Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG)
Last updated: 18 Oct 2004
President: Bill Curnow
Vice President : James Grieve
Secretary: Norma Sumner
Treasurer: Jim Arnold
The Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) was formed at a public meeting
in Canberra, ACT, Australia, on 30th January 1992, in direct response
to the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHL) for bicyclists with
the aim of protecting cyclists against undue interference by
Governments and erosion of civil liberties. The current aim of CRAG is
to oppose legislation compelling cyclists to wear helmets.
Membership is open to all who subscribe to these aims.
CRAG meetings are held monthly at the Canberra Club, Canberra, ACT.
For membership enquiries, please
email our treasurer.
It must be stressed that CRAG is not opposed to the wearing of helmets.
We are merely opposed to their compulsion.
Our position is that individuals should have the right to choose
whether or not to wear a helmet, without undue interference by Governments.
We believe the role of Government should be limited to advising its' constituents,
without bias, of the pro's and con's of helmets;
rather than to compel their use by law whilst feeding false or faulty information to
the public and brushing any negative effects under the carpet
(as has been the case to date).
Recent Changes to this Web site
18 Oct 2004, added link to
article in the Irish Medical Times by Dr Richard Keatinge
7 May 2003, added link to
www.cyclinghealth.org.nz
7 May 2003, added
CRAG's September 2002 Submission to the Bill of Rights Consultative Committee
7 May 2003, added
Article by Bill Curnow in AAP volume 35, March 2003
7 May 2003, added a link to
Search the ACT Government Hansard Volumes for the topic "Helmet".
The original
Hansard document
now contains a link to the ACT Government Hansard site,
as does the
Links page.
Summary of CRAG arguments
For the benefit of the casual browser. Most if not all of the
following are covered in detail in other documents on this Web site.
- Governments introduced helmet laws without real proof of helmet
effectiveness; without proper community consultation; bypassing
democratic principles and standards; and without due consideration
of other factors such as that there would be a decline in cycling.
- Numbers of cyclists have declined enormously since the law,
and although cycling may have since increased, evidence indicates that
the level is still below what would have been expected had there been
no law.
- More people have given up cycling or continued to ride
helmetless than have worn a helmet because of the law.
- The estimated number of head injuries per cyclist has not
decreased since the law despite increased helmet wearing rates.
- Many of the scientific studies in support of the law have been proven
flawed - usually due to limitations in their data or methodology.
- 'My helmet saved my life' anecdotes prove little towards the
effect of enforcing helmets on an entire population, and
notwithstanding the tendency for people to exaggerate their claims.
Anecdotes can be a compelling argument for individuals to choose to wear
helmets, but do not constitute the scientific evidence which should be a
pre-requisite to legislation.
- Some studies have indicated helmet wearers to be more likely to
strike their heads and/or have an accident. There is a rational
explanation for this phenomena. Wearing a helmet increases the size and
mass of the head, and helmet wearers may also be subject to risk
compensation.
- Studies of the mechanics of head injury show that the most serious
contributor to brain injury are rotational forces, which helmets can do
little or nothing to prevent and may actually increase.
- Helmets can have little benefit in a severe collision with a motor
vehicle. Bicycle helmets are certified only for simple falls.
- Don't even think about civil liberties, you don't have any. Wear a
helmet or else! Just as compulsory motorbike helmets were used to justify
compulsory seatbelts, and compulsory seatbelts in turn were used to justify
compulsory bicycle helmets, there can be little doubt that at some point in
the future the bicycle helmets law will be used to justify other breeches
of civil liberties.
- The helmet law has fundamentally failed in its stated aim of reducing
head injury, to say nothing of the adverse effects, but the Government has
so far refused to review it.
CRAG activities include:
- Lobbying governments (mainly the ACT goverment, but also the Federal
Government and other Australian State governments);
- Pursuing information through the Freedom of Information Act, when
Governments refuse to divulge information relating to their support of
compulsory helmet laws;
- Challenging through the courts convictions for non-helmet wearing;
- Reviewing and exposing helmet literature in scientific and medical
journals and elsewhere;
- Collecting relevant statistical and other data;
- Other research;
- Submitting articles to journals;
- Informing the general population of the real truth behind helmet
legislation, through the media and elsewhere;
- Providing information and support to CRAG members and others who
are fighting against current or impending bicycle helmet laws.
Documents/Papers
Documents/Papers on Other Sites
Links to Other Sites
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-baron's
cruelty 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 --
"When times are normal and fear is not stalking the land, English law
sturdily protects the freedom of the individual and respects human
personality. But when times are abnormally alive with fear and
prejudice the common law is at a disadvantage: it cannot resist the
will, however frightened and prejudiced it may be, of Parliament."
-- Lord Scarman --
Email: bilcurno@pcug.org.au