In the coming elections I was planning to place the Liberal party second-to-last.

But today, these guys violated my private space.

I keep a quiet peaceful life, but I do have a phone for emergencies. Today while I was working, the phone rang and the display showed that the call was from "overseas". I have relatives overseas, so being concerned for their health I had to stop what I was doing in order to answer it.

It was a recorded message: "Hello, this is Malcolm Turnbull". I immediately hung up, but they still called again 45 minutes later.

Well this is it! The Liberal party cares not for our well-being, they care not for the sanctity of our private space - all this talk of individual freedom and liberalism is fake, they never mean an ounce of it.

Well, I already boycott any company that attempts to advertise at me - now the Liberal party will come LAST on my ballot paper.
(unless of course Bill will be stupid enough to make the same mistake)

We suffer enough already from the filth they hang in our streets, making them look for two months like slums, aggrandising their images and taking everyone for fools with their shallow slogans. But even that's not enough for the politicians: they want to penetrate our homes too!

Bye bye villains, you have no minimal respect for ordinary people so you deserve to be thrown in history's garbage bin.

Very amusing, Yuyutsu.
But let's imagine we get rid of democracy, where people 'invade' your private space ever few years to beg your support, and go for a simple dictatorship. Do you really imagine you'd have any peace and quiet? Think of the all those mega-statues, giant posters, military parades, party music and slogans blaring from loud-speakers at every street corner and every TV station - not just at election time but permanently?
Be grateful for small mercies.

Dear Cossomby,

Snakes should be hit over their heads while they are still small.

Yuyutsu invaded Australia, and hasn't stopped complaining about the place since. Zero tolerance to him and his sort!

How about we get rid of advertising generally? Last year I researched venetian blinds on line, then bought some from a local company. I'm still getting on-line ads from venetian blind companies on OLO!

Wait. That's capitalism / free market. People need to advertise their wares so I have know what the choice is, even if I find it intrusive and boring at times.

Ditto political parties?

//Bye bye villains, you have no minimal respect for ordinary people so you deserve to be thrown in history's garbage bin.//

But you're far from being an ordinary person, Yuyutsu. So I'm sure they have lots of resptect for you. What if it wasn't just a recorded message but Malcolm himself ringing you personally to ask you you think his policies on bicycle helmets should be?

Dear Cossomby,

Indeed, pushing unsolicited advertisements at people is a crime.

They have got the concept of freedom upside-down: how could this be called "free" market when you are not free from their harassment even in the privacy of your own home?

A free market is a market which you are free to visit or otherwise and do so WHEN YOU want.

Merchants should be able to freely place their wares on the market and indeed you should be able know what the choice is, but it should be YOU who are looking for their products and services when you want them, not them pushing it on you and invading your privacy. Your home is not a market-place!

Ditto for political parties.

There are plenty of places where one can go and find out about them and their agendas (and OLO is one of them): come elections, I go and check them all carefully, but I do so in my own time and at my own convenience.

The current situation is gloomy and absurd: with commercial operations, the costs of criminal activities are recognised as tax deductions while with political operations, they are financed with our tax money.

---

Dear Ttbn,

I have done nothing different to what your ancestors did.

Perhaps with one exception... your ancestors were never invited by the natives, while I was: your stupid government determined (and right they were on that count) that my coming here will benefit them economically. Yes, your outdated culture is dying but like it or not, my settlement here has in several ways improved the average quality of life in Australia.

---

Dear Toni,

Good point, but it's easy to tell a recorded message from a real person speaking. Also, Malcolm wouldn't be calling from "overseas", would he?

Yuyutsu,

The government was certainly stupid in inviting you to come; and they continue their stupidity with 200,000 plus illegals annually.

My ancestors got the country ready for johny-come-latelys like you, whose contribributions to the country would be well outweighed by the benefits you have received by living here. Good luck to you, but your criticism of the country that took you in - down to the really, really trivial one about bike helmet - makes you a real pain in the backside, and a really petty person.

There is something painfully ironic about a person complaining about the existence of a compulsory societal membership and statehood that they wouldn't be around to complain about had it not existed.

And on a computer in the comfort of their own home, no less.

Yuyutsu,

If you would prefer to have to look over your shoulder every minute in case someone was about to kill you, or have to continuously contemplate preemptively killing your neighbour simply because they might be considering doing the same to you, then you're living in the wrong era.

Dear Ttbn,

<<The government was certainly stupid in inviting you to come; and they continue their stupidity with 200,000 plus illegals annually.>>

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who is critical of government!

Let me be clear that my criticism is not specific to Australia: they ALL do it, all over the world and usually much worse than Australia. Most states have draconic laws even more restrictive than bike helmets. Where I fled from, riding bicycles is still allowed but other things that we take for granted in Australia, are not. When I oppose nationalism, I oppose ANY nationalism, not particularly the Australian variety. When I tell Cossomby that neither merchants nor politicians have a right to intrude on our homes, that applies globally, not just in Australia. My strict adherence to moral principles is universal and applies to all countries and at all times.

Yuyutsu,

If you have a telephone, it's because you wish to have those family members intrude on you when need be.

Unfortunately, it means that others less welcome will sometimes do the same...but that is what the phone was designed to accomplish - having those at a distance intrude on you.

Regarding bicycle helmets....I surmise that the reason there is legislation to wear them is for the simple fact that it costs a fair bit to patch up broken skulls - or to pay for the care and rehabilitation of riders who become brain damaged as a result of bike mishaps.

Yuyutsu,
Frankly I am a little surprised that you became a citizen and have the right to vote. I had thought you were a citizen of the 'world' and did not think enough of any country to become a citizen.

Even though you complain a lot, Aus must have somethings going for it if you took out citizenship. Place must not be as bad as I thought. Can I stop being concerned for my grandkids?

Dear Poirot,

Yes, I am familiar with that skull-breaking excuse (while their true motive is to control and harass).

As I mentioned here more than once, I refuse any Medicare payments anyway. I pay all my medical expenses myself, ditto for rehabilitation if I ever need it: I also have a private-health insurance, but I would only ever claim on items for which Medicare does not provide anything (such as private hospital bed): where Medicare contributes even a cent, I would not claim on that item and pay it all myself.

If I break my skull, regardless how it happens and I'm unable to speak for myself, then I already left instructions through the "E-health" ("my health record") system, requesting that under no circumstances should Medicare claims be made in my name, but I rather have it paid from my own pocket. Mind you, they provided no space to declare that, so I had to do so via the "allergies" page, listing "Medicare" as an allergy I have...

If I were allowed to ride a bicycle in Australia (other than the stationary ones in the gym), then I would be more than happy to take up a special skull-breaking bicycle-insurance - and insurance companies would likely be more than happy to sell those.

---

Dear Banjo,

It seems that the discussion has turned to be about Yuyutsu rather than about the intrusions of political parties into our private space and the need to punish them for it. Perhaps you would like to say something about it?

Yuyutsu, You are very, very fortunate that you can afford to pay for everything yourself. Not everybody is in that position - and not necessarily because they are lazy lay-abouts.
So I am happy to accept that you can spurn the law about bicycle helmets (and safety belts?). But I would really like everyone else who can't afford to pay their own way and who depend on medicare to wear them.

The Cossomby,

The vast majority of people should be able to afford a bicycle-head-injury insurance. I estimate that once its common and streamlined it should cost around $30/year, perhaps in combination with other medical extras.

For those who want to ride a bicycle but really cannot afford even this, I suggest that we should have a charity that will pay off their insurance costs.

Regarding seat-belts, I was wearing them long before it became law: when the first seat-belts appeared, my parents just thought that it was a great invention. Perhaps I should have stopped when it became law, but by then the habit was already entrenched.

About 22 years ago, the husband of a friend of mine suffered brain-damage in a car crash. He is still alive, in a nursing home, but for all that time has needed full-time care.
I got to know his wife a couple of years after the accident. She told me that one of the most shocking things was to visit him in hospital shortly after the event. He was in a ward full of mostly young men with brain injury from similar accidents; she described the scene, bed after bed of comatose bodies, with limited function and little hope for any. Talking to relatives of the other patients, she realised that this wasn't just her family's tragedy - but many family's tragedy. She had no idea of the scale of such injuries, and neither had I. In fact I can still remember exactly where we talked and my shock at the picture she painted.

