Australia’s mandatory helmet laws "have become a tool of disproportionate penalties and aggressive policing" say researchers

Philh68 wrote:

The NSW Labor party must be different to their UK cousins because I recall when they implemented policy to double the cycling share of commuting, and the NSW Premier at the time was Kristina Kenneally who was known for cycling to parliament. It sticks out in my mind because policy was announced in Newcastle where she cycled along the route where cyclists are now banned. Labor at least went to the last election with $5m in promised funding to put an east-west cycleway in when the Libs don’t want it. See, I forgot to mention the Libs also privatised the buses and light rail, they won’t put in a bike path because people will use it for free instead of paying to ride a tram we didn’t need.

The helmet law won’t change, it’s been in too long and there’s too much at stake to admit they got it wrong. Bicycle Network put it forward as policy they want changed but no politician will consider changing something safety related. BN want to see the law changed to match the Northern Territory where over 17’s may ride on footpaths and off road cycleways without a helmet. I looked at the fatality and injury stats for the NT and at 4 deaths in 10 years they’re lower per capita than here where it’s mandatory to wear a helmet.

NT is kind of a red herring in many ways, low population density, smallest territory/state capital and thus the lifestyle is different in many regards to the much larger conurbations. The actual physical number of commuters by motorvehicle is massively smaller than even ACT, less than half in fact yet that's over a huge area and within Darwin itself the commuter numbers would be similar for a smallish town in the UK when you take into account passing through traffic in the UK which occurs a lot that go through small/mid sized towns they are likely to experience far more motor traffic than Darwin ever will even if similar populations/demographics.

The problem of having a half and half rule is in itself part of the problem, it needs to be a full rescinding of the rule. Not being able to ride on the road when there's already few car commuters anyway makes no logical sense, the death toll is low not because of the differing helmet rules, it's low because of the physical number/density of motorists plus the actual way of life in Darwin comparative to most other larger conurbations like Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane etc is subtly different too. It also helps they (Darwin) have quite a few cycleways which for a city of that size is considerable by comparison so it's easier to get about the built up area.

I agree the helmet laws won't change because it's ingrained and would take a whole generation to accept that it's the motorist who needs to change not the vulnerable persons attire or attitude, it would also need the gov both national and state/territory to make the changes that forces those that kill and maim to change, that is never going to happen sadly, it's all too late as it is pretty much elsewhere. Here in the UK nothing will change of any real note with regards to priority/ease of getting about and protection by the law/safety but at least we dn't have the victim blaming rules of helmets enshrined in legalese ... yet, and that's why so many of us fight against it.

The sad thing is the European Union wants helmets in law, they want the easy option to 'protect' cyclists to meet their safety targets, despite the fact the acknowledge that helmets do have a negative effect they do nothing but promote helmet use throughout the union and hold up Netherlands and Denmark as having poor safety records for cycling due to the number of cycling deaths per population head, utterly ignoring that the cycling rates are massively higher than anywhere else.

Philh68 wrote:

None of them regardless of political leaning strike me as ethical human beings. However, Conservative parties seem to attract a certain type of weasel no matter what country you’re in.

All the glossy plans  for their light rail here showed the heavy rail corridor they closed would become public space, with a shared pedestrian and cycle path to link the west end of the CBD with the east end and beaches. Then they sold the land to  private property developers, preventing its reuse as public space. Those of us who said all along the whole thing was a plan to transfer valuable real estate to private enterprise while wasting public money on a vote buying trinket (who moves a railway into the middle of the adjacent street?) take no pride in having our suspicions confirmed.

They even enacted retrospective legislation to allow them to sell the land, then used that legislation to sue a lobby group that challenged the legality of them closing a railway without proper legislation. Because they believe they’re born to rule and will do whatever it takes to shut down community opposition. Helmet laws, a means of discouraging cycling and minimising the ability of cyclists to lobby for better infrastructure.

Eff me!  Where exactly did this affront to ethics occur?

burtthebike wrote:

Eff me!  Where exactly did this affront to ethics occur?

Newcastle, NSW. Home of Australia’s largest coal exports and a Labor heartland. So the conservatives treat us like crap. They got some of their own elected by promising to do all this wonderful stuff, only to get caught out receiving illegal donations from property developers. And I’m talking brown paper bags full of cash. One of said developers had gotten himself elected to council and as Lord Mayor. A cesspit of self interest. It’s as if the monorail episode of The Simpson’s was a documentary …

Whats worse is the Newcastle Cycleways Movement designed a comprehensive network city wide to AAA standard that would have put 80 percent of residents within 300 metres of a cycleway, for a projected cost of 80 million. Had the support of the motorists association, the heart foundation and other groups. How much did the cons commit to find? Zero. But they blew 450 million building 2.7km of tramlines down the high street…

Philh68 wrote:

There is too much political investment to get a balanced approach to cyclists. NSW Labor and Greens support cycling in principle, so the conservative Liberals in govt oppose it. They talk about it in glowing terms, but their actions are the opposite.

Now which UK party does that remind me of?  Oh yes, the tories, headed by the most notorious liar, cheat and hypocrite in the EU.

burtthebike wrote:

Philh68 wrote:

There is too much political investment to get a balanced approach to cyclists. NSW Labor and Greens support cycling in principle, so the conservative Liberals in govt oppose it. They talk about it in glowing terms, but their actions are the opposite.

Now which UK party does that remind me of?  Oh yes, the tories, headed by the most notorious liar, cheat and hypocrite in the EU.

What have Labour done for cycling in the last say 45 years, anything? What did they do to curb motoring, anything, say like increasing the fuel duty, oh wait, they froze it, maybe they increased the cost of buying a new car with a special VAT rate, nope, they introduced the scrappage scheme which cost the UK taxpayer £530M (£300M then £230M) for gods sakes!

Corbyn is two faced, a massive hpocrite who can't make his mind up which side of Brexit he is on and lives in la-la land with regards the economy, oh and his party have nothing more regarding cycling than the Cons have.

There was nothing under Blair/Brown and there was nothing under the Labour gov in the 70s either, cycling still had a chance in the 70s and was still very high as a mode of transport in the North where Labour had many, many strangleholds, even as late as the early 80s cycling for transport was as high as 24% in mid sized industrial town and in the city 22.5% (compared to 46% and 37% car journeys respectively). What did Labour do to keep cycling going in these areas that they controlled locally and previously nationally, I'll tell you what, NOTHING!