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

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Summernight » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:08 pm

diggler wrote:I'm just saying the law will never change. Never ever. What is the point of this discussion? No politician supports abolishing MHL. Zero. None. Zip. Nada.


That's a bit of a depressing thing to say - if we don't bother debating it (including in parliament etc.) then there will be no change. If I go sit under my rock and just let things happen to me without standing up for what I believe in then of course nothing is going to change to how I want it. Change happens because people stand up for what they believe in. Politicians (usually) stand up for what their constituents believe in - at least, what the loudest/richest people who got them voted in believe in.

Just because you may believe that nothing will change doesn't mean that others believe the same. Others here who continue to debate do, IMO, actually believe that a difference can be made.

NT is a clear example that change can happen. Even the Lord Mayor of Brisbane(?) in the most recent Channel 7 news report regarding the QLD inquiry mentioned that he wasn't against removing the helmet requirement for off-road bike path riding. That is change.

As the saying goes - "the squeaky wheel gets the oil."

So I say to all those posting here - continue to squeak. It is certainly what a lot of other advocacy groups are doing (automobile clubs, anyone?).
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

by BNA » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:03 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:03 pm

Repealing MHLs is a long way off. But so was gay marriage ten years ago. The best way to change attitudes is to get more regular people cycling (despite the chicken&egg issue) and discussion the issue with existing cyclists to help shift opinion. The second is being done in this forum and this thread! Several people have questioned their own existing beliefs regarding MHLs from reading and participating in such discussion.

Ideological shifts happen one person at a time.
human909
 
Posts: 5615
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby diggler » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:27 pm

260 pages later, how many people do you have on board?
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
diggler
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:43 pm

If you have nothing better to do than count the pages then maybe you're done ??
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:45 pm

If you mean "How many people's minds have you changed" then count me as one. I used to just go with the status quo till I started to look at the data.
If you mean"How many people agree with you"; I don't care. I'm an independent thinker and am not so insecure that I worry about how many people agree with me or not.
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:10 pm

Xplora wrote:A useful hypothetical. If we were talking about repealing mandatory hi-vis jackets for pedestrians, which has equal merit, would you feel the same way about defending the law? Do not dismiss it out of hand - it is a real possibility, and if you are willing to submit to the state for a foam hat that hasn't fixed our fatality issues, why not a hi vis jacket? If it only saves one life, why not? This is the best argument in favour of the MHL that I've got. If only one life is saved... so. Would you defend it?


Don't laugh about it, or be bemused at the prospect. We currently have mandatory hi-viz jackets at my workplace, a school, for staff when out on yard duty. I hate it, but so many staff are just submitting to it....... how the MHL came in.

What was that quote again ?? John Stuart Mill:
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:20 pm

Xplora wrote:A useful hypothetical. If we were talking about repealing mandatory hi-vis jackets for pedestrians, which has equal merit, would you feel the same way about defending the law? Do not dismiss it out of hand - it is a real possibility, and if you are willing to submit to the state for a foam hat that hasn't fixed our fatality issues, why not a hi vis jacket? If it only saves one life, why not? This is the best argument in favour of the MHL that I've got. If only one life is saved... so. Would you defend it?


This hypothetical either misunderstands or misrepresents the gravamen of my complaint. Regulating pedestrians is a fundamentally different proposition to regulating cyclists. I'd want to see some extraordinary justification before I gave serious thought to supporting any kind of PPE-for-pedestrians law. This has got precisely nothing to do with MHLs, though. Not that this stops it coming up over, and over again. If MHLs for cyclists, why not for pedestrians? comes the cry, over and over again. Will it make it any clearer if I put it in caps?

BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

No, thought not. Still, you can't blame a bloke for trying...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:25 pm

high_tea wrote:BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

Just because you say so????
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:52 pm

KenGS wrote:
high_tea wrote:BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

Just because you say so????

Yeah I think Ken summed it up. I will put this to you - why is bicycle regulation different to motorbikes? to cars? trucks? Why is bicycle usage on the road completely different to the other things? You don't need a licence to ride a bike on the busiest road, and arguably this is pretty risky for many novice riders. It seems that bicycling is treated more like walking for one of the most basic regulations out there. No rego, no licence.

