Cycling in Melbourne Australia
Punk Commute comes to Melbourne
The indefatigable Sue Abbott is bringing the protest ride Punk Commute to Central Melbourne.
Sue is well known for her tireless efforts to persuade the Government of New South Wales to repeal the Mandatory Helmet Legislation.
Sue has had two victories in the Courts after challenging Penalty Notices for riding without a helmet. She has never been successfully convicted of this offence despite twenty years of cycling 'sans' helmet.
The Punk Commute ran earlier this year in Sydney and resulted in a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Ports.
The Melbourne Punk Commute is an opportunity for all cyclists who believe in freedom of choice for cycling headwear, to ride together and call for the repeal of the Mandatory Helmet Laws.
The ride is taking place on Saturday, 30 July at 12.30. Details of the ride are still being finalised but can be viewed on Sue's blogspot :
http://freedomcyclist.blogspot.com/2011/07/melbourne-punk-commute-3...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jack on -
Here is a video of Sue's appearance on the 7:00pm Project. Personally I have no problem with compulsory helmet legislation but I expect there are many out there who do.
-
Permalink Reply by John E. on -
What nonsense. Helmets are a 'scientific experiment', rubbish. I put 'helmet deniers' in the same category as climate change deniers - no matter what the evidence, no matter what arguments are put, they will not change their views; the psychology of denial is the same in both cases. All studies are 'government sponsored' or in some way compromised except the ones which they think support their case. By all means attend this 'protest' but remember you are affecting the image of all cyclists & if you want cycling to move away from the 'alternative transport' tag & be accepted as mainstream, then this is not the way to do it.
-
Permalink Reply by Etienne de Brignell on -
I'll be atttending the ride to protest against helmet laws, not helmets. Only two and half countries in the world currently have all-ages mandatory helmet laws. If it's such a great idea then why has it not spread around the world like seat belt laws have? Because cycling groups outside of Australia know that such laws have been disastrous for cycling numbers wherever they have been implemented. Australia is now used as a illustrative example of how not to do cycling policy.
Again, I'm against the law, not helmets. There is no helmet law in Oregon, home of America's number one bike city in Portland, and yet 85% of riders choose to wear one. What Oregon understands is that the true route to improved bike safety is not through silly and ineffective band-aid laws that discourage cyclists and waste police resources, but through a commitment to proper infrastructure that encourages everyday people to ride bikes. Australia is living in the dark ages while the rest of the world races ahead with good policies. Bike share schemes have sprung up all over the world with tremendous success while our own bikes rust in their stations, all because we're so damned convinced we're keeping people safe. It's just plain embarrassing.
And John, this mainstream cycling image you feel is being affected is a total irrelevance to me (a lifetime cyclist) and a vast number of people who don't belong to this two-wheeled coterie. The fact that less than 2% of Australians use a bike as their main form of transport - a stat that hasn't changed in the 21 years since MHLs were introduced - just illustrates how out of touch mainstream cycling groups are with everyday Australians. I'll be participating in the punk commute not only to protest against helmet laws but to demonstrate against the failure of mainstream cycling advocacy in this country.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Orloff on -
Let me start by saying, I'm happy to have helmets made non-compulsory, but I don't believe this is the way to do it.
I'm currently stuck at home for 3 months (1 down, 2 to go) with a broken back, thanks to a driver who didn't bother to look before turning left in front of me. I didn't get any head injuries, but the back of my helmet is a mess - if the law changes, I'll be exercising my right of choice and wearing one.
For what it's worth, I've sustained a concussion coming off a bike at about 5Kph - it wasn't the speed I was doing, just the angle I hit the ground.
I think there are more holes in Sue Abbot's argument than in a nice block of Swiss cheese .... she says she shouldn't need to wear a helmet to ride to the shops to buy milk & bread - does she know there is never a chance of an accident between home and shops? Should I be allowed to not wear a seatbelt for short trips? What's the difference?
And what's HER scientific evidence that helmet wearing results in "caviler behaviour"?
-
Permalink Reply by Etienne de Brignell on
-
I'm sorry about your accident but if we created laws based on anecdotes then we'd be swamped in them. The worst head injury I've suffered was from slipping in the shower. A friend of mine down the road was in hospital for two days after slipping in her shower. We both haven't been on internet shower forums campaigning for mandatory shower mat laws on account of our accidents.
