Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Have bike will travel

The Brompton arrives in Newtown from Scone!

It just has to be the most perfect bicycle for Australian train travel conveniently fitting into a bag thus conveniently fitting into Countrylink's inconvenient parameters for bicycles!

Not for me the joys of a train without changing in Newcastle though - I'd have buckley's getting my bike into a bag - CityRail it'll still have to be!

Sunday, November 27, 2011

"This is protection!"

And so it came to pass that Big Helma ensured 'eager-beaver' mainstream media received all helmet safety facts necessary to support Big H's position on mandatory helmets.

Consequently fact-finding and scientific debate morphed into fact-fighting and misinformation as the 'discrediting duel' continued within the ranks of academia.

Methinks this smacks of a great big public relations exercise!

Interminable tedium whatever!

Friday, November 25, 2011

Road users 'occasional' conversation

When the question is...


...I have found the most satisfactory answer to be...


Tum-ti-tum! - Monday's exchange as I 'blended' into Market Street near David Jones!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011


BN2's court bill arrived in the post today & surprise surprise the victims compensation levy has been scratched out in pen and re-written as "$0.00"!!!!

I've lost my licence over this so I want to know:

$$ why is it so arbitrary?

$$ why was I ever billed $67 when in the legislative amendment it was stated to be $64?

$$ how much money has been incorrectly creamed off exactly how many NSW taxpayers?

Not happy, Greg!

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Baby no.2 & her day in court

('Happy-After-Court-Hour' at The Rose Hotel, Surry Hills)

...And so it was that yesterday it was Baby No.2's turn at the Downing Centre to give evidence as to why she should be found innocent of her conscientious objection to mandatory bicycle helmet laws.

Initially she played 'musical magistrates' and moved from one court to another, but eventually she arrived in a court where the magistrate was prepared to hear her evidence.

Prima facie, not all of her evidence or her experts' evidence was accepted. In fact the general court sentiment was that the evidence pertaining to risk compensation and serious brain injury was equivocal; and that the existence of climate change was still in scientific dispute, and/or was common knowledge (therefore didn't require an expert to comment upon it), and/or was certainly not imminent.

Notwithstanding the long day with many external interruptions dotted with the usual comings & goings of busy-court life, BN2 was formidable and I could barely contain my admiration. The prosecution was pretty formidable too and played a great match, nippy in the corners with some great long passes landing neatly in goal - full marks.

...and whilst the prosecution seemed to be angling for more penalties against BN2 when it was clear that necessity had not been made out in terms of climate change and /or immediacy, it was with relief as the final whistle went that the 'referee' deemed she was only to receive a section 10(1)(a) dismissal.

Oh boy! oh boy! & then followed some heart-warming magical-moment stuff:

The magistrate looked at me and asked BN2, 'is this mum?'

'Yes,' she replied.

'You must be very proud!'

'Yes,' I whispered in an almost inaudible gasp of bursting maternal pride!

...and he proceeded to declare to the court at large how admirable it was to see someone so young arrive in court with such principled convictions but that the aim must always be to leave without one.

He praised her for her courage, and her eloquent well conducted argument; expressed admiration for her deep commitment to the environment; & predicted that she would be an asset to the legal community upon the completion of her degree.

Never has a mother been so proud!

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Going - going - gone!

'No point hanging on to defunct driver's licence,' I said to myself, 'recycle the plastic; send it to the AG!'

- & so I did, up at the Newtown Post Office earlier today.

All things considered one less car on the road isn't a bad thing but the 'procedural unfairness' underpinning this whole 'bicycle-helmet-victims-compensation-levy' episode is!

...never liked the photo anyway

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Goodbyee! Goodbyee! - wipe the tear, baby dear, from your eyee!

As of today, my driver's licence is suspended so I intend to enclose it with my letter of complaint to the AG which I will write and despatch later on this morning.

When you consider that two months ago Parliament agreed the March 2011 amendment to the Victims Support & Rehabilitation Act was a bad decision and that it ought & will be repealed at a date to be proclaimed, it's quite 'gob-smackingly' unbelievable that i'm still to be punished anyway by those very bad provisions.

...where's the justice and/or procedural fairness in all of this?

Lucky I love my bicycle & the journeys that I take on it!!!

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Australian bicycle helmet assumption yet to be proved

There is something clinically servile & masochistic about the faith many Australians place in bicycle helmets.

...and worse, there is something irreducibly sinister & sadistic about the schadenfreude many Australians extend to those who eschew them.

When will Australia tire of our bicycle helmet bullshit that is so patently riddled with a reckless disregard for the truth?

