Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:22 pm

madmacca wrote:I don't know about the laws, but the orange pants are definitely a fashion crime.
Comments like that in the Netherlands will have you hung for treason! :mrgreen: Oranje is the national colour!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Orange-Nassau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlan ... tball_team


I'm sure similar comments could be said about Australia's choice of green and gold. :wink:

madmacca
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby madmacca » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:43 pm

human909 wrote:
madmacca wrote:I don't know about the laws, but the orange pants are definitely a fashion crime.
Comments like that in the Netherlands will have you hung for treason! :mrgreen: Oranje is the national colour!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Orange-Nassau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlan ... tball_team


I'm sure similar comments could be said about Australia's choice of green and gold. :wink:
I was aware that orange was the national colour for the Netherlands. And indeed the personal colour of the King.

I don't mind that orange shirt on the guy (bodyguard?) in the photo, but seriously, orange pants????

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22160
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:51 am

Orange - Safe but boring
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
uart
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby uart » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:45 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Orange - Safe but boring
Yep. Netherlands, so good that even their official Royal colours are cycling friendly. :lol:

Interesting side note. Modern orange carrots were developed in the Netherlands around the 17th century, by selective cultivation of "mutant" specimens of the existing purple yellow and white varieties of the time. While it's not known for certain, it's thought that their popularity and widespread adoption (over the legacy varieties) was at least in part due to their "royal" colour. :)

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 15469
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby trailgumby » Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:33 pm

human909 wrote:I'm sure similar comments could be said about Australia's choice of green and gold. :wink:
Definitely! Looks dreadful.

And not helped by the fact that wattle, supposedly the inspiration for the colour choice, releases a pollen that makes me as sick as!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22160
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:02 pm

Green and Gold is the lessor of the two evils :)

Anyway back on topic

The penalties that Sue Abbot has been hit with for her civil disobedience in regards to the H law, I don't get it

This is what I see should of been the scenario;
1. Fined for disobeying a law
2. Contest the Fine in court
3a. Win the case, the fine is cancelled
3b. Loose the case, the fine is upheld + court costs

But from what I am reading she has been punished for contesting, correct me if I'm wrong
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
uart
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby uart » Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:00 pm

mikesbytes wrote:But from what I am reading she has been punished for contesting, correct me if I'm wrong
Yeah kind of. The magistrate hit her with the maximum penalty for the offense rather than the original fine. It definitely smacks of punishing her just for being an annoyance to them.

Even when she won one of her cases previously and the magistrate dismissed it, she still had to pay a "victims of crime" levy. Which is pretty crazy for a victim-less crime, that was dismissed anyway! Pretty crazy logic there for sure.

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:18 pm

uart wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:But from what I am reading she has been punished for contesting, correct me if I'm wrong
Yeah kind of. The magistrate hit her with the maximum penalty for the offense rather than the original fine. It definitely smacks of punishing her just for being an annoyance to them.

Even when she won one of her cases previously and the magistrate dismissed it, she still had to pay a "victims of crime" levy. Which is pretty crazy for a victim-less crime, that was dismissed anyway! Pretty crazy logic there for sure.
Sue is an out there and happy island of individuality in a sea of beige (black in Melbs) conformity. That makes her a threat. Threats must not just be met but obliterated
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
uart
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby uart » Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:34 pm

Mulger bill wrote: Sue is an out there and happy island of individuality in a sea of beige (black in Melbs) conformity. That makes her a threat. Threats must not just be met but obliterated
She's clearly very committed to protesting this, and very courageous too in my opinion. She obviously feels that MHL is an unjust law, and I tend to agree with her. Especially given that as a non sports cyclist Sue is probably around 20 km/hr or less most of the time.

But yeah, as time goes on it looks like "they" are going to be out to get her.

hunch
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby hunch » Sat Aug 27, 2016 6:28 am

Looks like a flying superman accident, going by the injury list, but another helmet saved my life account...seems the concept of lights preventing it entirely hasn't occurred to him!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/richard-bra ... r2hdl.html

Entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson said he thought he was going to die after crashing his bicycle.

