My husband and I have just returned to Australia



B

Biker

Guest
My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of

travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on

bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats

with the locals.
We arrived back in Australia and thought we would stop over in WA for a

month or so, to catch up with friends in Perth and cycle down to Albany

& Esperance and back, before continuing on home to the East Coast.
It only took one little, slow ride on the beach bike path from Duncraig

to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to issue

us with traffic infringement notices - probably too much hard work,
having to chase payment from Qeensland! Instead, we were ordered to
walk
back - that is, 25 kilometers! Naturally, we refused to do this, and
were subsequently formally placed under arrest for disobeying police.
One of the cops attempted to call a paddy wagon on his two-way radio,
so, he explained, we could be taken to the station, fingerprinted and
locked up in the watchhouse for the time being. He was, however,
usuccessful in getting through (comforting thought for victims of any
possible real emergency), so they let our tires down and let us go,
wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt

to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
into custody.
What a homecoming! I must say it's great to be back in Australia and
only through travelling overseas one can fully appreciate the quality
of
life we Australians generally take for granted. However, this damned
helmet law is one major blot on that lifestyle. Nowhere else have we
been hassled for peacefully riding along a road, minding our own
business. No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
regimes!
Having had a read through aus.bicycle, I notice the "great debate" is
still raging - and the authorities are still taking no notice of what
failure this law, this infringement of civil liberties, has been. The
helmet zealots are still bleating their naive message of "if it saves
one child's life, blah, blah, blah..."
In some ways, it is disappointing to see how easily some people are
brainwashed into believing whatever the authorities want them to
believe...
Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who

wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe? Now, there's an
idea I'm sure would fix the helmet problem - as it has already fixed
it,
once and for all, for many ex-cycling commuters. Shame it's nowhere
near
as much fun...
 
Biker wrote:
> My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
>
> travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
> to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
> cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
> Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on
>
> bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats
>
> with the locals.
> We arrived back in Australia and thought we would stop over in WA for a
>
> month or so, to catch up with friends in Perth and cycle down to Albany
>
> & Esperance and back, before continuing on home to the East Coast.
> It only took one little, slow ride on the beach bike path from Duncraig
>
> to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
> mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
> Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to issue
>
> us with traffic infringement notices - probably too much hard work,
> having to chase payment from Qeensland! Instead, we were ordered to
> walk
> back - that is, 25 kilometers! Naturally, we refused to do this, and
> were subsequently formally placed under arrest for disobeying police.
> One of the cops attempted to call a paddy wagon on his two-way radio,
> so, he explained, we could be taken to the station, fingerprinted and
> locked up in the watchhouse for the time being. He was, however,
> usuccessful in getting through (comforting thought for victims of any
> possible real emergency), so they let our tires down and let us go,
> wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt
>
> to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
> into custody.
> What a homecoming! I must say it's great to be back in Australia and
> only through travelling overseas one can fully appreciate the quality
> of
> life we Australians generally take for granted. However, this damned
> helmet law is one major blot on that lifestyle. Nowhere else have we
> been hassled for peacefully riding along a road, minding our own
> business. No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
> exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
> transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
> regimes!
> Having had a read through aus.bicycle, I notice the "great debate" is
> still raging - and the authorities are still taking no notice of what
> failure this law, this infringement of civil liberties, has been. The
> helmet zealots are still bleating their naive message of "if it saves
> one child's life, blah, blah, blah..."
> In some ways, it is disappointing to see how easily some people are
> brainwashed into believing whatever the authorities want them to
> believe...
> Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who
>
> wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe? Now, there's an
> idea I'm sure would fix the helmet problem - as it has already fixed
> it,
> once and for all, for many ex-cycling commuters. Shame it's nowhere
> near
> as much fun...
>

Greetings,
Lovely. When doing a major climb in summer my helmet comes off anyway.
If they want to cite me for dying of heat exhaustion, fine. They've got
the whole debate **** around as usual. It isn't the helmet that saves
you, it's the 1.5 tonnes of metal doing 100 k/mh that kills you.
Regards,
Ray.
 
Hi,

Sounds like you had a wonderful time cycling through Africa!!
Fantastic!!

As for the helmet thing... I am pro-helmet, but I won't recycle
arguments that we've all heard a thousand times before.

