Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

fat and old wrote:I had an open page on my phone browser for over 12 months for this very moment, then lost it 5 weeks ago re setting the phone Was a vic parliament inquiry iirc. It was post Geelong investigation/trials, so your reference could well predate it. I had a quick look earlier, will try again. My memory was that the Gov initiated the inquiry and the RACS made submissions.

To be honest I haven't been too interested in the genesis of the MHLs and I certainly don't have an opinion on what is debated above.

However I figured I'd do a quick google. It does look like this is only of the early key governmental inquiries:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... _pp360.pdf

[quote]5. Recommendations in the 1978 Report concerning bicycle
helmets were; that cyclists be advised of the safety benefits of
protective helmets, and that the possibility of requiring
cyclists to wear helmets be kept under review. The former of
these two recommendations was accepted by the Government and the
Government's response in November 1978 stated that the necessary
preliminary action had already been taken. In May 1985 the
1. Motorcycle and Bicycle. Safety, Report of the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety, AGPS,
1978, p.69.

1 .Federal Government launched a campaign featuring Molly Meldrum of
the ABC Countdown program to promote bicycle safety helmet
wearing. With regard to reviewing the possibility of mandatory
helmet wearing, the Government's response in 1978 was that •
further investigation was s t i l l required. Both of these
recommendations concern key issues in the current Inquiry and
will be discussed at greater length in Chapters Three and Six
respectively[/quote]

(No doubt there was preceding discussion public discussion. Possibly even governmental inquiries, though this one from my BRIEF googling dose seem one of the turning points.

THIS from 1978 proceeds the above inquiry but is mostly concerned about motorcycle helmets. Bicycle discussion is more on other topics of safety.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... pp162a.pdf


EDIT: Apparently bicycle helmet requirements where discussion in the 1978 report by I can't find reference to it despite the reference of paragraph 209. But I did find this quote:

The status of two-wheeled vehicles on the road, It was suggested, might not be very high in the minds of some motorists and there Is an urgent need to stress to other road users that the motorcycle and bicycle have an equal right to use the road. These matters could be made the subject of publicity campaigns.

40 years later and things have only gotten worse.

fat and old wrote:I had an open page on my phone browser for over 12 months for this very moment, then lost it 5 weeks ago re setting the phone .

I know that pain. (Currently back up the year's financials and tax records while I type). I never intended to "study" cycling advocacy so the stash has grown organically over the life of half a dozen machines. So finding anything can be very difficult. Indeed, there's no guarantee I've not deleted/disposed of it. There is no bibliography, never mind a cross referenced set of index cards or online reference manager account.

fat and old wrote:
I have a question for you and others that believe helmets are the reason for out grouping.

Where does Lycra and the “sports cycling” appearance fit in? If your beliefs are based on Thoglette’s examples of shock jocks et al descriptions surely the “TDF wannabe”, “Lycra loonie” references are not only more relevant but much more common?

We all know that the proportion of cyclists who wear lycra, the proportion who are are sports cyclists, is much higher in Australia. Conversely the proportion of cyclists in Australia who are utility cyclists is much lower. Not only does this contribute to cyclists being an out group it also means a lower proportion of the population cycle regularly.

Why are there a lower proportion of cyclists who are utility cyclists in Australia? MHLs, pure and simple. Mandating an uncomfortable, sweaty and inconvenient lump of largely useless plastic and foam on everyone's head, funnily enough, discourages cycling.

DS

DavidS wrote:

fat and old wrote:
I have a question for you and others that believe helmets are the reason for out grouping.

Where does Lycra and the “sports cycling” appearance fit in? If your beliefs are based on Thoglette’s examples of shock jocks et al descriptions surely the “TDF wannabe”, “Lycra loonie” references are not only more relevant but much more common?

We all know that the proportion of cyclists who wear lycra, the proportion who are are sports cyclists, is much higher in Australia. Conversely the proportion of cyclists in Australia who are utility cyclists is much lower. Not only does this contribute to cyclists being an out group it also means a lower proportion of the population cycle regularly.

Why are there a lower proportion of cyclists who are utility cyclists in Australia? MHLs, pure and simple. Mandating an

uncomfortable, sweaty and inconvenient lump

of largely useless plastic and foam on everyone's head, funnily enough, discourages cycling.

DS

Ok, let’s have a look at that

We all know that the proportion of cyclists who wear lycra, the proportion who are are sports cyclists, is much higher in Australia

Higher than where? Afghanistan? Japan? Finland? Or are we limiting the comparisons to countries that have a higher number of cyclists than Australia only? If so, why? Please supply the cites and references. No anecdotes of course.

Conversely the proportion of cyclists in Australia who are utility cyclists is much lower. Not only does this contribute to cyclists being an out group it also means a lower proportion of the population cycle regularly.