(3 days left on my driver's licence)

Friday, November 11, 2011

No bicycle helmet, no car licence - only in Australia

Media Release:

HUNTER VALLEY, 10 November 2011 – The new Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2011 introduced into the NSW Parliament during September is a welcome development, according to some politicians, advocacy groups and voters.

In the new Bill, a conviction will not include an order made under section 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in relation to an offence that is not punishable by imprisonment.

The Hon. David Shoebridge stated that the Greens had spoken out against the earlier amendment moved by the previous Government , when it greatly ‘expanded the reach of the provisions of the Victims Compensation Support & Rehabilitation Act... even where a conviction was proved but the charges were dismissed under section 10.’

He also reminded Parliament that ‘when one considers that all those minor offences had to provide a $67 payment to the fund, the administrative costs involved in issuing notices and chasing up payments would have exceeded the $67 that was recovered in due course.’

Yet despite this turn of events, Sue Abbott of Scone is still required to pay into the fund.

After her last court appearance at the Scone & Muswellbrook Local Courts in July 2011 where she received a second section 10 (1)(a) dismissal for her crime of riding a bicycle without a helmet, she was amazed to receive a bill in the post a week later for $67 to be paid to the Victims Compensation Levy.

‘Exactly who,’ she asked herself, ‘was the victim?’ Appalled at the arbitrary tax nature of the levy, she commenced an active letter writing campaign with the NSW Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith.

Whilst the Attorney General acknowledged in correspondence with her that ‘Parliament recently decided that the levy should not apply to charges that are dismissed under s10(1)(a),’ he sternly advised her that she would still be required to pay the now vastly-increased levy as it is ‘imposed automatically under the law and as such is a debt owed to the Crown’.

Mrs Abbott said ‘this is analogous to pointing out to a bull-dozer driver that there are a 1,000s of people standing on the road he is bull-dozing, and him then saying “ok no worries but the first 20 or so along the first bit of road are going to get caught up in my braking process!”

She has now received a ‘Suspension of Driver’s Licence Notice’ to take effect next Tuesday 15 November 2011 and she is prepared to forgo her privileges as a motoring road user.

“It says a lot about Australia that the first tactic used to force your hand is to threaten you with removal of car privileges even when dealing with a bicycle user - in reality they’re the ones who are going to miss out on considerable revenue because I probably won’t ever renew my licence again, & therefore won’t need insurance, petrol, oil, tyres, cars – any of that Big Oil stuff.”


(4 days left on my driver's licence)

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Bad law-making equals bad laws

Let's face it; we all know that ostensibly bicycle helmet laws were introduced to provide safety for bicycle users.

But in reality all they've done is (i) deflect criticism from half-arsed attempts to incorporate bicycles as fully recognised vehicles in the Australian transport landscape...

...& (ii) accentuate undesirable and unintended consequences.

Yet instead of conceding political error of political ways, our politicians continue to posture in a paternalistic manner, and to demand even more 'figures'...

Smoke & mirrors! - they have 20 years worth of figures - what exactly do they do with them all?

Clearly they don't collect them for collation purposes.

But the veneer of helmet law consensus is wearing thin, and maybe, just maybe, the catastrophe that is our urban transport landscape is inadvertently assisting people who like to use bicycles because we're witnessing more & more people using them and less & less people using helmets and/or cars!

Go, us!!!

(5 days left on my driver's licence)

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Bicycle helmet laws prove Australian governments don't know best

Notwithstanding the whiff of unrealistic expectation, bicycle helmet laws offer no certainty of protection, and have patently failed to deliver on what they purportedly set out to do in the first place.

Yet basic gumption is missing at every bureaucratic level and no-one is prepared to tackle the problem 'head-on'.

Australian politicians should be asking themselves honestly whether bicycle helmet laws have been worth:

$$$ the money

$$$ the upkeep

$$$ the political capital invested in them

The honest answer would be 'NO'

Whilst mandatory bicycle helmet laws clearly say nothing about bicycle protection, they say a lot about us as a nation in that we're quick to react but glacial to reflect & evaluate constructively.

Sigh - just because we want to believe in the 'easter bunny' doesn't mean there is one!

(6 days left on my driver's licence)

Monday, November 7, 2011

My driver's licence on notice

When the notice arrived in the post today informing me that my driver's licence is to be suspended next Tuesday 15th November 2011, I felt quite sick - it's clearly getting to the 'bureaucratic businessy-bit' of bicycle helmet crime and the pink & white paper is intended to be a frightening jolt - it was & I nearly jumped on-line...


