My husband and I have just returned to Australia

[HellenWheels]

On 5 Oct 2005 18:51:30 -0700, "David M" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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

Well I think it's pretty obvious from the OP's story that if you are not
wearing a helment, but have one with you, you'll just get a warning, after
which you'll have to put it on. If they were clearly flaunting the law
that's one thing and dumb of them not to have the helmet at least strapped
to the back of the bike or on the handlebars.

And, of course if you're in an accident you probably risk not getting
coverage if you're not wearing one and it makes the police report, head
injury or not. But seems like the enforcement could be spotty. Any data on
that?

-Wheels.

 

[Resound]

> 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
>
>

They were gone "almost a year". I'm fairly sure the law on whether or not
helmet usage is compulsory has been in effect throughout the country for
substantially longer than that. They willfully broke the law. Not that I
agree with the described actions of the police either; I would have had the
frame pump going the moment they were out of sight myself.(They MUST have
had a frame pump...what lunatic would do a 3000km tour around Africa without
one?)

This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.

 

[Terry Collins]

Biker wrote:
> Who wants to be constantly hassled?

1) buy a cheapie K mart helmet stick on top of hat in city limits.
constable plod just looks for helmet.

2) visit doc, seek med cert t say it gies you migranes/head aches, etc,

 

[Terry Collins]

Walrus wrote:
> 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.

Age will change your tune.

 

[Terry Collins]

Walrus wrote:

>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

Ears?

 

[Terry Collins]

Bleve wrote:
> Biker wrote:
>
>>My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
>>
>
>
>
> troll troll troll your boat ...
>
pedal pedal pedal your bike
gently down the road .....

 

[Resound]

>
> I'm just suggesting that maybe they had forgotten their helmets, or gotten
> out of the habit of wearing them or something. I'm not suggesting right or
> wrong. They were definitely not thinking straight to rebuff the police
> when
> they were first warned, causing the sterner reaction.
>
> Maybe where they were riding did not have compulsory laws. Heck they
> probably were flaunting the law, but jeeze, everyone seemed to jump to
> that
> conclusion a bit harshly and prematurely is all I'm saying. Certainly
> ignorance of the law is no excuse. Maybe if they'd have said 'sorry
> officer, we've been abroad and it just slipped our minds, we'll go get our
> helmets, or maybe one of you can drive us to our car...'. So they weren't
> blameless.
>
> Having said that, I think the cops were out of line with the 'punishment'.
> Cops are there to protect, detain, and maybe arrest you, but it's up to
> the
> courts to punish. Maybe a 15 mile walk was within their ability. Not for
> me
> and I think the cops should be censured for taking that step. For all we
> know, they didn't get back to their car until dark. Would that be
> responsible policing, stranding a guy and a girl out on a remote bike
> trail
> after dark?
>
> You stop a driver for speeding or mild reckless driving, you give him a
> ticket. You don't make him drop and give you 20 pushups, fercryinoutloud.
> ;-) Stranding someone for a victimless crime, 15 miles from their car is
> cruel and unusual punishment and they should contact a lawyer.
>
> -Wheels.
>

Oh, I agree with you on the behaviour of the police. It sounds like general
pigheadedness all around.

 

[HellenWheels]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:04:09 +1000, "Resound"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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
>>
>>
>
>They were gone "almost a year". I'm fairly sure the law on whether or not
>helmet usage is compulsory has been in effect throughout the country for
>substantially longer than that. They willfully broke the law. Not that I
>agree with the described actions of the police either; I would have had the
>frame pump going the moment they were out of sight myself.(They MUST have
>had a frame pump...what lunatic would do a 3000km tour around Africa without
>one?)
>
>This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.
>

I'm just suggesting that maybe they had forgotten their helmets, or gotten
out of the habit of wearing them or something. I'm not suggesting right or
wrong. They were definitely not thinking straight to rebuff the police when
they were first warned, causing the sterner reaction.

Maybe where they were riding did not have compulsory laws. Heck they
probably were flaunting the law, but jeeze, everyone seemed to jump to that
conclusion a bit harshly and prematurely is all I'm saying. Certainly
ignorance of the law is no excuse. Maybe if they'd have said 'sorry
officer, we've been abroad and it just slipped our minds, we'll go get our
helmets, or maybe one of you can drive us to our car...'. So they weren't
blameless.

Having said that, I think the cops were out of line with the 'punishment'.
Cops are there to protect, detain, and maybe arrest you, but it's up to the
courts to punish. Maybe a 15 mile walk was within their ability. Not for me
and I think the cops should be censured for taking that step. For all we
know, they didn't get back to their car until dark. Would that be
responsible policing, stranding a guy and a girl out on a remote bike trail
after dark?

You stop a driver for speeding or mild reckless driving, you give him a
ticket. You don't make him drop and give you 20 pushups, fercryinoutloud.
;-) Stranding someone for a victimless crime, 15 miles from their car is
cruel and unusual punishment and they should contact a lawyer.

-Wheels.

 

[vaudegiant]

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.

I know we're only talking about helmets, and I always wear one because I think they probably work, but willful law breaking does have its place in society....bad laws should be broken, otherwise what is to stop goverments enacting draconian laws etc etc....


Pat

 

[suzyj]

Resound wrote:

> This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.

Well it may not have been in 2001, when it first did the rounds, but it is now.

