Not only do the Helmet Corporations continue to control the way information flows (see p.391) in New South Wales but they also continue to wield the power.
Despite the countless people in the wider community who are actively broadcasting the true cost and meaning of helmet promotion, our governments resolutely refuse to countenance any of the evidence to the contrary - 'spin' is much more palatable, plus by increasing law enforcement powers there might be the odd cent or two to put towards the odd cycle-way or two!
What a shame, and what a missed opportunity!
The next chapter in the 'anti-helmet law quest' beckons! - I must away & commence my preparations for the UN? (gulp! am I ready?)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html
ReplyDeleteSee paragraph 39 onwards but especially 44 and 45.
Thankfully in paragraph 53 the Judge concludes that the helmet would have made no difference.
This judgment I think sets a bad precedent. It encourages the notion that motorists should be allowed to use the roads without restriction and that it is the responsibility of the cyclist alone to ensure their safety by wearing fluorescent jackets and polystyrene hats.
thanks for the link! - can't believe what I've just read - what a load of rubbish
ReplyDelete- seriously defies belief that anyone could set so much store by a piece of polystyrene, and despite the lack of mandatory helmet laws still feels there is an onus for cyclists to wear a helmet to protect themselves - can't believe the court actually considered penalising the claimant accordingly
Have you seen this one?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8692359.stm
The sheriff admitted it would have done no good but still said we should all wear helmets... and in the very country where bikes were invented.
- unbelievable - so ignorant and uniformed
ReplyDelete