The Virgin founder badly damaged his cheek and suffered severe cuts to his knee, chin, shoulder and body.

Branson suffered severe cuts to his knee, chin, shoulder and body.
The accident occurred on Virgin Gorda, one of the British Virgin Islands in the Caribbean.

Sir Richard said: "I was heading down a hill towards Leverick Bay when it suddenly got really dark and I managed to hit a sleeping policeman hump (traffic dome) in the road head on.

Richard Branson thought he was going to die.
"The next thing I knew, I was being hurled over the handlebars and my life was literally flashing before my eyes.

"I really thought I was going to die. I went flying head-first towards the concrete road, but fortunately my shoulder and cheek took the brunt of the impact, and I was wearing a helmet that saved my life.

"My bike went flying off the cliff and disappeared. We've since recovered the crumpled bicycle, completely destroyed. My cheek has been badly damaged and my knee, chin, shoulder and body severely cut."

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 7250
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby bychosis » Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:17 am

hunch wrote:Looks like a flying superman accident...
I went flying head-first towards the concrete road, but fortunately my shoulder and cheek took the brunt of the impact, and I was wearing a helmet that saved my life.
No, his shoulder and cheek saved his life. If he hit helmet first, then maybe you could argue it saved his life, but from that statement his helmet saved him from further head injury.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

stretts
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:37 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby stretts » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:16 pm

Great to see the Block Australia promoting Australia's helmet free cycling culture!

Image

Image

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 7250
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby bychosis » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:52 am

I spotted that too. Couple is from Qld, aren't the MHLs relaxed for non road riding?
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
uart
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby uart » Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:12 pm

stretts wrote:Great to see the Block Australia promoting Australia's helmet free cycling culture!
Wow, how did they get away with that!

Haven't advertisers been forced to pull stuff or photoshop helmets onto people to "protect" Australians from seeing such horrendous crimes so blatantly perpetrated. Heck, showing that is tantamount to portraying mass murder as a fun and healthy pastime to some people. ;)

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:26 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Green and Gold is the lessor of the two evils :)

Anyway back on topic

The penalties that Sue Abbot has been hit with for her civil disobedience in regards to the H law, I don't get it

This is what I see should of been the scenario;
1. Fined for disobeying a law
2. Contest the Fine in court
3a. Win the case, the fine is cancelled
3b. Loose the case, the fine is upheld + court costs

But from what I am reading she has been punished for contesting, correct me if I'm wrong
This is the way court cases work. In general the fine you are given with a TIN is a significantly discounted amount eg. the fine for riding without a helmet in Victoria is approx. $135. But the statutory penalty (which the court may choose to apply) is about $700. By avoiding court action, drivers are rewarded with a lower penalty.

You take it to court; you can expect to pay a much higher penalty if found guilty
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22160
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:09 pm

il padrone wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:Green and Gold is the lessor of the two evils :)

Anyway back on topic

The penalties that Sue Abbot has been hit with for her civil disobedience in regards to the H law, I don't get it

This is what I see should of been the scenario;
1. Fined for disobeying a law
2. Contest the Fine in court
3a. Win the case, the fine is cancelled
3b. Loose the case, the fine is upheld + court costs

But from what I am reading she has been punished for contesting, correct me if I'm wrong
This is the way court cases work. In general the fine you are given with a TIN is a significantly discounted amount eg. the fine for riding without a helmet in Victoria is approx. $135. But the statutory penalty (which the court may choose to apply) is about $700. By avoiding court action, drivers are rewarded with a lower penalty.

You take it to court; you can expect to pay a much higher penalty if found guilty
That's a bit disappointing. Drives home the notion of simply paying the fine regardless of whether you consider it unjust or not.

