News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fighting betweenso called advocacy groups.

On 04/12/13 15:13, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:
Andre Jute wrote in



Whoever is right in this, those cyclists were offered an
opportunity

and grasped it with both hands to go put a view to the Commission
that

they clearly believe found an echo in recommendations that stand
a

chance of being passed into law. That's a first class result
already.

Congratulations to them, and all the other cyclists who made

submissions.



Andre Jute



A Change to the helmet laws does not have a snowballs chance in
hell

of being changed. The Transport Minister does not support it.

Below is a link to an interview with him. (Yes, our TV
interviewers

are very poorly informed.)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/pex4ohw



Peter Gordon

Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets,
fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because
the perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It
doesn't matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is
lost, and for good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a
counterproductive idiocy. The sooner cyclists accept that and move on
to battles they can win, the better for them and the better for all
of us.


It will be an uphill battle, for sure, but I don't think it is
impossible. A similar inquiry is taking place in the ACT at the moment.
Submissions are in and people are talking. AFAIK, the AGF and Greens
are attempting to have inquiries in all states. If all the inquiries
come out with similar conclusions, there will be real pressure on the
federal government to change the national road laws on several issues,
which should cause the states and territories to fall in to line.

Sadly the most powerful _advocacy_ groups are not supportive of removing
helmet laws, and they've attracted some pretty serious negative
attention for it too.

--
JS

On 12/4/2013 2:10 PM, James wrote:

snip

It will be an uphill battle, for sure, but I don't think it is
impossible.

If you approach it from the Big Lie (tm) standpoint it's probably
impossible.

If you approach it from the personal freedom standpoint then you have
some chance at success. This is how motorcyclists have been able to get
some states to repeal mandatory helmet laws though in some cases the
motorcyclist must carry extra health insurance to qualify.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 1:48:29 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But regarding Sir's comment on fighting laws: Data at the MHL promotion site www.bhsi.org lists U.S. laws and their dates of enactment. Those clearly show that state laws (which never apply to adults) were a phenomenon of the 1990s. One state enacted such a law for kids in 1992; two states in 1993, and a peak of five states in 1994. Three states in '95, three states in '96, followed by a mere trickle, never more than one state in any year thereafter. There hasn't been a new statewide helmet law since 2007.



I believe this may be the explanation: Bell Sports and/or the Snell Foundation backed Thompson & Rivara's distorted claims in 1989, and contributed heavily to Safe Kids Inc. in the early '90s. Safe Kids, acting as a (probably sincere, but deluded) lobbying arm of the helmet industry, used the funding to push for MHLs. Helmet promotional material was suddenly everywhere, and state legislatures were pressed to pass laws. Hearings were crowded with teary-eyed testimony. And people who were pro-bicycle were either similarly deluded, or (more often) caught completely off-guard.



But by 1996, papers had begun to appear demonstrating that helmet laws were failures. Bike advocates had noted the sudden drops in cycling in Australia and realized the push for legislation must be countered. Data became available that disproved the claims of law proponents, and logical arguments began to successfully counter the push from Safe Kids and the helmet industry. Again, statewide laws slowed to a trickle, then stopped. And even Safe Kids seems to have shifted its focus from bike helmets to child car seats. Whether this is due to a drop in funding from Helmets Inc., I don't know.



MHLs still pop up occasionally in cities and counties, where one or a few true-believers might assault a few unsophisticated legislators. But even those laws are generally unenforced. (I've found that I've inadvertently violated several local and provincial - i.e. Canadian - MHLs, and done so with no penalty.)


Snipped
- Frank Krygowski

The defeat of the adult MHL was in prior to or in 1995 in Ontario as that's the year the MHL for under 18 in Ontario was enacted. Thus the defeat of the Adult MHL was BEFORE 1996.

One thing that I do like about MHLs and waivers for participating in bicycle rides is that nowhere do they state that the helmet has to be worn on the head. Thus on a very hot and humid day you can wear your helmet over your shoulder andstill be in compliance of the law/waiver stating you must wear a helmet.

Cheers

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:30:55 +0200, davethedave
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:38:46 +0700, John B. wrote:

snip

No, the big lies is that everyone *must* wear a helmet because riding a
bicycle is so dangerous.

You have overlooked the mention of bicycle registration and licensing.
I wonder what that will do to participation.

"I'm sorry sir but I can't sell you this bicycle until you show me a
bicycle license." "But it is for my grandson, he's only 5 years old."
"Doesn't make any difference sir, the law says that to sell a bicycle I
must record the license details."

That's very much like buying a television in England. They won't give it
to you without a name and address to give to the television licensing
bandits.

Just because it's an incredibly stupid and unworkable idea doesn't mean
they won't do it.

When I lived in Japan middle '50s and early '60s you used to see
little circular pieces of aluminum nailed up on house entrances. I was
told that these were indications that a "radio tax" had been paid. a
tax to listen to the radio.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/5/2013 10:44 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Peter Gordon petergoATnetspace.net.au considered 04 Dec 2013
02:21:21 GMT the perfect time to write:

Andre Jute wrote in

Whoever is right in this, those cyclists were offered an opportunity
and grasped it with both hands to go put a view to the Commission that
they clearly believe found an echo in recommendations that stand a
chance of being passed into law. That's a first class result already.
Congratulations to them, and all the other cyclists who made
submissions.

Andre Jute

A Change to the helmet laws does not have a snowballs chance in hell
of being changed. The Transport Minister does not support it.

Transport ministers change far more frequently than helmet laws.

Below is a link to an interview with him. (Yes, our TV interviewers
are very poorly informed.)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/pex4ohw

Peter Gordon

Never mind, maybe you'll get a competent one eventually.
Of course, a competent government would be a start.


Indeed. That government is best which governs least and ours
grows like weeds.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971