I can understand the plethora of regulation for motorised vehicles. Very fast, very heavy, very fatal. But why the same ideas about a bike, which will struggle to cause the same damage to 3rd parties in an accident as a car? Why the blanket, kneejerk regulation which has been proven to be ineffectual? The MHL is NOT the drink driving laws.

Cyclists don't need the same helmet as a motorcyclist, yet we are told they are equally vital to survival on the road. Our helmet cannot hope to protect like a moto helmet.

The logic is simple - it is not about creating safety, it is about discriminating with prejudice, and it's about regulating HUMAN BEINGS. It doesn't matter what transport mode you use. The ad hoc nature of it all makes it very difficult to get a good direction on it all; best to just people decide for themselves. No good comes from state sanctioned discrimination.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6988
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:45 pm

Wouldn't it be great for cycling and road safety if some of Melbourne's streets like Flinders Lane looked like this:

Image



Instead of this:

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:51 pm

Xplora wrote:
KenGS wrote:
high_tea wrote:BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

Just because you say so????

Yeah I think Ken summed it up. I will put this to you - why is bicycle regulation different to motorbikes? to cars? trucks? Why is bicycle usage on the road completely different to the other things? You don't need a licence to ride a bike on the busiest road, and arguably this is pretty risky for many novice riders. It seems that bicycling is treated more like walking for one of the most basic regulations out there. No rego, no licence.


No, not because I say so. Because walking is a fundamental expression of a basic human right, and cycling - although a very good thing - is not. The law treats the two very differently. Not just in Australia, mind you. In all sorts of places. Including places which don't have MHLs. Which rather suggests that MHL repeal doesn't rest on the outlandish proposition that regulating pedestrians is equivalent to regulating cyclists. So why keep bringing it up? Not only is it self-evident nonsense, it's self-evident nonsense that your argument doesn't rest on.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:05 am

I didn't want to enter into this again but just can't help myself.

Firstly, you say it's only the anti MHL supporters that stay here as the MHLs leave. Ever consider that some actually are influenced by the arguements and stay on as anti's. I am one. Although I grew up without when I came to Oz I accepted it might be safer but I must say the arguments here, with extensive reading elsewhere, soon changed my mind. I would rather use my mind to chose for myself and, all being equal my choice would be not to.

Is there a big difference between pedestrians and cyclists? NO, I don't think so.

As has been said, both do not need licensing. We (cyclists) even refer to the less experienced as POBSOs. Pedestrians on Bike Shaped Objects. In many ways that sums it up. It's the POBSOs that are put off by helmets, not the Lycrists, for them helmets are part of the 'uniform'.

Cyclists need helmets pedestrians don't. That may be true on roads, but pedestrians aren't allowed to walk there except to cross. It's certainly not true on shared paths. When a cyclist hits a pedestrian the chances are its the pedestrian that hits their heads. On shared paths the wrong people are mandated to wear helmets. Have seen three cyclist/ped accidents and in all three the pedestrian had a head injury. Only seen one cycle/cycle accident and it was not the head that was hurt!

What should we do? First learn from the rest of the world and stop this stupid law, it is discrimination, perhaps with the best intentions, although i doubt it, but certainly not evidence based. Was it introduced by cyclists? No, it was introduced by motoring advocates to make cyclists safer - well that works well doesn't it!

Suggestion, make helmet use dependant on the type of bike. Ride a sit up or BSO, on paths and even on roads and no helmet. Ride a racing bike with drops and you need a helmet.

Prediction, sales of continental style sit up bikes goes through the roof.

At times in my life, before my 50's, I have done all of these: Walk, ride a bike, drive a car, sail boats, swim, hike in mountains, windsurf, ski, climb trees, fly a plane. Did I wear a helmet for any?
No, except for WALKING on a construction site.

Now I am in Australia do I wear a helmet? Yes, but only for cycling and on dangerous construction sites. What a great message that is, cycling must be so dangerous that it needs the same PPE, maybe it's about time cycling had a union to take this up for them? Oops silly me maybe you already do.
citywomble
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:17 am

Xplora wrote:The logic is simple - it is not about creating safety, it is about discriminating with prejudice, and it's about regulating HUMAN BEINGS. It doesn't matter what transport mode you use. The ad hoc nature of it all makes it very difficult to get a good direction on it all; best to just people decide for themselves. No good comes from state sanctioned discrimination.


