As a respite from politics and economics, I want to raise a matter of great importance to many cyclists.
In cycling magazines, online discussion groups and outside cafes where cyclists gather on Saturday mornings there are frequent fights over whether helmets should be compulsory for cyclists. Australia and New Zealand are the only countries where helmets are required.
The arguments pro boil down to these:
You are stupid if you don’t.
If you suffer brain damage the rest of us have to pay your medical bills.
What about the children?
The arguments con are:
It’s my head and none of your business.
Wearing a helmet encourages riders to take greater risks so results in more accidents.
The requirement discourages many people from riding and so contributes to obesity, heart attacks and strokes. (It is true that for many women “helmet hair” is an even more serious condition than split ends)
One year, the first helmet war of the year on the usenet group aus.bicycle started at 12:10 AM on 1 January.
Occasionally someone tries to inject a bit of science into the argument.
Chris Rissel of The School of Public Health at Sydney University got the quite clever idea of looking at figures for cyclists presenting at hospitals, taking arm and hand injuries as a proxy for the number of accidents involving cyclists and plotting head injuries in relation to those. If the relationship remained the same, you could infer that helmets had not reduced head injuries. He found (to his disappointment, I suspect) that head injuries had declined in relation to arm injuries. Now I think Rissel would admit that this was advocacy research. He is well known in cycling circles and has for some time argued against the helmet law.
Rissel notes that the decline began before the helmet law so he concludes that there must have been other factors causing it. “from a practical and policy perspective, the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation does not appear to be temporally associated with a substantial drop in head injuries among cyclists.”
Rissel suggests a trial, suspending the helmet law in an area for a year or so. But he concedes “Helmet use is likely to prevent some head injury, particularly for younger age groups, and may also reduce severity of injury.” I think he might have some trouble getting the test past the university ethics committee. Ethics committees usually do not like sacrificing some subjects in the interest of knowledge.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I am a cyclist and I do wear a helmet but my libertarian instincts do not put this issue atop my list of issues to fight over. But I do get fun from watching.
The report can be found here and a sample of the tone of debate here.
I want to know where the dumb blonde (possibly with helmet hair) was in the discussion about introducing a bicycle loan scheme in central Melbourne with the requirement of BYOH. No doubt, she would have said, “I don’t think this will work.” There is a station outside my building at Melbourne University, always full of unused bicycles. Moreover, the penalty for riding without a helmet is substantial, creating an additional deterrent.
Judith Sloan
17 Aug 10 at 4:01 pm
This is important, because if the Greens get their way, we’ll all be forced out of our cars and onto bicycles in order to save the planet. If Labor win the election, we’ll be too poor to drive. It Abbott wins, the roads will be choked by triumphalist middle aged men on bikes wearing speedos.
boy on a bike
17 Aug 10 at 4:05 pm
Visiting Melbourne recently I found the unused ranks of bikes amusing. Its very clear that the idea has big problems if helmets are compulsory.
Steve Edney
17 Aug 10 at 4:06 pm
The Paris velib system relies on not having to wear helmets. They should not be compulsory – cyclists I’ve met who wear helmets tend to think they are invulnerable.
Samuel J
17 Aug 10 at 4:07 pm
If you take your helmet off, I won’t drive my car so close to you.
Infidel Tiger
17 Aug 10 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think there’s any doubt that mandatory helmet legislation reduces serious head injuries.
The question is why does that matter? There are many decisions you can make in life that will reduce your chance of getting injured. But if you made them all, you’d never leave your house and would live life in a bubble. In fact, if reducing head injuries was the main game, we would simply ban bicycles outright, rather than enforce helmet use.
These sorts of legislations only come about because we are forced to pay for the risky behaviour of others through public health insurance.
