Note to everyone: cycling is not an extreme activity

"Australian Copenhageners" near City Road, Newtown
Notwithstanding the Sydney Morning Herald's front page article this weekend, I have not come across the 'level of hostility' so explicitly described by the quoted researcher - in fact quite the reverse.

Why is our media so determined to perpetuate the myth of the dangers of cycling, whilst simultanteously broadcasting advertorials for motoring commercial ventures?

"Copenhagenizing" Sydney - it's started!!!!!

...it's happening!!!...look!!!...the promise
...bike lanes & connections near Harris Street

...bicycle traffic lights in Bourke Street crossing over Cleveland Street - NOTE work has started on new separate cycleway)

...the 'embryonic' separate cycleway
...bicycle racks in Norton Street
GO, CLOVER!!

The nonsense of helmet laws

IN NEW SOUTH WALES

You don't need a helmet if you're:
* riding a horse
or
* a paying passenger on a 3 or 4 wheeled bicycle

BUT

You do need a helmet if you're:
* riding a bicycle
and/or
* a non-paying passenger on a 3 or 4 wheeled bicycle

IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

You don't need a helmet if you're:
* of the sikh religion

BUT

You do need a helmet if you're:
* an aetheist

"Exemption Wipeout"

WHAT I MIGHT NEED (apart from a surf running on Bondi Beach):

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - SECT 72
Regulations may exclude vehicles, persons and animals from this Act and the regulations
(cf Cth Act, s 10)
(1) The regulations may:
(b) authorise the Authority to exempt a vehicle, person or animal (or a class of vehicles, persons or animals of a kind) identified in the regulations from the operation of this Act or the regulations (or specified provisions of this Act or the regulations).

...which in English means...
(1)The Road Rules 2008 regulation 256, under which I was booked, may:
(b) authorise the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) to exempt me, identified in the Road Rules 2008 as a rider of a bicycle, from the operations of the Road Rules 2008 regulation 256.

================================

FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 44 False representations
(Trade Practices Act 1974 s 53)
The Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) shall not in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of bicycle helmets:

(e) represent that bicycle helmets have performance characteristics, uses or benefits they do not have
================================

MIX & BLEND INTO APPLICATION:

Pursuant to section 72 of the ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 (NSW) and under the Road Rules 2008 regulation 256, I seek an exemption from wearing a bicycle helmet on (1) Therapeutic Grounds and (2) Grounds of Civil Liberties.

(1) Therapeutic Grounds
In Transportation Accident Analysis and Prevention, ed. A. De Smet, Nova Science Publishers 2008, p. 155, W.J. Curnow claims, in his peer reviewed article "Bicycle Helmets: a Scientific Evaluation", that wearing a bicycle helmet can increase the angular acceleration which an oblique impulse imparts to the head, increasing the risk of damage to the brain, especially diffuse axonal injury'.

This position is somewhat confirmed by a Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) memo, obtained through Freedom Of Information...

TO:
1) A/Senior Policy Manager (Vulnerable Road Users), Safer People Branch
2) A/General Manager, Safer People Branch
3) A/Director, NSW Centre for Road Safety
From:
A/Senior Research & Policy Analyst, Safer People Branch
On:
20th June 2008 (File no. 7M2609)

...where it is admitted on page 2, line 6 that ‘there is the possibility that some helmets, in combination with particular size headforms, may have a small disbenefit with regards to rotational acceleration.’

Given such department ambiguity in parallel with conflicting internationally peer-reviewed evidence, it would appear that helmets are still very much an ongoing experiment, and in view of section 44 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), the RTA shall not, in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of bicycle helmets, represent that bicycle helmets have performance characteristics, uses or benefits they do not have.

(2) Grounds of Civil Liberties
I understand that the Australian Government takes seriously its international obligations and responsibilities. Accordingly, I understand that the Australian Government retreats from any potential breach of international law. Under PART III, Article 7 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR), states that: "...no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation."

