my refusal to wear a bicycle helmet

my refusal to wear a bicycle helmet
...is informed

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

We'll dig, dig, dig, dig" trills the Hon. Dunk

(Photos: NYC bike path)


In a nutshell the RTA has indicated in their usual clear manner that:

'there are routes that would connect with the outside ones that are not the current ones that would be less of a problem with traffic congestion'.

Consequently with great gusto, the current NSW Liberal Government is planning a 'Dig' across the City of Sydney: rare 'cycle-ways' are the treasure in their sights!

Heigh ho! Heigh Ho! - it's off to work we go!!!


-------------------------------------------------------

But hey, Dunk, when are we talking about revocation of bicycle helmet laws like your reps promised at the Punk Commute?

How will you fit this all in?

You're not going to renege on me are you?

...oh & PS thanks for your letter - I note with interest the change of NSW governmental reliance to a new study in order to shore up your position for bicycle helmet laws.

4 comments:

  1. Sue, this is not a cancellation of the talks you were promised is it ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. One must love those generic letters with the random study thrown in for good measure.
    Very similar to one I send our Minister for Roads down here quite a few years back.
    Frustrating but BY FAR then end of the fight for freedom.
    Regards,
    Jason - Tassie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe you should point out to Dunk and the RTA that NSW has had helmet laws since 1991 and there is no evidence of any change in helmet wearing rates from 2005 to 2009, so it's utterly astounding to read the illogical claim that the fall in the percentage of cyclists with serious head injury from 10.3% to 2.5% has anything to do with mandatory helmets!

    A more logical explanation is that cycling is cycling is starting to recover some of the popularity it lost because of helmet legislation, and that the resulting 'Safety in Numbers' is reducing the severity of collisions and therefore the risk of serious head injury.

    The small increase in cycling that we have seen as a result of increasing fuel prices and the need to improve health and fitness, is however, only a small fraction of what might be achieved by repealing the helmet law. The resultant increase in cycling, including use of city bike schemes, and Safety in Numbers could make a real difference to the heath and the safety of cyclists.

    Dublin's 450 city bikes are used about 2720 times per day, more than 10 times as the 250-300 daily uses of Melbourne’s 600 bikes. A large proportion of the 121 reader comments in response to an article on the failure of Melbourne's scheme (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bike-share-scheme-disappointing-20110531-1fdto.html) say that helmet laws are the main reason they don’t use it.

    Such stupid, illogical responses are very disappointing!

    It's also disappointing that the RTA continues to ignore risk compensation. A UK study by Dr Ian Walker's showed that motorists pass closer to helmeted cyclists. Dr Walker was hit twice when conducting this research - by a truck and a bus - both times when he was wearing a helmet - see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uob-wah091106.php

    An even more disappointing that the RTA ignores the health benefits of cycling. A study in a country where few cyclists wear helmets found that not cycling to work increased death rates by 39%. Australians should not be asked to damage their health and increase their risk of mortality by 39% by giving up cycling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kathy, it's gone mighty quiet from this end with the pollies - I've rung the media rep, I've rung the 'diarist', I've received instructions, I've enacted instructions appriately, I've emailed - & nothing!!!!! - never been a defeatist though!!!! - and re Melbourne Punk Commute, happy to flow with whatever you think could be cool plans re bike share - will email/call you!!!!

    Jason, I concur with your sentiments completely!!!

    BRHF Supporter, good stuff - will use in further communication with Dunk & Dunk's Department!!!!

    ReplyDelete