So, money or insurance to pay for medical expenses or nursing care (for 20+ years?) is one thing. But wouldn't be better to minimise such injuries? Especially in young men who may mistake that hormone driven feeling of invincibility for 'freedom'? Isn't that what laws for bicycle helmets, seat-belts etc are for?

I still know that family, and the scars are still there. The children grew up only knowing their father as a incoherent invalid in a wheelchair.

Dear Cossomby,

<<But wouldn't be better to minimise such injuries?>>

In fact I have already minimised it: what's ever safer than not riding a bicycle?

Mind you, this increases my other risks: obesity, heart problems, diabetes... but never mind, I'm now quite unlikely to fall from a bike and break my head though I'm more likely to suffer a debilitating stroke as a result.

Your friend's husband sadly was injured while in a car: are you suggesting that car drivers/passengers should also wear helmets?

I will never again wear a helmet for the same reason that I will never again carry a gun, even if it were legal: I was forced to do both as a conscript. Let me tell you just one thing about that period: if I had a choice, then I would rather spend those years in the condition of your friend's husband than in the army. A state that takes the "liberty" to order its citizens to wear a helmet might just as well order them to wear uniforms, carry guns and be turned into killing-machines. What's more dangerous - battlefields or bicycles?

Yuyutsu,

I'm curious...

Do you per chance look both ways before you cross the road?

Givien your seemingly absolute predilection for doing exactly as you please regardless of the risk or the cost to society, it would seem superfluous to take any precautions at all against any such injuries that would arise from stepping blindly onto the road.

When all is said and done, no doubt you could pay for your medical care.

Regarding seat belts - which you apparently regard as some quaint habit your parents instilled in you. We recently were stopped at traffic lights when a big van smashed into the back of us at around 50-60 kms an hour without braking. The smash was enormous! it was so big that I immediately thought that we'd all be injured...but we weren't.

We were all wearing seatbelts.

//Mind you, this increases my other risks: obesity, heart problems, diabetes...//

Because you can't go to the gym? Or just go for a walk? It's exercise that reduces the risk of obesity, heart problems, diabetes, stroke and so on, not the specific act of riding a bicycle. It was reported last year that the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, likes to bounce on a trampoline whilst naked and holding his dog. So I'm sure you can find some form of exercise which is sufficiently weird to be appealing to you.

//A state that takes the "liberty" to order its citizens to wear a helmet might just as well order them to wear uniforms, carry guns and be turned into killing-machines.//

Yeah... because wearing a hat which is made from expanded polystyrene foam rather than fur, fabric or wool is exactly like shooting people (sarcasm).

A bicycle helmet is nothing like an army helmet, Yuyutsu. They are designed differently because they have different purposes. They don't even look similar. I can see why you'd want to boycott army helmets after the army made you wear one, but boycotting bike helmets makes absolutely no sense unless the army forced you wear one of those too. Since the only thing that bike helmets and army helmets have in common is the word 'helmet', couldn't you just solve your problem by thinking of your bike helmet as your 'cycling bonnet' or some other acceptable euphemism?

I'm curious, Yuyutsu... do you wear clothes to protect yourself from sunburn, hypothermia and such like? Didn't the army make you wear clothes too? If you going to be consistent in your silliness, shouldn't you be a full-time naturist?

Of course, you could always get yourself a Hovding:

http://tinyurl.com/jacy8xh

That way you can preserve your vanity - unless you crash, but if you crash without any head protection you'll mess up more than your hair.

Thank you, Toni. I was about to comment similarly, but you've done it really well.

Watching the Swedish video reminded me that there's something even more important than bicycle helmets for cyclists (bicycle and motor) and that's bright clothing. Nearly all the cyclists in the video are wearing black. I am personally terrified of hitting a cyclist simply because I can't see them - their dark clothing blends into the bitumen and the roadside vegetation (where I live there are a lot of cyclists on the 80-100kph highways between small towns; there are some cycle ways but I've never seen a cyclist on them.)

