Victoria: The Nanny State

Popular Entries

Friday, August 28. 2009

Victoria: The Nanny State

This is pretty pathetic:

...and wearing a helmet will now be compulsory for (foot-propelled) scooter riders.

Few people would be insane enough to use a foot-propelled scooter on a busy road (in which case, it would be fair to make that illegal instead), and there's really very little reason to wear a helmet when using a scooter on a bicycle path or footpath. I can go much faster - with far less control - on my rollerblades, and I'm not required to wear a helmet when using those.

The only reason I can see why the Victorian Government would want to create such a law would be to discourage people from using scooters at all. Given their obsession with cars and roads, I can't say I'm very surprised.

Posted by Paul Dwerryhouse in Transport at 08:22 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Perhaps it'll be like in NSW where its compulsory to wear a helmet while cycling but you never actually hear of any getting fined. Also apparently cyclists aren't allow to ride on the foot path but everyone turns such a blind eye to it that even the Sydney City Council has pamphlets which have guidelines for cyclists to share the footpath nicely with pedestrians.

#1 daveg on 2009-08-29 08:41 (Reply)

Hmm, bike helmets are compulsory here too - and they do police it (meanwhile, they seem to be incapable of dealing with real crime like, well, stabbings).

#1.1 Paul (Homepage) on 2009-08-29 11:15 (Reply)

> but you never actually hear of any getting fined

In Sydney no, in hick town cops are so keen to gtfo that they will fine you for anything and everything. When i was a kid my mate and i got fined for not wearing a helmet... when we where wearing helmets... when we protested our innocence we got a bigger fine for riding on the footpath.

#1.2 me (Homepage) on 2009-11-10 11:02 (Reply)

I love how they picked the stupid and seemingly arbitrary sum of $234. It's so bland and uninspired.

Why didn't they make it a fine of $233? It's both prime and a fibbonacci number. Or $256, a power of 2.

#2 Pieter Droogendijk on 2009-09-11 23:46 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_.
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry