
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=303664
and this >>
http://www.3news.co.nz/Is-not-wearing-a-bike-helmet-punishable-with...
and this >>
http://www.3news.co.nz/Is-not-wearing-a-bike-helmet-punishable-with...
Then yes they are acting more like hired thugs than police - it is an unfortunate position they find themselves in but it is up to them to make that choice.
Perhaps we as citizens should show a little more responsibility to ensure that in future we do not support governments who create such poor legislation but we can learn i guess. -
-
Permalink Reply by Charles on
-
Stephen, you are ranting and making no sense at all. As well, your statement about those poor children is in very poor taste and you should be ashamed of yourself.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Message Deleted ! - I consider it a valid point in the debate but since it seems to upset some.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick O'Kane on -
Any police officer who cannot make a decision to refuse an order to enforce a law they believe is wrong is nothing more than a hired thug.
The police are not there to decide whether to enforce a law, or if a law is wrong or not, that is what our politicians and courts are there for. The police are charged with upholding the law, end of. If we are to allow our police to decide what they choose to enforce then they risk becoming hired thugs, I'll happily stay with the status quo as I believe our boys (and girls) in blue are doing a bloody good job in difficult circumstances.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Patrick
Would you put a 12 year old child in jail who could not pay a fine !
Police are expected to show some discretion when upholding the law we expect it from them especially given the myriad of stupid law's government seem to come up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion
So yes if they do things like this >>>>
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=303664
and this >>
http://www.3news.co.nz/Is-not-wearing-a-bike-helmet-punishable-with...
and this >>
http://www.3news.co.nz/Is-not-wearing-a-bike-helmet-punishable-with...
Then yes they are acting more like hired thugs than police - it is an unfortunate position they find themselves in but it is up to them to make that choice. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on -
Having read this debate with some amusment I thought I would put my 2 cents worth in. No matter what speed anybody is doing on a bike whether they be child, man or woman if you fall on your head more damage will occur without a helmet on your head than if you were wearing one. This fact can not be argued, a bare head will sustain more injury if unprotected as against a head that has some form of protection, whether that be a helmet or a pillow strapped to your noggin. If you dont want to wear a helmet because you feel you look funny or a worried about helmet hair then I suggest that your priorities are a little bit out of whack, surely self preservation should be your highest priority. The government makes laws that we as people that live in a society must (should) obey, whether that be helmet laws, speeding laws, seatbelt laws, occ health and safety laws or no smoking laws. On a building site there are certain laws that require you at times to wear hard hats, ear muffs, high vis shirts, safety boots, safety glasses etc etc, these laws are there to protect you not to make a fashion statement. At home in your own workshop you can wear thongs, smoke near petrol, not wear ear muffs etc etc and the risk of injury is going to be high. You can also ride your bike in your back yard without a helmet but if you fall off the risk of a head injury is going to be higher. I guess what I am trying to say is that in all parts of our lives there are laws regarding what we can or cant do, some we agree with others we dont but on the whole they are there so that we can all live happily (reasonably) together and stay reasonably safe. The police are there to enforce these laws, that is their job and it is not up to them as individuals to decided whether these laws are just or not, if they dont like that then dont become a police person. If you dont want to wear a helmet dont ride a bike, dont want to wear a seatbelt, then dont get in a car, dont want to wear safety boots, then stay off a building site. In other words the law says wear a helmet, GET OVER IT, its just a helmet.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Just another psycho-list on -
+1
-
-
Permalink Reply by Edward @bikeadelaide on -
Hi Dave,
I agree that we should all obey laws that Parliament introduces. That doesn't mean we cannot question them though.
I don't think many people would disagree about the risk of injury being lower if you are wearing a helmet. The extent of the reduction of that risk might be a matter for debate though.
The problem is that the helmet law had other unintended consequences, particularly a significant reduction in numbers of cyclists with no corresponding fall in rates of head injury. That negative consequence needs to be weighed against any positives flowing from compulsory helmet wearing.
I think the negatives have outweighed any perceived positives. That is the position of the European Cyclists Federation and a number of other cycling bodies around the world. Indeed, Australia is cited as an example of the negative consequences of introducing a helmet law.
By all means, encourage helmet use but the Government mandated wearing of them I think has been a mistake.
Cheers. -
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jones on -
the helmet law had other unintended consequences, particularly a significant reduction in numbers of cyclists with no corresponding fall in rates of head injury
This is often quoted, there seems to be some confusion between co-incidence and cause here. I have no doubt cycling rates have dropped, particularly amongst the youger riders, one look at a primary school bike rack will show that.
However just because something happened at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. At the same time riding rates dropped off , what happened to walking, running and other physical activity ? it's all dropped off, therefore it cant be because of MHL's.
MHL's are not stopping people hopping on a bike. The fact that many people are lazy is enough to stop them getting on a bike, or walking to the shop.
MHL's aren't going to protect all riders either , especially if they are unfortunate enough to hit a car. However if the fact that one life is saved because the rider wore a helmet , when they may have otherwise not worn a helmet, then that's good enough for me.
-
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
