Friday, October 12, 2012

"He doesn't need a motion, he needs a mirror"

"I will not be this man. I will not"

...and the world applauds!!!

The Guardian

New Yorker

Huffington Post

Al Jazeera


New Statesman


The Spectator (UK)

Ottawa Citizen

The Los Angeles Times

(Copy that, Red Leader, we're on your wing!!!!)


  1. This was awesome. I can't believe the Libs still have Abbott as their leader.

    Back to not wearing helmets - in my august position as an anonymous internet commenter, I put it to you that you just want to take a free ride on the rest of us. Economically speaking.

    By not taking the precaution of wearing a helmet, you put yourself at a higher risk of debilitating brain injury. But it's the rest of the community that will be paying the bills for medical costs and years of rehab in the case you have a prang. Your friends and family first, but the wider community as well. This might easily cost everyone around you in the millions of dollars. But you won't take the personal responsibility to take an ounce of prevention.

    In short, you want the freedom, but you want to shirk the attendant responsibility of your choices. Isn't that the case?

    1. Off topic, much?

      You do realize that the available information on bike helmets to prevent such injuries is conflicted, at best. Even the official helmet shills have denied their ability to prevent serious brain injury. Don't even get me started on diffuse axonal injuries, that bike helmets can actually make worse. Those will mess you up far worse than any blunt force impact. There's also the point that the greatest risk of a lethal head injury for cyclists is getting hit by a car. Bicycle helmets are completely impotent, in such a high speed, high energy collision.

      I hope you always wear a helmet, when you're in a car, to reduce your chances of becoming a burden on the people around you. Motor vehicle occupants have been shown to be the group of road users at the greatest risk of traumatic head injuries. Cyclists, depending on what numbers you're looking at, have similar or less risk of such injuries than pedestrians.

      Do we really need to point out all the times different doctors have stated that, helmet or not, the benefits of riding a bike far outweigh any risks?

      I'm so sick of this. We all do things on a daily basis that statistically have far greater risk of head injury (like taking a shower) but we'd never dream of wearing a helmet for, and bike helmets are only built for the least common type of accident. Just because somebody chooses to ride a bike without wearing a helmet, does not mean they have a death wish, or that they haven't done the research. This is an educated decision! We're not talking about a dangerous activity, here!

    2. "Free ride"? Ha!

      Do you wear a helmet while driving or in a car at all? Do you wear a helmet when you climb a ladder? Do you wear a helmet when climbing into the bath just in case you slip?

      All of those activities give you a greater chance of head injury.

      If your argument is personal responsibility, what about the personal responsibility in actually making a decision about personal transport that lessens the risk of getting fat and unfit and all of the attendant problems that come with it? Does your attitude apply to obese people? Smokers? People who didn't wear a condom and now have an STD?

      Please answer me this - if polystyrene helmets are so vital while riding a bicycle, how is it that we (and our Kiwi friends) are still the only countries on the planet with helmet laws? How do the Europeans survive when in some countries there are so many people (including children) using a bicycle every single day without the necessity of plastic helmets? After all this time, I have yet to have that explained to me.

    3. Dear Anon,

      How gracious of you to drop by in your 'august position as an anonymous internet commenter' - always a noble action!

      In my opinion Greyryder and Edward have encapsulated the issues succinctly, revealing your arguments to be both uninformed and contradictory.

      Yes, granted by Australian standards, your position is certainly populist, but it remains a mystery to me why so many helmet promoters wish to run my body when I am clearly quite capable of running my own.

      The academics are divided on the merits of bicycle helmets and bicycle helmet law, and it is this very fact that leads me to believe that Australian governments were never in any position to add a bicycle helmet rule to model laws trotted out twenty years ago.

      Thank you again for leaving your anonymous point of view, and notwithstanding your putting it to me that I 'just want to take a free ride on the rest of [you]', I put it to you that is actually not the case, either 'economically speaking' or any other type of 'speaking'.

      Kind regards,

    4. @Anon: I'm going to twist your words a bit.

      "By driving your car and not taking getting enough exercise by biking and walking, you put yourself at a higher risk of diabetes, heart problems and obesity etc. But it's the rest of the community that will be paying the bills for medical costs and years of rehab in the case you have a heart attack or get too fat."

      There's been some arguments saying it's cheaper for the community to pay for the occasional prang than paying for widespread obesity and other health problems caused by sedentary lifestyle.

      Mandatory helmet laws cause a lot of damage nationwide.

    5. ...and to this second august anonymous point of view (namely "mandatory helmet laws cause a lot of damage nationwide")...

      ...hear! hear!