Yobbo
17 Aug 10 at 4:11 pm
There is a Cochrane Review on bike helmets:
http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005401.html
Karl Kessel
17 Aug 10 at 4:28 pm
Helmets were just another victory for the fun police. Thank god they keep away from the ski slopes.
asf
17 Aug 10 at 5:13 pm
“These sorts of legislations only come about because we are forced to pay for the risky behaviour of others through public health insurance.”
I don’t think this is the ONLY reason or even the MAIN reason. The main reason is inherent nanny-statism, the idea of some people to say what is right for others. The health insurance is just an excuse for them to impose the will on others.
Boris
17 Aug 10 at 5:15 pm
If you favour this law and others like it, you are not really an adult. You’re a child.
C.L.
17 Aug 10 at 5:20 pm
Yobbos got it in one, the same sort of crap that sees “my” waistline, “your” booze and “his” fags, as matters of intense public interst.
Add a few busybodies and a source of governemnt taxation/funding, and you have Australia today.
Where increacing taxes on someone elses vices becomes a moral and rightous position, rather than the impost on another it really is.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis
thefrollickingmole
17 Aug 10 at 5:49 pm
This is a great argument for the government getting out of the provision of health care and relying on private insurance.
boy on a bike
17 Aug 10 at 5:52 pm
Tony Abbott rides a bike, and wears a helmet, so I’m against both activities.
But seriously: if you want people to use bicycles routinely, you need to free up where you can ride them. Japan gets by well with large numbers of people riding “women’s” style bikes on footpaths at a sedate pace, and ringing the bell to alert pedestrians. If you could do that here, I would see no need for helmets for that type of rider. But if you’re going to be a lycra clad road / bikeway speedster, though, get your helmet on.
steve from brisbane
17 Aug 10 at 6:08 pm
No steve,inI Japan it is considered very bad manners to ring the bell. Instead, Japanese bikes have squeaky brakes so a little squeak is enough to warn you that a bike is behind.
ken n
17 Aug 10 at 6:27 pm
I dunno ken, I’ve been warned by a bell there more than once.
I know it is a cultural thing, and it hard to imagine jerks here not speeding on a footpath and being a danger. But if people could just exercise common sense, there are lots of less busy city streets in Australia where cautious footpath riding could work.
steve from brisbane
17 Aug 10 at 6:34 pm
Ah yes, Steve, but you are a gaijin not expected to understand subtle Japanese customs.
Y’know I think you could argue, from a utilitarian point of view that society is often better off if cyclists don’t wear helmets.
Most organ donations come from people with head injuries who are declared brain dead. Their other systems are kept “alive” so useful bits can be harvested. That can be quite a lot – heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, bone marrow…
Worth considering, anyway.
ken n
17 Aug 10 at 6:53 pm
there are lots of less busy city streets in Australia where cautious footpath riding could work
I agree with this. most footpaths I see are unused. I regularly walk along a bike track that does fine doubling as a walking track.
Instead of turning road lanes into bike lanes, turn walkways into bike lanes.
daddy dave
17 Aug 10 at 7:20 pm
Much like our pathetic traffic laws, the helmet laws have done nothing for the esteem cops are held in as well.
Infidel Tiger
17 Aug 10 at 7:26 pm
@Yobbo:
Wrong; there is all the evidence one can possibly need to come to a conclusion that helmets do not reduce head injuries. There’s also peer-reviewed research showing that in fact helmets increase closed head rotational injuries due to their making the head bigger. Additionally, there is the issue of risk compensation from both cyclists and motorists, plus the “safety in numbers” argument, which draws on the fact that helmets reduce the number of people cycling, and this then makes motorists less aware of bikeriders. You can get all this data from here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
A very detailed research site focusing on the effects of helmet law in WA can be found here:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
Even without all that though, it is an entirely unjustified infringement of personal freedoms. I am free to go and spend the weekend in the pub, smoking and drinking myself stupid, but I get harassed and fined by the cops if I choose to go for a ride through the park with my dog.
