Australian judge agrees helmets don't wok and could be dangerous

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

There has been a long running legal battle in Australia by Sue Abbott
who was fined for cycling without a cycle helmet. She fought the case on
the grounds that a helmet could increase her chance of a head injury
and, having reviewed the evidence, the judge concluded:

"Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of
the ledger. I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and
there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet – and it
seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter
of choice."

He then found that she had "an honestly held and not unreasonable belief
as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists" and
quashed her conviction even though he found the case proven that she had
broken the law by not wearing one.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-are-unnecessary-20100827-13vz2.html

Tony

[Squashme]

On 23 Oct, 07:30, Tony Raven > wrote:
> There has been a long running legal battle in Australia by Sue Abbott
> who was fined for cycling without a cycle helmet. She fought the case on
> the grounds that a helmet could increase her chance of a head injury
> and, having reviewed the evidence, the judge concluded:
>
> "Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of
> the ledger. I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and
> there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet – and it
> seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter
> of choice."
>
> He then found that she had "an honestly held and not unreasonable belief
> as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists" and
> quashed her conviction even though he found the case proven that she had
> broken the law by not wearing one.http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-a...
>
> Tony

You could hear a pin drop.

I do like her hair.

"Why force cyclists to wear helmets when politicians ignored a 1998
report from the Federal Office of Road Safety that showed brain injury
rates among motorists would be cut by up to 25 per cent, even where
airbags were fitted, if drivers wore bicycle helmets, he said."

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 24/10/2010 18:46, Squashme wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 07:30, Tony > wrote:
>> There has been a long running legal battle in Australia by Sue Abbott
>> who was fined for cycling without a cycle helmet. She fought the case on
>> the grounds that a helmet could increase her chance of a head injury
>> and, having reviewed the evidence, the judge concluded:
>>
>> "Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of
>> the ledger. I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and
>> there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet – and it
>> seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter
>> of choice."
>>
>> He then found that she had "an honestly held and not unreasonable belief
>> as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists" and
>> quashed her conviction even though he found the case proven that she had
>> broken the law by not wearing one.http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-a...
>>
>> Tony
>
> You could hear a pin drop.
>
> I do like her hair.
>
> "Why force cyclists to wear helmets when politicians ignored a 1998
> report from the Federal Office of Road Safety that showed brain injury
> rates among motorists would be cut by up to 25 per cent, even where
> airbags were fitted, if drivers wore bicycle helmets, he said."

It's an interesting precedent, isn't it?

All one needs - apparently - is an "honestly held and not unreasonable
belief" and one can't be convicted.

"Honestly held" is a matter only for the defendant: "I honestly hold this
belief, your worships". Who could argue?

"Reasonable" would depend purely on the opinion of the court and would vary
from day to day, court to court, judge to judge, jury to jury and CPS lawyer
to CPS lawyer..

A good way to administer justice and protect potential victims?

[Derek C]

On Oct 23, 7:30*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> There has been a long running legal battle in Australia by Sue Abbott
> who was fined for cycling without a cycle helmet. She fought the case on
> the grounds that a helmet could increase her chance of a head injury
> and, having reviewed the evidence, the judge concluded:
>
> "Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of
> the ledger. I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and
> there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet – and it
> seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter
> of choice."
>
> He then found that she had "an honestly held and not unreasonable belief
> as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists" and
> quashed her conviction even though he found the case proven that she had
> broken the law by not wearing one.http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-a...
>
> Tony

Judges often make perverse decisions. On that basis you could
challenge a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering
somebody) on the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it
was dangerous not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK
Court, unless you employ Mr Loophole.