See
http://groups.google.com/group/aus....read/83ffa9d3c10978fb/7bfa588b3fe0a666?rnum=1 for the original.

Cheers,

Suzy

 

[Biker]

suzyj wrote:
> Resound wrote:
>
> > This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.
>
> Well it may not have been in 2001, when it first did the rounds, but it
> is now.

it seem's if it was a post from a as you call it a troll - but if
people still have it put on "My husband and I have just returned to
Australia" then is's a good in put if it was a troll that posted it.

 

[Bleve]

Biker wrote:
> suzyj wrote:
> > Resound wrote:
> >
> > > This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.
> >
> > Well it may not have been in 2001, when it first did the rounds, but it
> > is now.
>
> it seem's if it was a post from a as you call it a troll - but if
> people still have it put on "My husband and I have just returned to
> Australia" then is's a good in put if it was a troll that posted it.


Sausages.

 

[cfsmtb]

Well it may not have been in 2001, when it first did the rounds, but it is now.

See
http://groups.google.com/group/aus....read/83ffa9d3c10978fb/7bfa588b3fe0a666?rnum=1 for the original.

Cheers,

Suzy

And see: http://groups.google.com.au/groups?..._uWzpoDB4d9vHbcAYP4_stcVCrpmd5JEayTpuyQ&hl=en

for all posts by 'biker'.

sausages indeed.

 

[Resound]

"Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> suzyj wrote:
>> Resound wrote:
>>
>> > This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.
>>
>> Well it may not have been in 2001, when it first did the rounds, but it
>> is now.
>
> it seem's if it was a post from a as you call it a troll - but if
> people still have it put on "My husband and I have just returned to
> Australia" then is's a good in put if it was a troll that posted it.
>

It tweaked my troll-o-meter simply because it seemed specially tailored to
start another round of the great helmet debate. It even had the "omg the
COPZ were LAMAZ and they SUXX0R3D!!!11!one! so the helmet law must SUK
TWO!!1!" factor. Ok, maybe without the AOL factor, but it seemed an
appropriate vehicle to demonstrate how I read it.

 

[[email protected]]

On 5 Oct 2005 12:59:40 -0700, "Biker" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

Those Police officers could well have saved your lives. Next time wear helmets.

I don't give a **** about any of the arguments put up by the moron anti-helmet brigade because it is
an undisputable fact that helmets can stop you being killed or injured.

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:28:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

> it is
> an undisputable fact that helmets can stop you being killed or injured.

So can a large sheet of plywood painted pink. Should we make those
compulsory too?

 

[TimC]

On 2005-10-06, suzyj (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Resound wrote:
>
>> This is, of course, assuming that this isn't a wilful troll.
>
> Well it may not have been in 2001, when it first did the rounds, but it
> is now.
>
> See
> http://tinyurl.com/bafax for the original.

BTW, the original poster of this particular thread (not the original
2001 thread) matches my rules that Bratton matches. Not proof, but
a useful piece of evidence.

And then look at the English ability displayed in biker's response to
your post...

--
TimC
Er, RFC 882 put the dot in .com.

 

[TimC]

On 2005-10-06, Terry Collins (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Walrus wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Age will change your tune.

Young age?

I hate wearing a helmet in summer. And I thought my helmet was a
reasonable fit.

But then again, I usually wimp out of commuting when the temperature
gets above 28, and wimp out of riding for recreation when the
temperature gets above 24.

Further proof that I am unAustralian, a terrorist, and need to be
"reformed" and "interrogated" in a detention centre for 14 days.

--
TimC
Keyboard Not Found: Press <F1> to Continue

 

[Terry Collins]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, Terry Collins (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Walrus wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Age will change your tune.
>
>
> Young age?

Old age. It was in reply to the "soft puppies" comment.
I've just had a "discussion" with my quack about reducing the contents
of my daily rattle (pills). It is really NOT exciting having to make
sure you've packed certain items every time you want to go out for a
ride and leave a route map and time estimate. <bleh>
>
> I hate wearing a helmet in summer. And I thought my helmet was a
> reasonable fit.

Yep, great with glasses. Tap helment and instant rain shower. If they
can mount cameras and lights on helmets, how big a bettery do a I need
for some fans?

>
> But then again, I usually wimp out of commuting when the temperature
> gets above 28, and wimp out of riding for recreation when the
> temperature gets above 24.

It is the cold wind that does me in. Hopefully next winter my polypil
undershirt will solve this.

>
> Further proof that I am unAustralian, a terrorist, and need to be
> "reformed" and "interrogated" in a detention centre for 14 days.

Err, you ride a bicycle, thats enough.


which reminds me.
what colour is the fridge magnet?
I've looked, but can not find mine anymore amongst the polly and real
estate calendars.
Went riding earlier in the week to check out a new kiddy winks cycle
path; figure of eight around the flood basins and spotted a person of
middle eastern appearance with a radio control device.

He disarmed me by making nice noises about my bicycle and trailer. {

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "David" == David M <[email protected]> writes:

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

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

I don't care whether you buy that or not. I find them uncomfortable,
plenty of pro cyclists find them uncomfortable (witness mass dumping of
helmets on hill climbs until recent years.)

You don't find them uncomfortable, fine I'm happy for you but don't
presume to call me a liar.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)