This is so wrong it’s not funny, but then again – I accept that on the scale of government-imposed waste and stupidity, this is a very minor issue and therefore would have no traction with most people. Particularly considering that most people blindly equate helmets with protection, despite the fact even the helmet manufacturers disclaim explicitly that their product would save your head.
JB
John Bayley
17 Aug 10 at 7:33 pm
I believe that helmet offers extra protection. I will always wear one when I ride on busy roads. I will not wear one when in a park or bike path. I am against imposing it on others though. Same with seat belts.
Boris
17 Aug 10 at 7:41 pm
You may believe that, Boris, but it’s not borne by evidence. Helmets do help against minor soft tissue injuries, but they are totally useless if you get hit by a car or run into a concrete post at any significant speed.
Professional cyclists never wore helmets and yet the sport had an enviable safety record – only deaths in some 85 years of the Tour de France, one of which was due to doping.
Yet helmets were mandated at the push by the helmet manufacturers. In early 90s, when this was first tried, the pro cyclists went on strike and the international cycling federation relented. They tried again 10 years later, with a new generation of riders, by then brainwashed by their governments into believing helmets work. Yet there are more serious crashes now in pro cycling than before.
Having said that, if you want to wear a helmet, then it is your choice. You will not, however, be saved by it if you have a serious accident.
John Bayley
17 Aug 10 at 7:51 pm
Sorry, I meant to say “only *3* deaths” in the TdF.
John Bayley
17 Aug 10 at 7:52 pm
I am free to go and spend the weekend in the pub, smoking and drinking myself stupid
You haven’t been able to smoke *in* the pub for years.
Apparently that’s also not good for you.
Let me be clear John: Im not in favour of mandatory helmet laws, whether they save lives or not. They are an infringement of freedom either way.
Yobbo
17 Aug 10 at 7:59 pm
And one more thing: Two years ago, my wife and I took several months off work and cycled over 9,500 kilometres through Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Chile. We rode through the huge cities of Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile. With no helmets. This, despite the fact many people think South American drivers are “loco” and, according to Lonely Planet, “you should never try to cycle anywhere in Brazil” because it’s so dangerous etc. It was great to not have any smart arses yell at us “..where’s your helmet?” like they would here in Australia. And guess what – we not only survived, we had great fun doing it. Governments are all evil to a greater or lesser extent, but nanny governments are the worst.
John Bayley
17 Aug 10 at 8:00 pm
John:
Don’t wear a helmet. I never do. I refuse to. Screw the cops. A few of them have seen me but chose not to do anything.
JC
17 Aug 10 at 8:01 pm
Yobbo, point taken; you know what I meant by that “smoking in the pub” comment.
Regardless, I am not attacking your attitude, I was just trying to correct the statement that helmets prevent injuries. It is patently not true.
Other than that, we are in agreement.
Cheers.
John Bayley
17 Aug 10 at 8:01 pm
I refuse to be treated like a child by the state and will not give in to these appalling laws.
JC
17 Aug 10 at 8:02 pm
JC: I did. When the law came in in the early 90s, I refused to wear a helmet. When I got fined, I went to court to defend my right to personal choice. I lost and when I refused to pay the fine, I got arrested and spent the weekend in jail.
After that, I stopped riding a bike, unless I am off road, away from overzealous cops and stupid motorists, or unless I am overseas.
John Bayley
17 Aug 10 at 8:03 pm
Sorry to hear that john, thanks for explaining that to me. I can understand your frustration.
I take the bike out once or twice a week and will not wear a helmet under any circumstances.
I refuse to be subjected to this insult and will not stop for a cop if he asked. Screw them.
JC
17 Aug 10 at 8:10 pm
I refuse to be subjected to this insult and will not stop for a cop if he asked. Screw them.
Then you will most likely get tasered.
Welcome to Australia.
Yobbo
17 Aug 10 at 8:13 pm
I always have an out. The area I go has a lots of escape routes.
I go around the “Tan” and also the river where’s no chance of meeting up with those meat heads, as it isn’t a road/bike path combo. It just a bike path.
I’m not looking out for them for a confrontation.
JC
17 Aug 10 at 8:24 pm
“When the law came in in the early 90s, I refused to wear a helmet. When I got fined, I went to court to defend my right to personal choice. I lost and when I refused to pay the fine, I got arrested and spent the weekend in jail.”
Fuck me dead that is ridiculous.
“We know what’s good for your safety. We’ll put you in the can with dangerous, brainless thugs.”
Um yeah sure. The legislators, magistrate etc all deserve a kick up the bum.
.
17 Aug 10 at 9:00 pm
This subject touches on an issue that many here have caused me to re-evaluate over recent years. In relation to this case I would always advise children and teens to wear helmets, and those involved in higher risk cycling. But whether or not there should be a law regarding such matters is an entirely different question.
By analogy let’s look at some research news released today. This news release reports that obesity levels in Californian children have peaked and may be declining, with some demographic exceptions. We have a situation where various governments have been toying with the idea of introducing legislation to confront the “obesity epidemic”. Recently there was even the suggestion of providing over the counter statins with McDonald meals. Really dumb and possibly dangerous.
Laws can and do change peoples’ behavior but should be the option of last resort and preferably “no resort” should be seriously considered. Because of all the publicity surrounding obesity I expected a decline to emerge. You can force people to change or you can educate people to change and perhaps introduce agents to help promote the desired change.
I sometimes wonder if libertarians fail to sufficiently emphasise the value in promoting change through influence and education rather than law making. I wonder if libertarians too often resort to the “let the market work it out” response when they could provide a more nuanced approach to addressing these types of issues.
The problem is that at the PR level a new law looks like something very positive, whereas suggesting let the market work it out or the provision of education and other positive incentives for change, sounds ironically enough, too warm and fuzzy!
John H.
17 Aug 10 at 9:13 pm
Bye the bye troops but just wondering is there anywhere out there that tabulates all the laws in our country? I think it would be an interesting metric of a country’s freedom: how many laws does it take to run country X? It could also be instructive, revealing to people how legislation is increasingly intruding on our lives.
John H.
17 Aug 10 at 9:23 pm
I sometimes wonder if libertarians fail to sufficiently emphasise the value in promoting change through influence and education rather than law making. I wonder if libertarians too often resort to the “let the market work it out” response when they could provide a more nuanced approach to addressing these types of issues.
A false either/or, John. The market is what brings forth that “influence and education.” Delicious and nutritious food sells. Good-looking clothes and gym memberships sell. Jenny Craig memberships definitely sell. Not getting promoted because you’re too fat influences. And so on.
C.L.
17 Aug 10 at 9:30 pm
I sometimes wonder if libertarians fail to sufficiently emphasise the value in promoting change through influence and education rather than law making.
I really think people try to change too many things. Some things just aren’t such a big deal that they need changing.
E.G. if 2 people in Australia each year die from head injuries sustained while riding a bike, I’m not really sure a 200 million dollar education campaign is warranted.
Yobbo
17 Aug 10 at 10:01 pm
I wear a helmet for some trips and not others. Short slow local trips usually entail no helmet whilst a trip on a busy road would generally entail a helmet. The compulsory helmet law should definitely have come with a sunset clause.
TerjeP
17 Aug 10 at 10:20 pm
I mentioned this issue in my recent media interview for the election:-
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2010/08/14/the-worm-turn-in-bennelong/
TerjeP
17 Aug 10 at 10:22 pm
Bye the bye troops but just wondering is there anywhere out there that tabulates all the laws in our country? I think it would be an interesting metric of a country’s freedom: how many laws does it take to run country X? It could also be instructive, revealing to people how legislation is increasingly intruding on our lives.
I read somewhere once that just getting up in the morning and going to work could cause an Italian to break as many as 2000 laws in Italy.
The LDP has I think a great policy plank or at one stage was talking about it. I can’t recall which.