In view of Article 7 of the ICCPR, I do not wish to be part of the bicycle helmet 'medical or scientific experiment'. Therefore I respectfully request that you please respect my right to ride my bicycle without a helmet – a right which I exercise with my free refusal, the counter to free consent.

I genuinely and honestly believe that in the face of this evidence, it would be irrational for me to wear a bicycle helmet, and that my grounds for exemption are reasonable, proportionate and justified.

================================
...fingers x'd!

"Thought bulbs" - happening left, right & centre

My mind is in overdrive! I am plotting my application to the Roads & Traffic Authority for an exemption under another law in the jurisdiction of New South Wales.

- any extra 'thought bulbs' would be welcome!!!! - anyone?

ROAD RULES 2008 (NSW) - REG 256 (1)

ROAD RULES 2008 - REG 256 Bicycle helmets
(1) The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted and fastened on the rider’s head, unless the rider is exempt from wearing a bicycle helmet under another law of this jurisdiction.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units (1 penalty unit = $110 therefore $2,200 - omg! how expensive is that!!!!)

Note: "Approved bicycle helmet" is defined in the Dictionary (off to the Dictionary then!)

ROAD RULES 2008 - SCHEDULE 99 DICTIONARY (Rule 4) "approved bicycle helmet" means a protective helmet for bicycle riders of a type approved by the Authority.
Note: "Authority" is defined in the Act.
Note: This definition is not uniform with the corresponding definition in the Dictionary of the Australian Road Rules . However, the Australian Road Rules allow another law of this jurisdiction to make provision for who may approve such helmets. Different definitions may apply in other Australian jurisdictions.

...ok, you're losing me somewhat! but first up let's check how 'authority' is defined in the 'Act' which we know is the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 because the our NSW Road Rules told us it was

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999 - DICTIONARY (Section 4)
1 Definitions "Authority" means the Roads and Traffic Authority.

...so far so good, I think we expected that...but now to the 'not uniform' corresponding definition in the dictionary of the Australian Road Rules

Australian Road Rules Dictionary - February 2009 version, p 358
"Approved bicycle helmet" means a protective helmet for bicycle riders that is approved, for the Australian Road Rules, under another law of this jurisdiction.

"Authorised person", for a provision of the Australian Road Rules, means a person who is appointed under another law of this jurisdiction to be an authorised person for the Rules or the provision.

......appears to be 'same old!' 'same old!' - yet what a turn-up for the books!!!! - the Australian Road Rules are model rules only and have no legal effect, in fact they were drafted by the National Transport Commission (NTC)and actually only form the basis of road rules in each Australian state and territory - no way!!?!! - and whilst the National Transport Commission has taken great care to ensure the accuracy of their pdf version they're not convinced that they're actually capable of hosting an accurate document so hastily advise readers that the official version of the Australian Road Rules with all amendments is located in the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (Commonwealth) http://www.frli.gov.au - the only thing is, it isn't - I've searched this riveting site with a fine cyber toothcomb and cannot 'locate' it!!!!

===================================================

So can I apply for an exemption under the Fair Trading Act given a claim in an RTA memo, received under Freedom of Information, that helmets may create a 'disbenefit' for certain headforms?

FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 44 False representations
(TPA s 53)
A person shall not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

(e) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have

...Dr Livingstone, I believe, time for some exploration!

Criminal conviction quashed!

(...with Georgie, my devoted 'court' groupie)

District Court v Local Court - no comparison!!!!!

Admittedly the appeal was dismissed, but hey! my conviction was quashed, and there were no fines, no court costs; just an abundance of courtesy, generosity, time, guidance...

...and also...I am no longer a criminal!

Basically the judge agreed with my submissions on procedural fairness, necessary belief and proportionality of response, but ultimately felt that necessity could not be applied to my 'lifestyle' choice of un-helmeted cycling - my concerns of catastrophic climate change & climate justice just did not persuade him in terms of 'immediate peril.'

Notwithstanding, justice has been done - he listened to me; I have been heard!

What a difference a 'different' court makes!!!!

...and you know what else? - I loved being at the bar table!!!!!