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Oct 25, 5:09*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:30*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There has been a long running legal battle in Australia by Sue Abbott
> > who was fined for cycling without a cycle helmet. She fought the case on
> > the grounds that a helmet could increase her chance of a head injury
> > and, having reviewed the evidence, the judge concluded:
>
> > "Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of
> > the ledger. I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and
> > there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet – and it
> > seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter
> > of choice."
>
> > He then found that she had "an honestly held and not unreasonable belief
> > as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists" and
> > quashed her conviction even though he found the case proven that she had
> > broken the law by not wearing one.http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-a...
>
> > Tony
>
> Judges often make perverse decisions. On that basis you could
> challenge a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering
> somebody) on the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it
> was dangerous not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK
> Court, unless you employ Mr Loophole.
>
> Derek C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

BTW, I have just noticed the title of the thread. Does it really refer
to a form oriental cooking?

Derek C

[Squashme]

On 25 Oct, 07:30, Derek C > wrote:
> On Oct 25, 5:09*am, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 7:30*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
> > > There has been a long running legal battle in Australia by Sue Abbott
> > > who was fined for cycling without a cycle helmet. She fought the case on
> > > the grounds that a helmet could increase her chance of a head injury
> > > and, having reviewed the evidence, the judge concluded:
>
> > > "Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of
> > > the ledger. I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and
> > > there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet – and it
> > > seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter
> > > of choice."
>
> > > He then found that she had "an honestly held and not unreasonable belief
> > > as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists" and
> > > quashed her conviction even though he found the case proven that she had
> > > broken the law by not wearing one.http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-freedom-as-judge-agrees-helmet-laws-a...
>
> > > Tony
>
> > Judges often make perverse decisions. On that basis you could
> > challenge a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering
> > somebody) on the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it
> > was dangerous not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK
> > Court, unless you employ Mr Loophole.
>
> > Derek C- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> BTW, I have just noticed the title of the thread. Does it really refer
> to a form oriental cooking?
>
> Derek C

http://www.flickr.com/photos/halfbyte/3153682224/

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:09:30 -0700, Derek C wrote:


> Judges often make perverse decisions. On that basis you could challenge
> a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering somebody) on
> the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it was dangerous
> not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK Court, unless you
> employ Mr Loophole.
>
> Derek C

I don't agree.
There is no way that jumping a red light or murdering someone cannot be
dangerous to someone else.
Not wearing a bike helmet is not dangerous to someone else.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> On that basis you could
> challenge a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering
> somebody) on the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it
> was dangerous not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK
> Court, unless you employ Mr Loophole.
>

Go for the Mr Cheerful defence. It was all their fault - they should
have realised I was going to jump a red light (or murder them) and
should not have put themselves in a dangerous situation.

Tony

[Derek C]

On Oct 25, 7:59*am, Squashme > wrote:
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > BTW, I have just noticed the title of the thread. Does it really refer
> > to a form of oriental cooking?
>
> > Derek C
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/halfbyte/3153682224/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Might cause your brain to overheat!

[Derek C]

On Oct 25, 1:01*pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > *Judges often make perverse decisions. On that basis you could
> > *challenge a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering
> > *somebody) on the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it
> > *was dangerous not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK
> > *Court, unless you employ Mr Loophole.
>
> So, you've never heard of 'self defence', then? *I suggest this might
> be another of those occasions when you'd look less stupid if you did
> some thinking before sounding off, Derek.
>
> --
I believe that unintentionally killing somebody in self-defence counts
as manslaughter, not murder. Murder has to be intentional and pre-
meditated.

Derek C

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 25/10/2010 13:39, Derek C wrote:
> On Oct 25, 1:01 pm, Ian > wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>> Judges often make perverse decisions. On that basis you could
>>> challenge a conviction for jumping a red traffic light (or murdering
>>> somebody) on the grounds that you had an honesty held belief that it
>>> was dangerous not to do so! Can't somehow see that happening in a UK
>>> Court, unless you employ Mr Loophole.
>>
>> So, you've never heard of 'self defence', then? I suggest this might
>> be another of those occasions when you'd look less stupid if you did
>> some thinking before sounding off, Derek.
>>
>> --
> I believe that unintentionally killing somebody in self-defence counts
> as manslaughter, not murder. Murder has to be intentional and pre-
> meditated.

Unintentionally killing someone in (credible) self-defence may well not be an
offence at all.