Actually I think it is more than this. MHLs allow the government to avoid issues of cycling safety. Bad roads, no cycling facilities, intersections which are dangerous for cyclists, bike lanes with visibility blocked by parked cars? Hey, no problem, we the government have dealt with cycling safety, we have introduced MHLs, we've done our job, you have to wear a helmet and therefore you are safe, we need do no more, we wash our hands of this issue because we are looking after your safety with MHLs. It's a cop out and classic blame the victim mentality. Cyclists are in danger because of bad driver behaviour - solution, make the cyclists wear helmets. Don't want to upset the drivers.

I'm still amazed that some cyclists promote a law which does so much to discourage cycling, which shouts the message that cycling is especially dangerous. Personally I like to encourage cycling not put barriers in the way of people getting around on an environmentally friendly bicycle and get some exercise while they're at it.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:02 am

high_tea wrote:
KenGS wrote:
high_tea wrote:BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

Just because you say so????

Xplora wrote:Yeah I think Ken summed it up. I will put this to you - why is bicycle regulation different to motorbikes? to cars? trucks? Why is bicycle usage on the road completely different to the other things? You don't need a licence to ride a bike on the busiest road, and arguably this is pretty risky for many novice riders. It seems that bicycling is treated more like walking for one of the most basic regulations out there. No rego, no licence.

No, not because I say so. Because walking is a fundamental expression of a basic human right, and cycling - although a very good thing - is not. The law treats the two very differently. Not just in Australia, mind you. In all sorts of places. Including places which don't have MHLs. Which rather suggests that MHL repeal doesn't rest on the outlandish proposition that regulating pedestrians is equivalent to regulating cyclists. So why keep bringing it up? Not only is it self-evident nonsense, it's self-evident nonsense that your argument doesn't rest on.

You are still just presenting your opinions. As far as I can see the law subordinates pedestrians to motor vehicles even more than it does cyclists. Saying something is self-evident nonsense does not make it so. Sounds more like an absence of any evidence.
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:40 am

high_tea wrote:No, not because I say so. Because walking is a fundamental expression of a basic human right, and cycling - although a very good thing - is not. The law treats the two very differently. Not just in Australia, mind you. In all sorts of places. Including places which don't have MHLs.


Not the case in Italy, certainly from what I observed. In all towns and cities there are often "zona pedonale" - areas for pedestrians. However bicycles are entirely acceptable in these areas. We never struck any areas where bicycles were forbidden, (apart from inside markets, shopping centres and in some parks). Drivers on the roads treat cyclists pretty much the same as they would treat a pedestrian

Image
Image
Last edited by il padrone on Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:41 am

high_tea wrote:
Xplora wrote:A useful hypothetical. If we were talking about repealing mandatory hi-vis jackets for pedestrians, which has equal merit, would you feel the same way about defending the law? Do not dismiss it out of hand - it is a real possibility, and if you are willing to submit to the state for a foam hat that hasn't fixed our fatality issues, why not a hi vis jacket? If it only saves one life, why not? This is the best argument in favour of the MHL that I've got. If only one life is saved... so. Would you defend it?


This hypothetical either misunderstands or misrepresents the gravamen of my complaint. Regulating pedestrians is a fundamentally different proposition to regulating cyclists. I'd want to see some extraordinary justification before I gave serious thought to supporting any kind of PPE-for-pedestrians law. This has got precisely nothing to do with MHLs, though. Not that this stops it coming up over, and over again. If MHLs for cyclists, why not for pedestrians? comes the cry, over and over again. Will it make it any clearer if I put it in caps?

BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

No, thought not. Still, you can't blame a bloke for trying...



Trying? Indeed.

A tiny little tip for yer mate: I'll make it nice and easy for you by shouting too...

THE NANNY STATE DOES NOT GIVE A LARGE RODENTS POSTERIOR FOR WHAT YOU THINK!
If the ever more pervasive safetycrats advising government decide that PPE for pedestrians is needed then it will happen.

