So I had my day in court and was heard by the Chief Magistrate!
She wasn't convinced by me raising self defence as a justification for the crime of unhelmeted bicycle riding, nor overly keen to permit me past this pre-trial stage ... legislators, she felt, were the ones I required not the judiciary, but she listened anyway...
She listened when I said that I have been dedicated to this issue for nearly six years and that I have corresponded with many politicians over that time in an effort to revoke this contradictory regulation to absolutely no avail.
She listened when I mentioned that I had not said to the police it was the second time that day that I had been booked for not wearing a helmet as they claimed in their 'facts' but that I had said it was the second time that day I had been in communication with police, the first being over a road rage incident on North Terrace (Adelaide) where a driver had used his vehicle to terrorise me so much so that another driver had come to my aid.
She listened and asked the police prosecutor to make a note of that fact.
She listened when I mentioned that bicycle helmet regulation is a law of privilege and oppression and that the entire transportation network 'privileges' automobiles over bicycles and allows drivers to drive without being mindful of me.
She listened when I pointed out that this is a 'privilege' I do not have notwithstanding that I have an equal right to be on the roads.
She listened when I said that I am on a bicycle in a world made for cars and that in my opinion this premise was neatly illustrated by the South Australia police
prosecuting me for not wearing a bicycle helmet, and yet
not prosecuting the road rage driver for his act of aggressive and dangerous intimidation towards me, even though I had pulled over after the 'attack' and put a call through to the South Australia (SA) Police to report the incident; even though I said to the policewoman taking my call concerning the road rage incident that I was prepared to come back to Adelaide and give evidence.
She listened when I mentioned that the SA police who booked me for the lack of a helmet didn't hear me tell them that I'd been the victim of road rage because all they could hear was an 'ingrained-anti-cycling-prejudice' informing them that I was a criminal and not a victim.
She listened again when I repeated again that bicycle helmet regulation was a law of privilege and oppression and ... she gave me a date for a trial!
Tuesday 25th August 2015 - thank you, your Honour!
So with three glorious fellow 'helmet-optional riders' who'd come to court to give me moral support, we headed off to the Markets for celebratory coffee and cakes !!!
I hadn't been shut down, I'd jumped through the next hoop, and now was on my way to the next level and another day in court - I had been listened to!
But this is Australia so the euphoria didn't last long!
As I dropped off my bicycle to
Bicycle South Australia in Carrington Street, I was followed into the shop by two policemen and booked all over again.
'What's with the no helmet?
'Don't you know there's a law that says you must wear one?'
'You were at that helmet ride on Sunday, weren't you? ... recognise you from your picture!'
Oh boy, whoop-de-doo-dah, here we go again ...
... lucky I like Adelaide!!!!
Sigh
From Montréal Cycle Chic, a photo of a man in office dress cycling on the railway viaduct path near where I live: http://montrealcyclechic.com/image/123544460957
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm jealous of the winter weather in that photo. Australia should be a leader in year-round cycling...
Good luck in court, and chase them crazy baldheads out of the town! Or foamheads...
Thank you, Lagatta! ... and I love the picture of your office guy!!!!! Oh to have that, and yes you're right we should be a leader in 'year-round cycling' and it's disgraceful that we're not!
DeleteWell done for getting to trial, it's the only way to get the message of cyclist oppression out there.
ReplyDeleteI was in Adelaide last year and booked for not wearing a helmet on a shared bike path along the Torrens River, which is a "road" according to SA law. That's right, no cars anywhere to be seen and they still think it's a good use of state resources to patrol a pedestrian/cyclist path to babysit anyone with the audacity to ride without a foam hat.
Meanwhile other countries are improving infrastructure to get more cyclists out there to reduce car traffic - a real way of reducing road injuries.
Sigh, James, everything you say is totally spot on - it's so depressing ... and now in NSW we have our ridiculous roads minister, the Hon Duncan Gay, proposing that cyclists over a certain age should have to carry ID
DeleteI suppose it helps to have a helmet to be safe? It seems a lot less troublesome than having to show up in court..
ReplyDeleteNot my modus operandi at all, MelBrandle!
DeleteHelmet law is not evidenced based and I do not give my consent for the government to practise on me for their flawed and contradictory medical experiment.