Reminds me of a situation where a mum got booked for stopping on no stopping outside of the school. Some kids jumped onto the road and she had to stop to avoid hitting them. Her kids seeing her stop jumped out and opened the car door and got in. Then she received a fine for stopping on no stopping. She decided it was easier to pay the fine than to contest it
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:18 pm

School zones are like that. She might learn to tell her kids to walk to school :idea:

Sorry, no pity. Re the fines - it works that way for all traffic fines. Otherwise our courts would be choked up with fine contestors on a 'chancer'.
20 Obeying the speed limit.....
......In the case of drivers of vehicles other than heavy vehicles exceeding the speed-limit by less than 35 km per hour, 10 penalty units
The current value of a penalty unit is $155.46 so that makes for a standard speeding offence fine of a court-imposed $1,554.60.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:52 am

146 Driving within a single marked lane or line of traffic
(1) A driver on a multi-lane road must drive so the driver's vehicle is completely in a marked lane, unless the driver is—
(a) entering a part of the road of one kind from a part of the road of another kind (for example, moving to or from a service road or a
shoulder of the road); or
(b) entering or leaving the road; or
(c) moving from one marked lane to another marked lane; or
(d) avoiding an obstruction; or
(e) obeying a traffic control device applying to the marked lane; or
(f) permitted to drive in more than one marked lane under another provision of these Rules.
Penalty: 3 penalty units.
Lane-splitting; every driver does it to get past a cyclist (MGIF), and the reason behind many cyclist collisions and deaths - $466.38. Wonder how often this penalty is dished out ????

258 Equipment on a bicycle
A person must not ride a bicycle that does not have—
(a) at least 1 effective brake; and
(b) a bell, horn, or similar warning device, in working order.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
No bell fitted ( I have one) - $699.77. Don't reckon anyone was ever harmed by the lack of a fitted bell.

Now there's 'equivalence of penalties' for you. :x
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:16 pm

il padrone wrote: Now there's 'equivalence of penalties' for you. :x
Dufaq? :shock:

Whats the betting even this bloke
Image
Could get a rule 146 tossed out on the basis of clause (d)
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:48 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Could get a rule 146 tossed out on the basis of clause (d)
That one would not run. Obstruction is clearly defined in the dictionary to the road rules:
obstruction includes a traffic hazard, but does not include a vehicle only because the vehicle is stopped in traffic or is travelling more slowly than other vehicles
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:59 pm

il padrone wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:Could get a rule 146 tossed out on the basis of clause (d)
That one would not run. Obstruction is clearly defined in the dictionary to the road rules:
obstruction includes a traffic hazard, but does not include a vehicle only because the vehicle is stopped in traffic or is travelling more slowly than other vehicles
Granted but it only takes one moronic beak to pillory a rider for getting hit from behind because his front light did not illuminate the ground for 200m...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:05 pm

Yes. That one has already been done. Judge in Ballarat who claimed a driver was not culpable for killing a cyclist who he ran down from behind..... because the cyclist (who DID have a working tail-light) did not have a functioning headlight :? :x
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

And "accident waiting to happen", apparently

Postby Thoglette » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:36 am

il padrone wrote:Yes. That one has already been done. Magistrate in Ballarat who claimed a driver was not culpable for killing a cyclist who he ran down from behind..... because the cyclist (who DID have a working tail-light) did not have a functioning headlight :? :x
Fluoro vest too. April 2009 Magistrate Terry Wilson ruling on Jasper Bicycle Victoria calls for investigation and others.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Mulger bill » Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:25 pm

That's the point I'm making Pete, get a bewigged dingleberry with an attitude problem on the bench and 146(d) could be used as an ugly precedent towards having bikes become declared obstructions. Druncan would love that
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22160
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Sep 02, 2016 8:30 pm

Almost rode without a helmet this morning. It was pooring and I had to ride, so I put a heavy raincoat on with the hood and walked my bike to the front of the house and then realised. Because I had a heavy hood on my head, it felt like there was something there, despite the lack of straps.

What if the local police had run out of drug dealers to arrest?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users