This is the part I find both interesting and confusing. Is the claim that utility cyclists are not seen as an out group? Or that cyclist numbers in general as a percentage of population is the cause of out grouping?

Would we be seen as an out group if our numbers were the same as they are presently but were compromised of utility cyclists?

References and cites please.

uncomfortable, sweaty and inconvenient lump

You do understand that your personal opinion of helmets is just that....an opinion? As such they

do not constitute data.

???

fat and old wrote:Higher than where? Afghanistan? Japan? Finland?

All of the above.

fat and old wrote:Please supply the cites and references. No anecdotes of course.

Also please cite references that water is wet and the sky is blue.

Seriously do we really need to dispute the obvious? We can even see the trend in our own backyards, (eg Darwin, inner Melbourne, Manly).

human909 wrote: Also please cite references that water is wet and the sky is blue.

Seriously do we really need to dispute the obvious? We can even see the trend in our own backyards, (eg Darwin, inner Melbourne, Manly).

The sky is blue aye? You really want to go with that answer to illustrate your point?

I believe your level of pedantry here has nicely illustrated the point I was trying to make.

(likewise water isn't necessarily wet, but hey how is any of this important to the topic.)

human909 wrote:However I figured I'd do a quick google. It does look like this is only of the early key governmental inquiries:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... _pp360.pdf

(No doubt there was preceding discussion public discussion. Possibly even governmental inquiries, though this one from my BRIEF googling dose seem one of the turning points.
...

40 years later and things have only gotten worse.

Oh, yes, check para 163,

In its 1978 Report on Motorcycle and Bicycle Safety, the Road Safety Committee found that police often did not accord high priority to the enforcement of bicycle laws and that many bicycle accidents were caused by a breach of existing road rules by cyclists and motorists. The Road Safety Committee recommended that stricter enforcement of road rules applying to cyclists be implemented

Which brings it all flooding back. Thanks!

I had found report and followed the trail down to the '78 report (which I can't find today).

The interesting bit is one references used throughout the report to justify it all, , F.T. and Klugg, G.L. (1985), Head injury predominance: pedal‐cyclists vs motor‐cyclists
The abstract ends with

Education to increase community awareness of this safety measure followed by legislation for the compulsory wearing of approved safety helmets is urged.

Now, who are they?
Francis T. McDermott MD, FRCS, FRACS, FACS
Clinical Associate Professor of Surgery; Chairman, Victorian Road Trauma Committee; and Deputy Chairman, National Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Geoffrey L. Klug FRACS
Neurosurgeon; Head of Unit, Royal Children's Hospital; Assistant Neurosurgeon, Queen Victoria Hospital, Melbourne; and Member, Victorian Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

McDermott provided a retrospective in 1992, the paper outlines their role in lobbying for MHLs
Helmet efficacy in the prevention of bicyclist head injuries: Royal Australasian College of Surgeons initiatives in the introduction of compulsory safety helmet wearing in Victoria, Australia

At a third meeting convened at the College in November 1982, it was the general view that legislation, while remaining the long term aim, should await the availability of a wider range of helmets being produced and marketed at lower cost coupled with further increases in voluntary helmet wearing rates.

Lots of leads, thanks.

human909 wrote:I believe your level of pedantry here has nicely illustrated the point I was trying to make.

(likewise water isn't necessarily wet, but hey how is any of this important to the topic.)

Hey, I ain't the one who screams references references everytime someone posts something that doesn't align with the bully boys POV

Nor do I blame (or accept the claim that) helmets for us being outcasts.

Thoglette wrote:

human909 wrote:However I figured I'd do a quick google. It does look like this is only of the early key governmental inquiries:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... _pp360.pdf

(No doubt there was preceding discussion public discussion. Possibly even governmental inquiries, though this one from my BRIEF googling dose seem one of the turning points.
...

40 years later and things have only gotten worse.

Oh, yes, check para 163,

In its 1978 Report on Motorcycle and Bicycle Safety, the Road Safety Committee found that police often did not accord high priority to the enforcement of bicycle laws and that many bicycle accidents were caused by a breach of existing road rules by cyclists and motorists. The Road Safety Committee recommended that stricter enforcement of road rules applying to cyclists be implemented

Which brings it all flooding back. Thanks!

I had found report and followed the trail down to the '78 report (which I can't find today).

The interesting bit is one references used throughout the report to justify it all, , F.T. and Klugg, G.L. (1985), Head injury predominance: pedal‐cyclists vs motor‐cyclists
The abstract ends with

Education to increase community awareness of this safety measure followed by legislation for the compulsory wearing of approved safety helmets is urged.

Now, who are they?
Francis T. McDermott MD, FRCS, FRACS, FACS
Clinical Associate Professor of Surgery; