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.
I think it is a bit unrelated between the drop of cyclist number with mandatory bike helm law in 1991.
The drop of cyclist number has been occurred before 1991. I guess 1991 is the time when cars is getting cheaper and fuel price was not high as now. Laziness is of the human nature.
You might be right about proportion of male cyclist and female cyclist. We are indoctrinated with the image of sweaty cyclist guys in funny looking clothes on road bicycle or mud bathed of MTB rider. We are never see again the girl in normal clothes on lady/city bike again. I am just hoping someone become a trendsetter for biking female. We also need to tell them if bicycle is not only road and MTB, but there are many kind of bicycle that doesn't require specialized clothes and doesn't need to be sweaty like city bike and electric bike.The promotion of cycling is pretty much minimum in Australia.I think this time is a good chance for this as fuel price is so high.
I just read some articles that's explained why helmet in Australia market is so ugly. The answer is because Australian Standard is one of the highest standard for bicycle helmet. Helmet like this http://www.cyclechic.co.uk/shop/helmets-yakkay-c-22_36.html can be used in Australia. Actually if it can, it may attract young woman to go cycling again.
I am not totally agree if mandatory helmet is totally abolished, but actually I am thinking helmet law today is a bit ridiculous and need some change.
As someone who has been around for 52 years, there are many more cyclists around today than 1991!
IF Australia had the same cycling participation rates and cycling infrastructure AND the same cyclist death rates per million as Holland more than 800 cyclists would die in Australia every year.
This seems a good argument for keeping the laws and cycling infrastructure in Australia just as it is.
Very tongue in cheek
but also sobering. Per capita rates are great , but sometimes raw data is more powerful.
I intentionally didn't supply the raw data because that would make clear that my conclusion was invalid.
Your reasoning would be better if you read what I wrote properly. The Netherlands IS NOT Holland.
HOLLAND has a population of just over 6 million.
I also said that "it seems like a good argument" where in fact its not
That example was selected to show the bias you can obtain using statistics and what it implies is not true, just like most of the anti MHL stats that are quoted.
You've now understood my point about the stats anti MHL people supply
Yes you do understand - "I understand that statistics can be manipulated"
and arithmetic is the method you use to manipulate statistics.
The population was for a region of the netherlands and for a different year than when the deaths occurred are two things that were wrong.
I used arithmetic, a subset of mathematics, to analyse (see below) the data and come up with a conclusion.
Part of the definition of analysis is "an investigation based on the properties of numbers" (This is another example of picking the right definition for my purposes) and it is actually 2 divide operations and a multiply operation. One divide to get the number of millions and one to get the deaths per million ...
Helmet threads always bring out the best arguements.