NO MANDATORY HELMET LAWS, FULL STOP!

(new emerging Sydney cyclist!)

(negotiating King Street, Newtown)

(this cyclist deserves protection from mandatory helmet laws notwithstanding his type of bicycle - a 1980 Black Diamond road bike)

In view of all the scientific evidence, the continuation of our mandatory helmet laws is expressly a desire, and is NOT a legal basis for the infringement of our civil liberties.

Regulation 256 is conflicting and fragmented, and it has clearly increased the possibility of random interferences with our legitimate liberties. The existing evidence deduced so far is compelling to justify an immediate repeal of the mandatory requirement for wearing a helmet whilst riding a bicycle.

How can anyone explain why you must wear a helmet if you're a passenger on a 3 or 4 wheeled bicycle but not if you're a paying passenger on a 3 or 4 wheeled bicycle? Why is it safer to pay someone to be a passenger, yet more dangerous to get a free-ride? Why is it more dangerous for mothers and fathers to ferry around their children and if they imposed a "pocket money deduction" on their offspring, would they qualify for an exemption?

The most exasperating angle to all this is that we all know that my questions are silly, and that the reality is commercial. None of the state governments were ever prepared to anihilate the businesses of bicycle rickshaws, hence the legislated deviancy. In fact it appears in this instance that the rationale for safety was expediently dispensed with and continues to be so.

...and so back to the issue raised this week by the SMH's article on Tuesday. Pushing one type of bicycle over another automatically leads to questions of whether there are new commercial interests on the horizon. Exactly who are the stakeholders? and why are we becoming so polarised? Do advocates for the discriminating 'Road Rules amendment' have any vested interests in European bikes, or electric bikes, or green or blue paint? Could it even be more sinister? Could such an amendment be the prelude to eventually barring cyclists from the roads all together as Carl Scully expressly articulated last year.?

Should any one type of bicycle get more favourable treatment than another? I vehemently canvas "NO" in the name of civil liberties and anti-discrimination. Advocating 'no helmets' for 'sit-ups' but continuing with 'helmets' for the road bikes et al, is somewhat analagous to Noam Chomsky's blunt sentiment that "if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

When mandatory helmet laws are repealed, they must be repealed for everyone - helmets ought to be a matter for choice, whatever the bike you ride & whatever the clothes you wear.
(give him a break!)

What can a helmet guarantee?

(the new emerging Sydney Cyclist!)

A Standard Helmet label quotes the following, and boasts AS/NZS 2063:
- lightweight protective helmet NOT intended for use in motor sports or by motor cyclists
- can be damaged and rendered ineffective by petroleum, petro-products, cleaning agents, paints, adhesives etc. (what exactly does etc entail?) without damage being visible to user
- when not in use, avoid leaving helmets sitting in sun or enclosed spaces such as cars for prolonged periods of time (rules out Australia or perhaps we're supposed to keep them refrigerated)
- heat damaged helmets will have random disfigured areas where the texture will appear bubbly or uneven
- if damaged, your helmet should be destroyed and replaced immediately
===================================================
AS/NZS 2063 is the Australian and New Zealand mandatory standard, designed by Standards Australia and enforced by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). It is interesting to note that there are no mandatory standards for headform AA, a common head size for the under 4 years olds - perhaps this is why relevant bodies are silent on the issue of cycling with young children. When questioned, the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) admitted they had no policy on cycling with young children.

The helmet label implies significant fragility. It would appear that the helmet is an 'anatomy modifying' device that is not only temperature and chemical sensitive but also etc sensitive which further implies an extremely broad sensitivity.

Basically in a nutshell, it cannot reassure because...it cannot reassure.

I refuse to compromise on seeking a repeal of our mandatory helmet laws. Bicycle helmets should be a matter of choice no matter what type of bicycle you ride.

Consequently, whether you ride road bikes or european bikes, the issue of whether to don a helmet or not should be your decision and yours alone - it's a question of civil rights and anti-discrimination.

Defining "Experiment"

(the new emerging Sydney Cyclist!)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "experiment":

noun
- a test or trial; a procedure adopted on chance of its succeeding, for testing hypothesis etc; or to demonstrate known fact

verb
- to make experiment (on, with) hence experimentation

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

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines "experiment":

noun
- a test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried
- a process of conducting such a test, experimentation
- an innovative act or procedure
- a result of experimentation

verb
- to conduct an experiment
- to try something new, especially to gain experience

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

Mosby's Dental Dictionary (2nd edition) defines "experiment":

noun
- a trial or special observation made to confirm or disprove something doubtful
- an act or operation undertaken to discover some unknown principle or effect or to test, establish, or illustrate some suggested or known truth

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

Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary (3rd edition) defines "experiment":

noun
- a study involving a comparison group in which the investigator intentionally alters one or more risk factors in order to discover or demonstrate some fact or general truth

...including the "Field Experiment":
- one carried out in normal circumstances and environment

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

Under PART III, article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I still refuse to give my informed consent to be part of this 'medical-device-anatomy-modifier' experiment - therefore yet again I request the State government of New South Wales to please respect my right to my own-personhood, which includes my own responsibilities towards my personal autonomy...