The suggestion was that every law should have a 5 year sunset clause.
JC
17 Aug 10 at 10:27 pm
I read somewhere once that just getting up in the morning and going to work could cause an Italian to break as many as 2000 laws in Italy.
They renounce your citizenship unless you break 2000 laws a day.
I liked Kerry Packer’s idea that government couldn’t passs a law without first repealing another one.
Infidel Tiger
17 Aug 10 at 10:32 pm
I’m not really sure a 200 million dollar education campaign is warranted.
I’m not talking about an education campaign or some special activity by the govt. There are plenty of avenues to “educate” people without resorting to some special program. Schools, hospitals, public servants, health workers, can all be encouraged to “get the message out” without the need for advertising or another bloody department.
Good point about the need for change Yobbo. Bit like mail, if you don’t read it and it aint followed it up it probably wasn’t worth reading in the first place. Many “social problems” tend to come and go. But of course, if you want to validate your existence, increase your salary or department size, creating any bogeyman suits your cause.
Hey Terje,
Best of luck in your game. You might have noticed earlier this week news releases by some Mexican MP arguing that the country should not only legalise illicit drugs but also sell and export them! The problem is that bad.
John H.
17 Aug 10 at 10:34 pm
There are plenty of avenues to “educate” people without resorting to some special program.
In my day we had a very fancy name for these educators. They were known as “parents”. Then when a child was of age they had to survive a night in the wild with wolves. After that it was up to them.
Infidel Tiger
17 Aug 10 at 10:37 pm
They were known as “parents”. Then when a child was of age they had to survive a night in the wild with wolves. After that it was up to them.
Thanks IT, I missed the bloody obvious! Hmmm, not being a parent … good enough excuse for my failure.
John H.
17 Aug 10 at 10:44 pm
Good Lord Tiger how old are you?
tal
17 Aug 10 at 10:50 pm
Liberal Democrats media release re bicycle helmet laws
http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=7d6544fddaeea1e3ff28ed23a&id=d7a9206430&e=39e33784a2
Issued 16 August 2010
Liberal Democrats NSW Senate candidate Glenn Druery today joined calls for mandatory bicycle laws to be repealed.
Two Sydney Univeristy researchers have just published a paper pointing out that the laws have not reduced head injuries, and claim the requirement for wearing a helmet is deterring potential bike riders.
“Laws that seek to protect us from our own choices, without protecting anyone else, are always wrong,” said Mr Druery.
“But when they do not even achieve what they set out to do, they show that the nanny-state has gone mad.”
“As a competitive ultra-marathon cyclist, I wear a helmet from choice. But I don’t want the government saying it knows better than I do. And I don’t want my taxes used for the police to book people who make a different choice from me.
“It makes sense to encourage bike riding as an exercise option. Forcing people to wear a helmet is like forcing joggers to wear shoes with soft soles to reduce jarring. It is a disincentive and, ultimately, none of the government’s business,” Mr Druery said.
Glenn is a dedicated cyclist, commuting to work most days and cycle-touring during holidays with his children and friends.
He is also a world class long distance athlete, competing three times over the past five years in the 5,000 km Race Across America (RAAM) – often described as the world’s toughest bicycle race. In 2009 his team won the four man team event in 6 days 3 hours and 40 minutes.
Glenn has also participated twice in the 1200 km Paris-Brest-Paris (PBP), the oldest cycling event in the world, commonly known as the first Tour de France.
Sputnick
17 Aug 10 at 10:51 pm
John, remember that impotency/cycling scare several years ago? Should perineum-friendly seats be mandatory?
C.L.
17 Aug 10 at 10:51 pm
I’m a mid 30′s man-child.
Infidel Tiger
17 Aug 10 at 10:56 pm
Tiger’s parents were soft, Tal. As a young elephant, being left out at night with wild wolves was a reward for good behaviour.
C.L.
