Twilight star Robert Pattinson falls foul of Aussie helmet laws

British actor let off with caution after fan's pics of him riding without helmet make it into papers

by Simon_MacMichael   January 31, 2013  

White cycle helmet

British actor Robert Pattinson has fallen foul of Australia's compulsory helmet laws after police discovered a picture of him riding a bike without one.

According to the website Entertainment Wise, police in South Australia confirmed that the 26-year-old had been let off with a caution.

"He will not be fined, it is just a simple caution. We had a chat with him and told him that it is a requirement to wear a helmet while cycling a pushbike. It’s no biggie," said a police spokesman.

Police were alerted to Pattinson's bare-headed riding after a fan snapped a photo of him which was then published in a local paper.

"Someone took a picture of him when he was out cycling so that is how we knew,” said the spokesman. “If he does it again, he will be fined."

Pattinson could have been fined A$90 for riding without a helmet, plus a victims of crime surcharge of A$60, for a total of around £100.

Given the vampire-playing Twilight star has a net worth estimated at US$64 million, we're guessing that he'd just have sucked any fine up.

 

 

18 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

What? You mean he wasn't wrestled off his bike, or his bike confiscated so he had to walk home, or his driving licence taken away?

Because, you know, that's how the Aussie cops treat non-celeb riders who dare to challenge their stupid lid law.

We do not want this to happen here. Stay vigilant.

Conscientious Objector in the War on Vulnerable Road Users

t1mmyb's picture

posted by t1mmyb [86 posts]
31st January 2013 - 14:00

like this
Like (2)

^^^ Big Grin

If he had been fined perhaps he should have sued the person who took the photo for invasion of privacy.

This is getting stupid. I thought the Aussies were rational but when to comes to helmets, they act like a bunch of them.

Did Nightrider 2013 for Parkinson's UK, doing it again this year just for the fun of it and to raise more money.

jova54's picture

posted by jova54 [583 posts]
31st January 2013 - 15:57

like this
Like (4)

I wonder if Aussie Plod are as keen in following up photo/video evidence of bad driving endangering cyclists?
If they are, reckon it's fair swap for mandatory helmets?

Joselito's picture

posted by Joselito [132 posts]
31st January 2013 - 16:28

like this
Like (2)

Helmetless cyclists are an easy target for the plod.

Sue Abbott isn't one to take this stupid law lying down:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/nov/13/helmets-aust...

Simon E's picture

posted by Simon E [1880 posts]
31st January 2013 - 17:04

like this
Like (2)

Caution here presumably means verbal warning, as opposed to the UK where it is a conviction?

posted by wild man [276 posts]
31st January 2013 - 17:40

like this
Like (2)

Quote:
We're guessing that he'd just have sucked any fine up.

Sucked, as in blood? Very droll.

I just think there is something screwed up with a legal system that cautions a man for riding a bicycle without a helmet, but lets him walk around free despite "acting" in some of the worst "movies" ever made.

Edit: For accuracy, I have put quotes around certain words.

posted by ubercurmudgeon [168 posts]
31st January 2013 - 18:07

like this
Like (3)

The Aussies like their rules and regs all right.

I got served a pint at a Perth marina and then was told I couldn't drink it as I was wearing shorts after 8pm!

The man next to me had to remove his peaked cap as no hats were allowed after 8pm!

Another time in Brisbane I was refused entry to a bar wearing Blundstone boots as I might 'start a fight'.
They then directed me to the adjoining bar (same hotel) where there were twice as many people Thinking

posted by offshore_dave [36 posts]
31st January 2013 - 18:26

like this
Like (2)

Perhaps they noticed he was a big enough one and let him off.

cidermart's picture

posted by cidermart [454 posts]
31st January 2013 - 22:57

like this
Like (2)

Nonsense.

Australia has democratically elected governments that have passed these laws. The Police are required to ensure people comply and stop them if they continue to flout the law after being cautioned.

I'm an Australian cyclist btw. And proud of the "nanny state". I don't think it's a personal freedom to needlessly endanger my own life or others - particularly with a public health system picking up the cost of accidents. For better of worse Australia has always been active in persuing regulation that reduces the cost to the health system - e.g. plain packaging on tobacco products.

While the stats do seem to suggest that the helmet laws have reduced the severity of head injuries in Australia I agree there are many other changes that would more positively assist vulnerable road user safety - but all of these have a higher political or financial cost - this is the consequence of democracy and the minority status of cyclists and pedestrians.

I have to fess up and say I don't always comply with all laws - but I do expect a fine if I get caught transgressing.

posted by seanw18 [12 posts]
31st January 2013 - 23:57

like this
Like (2)

@seanw18 - your argument doesn't hold water when confronted with the facts, but I suspect you won't be very interested in those.

If you're endangering your own and other people's lives by riding a bicycle then get some lessons before it's too late!

Simon E's picture

posted by Simon E [1880 posts]
1st February 2013 - 0:10

like this
Like (2)

So... That Lance Armstrong eh? What's that all about?

joemmo's picture

posted by joemmo [768 posts]
1st February 2013 - 8:15

like this
Like (3)

What a depressing country - where the state can make you a criminal just to save itaelf healthcare costs. Do you have to sit up and drag the brakes downhill as well? Do fatties who drive everywhere end up in court?

posted by nuclear coffee [105 posts]
1st February 2013 - 10:40

like this
Like (4)

Simon E, what are those facts? And what makes you assume that sean18 would not be interested in them? I suspect that you are firmly set in your own interpretation of your facts.
Yes there are some annoying nanny state rules here down under but we do not have CCTV cameras on every corner. I would find that depressing.
To clarify; a Caution here is a verbal warning, not a criminal sentence. The police will rarely even take your name.
I personally, do not understand why you wouldn't want to wear a helmet to protect your 'precious' noggin. I always have, even before the compulsory helmet laws.

Man, was that helmet ugly. It was called a 'Guardian'.

posted by Tarzak [15 posts]
1st February 2013 - 22:46

like this
Like (1)

Tarzak wrote:

I personally, do not understand why you wouldn't want to wear a helmet to protect your 'precious' noggin. I always have, even before the compulsory helmet laws.

Oh for the days when someone who couldn't understand something shut the hell up and listened until they did. Or at least had the decency to ask.

Really, what are you aiming to achieve? Are you trying to convince someone? How on earth would anyone worth convincing be persuaded by someone who by their own admission can't understand the opposing viewpoint?

Here, I'll spell it out for you in baby words. People don't like spending money they don't have to. They don't like uncomfortable things on their head. They don't like looking dorky. They don't like having stuff to cart around when their trip is done, or else worry about leaving an easily stolen item unguarded. If you don't think riding without a helmet is unacceptably dangerous, you therefore won't bother.

You don't have to agree with these viewpoints, but if you don't understand them, then I'm pretty certain that makes you retarded. So, honestly, can you? If so, why did you not actually explain to someone who holds that viewpoint why they're wrong instead of wasting time acting the moron?

posted by nuclear coffee [105 posts]
2nd February 2013 - 1:36

like this
Like (2)

In the world of Internet forums making a statement elicits the same effect as formulating a question.
I thank you for taking the time to give such a well thought out and illuminating, but more importantly, amusing answer.
If by some mischance we both get knocked off our bikes and land on our heads, one of us will have a greater chance of maintaining their current level of moron.
I will of course look like a dork either way.

posted by Tarzak [15 posts]
2nd February 2013 - 4:32

like this
Like (0)

Whilst people on here have been arguing the toss over helmet laws, it appears they have missed the elephant in the room. South Australia's finest were not out patrolling in their vehicles making the roads safer for everybody they were too busy slurping coffee and reading the paper! Devil

FATBEGGARONABIKE's picture

posted by FATBEGGARONABIKE [555 posts]
2nd February 2013 - 8:55

like this
Like (2)

Tarzak wrote:
In the world of Internet forums making a statement elicits the same effect as formulating a question.
I thank you for taking the time to give such a well thought out and illuminating, but more importantly, amusing answer.
If by some mischance we both get knocked off our bikes and land on our heads, one of us will have a greater chance of maintaining their current level of moron.
I will of course look like a dork either way.

Any chance, then, that you could answer my questions? Did you understand or not?

And have you decided I don't wear a helmet, despite me never saying anything to that effect? In which case, thankyou for confirming you are indeed a moron. And wrong. Please don't waste time asking why I have posted: my objections to your statement were perfectly clear in the first post. Next time, read what someone actually says, not what you think they said.

Oh, and don't try and pull off dignified and aloof in future. You can't.

posted by nuclear coffee [105 posts]
2nd February 2013 - 13:54

like this
Like (2)

I heard that in one year, post the helmet laws in Australia, that no-one died following a cycling-related head injury. All well and good. Well, maybe not: Two people died in the same year from sticking their hands into toasters. It was suggested that all inhabitants should therefore wear elbow-length insulating gloves in the house whilst making toast. Sounds stupid doesn't it?
Something else sounds stupid too: In Australia they are experiencing the first generation of parents who have never cycled. So, does their helmet laws put off macho Ozzies from cycling? And what the hell are they going to do to promote cycling for the kids?

Rich

posted by griggers [14 posts]
4th February 2013 - 16:53

like this
Like (3)