...please, do not coerce me to wear a helmet

Registered Post - "person-to-person"

A 'further copy' of my application for helmet exemption was despatched today, St Patrick's Day, to the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA).

Notwithstanding 'last week's copy' of my application arriving at Head Office (thank you, 'Registered Post', for this data), the Bicycle Unit had not received it when I spoke with the RTA yesterday afternoon.

In view of this experience and when faced with this 2nd 'posting' effort, I availed myself of a marvellous Australia Post facility - the 'person-to-person' delivery!! This means that Mr Bushby, the Chief Executive Officer of the Roads & Traffic Authority, will have to sign for my application himself when it arrives in North Sydney - this time he cannot fail to get it!

...let's hope he's not overseas!!

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!!

(Shakespeare's fabulous cartoon illustration, page 3, Sydney Morning Herald, 16th March 2010)

I can hardly contain myself, I'm so excited!!!!! At last an article from the Australian media that actually addreses the issue of helmets and the possibility of a legislated 'lack thereof' that could be beneficial to our community.

After a somewhat predictable missive on the front page of last Saturday's SMH seemingly intent on scaring us all back into our cars, today's SMH sees Matthew Moore report further on some of Professor John Pucher's findings, such as the excellent notion 'of doing away with the helmet use law...'!!! YAY!!!...he also went on to explain that:

"...compulsory wearing of helmets
was a 'band-aid strategy'
adopted by governments shying away
from more difficult initiatives of
building separated cycle ways, calming
neighbourhoods and educating drivers
and riders..."

Well done you, Matthew Moore, on finally taking this 'bull' by the horns, and forcing our community to have this extremely necessary and overdue discussion!!! It should be music to all our ears! It was so reassuring to read that the social zeitgeist has actually been recognised and articulated by the press.

However I do feel we must avoid being prescriptive. It serves no purpose dictating what sort of bikes or wardrobe options people should choose. Whilst I adore my european ladies' bikes, strategically placed in Sydney and Scone, the men in my family would probably shove them down my proverbial throat if I started preaching on the merits of Electra Amsterdams & Giant Suedes, the simplicity of 3 gears & coaster brakes, underpinned by the freedom of long flowing dresses and pretty leather thongs.

It should be a matter of choice - we should be welcoming the diversity, which is actually what we are starting to do anyway!! I've had some great conversations at Sydney traffic lights with fellow cyclists who, whilst equipped in the latest of everything aero-dynamic & soufflé light, have kindly passed favourable judgment on my beautiful bicycle and how it suits me!!

...oh and for the record, Mr Birdsey of Bicycle NSW, you do sound sexist!

"Gonna take a sentimental journey"

(my copy of Clover's map)

You can get your maps either from the Kiosk at Town Hall (though kiosk attendants very proprietal, and will only supply one per village per life-time) or else you can get them from Sydney University (who'll supply them to every single villager on a daily basis for the rest of their individual lifetimes).

(Town Hall with map-kiosk situated on pavement behind green bus)

(No matter what the 'doom&gloomers' say cycling is back - in fact it's well and truly 'on the map'!)

...and Clover's maps are full of promises and plans, and make you feel excited just looking at them.

We had such fun last week cycling through Newtown, Stanmore, Petersham, Annandale, Leichardt, Glebe, Paddington, Woollahra, Centennial Park, Surrey Hills, Redfern, and even the City - and it's only going to get better and better!

Apparently word on the street is that Erskineville's about to get a lovely cycling 'shake-up' - can't wait!

Bicycle helmet laws nurture timidity & powerlessness

Our mandatory helmet laws have allowed governments to remove our personal authority under the guise of community good.

BUT has it actually been for the community good?

The replacement of our self-autonomy subjected us to a state of 'infantilisation', and academic research continues to question the veracity of the original political rationale. Piet de Jong in his article entitled "The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws" argues that losses to the community have significantly outweighed any initial estimated gains - yet our politicians and media continue to sidestep the helmet debate.

Since 1991, this state sanctioned intervention has robbed a whole generation of young adults of the 'everyday pleasures of cycling'. The outrageous 'danger-mongering' of 'hopping-on-a-bicycle', physically constrained our Australian community and fostered a climate of fear. Unbelievably for a long time we actually subscribed to the 'spin' that cycling was dangerous, required special gear, special bikes and special head armour. In essence, we became a nation of 'scaredy-cats'...

...but 'the times they are a changin', and no amount of rattling the bars and terrorising us now is going to prevent us from leaving the cage - someone opened the door, and we like it out there - on our bicycles!!