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 Michael Murray on -
Yet they wonder why few people hire the bikes ! and come up with all sorts of excuses for the schemes lacklustre performance while ignoring the most obvious one of all.
Who are "they" in this statement ? Any discussion I've seen has recognised that MHLs are a real problem for cycle hire schemes. But maybe I missed something.
Michael
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on -
Hi Michael
"They" are The schemes stakeholders. Victoria state government , vic roads authority and RACV who operate the scheme between them they don't really have a clue on this one.It looks rather bad when they are loosing millions of tax payers money but that is something they don't like to admit to it's all smiling faces for the government as they waste our money away.
http://www.melbournebikeshare.com.au/
The scheme is government nanny state controlled so even though they are in the best position to get an exemption they will not even try but instead will just keep tipping tax payers money down the drain and giving themselves a pay rise while they do it - they have no incentive to make it work or generate a profit at all.
Government get away with and have a reason for keeping helmet laws in place - overall they get more fuel tax, car registration $, more pollution and health problems and the obesity crisis but this is all a good excuse for a large interfering government to hire even more public servants it's called "empire building" - unfortunately it's at tax payers expense in both health and wasted taxes and our civil rights.
wikipedia explains this term well enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire-building
Investopedia does even better.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/empirebuilding.asp#axzz1uTHwVDHn
While government workers can keep themselves and some other people fooled the law will stay in place. The scheme is a government one so naturally they have a little clique in place who hire only people who relish controlling peoples lives and would not dare to question their masters wisdom - in fact the more interfering unnecessary law's we have the bigger the government becomes it gives them a sense of purpose and power - I came across a recent highlighted example of this with the WA potato marketing board.
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/opinion/comment/was-...
If a private operator could run the bike hire scheme with a helmet exemption they would be doing it and profiting on it by now.It is an unfortunate situation but once established government and the public service tend to become self serving rather than representative of the people who elected them, to some degree we have only ourselves to blame if we continue to let them get away with it. We should be a little more critical of the service they provide our government is become an interfering over bloated and parasitic bureaucracy - it is not good government.
-
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on -
A couple of points
Unless you live in Victoria it's not "our money"
The best comment on the potatoes in WA, apart from the fact that it's only an opinion piece, is a direct quote from the comments (my emphasis has been added in italics)
"What a crock of cr+p! The regulated system works extremely well in WA where all but one grower work within a system that has served consumers relatively well. Soil conditions and the buying practices of the two major supermarketrs largely dictate what's grown and sold in bulk. There's nothing to stop any grower, including the serial complainer, growing other varieties."
Would you like to comment?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jones on -
At the risk of prolonging an already tiresome discussion, I'm curious as the the anti-MHL people thoughts on the NT position.
I've read numerous times on here that the NT has the highest rate of bike riders and this is attributed to the repealing of the MHL laws in the NT.
Just checking some other stats, I believe its also pertinent to point out the NT has the highest rate of drink drivers and therefore the highest rate of disqualified drivers.
So out of those to possible causes , which do you think is more likely to put someone on a bike ?
a: The fact they like the wind in their hair
b: They're not allowed to drive anymore.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Palfrey on -
I was under the impression in the NT the MHL has officially been dropped on purpose built off road bicycle paths but the police have decided to turn a blind eye to those on on road paths that connect to off road paths.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
It is quite likely the police are easy going in regards to policing the laws. But they also seem to have a law of the month or week system where they will for example concentrate on drunk driving or jay walking or speeding or whatever so your mileage my vary.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Don (Who's lost?) Nairn on -
It may even be the mild climate and modest distances.
correlation and causation are not the same.
It may be related to the high beer consumption or younger population.
Are there magpies in Darwin?
there may be several reasons.
Is Darwin the same as Adelaide?
Not when I last visited.
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Hi Matt I am sure it accounts for a few people in all states. One of the most interesting indicators of NT's relative success is that they have them most equal distribution of Male to Female riders of any state.
Lost licences is really more likely to tend to increase the number of men riding if anything. While in the NT it seems almost the opposite.
Overall I doubt it makes much difference in any state in terms of overall numbers people who ride because they lost their car licence can also walk get a taxi or bus, hitch a ride - or simply keep driving without a licence !.What is most important is that the NT riders are actually quite safe even though many ride without helmets. I think the point to note here is that strict helmet laws don't seem to make people any safer so why do we have this law at all. !
Why do some people argue for helmet laws when the NT is proof that having exemptions makes no difference to safety ?
Why argue for a strict law which makes people less comfortable and does nothing to make them safer !. when it discourages people from riding.
I notice pro helmet law people seem to come up with all sorts of vague excuses as to why the law could not possibly make any difference in spite of evidence both here and overseas.My suggestion to the few pro helmet law people who want to prove your point that helmet laws don't discourage cycling then you should support a trial repeal of the law either Here or elsewhere. If the repeal makes no difference you can say ha-ha we were right. But it seems such people are too gutless to put their convictions to the test - why be so worried about about being proven wrong ? If you are wrong it's a win for everyone anyway - you learnt something from it at least.
The helmet laws wont last forever the pressure is on for change We have CO2 increasing , rising populations and congestion , pollution , obesity and inactivity problems affecting millions ,so if more people are happy to ride when the helmet laws are repealed that is good for everyone because riding is good whether you wear a helmet or not.
Some pro helmet law supporters concerns are about cost of injurys on the hospital system - my advice is if that is their only issue they would probably find their efforts positively rewarded by campaigning for alcohol prohibition or and mandatory helmets for car drivers instead. Bicycle helmet law supporters don't seem to think it's any trouble for everyone to wear a helmet so perhaps they can lead by example and wear one whenever they drive their car they claim it does not present a problem - what excuse do they have for not wearing one in their car or on the bus or train. ?
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high...
Can a pro helmet law person please explain to me their logic here - it is claimed this could save hundreds of lives and injuries every year. ! -
-
Permalink Reply by GlenM on
-
"I notice pro helmet law people seem to come up with all sorts of vague excuses..." just like those people who are against the helmet laws.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Brennan on -
'But it seems such people are too gutless to put their convictions to the test - why be so worried about about being proven wrong ?'
Nah. Speaking for myself I don't really give a hoot.
I have no hair to feel the wind through...and Id rather have some foam and plastic on my noggen if I ever am unlucky enough to come off again and hit the ground head first.
Repeal you MHL ...I'll still be wearing one ;)
-
-
Permalink Reply by stephen on
-
Thanks Matt
You have a good attitude - ride and let ride is the way forward. :-)I Wish more people could see that Repealing MHL is not arguing that people who do want to wear a helmet should stop wearing one.
We are support the individuals freedom of choice whatever it may be. -
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Jones on
-
Stephen, are you in politics ? or considered it ? you seem to have the knack of completely avoiding answering a fairly simple direct question.
Anyway onto another point raised by you .....
What is most important is that the NT riders are actually quite safe even though many ride without helmets. I think the point to note here is that strict helmet laws don't seem to make people any safer so why do we have this law at all. !
Why do some people argue for helmet laws when the NT is proof that having exemptions makes no difference to safety ?
Care to explain these charts then ?
To me they indicate maybe not all is as rosey in the NT as you make it out to be.
Also once again you come out with the "If you're not with us , you're against us" rhetoric.
I am not a Pro-MHL radical, I'm an anti-ignorant interpretation of data kind of person.
Same as Matt B, I really dont give a stuff about the law, if it gets repealed then I'll still wear mine.
-
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
