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.
Not wearing a helmet is categorised as a "victimless crime" because there is no victim.
Such actions you suggest would be very likely to result in injury to other people and obviously if such intimidating and irresponsible conduct did injure someone there would be both a victim and a crime. !
Not wearing a helmet on the other hand whether you are driving or riding playing sport etc represents a tiny risk and only to ones self if you were struck or crashed or fell. No one else is placed at risk You would be the only person is likley to suffer and have only yourself to blame.
It is the case that I wear safety glasses,gloves and shoes when in the workshop but there is no law saying i have to - likewise some riders will wear a helmet when riding a bike in both cases it should be a matter of individual choice - all we ask is the freedom to choose.
What if I drive at 200km or shoot a gun down Rundle Mall when there's nobody else there?
Stephen, you are incorrect in your assertion that "there is no law saying [you] have to" wear safety equipment when you are in the workshop. Assuming an industrial, commercial or educational workplace, you are obliged to wear/use the appropriate safety equipment under Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare laws, and you could be found liable for any injury occasioned by or contributed to by your failure to use or your incorrect use of the appropriate safety equipment.
You are correct that in occupational situations worker/employer there are many regulations. But in the home or shed no one is subject to any such OH&S laws at all and there is almost no way any could be enforced either.
I ask How can they have committed a crime when there is no victim ?
So if theres no victim theres no crime. Really how silly is that statement.
I dont get it, how better to use SAPOL resources than in road safety. Its not all cops and robbers you know.
Enforcing dangerous driving laws is important to safety for other drivers , yourself , pedestrians and bike riders.
Bike helmet laws however do not protect other people and do not even provide much if any protection to the rider. In fact by discouraging bike users with this law it increases the use of cars on the roads increasing traffic and making them more dangerous and congested for everyone both bike riders and other car users.
Wasting valuable police time by having them persecuting bike riders for not wearing helmets is pointless and even counter-productive to safety.
The primary beneficiary of bike helmet laws are therefore petrol companies and car manufacturers and bike helmet manufacturers. Unfortunately almost everyone else suffers including car drivers themselves.
Stephen, I would have to disagree on all the points you raise. In fact , if potential cyclists are against helemts for superficial and cosmetic reasons, as I suspect then I am happy that they are not riding on the roads. Not only do you need the right kit to stay safe on a bike, you need the right attitude. In reality cycling is not for everyone and other forms of transport may be more appropriate.
Charles, I know you don't want to hear from me again but the "right kit" to stay safe on a bike? Why? Most other countries manage to have people of all ages riding in normal clothes - to school ,work, everywhere. Why do Australians need special kit?
kit = front and rear lights night and day, rear view mirror, hi vis clothing, oh, and of course a helmet. There is nothing special here, and the clothing worn is the least of my concerns. For the record, based on my experience of city commuting I support mandatory use of rear vison mirrors and some form of registration of cyclists over 16 years.
Agree about head lights. Rear view mirror? Maybe. Up to the individual. Hi-viz clothing? No. Unnecessary. Registration? No problem with that as long as the proceeds are spent on infrastructure for cyclists.
Helmets? No. See eg:
All that video demonstrates is risk minimisation through decent separate infrastructure and bicycle speed limits - didn't see any pesky pedestrians either! That's all great but I speculate that for a vast number of cyclists in Adelaide these conditions don't exist for substantial parts of their commute - my work commute certainly does not!