First they came for the bikes...

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Post Reply
User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

First they came for the bikes...

Post by Gob »

and I didn't speak up, as I wasn't a cyclist...
IN THE end they came for her bikes.

Image


Sue Abbott lost her fight this week against the intransigence of the law when the local sheriff descended upon her property to claim compensation for unpaid fines for riding, as she always does, without a helmet.
Last February, Mrs Abbott, now 52, was cycling in her Hunter Valley home town of Scone, where she was booked by a patrol officer for riding bare-headed.

That led to a fine, which Mrs Abbott fought, and eventually an order to pay $67 into a fund to support victims of crime.

Mrs Abbott refused to pay.

Advertisement But the fine grew to $213 and she was given no choice when the sheriff of Muswellbrook arrived at her property on Monday with intent to confiscate.

They first shared a cup of tea surrounded by the family cats and dogs.

''When somebody turns up to your house you always do that. It seemed very normal and very nice sitting in the garden with him before he went about his business,'' Mrs Abbott said.

The sheriff might have confiscated anything to meet the level of the fine. He could have take family silver or a great grandmother's rings.

''I had an old television in the shed and he wasn't interested in anything like that,'' Mrs Abbott said. ''We looked at outdoor heaters.''

He ended up taking two old family bicycles. ''I think again about what he will raise the money with,'' she said. ''It is almost poetic.''

There were a number of concerns that persuaded Mrs Abbott to challenge the fine, including her belief it was a waste of government resources.

Another was her belief helmet laws should not be compulsory.

The Sydney University professor of Public Health, Chris Rissel, for one, has argued mandatory helmet laws are not worth the bother. They discourage people from cycling and society would be healthier without the laws.

The City of Sydney has said it would like to start a bike share scheme across the city. But it would only do so with an exemption from mandatory helmet laws for cyclists on separated bike paths.

Professor Rissel's views have been strongly resisted by other safety academics. ''He is not taking into account all of the clear evidence that head injuries have reduced as a result of the mandatory helmet law,'' the chair of road safety at UNSW, Raphael Grzebieta, said.

Meanwhile, after writing about her experience on her blog this week, Mrs Abbott has been inundated with support.

''I've had offers of bicycles from all around the world - a GP from England wants to send a bicycle,'' she said.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/protest-cycli ... z279xbVNSx
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17253
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by Scooter »

Civil disobedience always carries a price. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her because she thought she was above the law?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

User avatar
The Hen
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:56 am

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by The Hen »

I certainly don't feel sorry for her. Like the seatbelt law, the helmet law is always obeyed in this house.

It's a shame that they didn't take something she valued.
Bah!

Image

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by rubato »

A country with a national health service has a very legitimate cause in requiring helmets. If the taxpayer is paying for the injuries the taxpayer has a right to limit the costs.

yrs,
rubato

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Fish and chips next?

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by rubato »

oldr_n_wsr wrote:Fish and chips next?
Some things are best achieved by regulation and others are better achieved by education.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Miles
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Butler Pa, USA

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by Miles »

Perhaps next they will require the wearing of spandex while cycling to eliminate the chance of getting clothing wound into the chain. :shrug
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.

Big RR
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by Big RR »

Sorry for her? No, but then I think she should have the right to ride without a helmet as a mentally competent adult, NHS or no NHS. Freedom ain't free.

And, FWIW, I always wear my seat belt when I drive and a helmet when I ride.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by Guinevere »

Big RR wrote:Sorry for her? No, but then I think she should have the right to ride without a helmet as a mentally competent adult, NHS or no NHS. Freedom ain't free.

And, FWIW, I always wear my seat belt when I drive and a helmet when I ride.
I'm quite sure that refusing to wear a helmet makes her de facto, mentally incompetent.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21436
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: First they came for the bikes...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

No, it was the fall from her rock-climbing mother's backpack all those years ago............
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply