I’m a fan of freedom of choice and therefore against mandatory helmet laws. There’s not much detail in the article but it seems like a pretty dumb idea idea to have ‘low risk zones’ (which seem to be pretty much shared paths, not on-road bike lanes) where helmets aren’t required, but still required on road.
The only people who would legally get away without wearing helmets in that case are ones who ride exclusively on bike paths and don’t have to use roads to get to and from bike paths. But I suppose for people like me it’s at least a step in the right direction. Personally I’d probably just wear a helmet the whole time if this were the law, only because it’s more convenient than carrying a helmet on a bike somewhere other than on your head.
Is there much helmet law enforcement in Brisbane at all at the moment?
Of course not, but the risk is entirely different. And in principle I object to the government making risk decisions for me. The fact is that there is simply no evidence that MHLs, on balance, are a net benefit to society.
But anyway, my point is more about whether having helmet free zones is a good idea. I think it’s better to make helmets either mandatory or not. I think having different zones with different laws is a bit stupid.
If I was here from OS and got booked riding along Southbank for no helmet on a hire bike I would loose my international shit! So I recon it’s a good idea. We can’t have the world knowing about the nanny state we are actually turning into, w’ere bloody Australian! We have a reputation to uphold!
Other changes being considered through the review, announced by Transport Minister Scott Emerson in June, include the introduction of a one-metre overtaking rule, and bicycle registration.
Oh dear (shaking lowered head) imagine it - RWC on a bike to sell it, stamp duty and some of you guys will buy and sell enough a year to warrant a dealers licence! Where am I going to fit reflectors on my speedplays!!
Nothing, ever. I don’t know why it’s not flagged as misspelled.
Also, as a spelling Nazi, it’s ‘lose’, not ‘loose’
Lose=opposite of find
Loose=opposite of tight
In some cases it is, in some cases it’s not.
eg. 'did you lose your…? vs. ‘did you find your…?’. ‘Did you gain your…?’ just doesn’t work.
I think the example got the point across.
Fuck rego, roads were built pre cars I hate it when people tell me they are for cars.
I am happy if the rego is for the rider not the bike but c’mon, kids riding to school? Mum rolling down the shops? List go’s on
I don’t have a problem with not wearing a helmet. I wear one not because of cars but mostly because of other cyclists and pedestrians on mixed use paths. The close calls and “almosts” are getting all too frequent and it’s riders and walkers/joggers that show complete disregard for others that really ticks me off. Too many cyclists with no handling skills or etiquette, too many pedestrians that apparently have had lobotomies and have their brains switched off.
In comparison I find cars/drivers so much easier to predict and watch out for.
Yeah I wear one all the time, but I would probably not if just cruising with the wife down the park, plus then I could do my hair nice and how rad would that be
Does anyone know if this works in Darwin.It was introduced there a year or so ago.
Portland have mandatory helmets until 18 years old don’t they? I’d go that.
so whats the one I used for? I didn’t get the red misspelled line…