Given that its the law - is it THAT much of a hassle to wear one?? So
much so that you'd actually ditch your bikes and drive, rather than
wear a helmet?! Seems kind of an extreme reaction to me...

Abby
 
Sorry to hear.. however, helmets = law..

Bit harsh about letting your tyres down.. I'd be laying some smack down GTA
style if they did that to me (though, I always wear a helmet)... 25km walk
or a free ride back in the divy van? Give me the divy van any day! :)



cheers,
GPL
:no, not the hot coffee mod style smack.. well maybe if they were h0t female
cops:
 
Is it that uncomfortable to wear? It's the law, I don't understand why you don't just save yourself the hassle and wear one.
 
Biker said:
to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
....
No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
regimes!

Ask yourself this question about some of the semi-dictatorial regimes you've been under; could you have lost your life legally for infracting on what you may consider an innocuous law?

I don't agree with the actions of the police, what they did was rather petty, but at the end of the day you wilfully broke the law. Wear the consequences of your actions.

I don't agree with compulsion but I agree even less with willful law breaking. You knew what you were doing was wrong so you have no excuse.
 
On 06/10/05 at 05:59:40 Biker somehow managed to type:

> My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year
> of
>
> travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
> to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
> cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
> Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling
> on


Sounds good....


>
> bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly
> chats
>
> with the locals.
> We arrived back in Australia and thought we would stop over in WA for
> a
>
> month or so, to catch up with friends in Perth and cycle down to
> Albany
>
> & Esperance and back, before continuing on home to the East Coast.
> It only took one little, slow ride on the beach bike path from
> Duncraig
>
> to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
> mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
> Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to
> issue


<snip>


Yawn....helmet debate....

You, and loads of others, may not agree with it but the law here is
that you wear a helmet whilst riding a bike on the road / cycle path /
footpath / etc.

Buy an el-cheapo helmet and wear it, problem solved...

--
Humbug
 
Biker wrote:
> My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
>



troll troll troll your boat ...
 
"Bleve" wrote in message ...
>
> Biker wrote:
>> My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
>>

>
>
> troll troll troll your boat ...
>


lol!


cheers,
GPL
 
Biker wrote:
> life we Australians generally take for granted. However, this damned
> helmet law is one major blot on that lifestyle. Nowhere else have we
> been hassled for peacefully riding along a road, minding our own
> business. No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
> exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
> transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
> regimes!


Last week my wife came off her bike on some loose road surface. She was
maybe doing 25kph at the most, but hit the ground hard with her head.
Her helmet was absolutely fsck'd, crushed in some areas, broken clean
through along several lines. It was only *just* held together by the
thin plastic shell.

If she'd been one of the anti-helmet brigade, she'd now be chewing up
untold amounts of money as a head injured patient, possibly ICU,
possibly permanently incapacitated...which iself would be an
unneccesary impost on the health system and thus the taxpayer.

> Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all.


Well you're the idiot then. Either that or you're a troll who never
rode 3000km anywhere.

Cheers
David M
 
Biker wrote:
> Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who
>
> wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe?


Nah, you wouldn't want to have to wear that seat belt now, would you.

Cheers
David M
 
David M said:
If she'd been one of the anti-helmet brigade, she'd now be chewing up
untold amounts of money as a head injured patient, possibly ICU,
possibly permanently incapacitated...which iself would be an
unneccesary impost on the health system and thus the taxpayer.
Unlikely. Brusing, abraision and perhapse a mild concussion. That's all a helmet's good for.
 
David M said:
Biker wrote:
> Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who
>
> wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe?


Nah, you wouldn't want to have to wear that seat belt now, would you.

Cheers
David M
The difference is that accident statistics support seatbelt compulsion. There is no data that supports helmet compulsion, just anecdotal `evidence' such as your story about you wife.
 
On 5 Oct 2005 17:31:14 -0700, David M wrote:

> Last week my wife came off her bike on some loose road surface. She was
> maybe doing 25kph at the most, but hit the ground hard with her head.
> Her helmet was absolutely fsck'd, crushed in some areas, broken clean
> through along several lines. It was only *just* held together by the
> thin plastic shell.


A helmet that is crushed has offered *some* protection as the crushing has
absorbed some impact energy. A helmet that has broken through or cracked
has failed as cracking absorbs very little energy.