17 Aug 10 at 10:59 pm
I once wore an army issue steel helmet on my bike on Perth’s Swan river foreshore bike track. (as a not so subtle protest).
As usual, a walloper was there on the bike track enforcing the nanny laws and flagged me down.
“That’s not an approved helmet” quoth the cop.
“Good enough to save my arse in Vietnam” quoth I.
“You’re going to make trouble if I book you aren’t you?” sez walloper.
“You bet” sez I.
“Get going” sez Plod.
I took his number and reported him to the Police Commissioner for failing to do his duty.
In due course, a very suave uniformed Inspector dropped around my house a couple of weeks later and soothed my troubled soul. I got a voucher for a free helmet.
I gave it to an aboriginal kid down the street.
Sometmes it is fun being a disobedient arsehole.
Pedro the Ignorant
18 Aug 10 at 12:38 am
I think opponents of compusory helmets such as John Bayley are banging on the wrong door. They try to convince us that helmet don’t help protext you from injuries or death. But this is NOT the reason not to force you to wear helmets. The reason is that such compulsion is wrong EVEN if helmets are helpful. Because it is individual choice.
Boris
18 Aug 10 at 3:15 am
Pedro – How does a helmet worn on the head possibly offer any protection for ones arse?
TerjeP
18 Aug 10 at 7:33 am
Having hit the road at 50kph + and taken a chunk out of my helmet in the process, I’ll vouch that they saved at least one head injury, but my collar bone was still fucked. That said, the social cost of the bikes not ridden because of the law probably out weighs the injuries saved.
pedro
18 Aug 10 at 8:26 am
Dunno, Terje.
But I still have my arse, so it must have worked.
Pedro the Ignorant
18 Aug 10 at 9:58 am
Way to be a trouble-maker, Pedro the I!
C.L.
18 Aug 10 at 10:03 am
I want to know where the dumb blonde (possibly with helmet hair) was in the discussion about introducing a bicycle loan scheme in central Melbourne with the requirement of BYOH.
Out to dinner with the Real Estate King of Booval. The yaght, the helicopter and a wig by the guy that does Donald Trump. Lobster, champagne and a red satin shirt-tie combo. White loafers. Soo apealling.
Adrien
18 Aug 10 at 11:20 am
Making people wear helmets is the consequence of public health maintaining you when you become a cabbage. I wear helmets in traffic but now we’ve got bike cops I have to wear one in good weather on the trails. It’s crap.
Adrien
18 Aug 10 at 11:24 am
@Boris:
I agree with you. However it needs to be realised that while many people will be sympathetic when it comes to freedom of choice, they will in this case support the government’s right to mandate that freedom away on the basis that “helmets save lives”.
Since that is clearly not the case, it is essential in my view that this falsehood is disproved. Once you’ve achieved that, you can expect more people to support you in having this law repealed.
@Pedro:
Yours is the anecdotal “evidence” that is so frustrating, because if every claim of “my helmet saved my life” was true, then the streets in Europe where hardly anyone wears them would be littered with dead bikeriders.
If any of you here are interested in this topic beyond the libertarian aspect of it – on which we pretty much all seem to be on a common ground – then I would very much point you towards those links I provided a few posts up this thread. The specific refutation of that claim can be found here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html
@Terje:
How do you get to choose where/when you wear a helmet? They are compulsory at all times. I know of a case here in Qld where the cops took the trouble to get out of their car to harass a young mother because her little boy was riding his 16″ bike, complete with training wheels, on a grass paddock in a town park without a helmet.
It’s always great to see the cops take their duties seriously, hey…
@Everyone:
Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, the helmet law has been a public health disaster.
Alas, after 20 years of being involved with the Cyclists Rights Action Group’s campaign against this, I have come to the conclusion that it will not be abolished, because the general public thinks helmets work, the politicians by and large do not care as this affects only a relatively small portion of the population, and because, as I said earlier, on the scale of government waste and stupidity this does not ever register.
