Start…

“Interesting debate Down Under about Australia’s first citybike hire scheme, which started a few weeks ago in Melbourne. It is probably doomed to failure because of compulsory national helmet laws, which make the idea of just taking a bike from a stand and dropping in off a while later, somewhat expensive! (a $144 fine for no helmet is sometimes policed here).
Assessment in the broadsheets here, with video http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helmet-law-makes-nonsense-of-bike-hire-scheme-20100722-10my2.html .
It is somewhat galling to hear of the success of such schemes in other countries.

Over the weekend we also had Mikael Colville-Andersen, who has somehow become the spokesperson for Copenhagen’s utilitarian approach to urban transport that favours bikes, deliver an address on the Copenhagen experience, down on the Melbourne riverfront during our ‘State of Design’ festival. The gist was that cycling levels increased in C. not because of a Danish propensity to embrace non-polluting modes, but because getting from A-B was simply quicker on a bike, enabled by enlightened infrastructure planning and high car tax. He argued Copenhageners do not self-identify as “cyclists” and nor are they terribly attached to their bikes – it is just what you do to get around. No-nonsense infrastructure is the way to go, but cycling also needs to be marketed and well presented as a lifestyle choice.

Remembering an earlier paper I had written (below 1) when I lived there, I thought he had skipped over one essential ingredient – the political economy of Danish cycling. Saving Copenhagen’s famous trunk-road bike lanes from being ripped out, and to then get them extended, did actually require concerted political action, at a time when car use was rising in the 70s. There were numerous street protests and political lobbying. My many years setting up the Ealing LCC group in London also taught me that you have to “fight for the streetscape” (below 2) against Council infrastructure planners and road engineers, and this becomes a constant battle. And, there was no smooth and ‘gradual’ increase in cycling in central London, surely – it was the congestion charge and financial commitment by local and metropolitan councils, all of whom were elected. But let me know – I left in 2001.

Similarly, in Melbourne, in order to save a decent public bike scheme, which some think is really important (I am not so sure) we will have to fight to get an exemption to the helmet law- otherwise thousands of commuters and tourists will be sticking to the tram and the pavements. This will be a very big campaign, about which cycling organisations are currently split. Unfortunately “the Law” is Holy Grail in this country and it has been around since 1990. It makes us a laughing stock in European cycling circles.

PS seeking literature on these topics – I actually work on other things, mainly.
cheers
S

1) Simon Batterbury 2002. Cycling in Copenhagen http://www.simonbatterbury.net/pubs/copenhagen.doc
2) Batterbury, S.P.J. 2003. Environmental activism and social networks: campaigning for bicycles and alternative transport in West London. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 590: 150-169. http://www.simonbatterbury.net/pubs/annals.htm

But, you probably don’t hear or some of the people that get killed and severely injured over here, usually when riding in the city alongside cars and buses. Helmets would certainly have minimized the damage and undoubtedly prevented the deaths of many.

The roads in Copenhagen are very different to Melbourne’s inner city. Copenhagen’s separate bike lanes, traffic lights (bicycle specific), and driver awareness significantly reduce the opportunities that a car and bicycle can have an accident. These factors and allow cars and bicycles to co exist with a higher degree of safety for cyclists.

Frankly, I’d never ride around Melbourne without a helmet at the moment as it just isn’t safe. Especially considering the dangers of tram tracks.

Stay safe on your protest, but you should be aiming to improve Melbourne’s cycle-safe infrastructure before attempting to remove the requirement to wear a helmet.

Stu

This sort of demonstration will just bring more heart ache to commuter cyclists like me as the motorists will find it another excuse to abuse us (remember the bike ride through the Domain Tunnel). I cannot see anything constructive coming out of it just more cyclist bashing by the media. I guarantee you that there will be no exemption granted for not wearing helmets. Especially for those of you coming from interstate – thanks but no thanks.

When I was in my teens riding to school back when you did not need to wear a helmet I fell off my bike, hit my head on the ground and ended up in hospital with severe concussion, that hit nearly killed me. Had I been wearing a helmet I would have been ok.

Maybe, if common sense prevailed, you should be championing the company that supplies the bicycles to supply helmets.

How many lives have been saved through the compulsory use of helmets?? Wake up.

Be it on your HEAD if someone falls off and smashes their head on Saturday morning due to your stupidity, or is it that your looking for a new angle for a short??

Whatever happened to common sense??

I don’t wish you luck in your crusade.

http://wellingtoncycleways.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/civil-disobedience-in-melbourne-for-the-greater-good/

See you on Saturday!

Best of luck on Saturday! I hope you get some good exposure to support bike sharing in a positive way.

Cheers,
James

Clearly, bike share is no silver bullet but its failure could be a fatal blow to (proper) city cycling in Australia – ie. much more variability than just the ‘training’/'recreational’ cyclist we’re used to here.

I’m looking forward to meeting you all there. I hope this really makes ordinary folk ‘situp’ and take notice.

Cheers,

Paul Martin
Brisbane, Australia