Wednesday, April 5, 2017

She's on the road again - oh no

Freedom fun on a bicycle
Booked again!

But this time right near my home, I mean right near my driveway which is pretty weird as I live almost 9kms out of town, and the last two are dirt and down a dead end.

Well to recount the saga, I had heard a car behind me on the very last hairpin bend before my house, and like all vehicles on my road it had been going very slowly and very carefully, so I started my customary wave as the car was passing (because I know everybody on this patch of the road and so wave to all) and then I saw it was the police, so then I was thinking "Oh dear I wonder what's happened down the road" and then they pulled over in front of me and said "Oh Sue ..."

I was amazed, and thought maybe they were hand delivering the last penalty notice but after a quick chat I remembered I had received it and had already applied for a court date (so many to keep up with!). And then they said to me that I might have my supporters in town but I also had my detractors and they'd received a call from someone who had said to them "she's on the road again ... without a helmet!"

Crime reported and here they were keeping the streets of Scone and environs safe and sound - astonishing.

No kidding, I am flabberghasted - I am clearly pissing someone off who is clearly none to impressed with me being a local councillor and a law breaker.

How incredibly exhausting!

What a funny country I live in ... and how extremely quiet my little country village is too - just shows you that nothing's happening of any note that requires some  serious policing ... sigh

... anyhoo tomorrow I post my application to the Roads Minister for a helmet exemption under the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act ... and I shall definitely keep you posted.

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more ...."



  1. Sue, in my locale, council removed all the "cyclists dismount" signs. Why? Because all they did was cause COMPLAINTS to council (which invokes much busywork). Before: Zero collisions, many complaints. After: Zero collisions, zero complaints.

    MHL does the same thing, causes all the busybodies to see red over nothing, and certainly nothing of their business. Get rid of the law so they can STFU.

  2. Though the 'cyclists dismount' signs have zero legal compulsion as far as I am aware. The helmet rule on the other hand is a road rule with fines and is used as a tool of institutionalised bike-hate.

  3. This is clearly police harassment of bicycle riders. Since when is it public policy to use taxpayer-funded resources in the interest of private, bicycle-hate groups?

  4. For Serious?! This story would read great as a satirical article for the local newspaper. Crime wave hits small town NSW.... Public menace defies common decency and rides bike without helmet. It has been reported that public safety was put at risk when the brazen cyclist ventured onto the roadway without encapsulating her cranium in plastic in full breach of NSW public ordinance dictates. Drivers and pedestrians users are advised to stay off 'said road' until police are able to contain the threat. It is hoped that the madness which has obviously overcome this particular cyclist does not spread throughout the community. Local busybodies and despotic legislators agree: 'The last thing we want to see is an increase to carefree commuters at large rambling through out streets on their jiggers smiling and singing with the wind in their hair!'

  5. You must find the accuser and get their name, if they cannot/will not provide it you could say that the police are deliberately harassing you over something that they know to be unjust.
    Australian statute 'law' (or whatever you like to call it) is based upon English common law and indeed the Australian government celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta only 2 years ago. Have a read here
    And this

    Cycling helmet laws are not only a breach of human rights (I know Australia does not respect/have this) they breach your common law right to go about ones business unimp3eded (if doing no harm)
    Bias/unfair statutes as per the cycle helmet statute unjustly criminalise human beings and financially penalise same for harming no-one. There is no evidence that plastic hats prevent incidents, quite the contrary in fact, neither do they/nor are they tested/proven to prevent anything more than minor scrapes and bruises and to enforce such by definition of not applying similar to other walks of life that have same/greater risk of harm is unjust and the act of criminalising and adding financial penalty a crime in itself.

    To add, if just one state changes the law, or if it does not enforce the law as it is understood then the residents of that state are not to be held to the statute law of other states. This is expressed clearly in section 117.
    Rights of residents in States
    A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination
    which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
    at the moment those resident and cycling helmet free without the law being enforced have by the constitution the right to go helmet free in all other states without being criminalised for such.
    please fight this and let us know if you want donations.x

  6. How's this for an idea? Every able-bodied free cyclist heads to Scone for a protest ride to support Sue Abbott. As Sue is obviously being targeted by the locals and the police, she's the only one to wear a helmet! (Sorry, Sue.) The rest of the un-helmeted hordes roam all over Scone buying tea and scones (in Scone!), generally proving how valuable they are to a community that is prepared to get real about stupid and ineffective laws.

    1. That is exactly what is needed. I'd join if I were down there. As an individual Sue is vulnerable to the abuses of power and can be singled out as some kind of social deviant! People need to see that she has support from a much broader base than they think and her defiance of particular laws is not an attack on social order but an invitation to consider reasonable reforms to a law which appears to inhibit the use of bicycles and which is enforced disproportionately to the degree of public risk posed by non compliance.