outnabike wrote: I know what you are saying , but one ticket will cost more than the helmet and then you still have to get a helmet.
Hardly relevant if cost isn't a reason why somebody isn't wearing a helmet.
Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
Hardly relevant if cost isn't a reason why somebody isn't wearing a helmet.
Yeah, but QV is throwing the baby out with the bath-water - right-side riding, maybe footpaths too...... wonder how many red lights he runs? Maybe fear and insecurity, inexperience or just blatant rule disobedience. Doesn't matter that much if the Police ping him and multiple offenses are going to hurt the hip pocket nerve.
Just as long as he's aware of the repercussions.
Only footpaths if its a busy road with no bike lane. Red I stop, unless there are no cars at all. I would say the only reason I ride on the right is cause of insecurity and fear of some driver passing behind too close, etc if I'm on the left. And if I do see cops, I usually get off and walk, or wait for them to head off.
I do have a helmet, but don't like wearing it. Maybe it's a cheapo helmet and that's the reason why.
If I ever do cop a fine, then that will prob be the time when I wear the helmet 100% of the time on a bike. Hope they don't catch all the safety requirements on the bike that aren't there. No reflectors other than on the pedals, no lights(but I rarely ride at night), and no bell. Otherwise it's a 100% safe bike.
I am not sure all cops know about this BS law anyway.....
Right-side running is 'salmoning'. I might not be very disapproving of helmet-less riding but such salmoning is downright dangerous to other cyclists and pedestrians. I'd recommend you do not do it if you consider yourself a responsible member of society.
What other cyclists? Where I ride, there are no other cyclists. Plus this is around my local area, so I know the roads and how empty they are.
Any roads that I don't know, then I'd be on the left shoulder and riding much slower than normal.
Whatever you say. If I see a salmoning rider I am sorely tempted to do something I may regret.
you may know the area, but you can't predict the future.....
knowing the roads means nothing...
I agree with il padrone on this one.
Which is why discouraging cycling by mandating the wearing of helmets is so so stupid.
It's not just the inconvenience of wearing the helmet. I just have to live with that since I don't want to pay a fine. It is the impression that cycling is very dangerous, so dangerous that we have to wear helmets for our own good, that is really discouraging. I had an argument a few months ago with someone who was shocked I thought riding without a helmet was fine (me and my 18yo daughter had just gone for a ride on the Bellarine Peninsula sans helmets). She said it was far too dangerous and she certainly wouldn't let her, admittedly younger, children ride without a helmet (I rode at their age without a helmet, no-one had them then). I had another comment recently that cycling was far too dangerous to cycle without a helmet. These arguments and this perception of the relative safety/dangerousness of cycling just did not exist before the stupid MHLs. The harm done by promoting the perceived danger of riding a bike will take decades to repair.
I have had frequent comments along the lines of "Gosh you're so brave! I could never do that. There's just too much traffic to ride a bike". Even wearing helmets it is regarded as just too dangerous. This attitude was not such a common statement in the 70s & 80s.
Wearing a helmet doesn't make cycling any more safe. Sure it'll protect your head a little if you fall or something, but it doesn't reduce the chances of you falling. Maybe some people reckon that they be perfectly fine as long as they wear a helmet.
One of my friends always tells me to wear a helmet. I guess I should listen, but she is someone who would never ride without a helmet.
(emphasis in original)
It's hard enough to figure out why a law was passed sometimes, so speculating on why some hypothetical law wasn't passed seems like an unproductive exercise. Besides, and I've pointed this out before, this is as much an argument for more regulation as MHL repeal.
There is a caveat to this, though: walking around is a fundamental expression of a basic human right. I'm extremely leery of any law that interferes with that. The bar is higher for regulating pedestrians that regulating cyclists, and rightly so. I don't know why helmets aren't mandated for pedestrians, but the fact that they aren't doesn't bother me in the slightest; it indicates neither prejudice nor inconsistency.
As for motorists: mandate away, you'll not hear a peep out of me.