> If she'd been one of the anti-helmet brigade, she'd now be chewing up
> untold amounts of money as a head injured patient, possibly ICU,
> possibly permanently incapacitated...which iself would be an
> unneccesary impost on the health system and thus the taxpayer.


She could also "possibly" have experienced just a nasty bump to the head,
or at worst, concussion. The only way to know is to repeat the accident
with identical conditions except minus the helmet. It's simple to use the
emotive "he/she could have been killed/crippled" but there's little
evidence to back up how effective helmets are (particularly as they're
designed to protect from impacts at far less than the speed that most
cyclists travel).

By the way, I've come across very few people who are in the "anti-helmet
brigade". What I've written above may make me sound anti-helmet. I'm not (I
wear one myself, even in countries without compulsory helmet laws). The
group you're thinking of are more likely to be the "anti-compulsory helmet
law brigade". Less catchy I know, but more accurate.

Graeme

(smack!- must not enter helmet discussions must not enter helmet
discussions - smack!) :)
 
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:05:17 +1000, EuanB
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Biker Wrote:
>>
>> to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
>> mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
>> ....
>> No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
>> exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
>> transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
>> regimes!
>>

>
>Ask yourself this question about some of the semi-dictatorial regimes
>you've been under; could you have lost your life legally for infracting
>on what you may consider an innocuous law?


Are you comparing Australia with Singapore, where they put people to death
for shoplifting, or whatever? I'm not following you. 'lost your life
legally...' - what the heck does that mean?

Also, I'm surprised that nobody's considered it might have been an
oversight - they'd been out of the country for a while - maybe they didn't
-have- helmets with them and had not yet re-oriented to Aussie law. Sheesh.
It's pretty harsh to force someone to walk 15 miles back to the car - I
don't believe their chief would have been very happy with that
'punishment'. In fact, I'd be calling my lawyer and claiming damages for
being forced to walk an unreasonable distance (I've got a bad leg, for one
thing, but I ride just fine).

-Wheels


>I don't agree with the actions of the police, what they did was rather
>petty, but at the end of the day you wilfully broke the law. Wear the
>consequences of your actions.
>
>I don't agree with compulsion but I agree even less with willful law
>breaking. You knew what you were doing was wrong so you have no
>excuse.
 
Walrus said:
Is it that uncomfortable to wear?
In forty degree heat, you bet they're uncomfortable to wear. A sun hat would me far more beneficial, I rate my risk of sun cancer to be higher than having a head injury.

It's the law, I don't understand why you don't just save yourself the hassle and wear one.

Correct, which is why I wear a helmet. That doesn't mean I agree with it.
 
EuanB said:
In forty degree heat, you bet they're uncomfortable to wear. A sun hat would me far more beneficial, I rate my risk of sun cancer to be higher than having a head injury.



Correct, which is why I wear a helmet. That doesn't mean I agree with it.
Fair points. Maybe pop a visor on your helmet and kill 2 birds with one stone :p
 
EuanB wrote:
> In forty degree heat, you bet they're uncomfortable to wear. A


I don't buy that. I wear one in WA heat, regularly 40 or over in the
summer. The only probs I have on a long ride, say 100km Audax in
40-45C, is with my feet swelling, but the helmet is no problem at
all...

Cheers
David M
 
David M said:
EuanB wrote:
> In forty degree heat, you bet they're uncomfortable to wear. A


I don't buy that. I wear one in WA heat, regularly 40 or over in the
summer. The only probs I have on a long ride, say 100km Audax in
40-45C, is with my feet swelling, but the helmet is no problem at
all...

Cheers
David M
I hear you David. I wore a helmet in this years Alpine Classic where it reached over 38. There are some soft puppies out there.
 
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:58:40 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> The difference is that accident statistics support seatbelt
> compulsion.


That depends on how you read it, or more accurately, how it is selectively
presented. There's plenty of evidence that shows that the introduction of
compulsory seatbelt laws actually increased the overall number of
accidents/injuries, particularly among vulnerable road users (cyclists,
pedestrians etc.). What most seatbelt stats present are the reduction in
injuries *in the event of a crash* not the fact the the chances of a crash
are slightly increased (risk compensation and all that).

Graeme