Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
I can see everyone including pedestrians having to wear a helmet to be safe from .....BASE jumping from city buildings.....
Bugger , there is always a downside to freedoms .
This was posted on another thread, but just have a look at the text from the mandatory wearers point of view.
"A push bike slammed into my car head-on, throwing the non-helmet wearing rider onto the bonnet, windscreen and then footpath." And after all that , the bloke is standing there and ok.
And all done with out a helmet.
Can't you just see the crowd saying (if he had a helmet) "lucky for him, the helmet saved his life". I prefer that the rider was wearing a helmet in that sort of accident, but just posing the obvious reverse type of thinking.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 6723158156
Also seems another case of GREEN car lights at the same time as a RED bike like. Bi directional lanes are a recipe for disaster. This incident is just another example.
Two months it lay asleep, but the dead shall rise
Today the QLD enquiry into bike safety comes out, and should be recommending helmetless on footpaths and on PSPs. I'm stunned that Emerson can be skeptical about removing the law (given that the majority of the world follows this practice), but I get the feeling that most of the time Committees get what they want with these things (otherwise why would they bother).
You are more optimistic than I am. Look at what happened (or hasn't happened) with the 'Henry' tax review.
Political content - there was a lot more than just the Henry review that failed to happen - we need to take into account the context of the failure to implement. I think this one might get somewhere because the Libs are on the NOSE up there when it comes to 2 wheels. This might be a good one to beat their chest over, and claim a victory for the little people. I don't care what their motivation for change is, I just want change!
The difference with an enquiry, in the way QLD do it, is that its led by and done by the MP's whote actually vote for the law and directly influence party policy.
If you look at the MP's, politically, they don't tend to get involved unless they have a good understanding that what they will find will be government poilcy. Opposition MP's get involved because otherwise - they basically have no political power (as there vote isn't going to count on the floor of parliament against a >50% government). So you end up with a bunch of MP's from both parties in the enquiry, and both parties supporting the recommendations. Some MP's in QLD have already said such and such recommendations *will* be implemented. Obviously they had already had this setup with LNP and Cambell Newman. (though it does look like some labor MP's snubbed it - did Desley Scott actually show up and do anything for the cycling enquiry? She was meant to be deputy chair!).
Compare that to the henry tax review. Basically no MP's involved. Government completely clueless as to what they were going to get out of it. Party completely undecided and divided. Party not even ready to implement the recommendations.
The cycling commision had pretty major MP's already pushed for fairly specific laws which most people already knew about.
Thanks for the insight!
Pssstt....hey, shhhh. AGF oppose any relaxation in MHL's, even for bike share schemes.
I was never here.
I see that as a plus, as they have pretty much entirely discredited themselves as an organization in recent times.
What purpose will they have if the 1.5m law gets passed ?
Ther might be a bunch of NGO drones looking for a new gig.
You have officially become your parents.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users