I would prefer they didn't.
It won't improve their field of vision and may make some drivers feel more impervious to injury in their metal cage, encouraging more inconsiderate driving behaviour.
I thought salmoning referred to any attempt to ride along a street in the opposite direction of the traffic flow, and I've never quite understood why some writers (e.g. bikesnobnyc) so readily condemn it. There's several one-way streets around Carlton/Fitzroy that I use to ride the "other way", usually because it is the safest route. I thought I'd read some research suggesting counter-flow bicycle lanes proved to very safe and effective when they'd be implemented in a few cities, though a quick Google isn't showing up much other than a few videos. There's even one in North Melbourne (OConnel St), though apparently it's been known to confuse drivers.
Yeah. like I said, riding on the right-hand side of the street
Contra-flow bike lanes are fine. Commonly used in the Netherlands. Different species entirely to the 'salmons'. If it is done correct it is usually on one-way streets - regular flow of cyclists rides with normal traffic, or in a left-side lane; contra-flow cycling in a right-side lane (their left)
1. Approved and usually marked
2. Cars keep out of the way
3. Contra-flow is not riding into the face of other riders.
Or in this Dutch example - contra-flow lane on the left (their right), cars (one-way) and opposing riders on the right.
Not to be confused with two-way separated bike paths. These are used in some countries (a couple here in Melbourne) but tend to have a poor safety record - mainly due to cross-street confusion by drivers. They work in the Netherlands where drivers on minor cross-streets are usually required to give way to cyclists on bike path crossings, so the driver culture is very different.
Which I'd agree is dangerous...but my understanding was that salmoning also included riding the wrong way up a one-way street, even if it were on the correct side of the road (or in the middle, assuming no trafic).
That was why I couldn't find any hits - only Googled for "Counter-flow". Change it to "Contra-flow" and the first few results are exactly what I was looking for...
Ummm, when salmoning, there is no correct side of the road. At least contraflow has a defined area to show peoples where they should be.
Correct as in, the side of the road you'd be on if it were a two-way street, i.e. the left side in Australia. Apparently there's actually quite a few contra-flow bike lanes in Melbourne, I assume all of them have the lane to the left of the cars coming the other way.
Umm.. The only one that instantly comes to mind is the two way abortion in Fitzroy st St Kilda? I am pretty sure that a couple of others exist.. But I cant think of any one way.. wrong way down a one way street. A couple of 10 metre ones through a one way entrance into a street excepted
The biggest and most obvious one is Princes Park Drive which is about a kilometre. There are certainly are quite a few around Fitzroy and Collingwood. Also the north end of Lennox St Richmond.
Sikh bloke just managed to get another helmet fine rendered "no penalty applied"... judge said he should get a doctors cert until the law is changed...
what medical reason does a religious person have that a doctor could support? ??????????????????????????
Funnily enough, even if you did have a doctors cert, the police could still fine you and you'd be required to attend court anyway
That very much depends on the state. Queensland has an explicit exemption: r256(4). Victoria, to pick another state at random, does not. There, "the Corporation" can issue exemptions. I can't be bothered looking up the statutory definition of "the Corporation", nor the rules in other states at the minute.
London Sikh cops have a black turban with a checquered strip around it !
A black and white cobra pops out the top to arrest you !
Last part was a joke but first part is legit.
Thought you were joking...... but heck no!!! Some photos show Sikhs with just a blue turban and Met badge, but this...
It's all a hot topic in the Commodes forum
This is the Sikh guy concerned
But hey, why is that deemed to be so dangerous?????
Nope, serious as cancer.....
Was a huge bone of contention years ago when it was brought in to allow the police force to "employ " a more equal ratio of races in the force.
Same when they (fire service) started employing 4 foot, one legged Chinese lesbians over strapping 6 foot blokes(politically correctness gone mad ) .
That's not a joke either, it happened ! (Was disabled) .
Worlds gone mad !
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: thecaptn