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 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: 18416
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:41 am

BNA
 

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: 25800
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: 1267
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.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 496
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: 25800
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: 18416
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: 25800
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.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 496
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: 4858
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: 25800
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: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby diggler » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:19 am

human909 wrote:
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. :(



At the very least, you should support the LDP because philosophically they support your view.

http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

re road rules, aren't there Australian Road Rules which most States generally mirror?

"The issue needs to be won amongst cyclists and cyclists advocacy groups before the real headway with government is made." After 261 pages you clearly don't have consensus here and I very much doubt you ever will. If you wait to get all cyclists behind you, you will be waiting until hell freezes over.

You should lobby government, write letters, hold protest rallies now.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

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

Postby Percrime » Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:34 am

Oh there will never be total consensus. After all some people like 'nanny states'. But there don't seem to be so very many of them.
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:53 am

Percrime wrote:Oh there will never be total consensus. After all some people like 'nanny states'. But there don't seem to be so very many of them.

Nanny states are great as long as you are the one deciding what they will protect you from. China and Russia did a fantastic job of looking after their citizens, and God help those people who disagreed with them. Germany had a stellar record of protecting the Germans from the Jewish conspiracy a while back as well. The Amish have got oppression sorted out pretty well - just let people decide if they want to be nanny'd or not.

Freedom is a two way street. You get good with bad. The MHL is simply a microcosm of the big picture. It is not acceptable to say "you can't do this" when it's a fair and reasonable act. Can you imagine them banning internet forums or Skype - just in case?! Bad bad baaaad things happen to people sometimes, collusion to break laws, no ability for the police to intervene to suppress the evil commentary and trolling...

Everyone has a line in the sand. That's OK. Australia is based upon freedom, not oppression, and it makes no sense for a democracy to enforce MHL. The citizens are allowed to vote for their leaders, why can't they similarly decide how to ride a bike? The rules change dramatically when the State refuses to grant that freedom (such as Russia in the 80s, and China) because the state is actually responsible for the citizens. But Australia owes nothing to us; so we should be free do make reasonable decisions. If you don't feel comfortable with riding a bike without a helmet, then go wear one. I'd prefer you didn't, but we aren't living in a free country if I can force you to decide. Banning swimming at the beach would save lives. Going boating... lives are being lost. Even despite the licencing and measures to protect. If you can't see the problem with forcing helmets on an unwilling person, you're a dictator in my eyes. Except you won't feed me, house me, and look after the REST of my life... it's easier to be Mr Plod and wave the finger at someone else than have to actually take responsibility for them. And that's what the MHL is - an attempt to take responsibility for me on the road, but it's garbage because that is the ONLY attempt at protecting me. I don't fall over on the road. I can hit by a car through no fault of mine - where is the additional rules to stop that car being close to me, if the state is REALLY concerned about me? They aren't there, because the state is concerned about control and not the citizens. MHL has been roundly rejected as an effective protection for cyclists. No repeal says "yes it was about destroying cycling".

Have a chat to 2nd Womble and his work for Safe Cycling Australia; how incredibly hard it is to get change even when there is agreement and consensus. If you want to control people, then at least do it properly. MHL isn't.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:59 pm

From the forum next door....

http://www.ecf.com/news/helmet-law-to-h ... newswatch/

But of coure MHL have little to with achieving health benefits and everything to to with enforcing individual ideology on others. :roll: What I find more sad than the government regulation is the many enthusiasts who strongly advocate it.
human909
 
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby ILMB » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:08 pm

Your debate works for me Xplora.
User avatar
ILMB
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:58 pm