Also, a country that thinks riding a bike to the shops is a dangerous activity is a country that has taken paranoia to extraordinary levels. If you feel it's dangerous then by all means, wear a helmet. But for god's sake, let the rest of us manage our own risk like adults. My partner wears a helmet most of the time but she'll happily remove it on the bike path that leads to our local shops. It's just crazy that the state doesn't trust her.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on -
Isn't it funny how, when somebody exercises their democratic right to hold an opinion that a law might be unjust, they cop such anti-democratic invective.
Only a handful of places in the world have made bicycle helmets compulsory, and of those those countries who lowered cyclist injury, they did so by preferring instead to improve the cycling environment. The only two countries in the world with nationally mandated compulsory helmet laws are Australia and New Zealand. Denmark and Holland have lower head injury rates than Australia and neither countries have high helmet use, let alone compulsory helmet laws. They achieved their safety rates by improving the cycling environment and non-cyclist attitudes to cycling.
To compare the anti-helmet laws campaign to climate deniers is specious and typical of the sort of pseudo-scientific, political fear mongering indulged in by the climate deniers themselves. Climate deniers are relying on evidence presented by vested interest, anti helmet campaigners are relying on evidence from countries who have shifted their thinking from "convenience of motorists over safety of cyclists" to "safety of all over motoring priority over all." As for Australia's research into any aspect of cycling. it's all lacking adequate baselines and has seriously skewed methodologies compared to countries that are serious about cycling. I wouldn't trust a line from an Australian cycling report, regardless of which side it came down on.
It's fine for individuals to support the helmet laws and it's fine for others to want them repealed. Rational debate, coupled to hard evidence from around the world, across all cyclists and considering all factors including degree of respect by motorists for cyclists (eg Australian culture v. Danish culture) and the right decision will be made. Pointing fingers from the status quo at those who question the justice or validity of the status quo only draws battle lines which result in injustices and irrationality remaining entrenched on both sides.
I could also go on about the history of helmet laws and how they related to manufacturers struggling to sell their product, but my main reason for posting was to chastise the tone of one particular post, and that has got my blood pressure up enough.
-
Permalink Reply by John E. on
-
Steve, there is nothing anti-democratic about criticising these views, nor is there any invective involved. Nobody has said that these views shouldn't be held, simply that they are wrong, and taking it further, that the person(s) involved will not listen to reason. There is a clearly defined pattern in the psychology of denialism (read NewScientist, you'll have to Google the issue as I can't remember) and it is evident here.
I'm tired of having the Denmark/Holland cases quoted, they are simply not comparable - the speeds and distances involved are completely different; yes an improved cycling environment and better driver attitudes to cycling would make a big difference, but do you see that happening in a hurry? What difference has been made by groups such as BV and BUGS over the last 20 odd years has made a cycling in Melb a lot safer, but there is still a need for helmets.
"I wouldn't trust a line from an Australian cycling report, regardless of which side it came down on." this is called paranoia Steve, and insults many credible scientists & researchers, and involves the aforementioned psychology. Another of your quotes: "The only time a helmet ever "saved my life" was clowning around on a mountainbike" - Steve, it only takes one 'saving of your life' to have made it worthwhile! If you hadn't been (compulsorily) wearing that helmet you wouldn't be here today. I've had a few stacks (bikes & motorbikes) over the years but never even scratched a helmet, but I am convinced of their necessity.
Sorry about your blood pressure Steve, but I stand by that post; this woman is not just holding these views, she is actively promoting them in the media and affecting the views of all people, not just cyclists, and that affects me - I do not want to be seen as some alternative fringe group by the general population but as a legitimate road user with my full rights and obligations (helmets) recognised.
-
Permalink Reply by Kathy Francis on -
John E
People who believe in helmet choice and climate change deniers have nothing in common, except that both are debating controversial issues. So let's not muddy the waters.
People like myself, who support freedom of choice, are not unscientific or irrational. Nor do we deny that helmets may, on occasion, reduce the severity of head injury IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT. It is undeniable that many protective devices on the market have some measurable safety benefit.
When we complain about Government funded studies into helmet efficacy, it is because ALL they do is measure the benefit 'in the event of an accident' but DO NOT look at whether Mandatory Helmet Legislation has made cycling in Australia safer.