Question is: Will YOU and your mates be joining the dissidents here in a massive campaign of civil disobedience and lobbying that will make these pages that you are so keen to count look like a temperance picnic? Or will you just passively submit as you have already done once on the basis that "they" know what is best for us?

What is this "FUNDAMENETAL" (sic) human right of which you write? Life, freedom of movement? freedom of association? I'm steering close to the abyss of Godwinism here but it don't take much for all of them to be curtailed and in fact, the second two are already regularly proscribed worldwide.
...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
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:37 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
high_tea wrote:
Xplora wrote:A useful hypothetical. If we were talking about repealing mandatory hi-vis jackets for pedestrians, which has equal merit, would you feel the same way about defending the law? Do not dismiss it out of hand - it is a real possibility, and if you are willing to submit to the state for a foam hat that hasn't fixed our fatality issues, why not a hi vis jacket? If it only saves one life, why not? This is the best argument in favour of the MHL that I've got. If only one life is saved... so. Would you defend it?


This hypothetical either misunderstands or misrepresents the gravamen of my complaint. Regulating pedestrians is a fundamentally different proposition to regulating cyclists. I'd want to see some extraordinary justification before I gave serious thought to supporting any kind of PPE-for-pedestrians law. This has got precisely nothing to do with MHLs, though. Not that this stops it coming up over, and over again. If MHLs for cyclists, why not for pedestrians? comes the cry, over and over again. Will it make it any clearer if I put it in caps?

BECAUSE REGULATING PEDESTRIANS IS A FUNDAMENETALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION TO REGULATING CYCLISTS.

No, thought not. Still, you can't blame a bloke for trying...



Trying? Indeed.

A tiny little tip for yer mate: I'll make it nice and easy for you by shouting too...

THE NANNY STATE DOES NOT GIVE A LARGE RODENTS POSTERIOR FOR WHAT YOU THINK!
If the ever more pervasive safetycrats advising government decide that PPE for pedestrians is needed then it will happen.

Question is: Will YOU and your mates be joining the dissidents here in a massive campaign of civil disobedience and lobbying that will make these pages that you are so keen to count look like a temperance picnic? Or will you just passively submit as you have already done once on the basis that "they" know what is best for us?

What is this "FUNDAMENETAL" (sic) human right of which you write? Life, freedom of movement? freedom of association? I'm steering close to the abyss of Godwinism here but it don't take much for all of them to be curtailed and in fact, the second two are already regularly proscribed worldwide.


I done knowed I wroted that wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Haha.

And yeah, lest there be any doubt about it, I would oppose a PPE-for-pedestrians law. No, I don't see any inconsistency in seeing PPE-for-pedestrian laws as worse than PPE-for-cyclists. I'm assuming, without deciding, that somebody out there seriously thinks that a PPE-for-pedestrians law would be a good thing.

EDIT: and yeah, I was referring to freedom of movement. And no, it's not an absolute freedom. That doesn't make it meaningless.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby diggler » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:59 pm

Ok anti MHL people, the election is coming soon, here is your big chance. Here is your guide on who to vote for on the big day. I didn't compile the list so I can't vouch for its accuracy.

http://bicycleaustralia.org/fight.php

Your first choice is the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)

It contested the 2010 federal election, receiving 1.81 percent of the senate vote (over 230,000 votes).

A quota for a Senator is 14.29%

With a couple of preference swaps with other minor parties, you never know.

Best hope is a double dissolution if Tony can't repeal the carbon tax after two attempts. The quota comes down to a very gettable 7.69%

If you really believe in this cause, you better start door knocking and letter box dropping now.
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
diggler
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:28 pm

high_tea wrote:I done knowed I wroted that wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Haha.

And yeah, lest there be any doubt about it, I would oppose a PPE-for-pedestrians law. No, I don't see any inconsistency in seeing PPE-for-pedestrian laws as worse than PPE-for-cyclists. I'm assuming, without deciding, that somebody out there seriously thinks that a PPE-for-pedestrians law would be a good thing.

EDIT: and yeah, I was referring to freedom of movement. And no, it's not an absolute freedom. That doesn't make it meaningless.


Thanks for the follow up, appreciate it. :)

Just one small question...

"Fight" a bad law, good. But: In the admittedly unlikely event of it ever happening, would you be willing to defy it and go about your business in regular kit? Face the risk of possible arrest and the negatives that would flow from it? That is the real test of commitment in such a situation.

And before you ask. Yes, I do ride free in situations where I feel that the perceived cost/benefit ratio is in favour of doing so. Never pinged to date.
...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
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:42 pm

Standing up against a bad law ?

Here is a good one that has cropped up here in Victoria (OT, but of some relevance to your occupation MB)

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/forum ... 11&t=26194


I have no intention of walking my bike through any rail station car-parks and if any Metro PSO's choose to ping me I WILL be taking a stand on it :x
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:24 pm

il padrone wrote:Standing up against a bad law ?

Here is a good one that has cropped up here in Victoria (OT, but of some relevance to your occupation MB)

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/forum ... 11&t=26194


There's a word for quite a few of them and it rhymes with "mickhead". Some people can get way too
Image
about things like this once they've got the badge.

IANAL and there is little training given to ops staff about these sort of legalities but I've got a crisp $50 to say that the intent of the law is to stop riding on footpaths, over/underpasses, platforms, inside trains or in the five/six foot... Hmmm :oops:

I've had words, strong words with the non PTV security types that haunt the down side carpark at my local (shared with a supermarket and W) after they tried the same bs on me years back. He backed down after a while when I pointed out that if his poking finger came within an inch of my chest again that I would remove it and repurpose it as a suppository. No trouble since.

If any Metro PSO's choose to ping me I WILL be taking a stand on it :x


Go nuts mate, I'll be standing at your shoulder if it goes that way. Full uniform and an embarrassing interview.
...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
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby diggler » Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:33 pm

I do hope the anti MHL people get involved in this election. If you really believe in this, get off your arse and back somebody who promotes your cause. If you don't do anything, then this will just be an aimless bitch session.
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
diggler
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:34 pm

diggler wrote:I do hope the anti MHL people get involved in this election.

Sorry diggler I won't be running in the federal election. :roll: Also in case you didn't notice, these are STATE laws.

diggler wrote:If you really believe in this, get off your arse and back somebody who promotes your cause. If you don't do anything, then this will just be an aimless bitch session.

See earlier comments. The issue needs to be won amongst cyclists and cyclists advocacy groups before the real headway with government is made. Unfortunately many cyclists and cycle advocacy groups are only interested in themselves and not the wider cycling community. :(
human909
 
Posts: 5615
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:54 pm

Don't feed it H.
...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
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26570
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:37 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
high_tea wrote:I done knowed I wroted that wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Haha.

And yeah, lest there be any doubt about it, I would oppose a PPE-for-pedestrians law. No, I don't see any inconsistency in seeing PPE-for-pedestrian laws as worse than PPE-for-cyclists. I'm assuming, without deciding, that somebody out there seriously thinks that a PPE-for-pedestrians law would be a good thing.

EDIT: and yeah, I was referring to freedom of movement. And no, it's not an absolute freedom. That doesn't make it meaningless.


Thanks for the follow up, appreciate it. :)

Just one small question...

"Fight" a bad law, good. But: In the admittedly unlikely event of it ever happening, would you be willing to defy it and go about your business in regular kit? Face the risk of possible arrest and the negatives that would flow from it? That is the real test of commitment in such a situation.

And before you ask. Yes, I do ride free in situations where I feel that the perceived cost/benefit ratio is in favour of doing so. Never pinged to date.


Dunno. Are you asking about a calculated act of civil disobedience, or taking a calculated legal risk for one reason or another? Me, I ride unhelmeted now and again. Generally because I've forgotten it :oops: But that's not any kind of protest against helmet laws. That's the fact that I'm here, helmet's there and I can't be bothered walking. OTOH PPE-for-peds law is so unbelievably stupid that a calculated act of civil disobedience would start looking pretty good.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CalvinAndHobbes, Steve_F



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter
“Bicycles BNA on Strava

> FREE BNA Stickers