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... z2bYnjlYf2

The Brisbane City Council would support trials of helmet-free zones with the support of the state government, following a review of Queensland's cycling laws.
In a submission to a parliamentary review of cycling issues, BCC CEO Colin Jensen writes the council would consider “relaxation” of the helmet requirement in “low risk locations”.
“This could include areas such as pathways in parks and along river and creek corridors where there is no interface with vehicular traffic,” Mr Jensen said.
“Council offers its support to assist the Queensland Government in reviewing these matters including the introduction of potential trial programs.”
Advertisement
Such an amendment could help mitigate pressure on the council to provide helmets as part of its shared CityCycle bike hire scheme which has cost ratepayers $14 million over the past four years.
Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said on Friday that while he supported the mandatory use of helmets for road cyclists, "I’m more relaxed about making helmets voluntary for those taking a leisurely cycle ride along a bikeway or in a park and supportive of a trial in such low-risk locations".
“I’ve committed $120 million over four years to deliver safe, appealing paths and local streets that encourage more people to take up walking and cycling,” he said.
But the BCC submission was just one of 106 made to the Inquiry of Cycling Issues, which was motioned in June for the purpose of improving the interaction of cyclists with other road users.
Plans from the RACQ, the Sunshine Coast City Council, private individuals and various cycling groups also number among those now being considered by the Transport Housing and Local Government Committee.
A submission from the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit said trend data indicated proportion of bicycle-related crashes relative to all transport related presentations had fluctuated between 8 and 14 per cent over the past 14 years.
However, there has been some recent upward activity, with the proportion rising from 8 per cent in 2004 to 14 per cent in 2012.
According to the QISU data the peak age group for injury presentations due to a bicycle-related crash was 25-44 years, and males accounted for 79 per cent of injury presentations due to bicycle-related crashes.
But QISU does not collect data from every emergency facility in the state, and notes in its submission the estimated adult data collected represents only about one fifth of all adult injury presentations to emergency departments in the state.
“Therefore, numbers presented below could be multiplied by a factor of five, in order to get a rough minimum estimate of true bicycle-related injury numbers presenting to Queensland emergency departments,” the report says.
According to the data, there were 30,764 bicycle related injuries between 1999 and 2012.
Other changes being considered through the review, announced by Transport Minister Scott Emerson in June, include the introduction of a one-metre overtaking rule, and bicycle registration.
At the time, Bicycle Queensland's Ben Wilson said the review was "timely and sensible", but cautioned people against jumping to easy conclusions.
The committee is due to hand their report back to the legislative assembly by November.
human909
 
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Percrime » Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:03 pm

Hmmm. A whole day.. and not one person has posted on how change is never going to happen.
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:46 pm

Partial repeal is a great start; once people realise that the sky won't fall in, they will be able to relax further. The Greens are mad enough to take this on board and push it, and the ALP politically are weak enough in the states now to fall into line with such an easy to accept policy change. Suddenly boom; change is here.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby DavidS » Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:58 pm

Given that the flimsy excuses for a helmet they force us to wear are no use against motor vehicles I can't see the logic in this. Slow single vehicle accidents are where bike helmets are most effective, the very fact that there are moves to remove compulsory helmets for this very situation just exposes how ridiculous the law is. Still, helmet exemptions are the first step to repeal so I hope it goes ahead.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby VRE » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:27 am

How on earth is helmet-free zones supposed to work? If cyclists are riding into or out of one of these zones, they'll still have to carry a helmet with them :roll: . Like others, I'm hoping that this will lead to better things, but the trial sounds impractical.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

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

Postby richbee » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:48 am

Very simple, I pack my leisure cycling family into the car with bikes on top, drive to Gyatts park, ferry across the river to West End and cycle along Riverside drive to South Bank, on the footpaths where roads are open to traffic, and on the road the bits where it's closed. Or we hop onto the Western Freeway cyclepath where it passes near to my home and cycle on the dedicated and shared bikeways to Rocks Riverside. At Rocks we can then happily ride around the fully enclosed pathways free to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.
Naturally my daughter being fully brainwashed by her commuter racer father will wear her helmet all the time, but that then is my diktat, oops, her choice, and not the whim of some well intentioned but uninformed safeticrat.
richbee
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:58 pm

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

Postby VRE » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:58 am

richbee wrote:Very simple, I pack my leisure cycling family into the car with bikes on top, drive to Gyatts park, ferry across the river to West End and cycle along Riverside drive to South Bank, on the footpaths where roads are open to traffic, and on the road the bits where it's closed. Or we hop onto the Western Freeway cyclepath where it passes near to my home and cycle on the dedicated and shared bikeways to Rocks Riverside. At Rocks we can then happily ride around the fully enclosed pathways free to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.
Naturally my daughter being fully brainwashed by her commuter racer father will wear her helmet all the time, but that then is my diktat, oops, her choice, and not the whim of some well intentioned but uninformed safeticrat.

That doesn't address my comment, which is that you still need to ride through the helmet-free zones carrying helmets with you, unless you either drive/PT/walk to the start of these zones, or ride helmet-free through some zones where helmets are mandatory. That will reduce the practicality of this scheme. As I said, I'm hoping this scheme will result in better outcomes, but they're creating a major obstruction to the scheme with this zoning idea.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:47 am

VRE, rich answered that comment already. First line. "I pack my leisure cycling family into the car with bikes on top, drive to Gyatts park"

And yes, it is very impractical, but that's a good thing. We've got a far more impractical law right now; anything to bring back the veil of the great Oz would be great.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:24 pm

Xplora wrote:VRE, rich answered that comment already. First line. "I pack my leisure cycling family into the car with bikes on top, drive to Gyatts park"

And yes, it is very impractical, but that's a good thing. We've got a far more impractical law right now; anything to bring back the veil of the great Oz would be great.


One of the stated reasons is to increase CityCycle uptake. CityCycle stations are heavily concentrated in an area with lots of offroad shared paths. So for that particular situation, it's actually fairly practical.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: farnorth



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

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

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit