Monday, December 31, 2012

Anti-hunting anti-helmet law campaigner - that's me!

(Images: Alan Moir, Sydney Morning Herald)

On the few occasions I've done a blog-post concerning my distaste for hunting in National Parks, without fail the shooting/fishing fan club immediately leaves a Pollyanna-scold to the effect that I have a great blog when I stay on message, but that I oughtn't to stray into the wilderness of other campaign areas, and that if I do the world will see me as a 'contrarian' - oooooooh - tra la, what measured menace, how awfully scary!

But as I pointed out to interminable 'Anonymous' the other day, this is Australia and contrary to the opinion of pro-hunting anons, I am free to mix up my messages as much as I like, whenever I like, and how I like.

...and with regards to the content of my blog which was clearly perturbing Anon, 90% of the time ‘matters-helmet-law' are the order of the day, but because I'm a regular aussie mum with a tonne of other stuff happening all at once like so many of us, inevitably on occasions I happily deviate and vary my conversation !

I continued informing dear old Anon that back in the day I started this blog as an e-diary (a) to give my family a break from my all-consuming involvement with the senslessness of helmet law and (b) to give me a communicating platform so that I wasn’t muffled to bursting point.

So sorry to all the trigger-happy anonymous' out there, I'm going to continue with my mixed up messages; I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO HUNTING - ANYWEHRE - ANYTIME - BY ANYONE – period...


- that the O'Farrell government has passed legislation allowing ‘gun’ and ‘bow & arrow’ touting hooligans into our precious National Parks come March 2013 is beyond the pale and worth screaming from NSW roof-tops.

- that the O’Farrell government has done this to appease an extremely minute minority party in a bid to get government electricity plans through the upper house is both cynical and expedient (…and will come back to bite them for sure)

It is salutary to think that while America frantically looks for ways to reduce the number of guns in cirulation, we throw open our picnic spots and camping grounds to anyone licenced to kill...shame, Barry O'Farrell, shame.


  1. Hi,
    Sorry you didn't like my comment on the previous blog.
    I'm not the shooting/fishing fan club, though (having never gone shooting or fishing - apart from crabbing.).

  2. Hi Freedom Cyclist!

    A Guardian piece with some good comments and also crap from cyclophobes and helmet fanatics, including a rather blowsy "New Zealander"

    Lagatta is a mouthy old bird, eh?

  3. I'm with you on the issue of hunting in National Parks. But the anti-helmet stuff is just way off-base. You rely on quoting selective statistics and medical quackery ("diffuse axonal injury?").

    Do your efforts amount to a public disservice?

    1. Anonymous,

      Diffuse axonal injury is medical quackery? Really? I think some medical practitioners may disagree with you on that one.
      And who uses selective statistics? Care to give an example?

      The issue is plain and simple. It is about helmet *laws*, not about a person's choice to wear or not to wear a helmet. Everybody supports that choice. It is the compulsion (unique in the world to Australia and New Zealand) that I object to. If I am being compelled and risking conviction if I don't wear a helmet, the law should be justified. Any similar law should be justified by reference to the public benefit it provides.

      On that topic, two things are undeniable. First, the introduction of the law led to a significant drop in cycling rates. They have never recovered. Actual numbers may have increased but the population is different. Second, no discernible reduction in head injury rates across the population has been convincingly shown. The figures are available.
      We hear 'a helmet saved my life' stories all of the time. They are understandable but they are not evidence. If they were true and were evidence of the efficacy of the law, they would be matched by an observable drop in injury rates. But they are not.

      Riding a bicycle is no more dangerous than driving a car, skiing, ice-skating, climbing a ladder or getting into the shower yet riding a bicycle is picked on as justifying a helmet law. Why?

      Not a single other country has followed our example and yet we cling to it. Frankly, I find the whole debate around individual statistics tedious. If the law is so great, why after all these years are we still alone?

      All it requires is a small change to a Regulation in each State and Territory. We should get rid of the law tomorrow. It has clearly been a failure. If people choose to wear a helmet, good for them. I support their choice.

      Oh, and Happy New Year.

    2. Ditto sentiments exactly, only yours are far more eloquent

      Bravo, Edward!

  4. Anonymous, one minute you say this then you say that, you love helmtets then you don't, you love hunting then you don't - I just can't take you seriously anymore - happy new year anyway