So, I think cyclist should wear high-vis vests at the very least. Those little strobe lights are not enough, high-vis gear is better because it gives a physical shape to the cyclist, while a flashing light ahead could be a stationary road sign (still to be careful around, but not moving unpredictably).

Yuyutsu, I hope the army didn't make you wear high-vis as well, so that you are now head-set against it.

Because I sometimes have to go onto construction sites, I have a white card and high vis gear. So I can advise that high fashion high-vis is now available, like my classy purple steel-capped boots.

I'm curious. Which military is it that enlists women to battle? Or is Yuyutsu's references to himself/herself as "she"/"her" done to maintain an air of mystique?

Yuyutsu: No, I wasn't suggesting 'that car drivers/passengers should also wear helmets', obviously each vehicle needs safety gear appropriate to its type and the likely dangers.

I was challenging your argument that you are entitled to take silly risks as long as you pay your own medical costs. My friend and her husband may have had medical insurance (even if they did I suspect the insurance company will have dumped them on to the public system by now) - but the ramifications of serious injury go way beyond the financial cost, whoever pays for it. Family, children, then their children, friends, the family business, the driver of the other car involved who even if not at fault will have to live with the consequences.

While the circumstances of every accident will be different, the aim should be to minimise the consequences by improving roads, cars, bikes, safety gear etc etc. The fact that you personally have stopped riding and now walk is irrelevant. You are still paying for other people's injuries. And who knows, one day as you're walking along the footpath, you might be grateful that the car doesn't hit the bike on the road beside you (and wipe you out as collateral damage) because of their legally required safety equipment.

Dear Cossomby,

First, I don't take silly risks - I take calculated risks.

We all take risks whatever we do and life is a dangerous business (which always ends in death!), but I estimate myself to be overall at the low-end, below-average at risk-taking. Most others that I know take greater risks.

Second, I didn't claim that I am entitled to anything - rather, that YOU and your state are not entitled to dictate to me, under the violent threat of prosecution, which risks I may or may not take.

Third, I was never complaining about having to pay for other people's injuries. It was rather you that made this complaint that you do not wish to pay for my injuries and in response I affirmed that I do not expect you to pay my bills.

---

Dear Poirot,

<<Do you per chance look both ways before you cross the road?>>

Yes, why?

Perhaps if there was a law mandating that then I would have to reconsider, but as far as I know there isn't any, so why would I not follow common-sense?

<<Givien your seemingly absolute predilection for doing exactly as you please>>

I aspire to live by God's will, rather than by what pleases me, what pleases you or what pleases society.

<<Regarding seat belts>>

I also had an accident, many years ago where I've hit a tree at 40km/hour and my seat-belt probably saved me from a serious injury. As I just told Cossomby, I'm naturally not a big risk-taker so I wear my seat-belt anyhow.

You are very welcome to relate your experiences and tell me why you think that I should take precautions against this or that. I'll listen and unless I have a serious reason to object your proposition, I'll appreciate and probably follow your advice. In the case of bicycles I do have a serious objection, in the case of seat-belts I don't. I do however object the disrespect and insult by government not allowing myself and others to make our own choices.

P.S. seat-belts don't help when being hit from behind.

Yuyutsu,

"P.S. seat-belts don't help when being hit from behind."

I beg to differ.'

We were stationary - and we were WHOMPED! from behind by a heavy van travelling at between 50 and 60 kms an hour.

I can assure you if we hadn't been wearing a seat belts we would have been thrown any which way - as it was, we were all securely in place directly after the impact.

My son and I had mild seat belt welts after the accident and the next day I had tenderness transverse across the chest where the seat belt had been.

From that evidence, the seat belts must have stopped us from being propelled forward during the initial impact.

Dear Poirot,

Thank you for the information, I did not know it.

THIS is the way to do it: provide information - not humiliate people by inferring that they are idiots and threatening them with the whip of the law.