SAFETY on our roads and public thoroughfares must always be of paramount consideration for lawmakers. Laissez-faire regulation that relegates safety to largely an issue of personal responsibility may appeal to some libertarians, but ultimately the cost of injury and death far outweigh what are usually matters of minor inconvenience.

That said, there is always room for some basic common sense and a pragmatic approach to recasting and modernising our rules and regulations as times change. In that respect it is worth keeping an open mind about recommendations on bicycle safety that have emerged from a review by State Parliament's Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee.

The one recommendation likely to spark the most spirited public debate proposes a relaxation of laws that currently require, with some rare exceptions, all cyclists to wear an approved bicycle helmet at all times. The committee has taken the view of allowing cyclists aged over 16 to opt out of wearing a helmet in low-risk locations such as cycle paths where there is no interaction with vehicles.

This recommendation echoes a submission from the Brisbane City Council, which said existing helmet laws had "attracted comments across a range of forums in recent years, with some support for the relaxation of the rule as a means of encouraging more people to take up cycling, particularly for local trips''.

There is some logic to this, and city council, as ultimate owner of the woefully under-utilised (and heavily subsidised) CityCycle scheme, would be only too aware of the barriers that compulsory helmet use in all situations put up when it comes to attracting occasional cyclists to get in the saddle.

The hundreds of CityCycle bikes lying locked lonely and idle in their racks around Brisbane are testament to this fact. Quite simply, no one carries a cycle helmet with them just in case they get a sudden urge to pedal through the Botanic Gardens after lunch on a Sunday afternoon.

In this respect, though, it would be hoped that the recommendation of the committee stems more from a desire to get as many residents out exercising and enjoying Brisbane as possible, rather than as a means to breathing some life into the white elephant that is CityCycle.

Certainly there is no suggestion that the helmet law relaxation be extended beyond off-road cycling, and indeed the committee offers a range of possible policy options - such as extended buffer zones between cars and cyclists - aimed at improving the safety of what are our most vulnerable road users.

It would also be hoped that state and local authorities don't rush to tear up existing regulations completely, but rather adopt a carefully monitored, trial approach to the recommendations, and are suitably mindful of the inevitable grey areas that emerge when it comes to defining what exactly is "off road'' and what is not. There may ultimately also be a wider positive to come from any moves which encourage more people to get back on their (literal) bikes.

Certainly having a higher proportion of the population who do, even occasionally, cycle might go some way to lifting awareness and tolerance of motorists who often tend to view bike riders as a menace rather than a fellow road user who deserve both care and respect. The alarming increase in car versus bike fatalities, and even more concerning the incidences of road rage involving cyclists and drivers, would suggest that the more motorists who have a direct empathy with their two-wheeled fellow road users the better.

Equally, extending more freedom when it comes to helmet use - which some cyclists see as needlessly restrictive - may also help improve bike riders' own sense of personal responsibility. If this, especially for the small and sometimes inconsiderate minority who ignore road rules and are seemingly oblivious to their surroundings, leads to a better understanding of, and respect for, other road users then we have a positive outcome. The proposed changes should be cautiously welcomed, but introduced with a lot of care.

********************

ROOFTOPPING WILL END IN TEARS

FIRST there was "planking'', that relatively short-lived fad where people would photograph themselves lying prone in odd places and then upload the results to social media.

media_camera The planking craze involved mostly harmless fun.

Despite isolated incidents involving death or injury, the death of Acton Beale, 20, who plunged from a seventh-floor Brisbane balcony being a case in point, most planking stunts were more silly than dangerous. The same cannot be said of the latest craze to emerge in Brisbane, "rooftopping''.

It is silly but in every instance it is also recklessly dangerous and just downright dumb and, if it continues, will end in tragedy.

There is nothing funny or cool about people, many of them just teenagers it would appear, sitting on top of high-rise buildings and photographing themselves with legs dangling over the abyss. In fact there is absolutely zero margin for error.

Parents, building security and sensible friends need to be aware of this latest, stupid, potentially deadly fad. It is likely to end in plenty of tears.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Christopher Dore, corner of Mayne & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND. (ACN 009 778). A full list of our editors and journalists, with contact details, is available at couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/ourstaff