Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....
-
<p>is the cycling infrastructure comparable?</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561743" data-time="1456797681">
<div>
<p>Here's a tip for not only this idiot but anyone who can't afford to pay fines...</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>DON'T BREAK THE RULES!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So basically we are at</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't break the rules and carry ya wallet.....?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I bet the majoirty of cyclists do this. Even those daft looking pistonwristedgibbons at cafes on the weekend and their wallets to by their half caf soy mocha's</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>OK mate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So seeing as you are wealthy enough to afford the fines, it's OK for you to break the road rules in your car (I'm sure you've broken the speed limit before) but it's not OK for those who can't?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561746" data-time="1456798959">
<div>
<p>is the cycling infrastructure comparable?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thers's shitloads of data online bro.. I just posted one set of figures.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you are really that interested I suggest the following website</p>
<p> </p>
<p>www.google.com</p> -
Anthony Albanese is perhaps not the best person to be the poster boy for cycling or any physical activity for that matter. Would be like Clive Palmer advocating healthy eating.<br><br>
Agree with the helmet law being excessive. The fact that not even the uber nanny states in Europe force you to wear a helmet should tell you something. -
<p>I'm not really that interested, TBH I just think that sometimes things aren't as black and white as some like to paint them...so was just asking as you come across as someone who appears to know an awful lot on the subject.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>appreciate the link to google though, what exactly does it do, or should I search something else to find out?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561751" data-time="1456800707">
<div>
<p>I'm not really that interested, TBH I just think that sometimes things aren't as black and white as some like to paint them...so just asking as you seem to profess to know an awful lot on the subject</p>
<p> </p>
<p>appreciate the link to google though, what exactly does it do, or should I search something else to find out?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's pretty black and white.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In every country that has introduced mandatory helmet laws for cyclists, serious injuries to cyclists have increased.</p> -
<p>so is it a conspiracy from cycle helmet manufacturers to get people to wear them, cos if wearing them increases serious injuries, what other explanation is there?</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561753" data-time="1456800855">
<div>
<p>It's pretty black and white.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In every country that has introduced mandatory helmet laws for cyclists, serious injuries to cyclists have increased.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But has cause been proven? That stat is pretty meaningless without context. Did countries that do not enforce helmets have a flat rate of injuries? Or did it increase as well? How do they know the percentages without knowing total journies taken?</p>
<p>Perhaps injuries have decreased as a % but increased as mean figure? </p>
<p>How do different countries define 'serious injuries'? Cancer has also increased in countries that introduced helmets.. perhaps helmets cause cancer?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If that is your definition of black and white....yeah.. nah</p> -
<p>Its the law that is at fault rather than the helmets being questioned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This topic has been done to death on cycling forums.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://crag.asn.au/the-paradox-of-bicycle-helmets/'>http://crag.asn.au/the-paradox-of-bicycle-helmets/</a></p> -
<p>so the law to wear helmets are at fault for making more injuries?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely cycling forums would be a tad bias for things, given your stance for having to carry ID as a cyclist?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561757" data-time="1456801529">
<div>
<p>so the law to wear helmets are at fault for making more injuries?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely cycling forums would be a tad bias for things, given your stance for having to carry ID as a cyclist?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, that's what the data shows.</p> -
<p>What's ridiculous is that grown men have to wear a helmet while cycling through a park or a suburban bike path. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It should be compulsory if you're riding on a major road and busy roads in the city centre. It should also be compulsory for children up to a certain age. I have no intention of riding on a road or in traffic, yet if I should want to cycle one of the lovely bike paths in my area (which were built at great expense and a safe distance from any traffic), I need both a helmet and (at least in NSW) a bloody ID. Madness.</p> -
<p>obviously there are issues all the time in the media in NZ about farmers not wearing helmets on their bikes too.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561738" data-time="1456797205"><p>Crossed wires? You seem to suggest helmet regulation will drive cyclists off the road and I said who cares as this is safety we are talking about.</p></blockquote><br>It's safer if cyclists aren't permitted to ride bicycles?<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561743" data-time="1456797681"><p>Here's a tip for not only this idiot but anyone who can't afford to pay fines...<br> <br>DON'T BREAK THE RULES!!</p></blockquote><br>That line of argument is destroyed by recognition of the ever increasing impost of government on our lives telling us not only what we can and can't do, but of the decreasing things we can do how we're able to do it. Just because some clown enacts a law or changes a regulation doesn't mean it's a good thing. <em>'If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.'</em><br><br>So when looking to implement a solution, you need to be sure you've identified a problem first. Where's the evidence that cyclists running red lights is such a problem it requires a massive increase in the fine? Consider that in any decently run jurisdiction attempts are made to reduce the impact on those who cycle. What simpleton thinks riding a bicycle is made safer by carrying ID? That piece of arsehattery came about from the dribbling loons clamouring for bicycles to be registered; <em>"if you want to ride on the road, pay registration"</em> despite the fact that bicycles do no damage to roads and registration doesn't pay for road infrastructure anyway.<br><br>The introduction of mandatory helmet laws is strongly correlated with the decrease in cycling in Australia despite no evidence it was required or would solve a problem.<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561754" data-time="1456801062"><p>so is it a conspiracy from cycle helmet manufacturers to get people to wear them, cos if wearing them increases serious injuries, what other explanation is there?</p></blockquote><br>Hanlon's razor comes into effect here. It's no grand conspiracy to profit helmet manufacturers; just a bunch of fat fucking morons who want to make riding a bicycle as difficult as possible.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="561764" data-time="1456803486">
<div>
<p>Hanlon's razor comes into effect here. It's no grand conspiracy to profit helmet manufacturers; just a bunch of fat fucking morons who want to make riding a bicycle as difficult as possible.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not sure if they're trying to make cycling difficult, although they certainly don't care either way.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Moreso local politicians pandering to overly worrying community groups (mainly populated by helicopter mums).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561757" data-time="1456801529">
<div>
<p>so the law to wear helmets are at fault for making more injuries?</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>isn't it due to the theory of risk compensation or something like that?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(ie) the same reason that sky diving fatality rates haven't reduced despite the equipment getting a whole lot safer</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;">essentially becauise the safer skydiving equipment becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, so the fatality rate remains constant".</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;">And before someone else asks, yes this theory does adjust for increased number of participants</span></p>