John Bayley
18 Aug 10 at 3:57 pm
People now expect and want the government to take their freedoms away ‘for their own good’, John, yes. That’s true, sadly.
What’s also sad is that the party that should be pushing these kind of issues – the Liberal Party – is only marginally better than the ban-everything Labor/Democrats/Green Party. Of course, those Liberals inclined to roll back the Nanny State know that if they call for a return to sanity on these and related issues, the Swans and Gillards and Roxons will attack them for wanting cyclists to die. Etc.
That’s where our politics are at now. And the richer and more long-lived we become, the less room there is for politicians to credibly make life easier and better for us. Consequently, the more inclined they are to ban and regulate more and more things.
C.L.
18 Aug 10 at 4:23 pm
I was glad to hear Abbott say on Q&A that he would still kindly accept money from tobacco companies, because they are still a legal product. The nazis in the audience were aghast.
Infidel Tiger
18 Aug 10 at 4:29 pm
“I was glad to hear Abbott say on Q&A that he would still kindly accept money from tobacco companies, because they are still a legal product. ”
Abbott appears to be better than I expected.
Boris
19 Aug 10 at 12:10 am
Consequently, the more inclined they are to ban and regulate more and more things.
I honestly don’t know where it ends.
JC
19 Aug 10 at 12:12 am
Yes Boris.
He impressed me with his commentary about that. I get more impressed by this dude as we go along, however he still disappoints with some of the big government shit he goes on with.
JC
19 Aug 10 at 12:14 am
Saw this today:
Brisbane’s biggest burger a ”heart attack on a plate”.
Wouldn’t mind trying one. Check it out:
And, of course…
Price: a reasonable $17.
C.L.
19 Aug 10 at 12:20 am
JC, I realise that at his heart Abbott is a conservative, which does not really appeal to me. I just hope that he won’t push that agenda too far, as I do not see much of an appetite in the community in that direction after so many years of Howard.
But at least he understand the word ‘liberal’.
Boris
19 Aug 10 at 12:22 am
jeez, that just looks mouth watering. I kid you not my mouth is watering over that pic and the fries look to die for.
Order one for me, CL. Hold the onion jam.
JC
19 Aug 10 at 12:24 am
Boris
Fact is he’s actually more socially liberal than this lot of wowser annoying dickheads. That’s now become an established fact.
JC
19 Aug 10 at 12:25 am
JC, seriously, that’s one delicious looking burger.
Worth a mild coronary.
C.L.
19 Aug 10 at 12:40 am
Just wait for the nanny state to start policing the beaches. Wearing floaties will be compulsory and speedos prohibited.
It’s all about “moving forward” to the socialist nirvana where everything not prohibited is compulsory.
Ubique of Perth
19 Aug 10 at 10:43 am
The Labour party instituted this unfair and discriminatory mandatory helmet law, and they have continually refused to show any common sense or admit their mistake and revoke it. Remember that when you vote next time and put labour last.
The mandatory helmet law results in unwarranted state instituted harassment, scare tactics, and fines against anyone simply riding a bicycle who for whatever reason may not be wearing a helmet. !
I am currently unable to ride a bicycle while wearing a helmet due to an eye condition which is worsened by heat stress made worse by having to wear a helmet all the time and especially during heavy exertion.
stephen
22 Aug 10 at 6:35 pm
Readers need to be aware that the study on the effect of the Australian cycling helmets laws by Alex Voukelatos and Chris Rissel discussed here was found to contain serious arithmetic and data errors and was withdrawn in February 2011 by the scientific journal which published it – see http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/authors-admit-errors-in-study-on-bike-helmets-and-head-injuries-20101229-19a9x.html and page 39 of http://www.acrs.org.au/srcfiles/ACRS-Journal-22No1WebLR2.pdf
A more recent which uses the same source of hospital data and a similar analytical approach, but which is free of basic arithmetic and graphing errors, can be found at http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/50858
Tim Churches
9 Jul 11 at 4:20 pm