To understand this issue you have to reconcile two apparently contradictory 'scientific' observations:
Helmets have a small beneficial benefit 'in the event of an accident'
Since Mandatory Helmet Legislation, cycling in Australia has become more dangerous.
How can that be true ?
Because the measures that have made cycling safer worldwide have not been implemented here
Because cyclists with helmets on may ride more dangerously (risk compensation)
Because other road users may show less care around helmetted cyclists
Because if the safety in numbers effect (more cyclists = greater care and a culture which respects cycling)
Because more dangerous cycling styles and bikes began to increase while the safe utility cyclists were removed from the roads by the requirement to wear a helmet.
Because helmets actually provide very limited protection compared to other measures
Because helmets may increase neck injury and rotational brain injury
In other words mandatory helmets appeared to increase the number of accidents more that they reduced injury. The net effect was negative. This is not unscientific, it has been well documented in the work of Dorothy Robinson , Bill Curnow and others. I will list the references if you don't believe me. The rest of the world has read this research and that is why they are not following us. It is our Government who is refusing to look at the scientific facts for fear of having made a mistake and having to spend a lot of money on infrastructure that would make a real difference.
And John, just because a protective item can be shown to work 'on occasion' does not mean it should be compulsory.
Bike helmets like car helmets, ski helmets, bullet proof vests, steel capped boots, sunscreen and sunhats, condoms, burkas and chastity belts may offer some protective benefits in some situations but it does not follow that we have to have a law about every one of them.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Jay on
-
Well said, Kathy, and I can attest to the validity of safety in numbers. As I have often said, despite greater traffic densities and speeds, I would rather be cycling in my new home town Melbourne than in my old home town of Hobart where cycling rates are lower than in Melbourne.
Also, a big well said to Etienne for, "Also, a country that thinks riding a bike to the shops is a dangerous activity is a country that has taken paranoia to extraordinary levels." There is an insanity possessing Australia, not just in cycling, that everything is dangerous and "we shouldn't do it!" The only emergency room visit bike crashes I've had were in my mountain biking days. I've never had a prang in traffic which needed more than disinfectant. Yes, there are cycling deaths every year, but as far as I can ascertain, they're mostly due to car door openings or inattention at the wheel by motorists and helmets didn't even factor into the injury zones in many of them.
Should we ride in traffic without helmets? Certainly not. Should we have to endure a roads culture which places motorist convenience over general public safety? You all know the answer to that one, and helmet compulsion is a by-product of that arse-about culture.
-
Permalink Reply by Etienne de Brignell on
-
I get very passionate on this subject because I'm equally passionate about achieving a vibrant bike culture in Australia, and in order to do so we really need to question certain forms of policy and advocacy that we've been persisting with for so long. The federal government just gave cyclists a big slap in the face by exempting fuel from the carbon price legislation. At the same time we have state governments addicted to building roads and being subservient to the automobile lobbyists; the recent dismissal of the inner Melbourne congestion tax is testament to this. Because of all this we have a situation in which there really isn't much disincentive for Australians to drive a car. This means we really need to come up with some new ideas on how to attract people to bikes. Helmet laws are not - I repeat, not - the only barrier to achieving this, but we really need to desist with this obstinate, almost religious-like belief in their efficacy (I'm looking at you, Bicycle Victoria) and be prepared to consider all aspects of bike advocacy without the threat of being shouted down by zealots.
Should we ride in traffic without helmets? Certainly not. Should we have to endure a roads culture which places motorist convenience over general public safety? You all know the answer to that one, and helmet compulsion is a by-product of that arse-about culture.
Totally agree with this statement, Steve. We really get the arse-end of safety in our present situation and helmet laws are a factor in perpetuating it. There is too much onus on vulnerable road users to protect themselves from motorists, whereas in a fair world most of the onus should be on motorists to be mindful of vulnerable road users. Helmet laws were introduced to prevent serious head injuries but they have achieved absolutely nothing in preventing serious accidents. Is everyone truly satisfied with this situation?
-
Permalink Reply by peter on -
The argument about wearing helmets is nothing to do with freedom of choice or health... it is pure vanity, when they asked over 1.000 people in Denmark the overwhelming response was it was inconvenient with a helmet and ruined the hair/style/feeling... so spend the energy getting good bike lanes and 'right of way' for riders and then see if there is any need for changing the helmet laws later...
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Harris on -
The freedom of choice to be vain?
© 2013 Created by DamianM.