...the inequity & the procedural unfairness of it all prevented me from typing in the numbers from my plastic bank - this scary piece of paper is not representative of a fair hearing.

Right from the start in March this year when the Victims Compensation Levy was amended, NSW voters and legislators objected to 'Section 10(1)(a) dismissalees' (aka me) being automatically caught in its web. Consequently no-one was surprised a few weeks ago when the NSW Parliament subsequently rejected it.

Yet the AG will not grant me an exemption.

Why not?

What else do I have to do to get one?

What exactly did the ones who got them do?

Surely the pile of letters from me to him (& pointlessly supplied to the SDRO and the Muswellbrook Local Court who never communicate with each other) is testimony to the fact that this matter has given me great cause for concern and therefore might raise the notion that I could be an eligible candidate for exemption.

I am troubled by the arbitrariness of the whole process.

Even though the amendment was acknowledged by Parliament as grossly unfair, now an unwieldy departmental-time-warp has kicked-in & refuses to allow the 'outlaw' fine to be waived for my non-existent crime that should never have been a crime and is now no longer a crime.

Who can absolve me from the whims of administrative NSW justice?

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Dr Paul Martin & surprise 2 GB ally

A most enlightening interview.

First Ben Fordham invites Paul to convince him that helmet laws are passé, and then he admits to Paul & 2GB listeners far & wide that he hates wearing helmets!!!!

* he just doesn't like it

* they're hot on his head

* unnecessary 99.9% of the time

* if he's just riding to shops, does he want to put one on? (rhetorical - clearly he does not!)

Wooja-get-outa-town! What a conversation! - & he wants to know what we think because he knows it's:

...not setting best example, but

...he doesn't like wearing them

...he's really carefull

...he's not going a million miles an hour

...& he can pretty much back himself that nothing's going to happen

Why don't you let him know your thoughts, & call him on 131 873 or send him an email at

How exciting - how refreshing!

Thursday, November 3, 2011

The Big Ship sails on the ally-ally-oh...

...on the last day of September, I lodged a complaint with the ACCC concerning regulation 256 of the NSW Road Rules, the mandatory bicycle helmet standard, and accompanying product material in licences, print advertisements, helmet promotion campaigns, legislation and online material (collectively, the promotion) produced by SAI Global, Standards Australia and the NSW Government.

I set out for them in letter format that I believe the promotion displayed in Australia from the early 1990s to today has predicted safety benefits of the helmet device whilst having no proof that such benefits could be attained. Consequently, I continued, I believe that the promotion is an example of ‘safety washing’ akin to the notion of ‘green washing’ despite the very broad and general prohibition of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (the Act) to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. I contended that upon the facts I feel that SAI Global, Standards Australia and the NSW Government have breached the Act by:

• engaging in conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive;
• engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct;
• making false or misleading representations that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; and
• making false or misleading representations that goods have performance characteristics, uses or benefits.

Supposedly, within the Act, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) has been structured to uphold our rights to receive accurate and truthful messages about the goods and services that we buy. As ‘persons’ engaging in conduct, occurring ‘in trade or commerce’ , demonstrating conduct that is misleading or likely to mislead, SAI Global, Standards Australia and the NSW Government have contravened s18(1) of the ACL.

As far as I can make out upon my reading of the Act, it makes no difference whether SAI Global, Standards Australia and the NSW Government intended to mislead or deceive consumers but rather how the conduct of their business practices affected our thoughts and beliefs. The overall impression left by their promotion of safety accorded by bicycle helmets has created a misleading impression in people’s minds. I continued with my contention that Australian consumers, including myself, are vulnerable to SAI Global, Standards Australia and the NSW Government’s promotion, particularly with regard to comprehending the need for and receiving claimed protection.

The ACCC have written back to me to say:

'...thanks but no thanks & BTW we've popped it on our confidential data-base.'

Currently, I contend that I feel empty, disillusioned, & very bored with Australia

Tuesday, November 1, 2011


Well, ok! - with regards to the 'Victims Compensation Levy', all that letter writing has paid off for the next lot of 'section 10(1)(a) dismissalees'...from a 'date to be proclaimed'...

BUT (& I'm still smarting on this bit) NOT FOR ME!!!

Why can't he (our illustrious AG) give me 'compassionate grounds' when he knows that:

๏̯̃๏ I obviously believe helmets are ridiculously dangerous...?

๏̯̃๏ parliamentarians obviously believe the VCL is ridiculously unfair for people like me...?

Well! - why can't he?

Surely it's not in the public interest to continue to penalise me with a punishment that's so patently unfair fellow politicians have decided it ought to no longer apply to such a charge dismissed under s10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)?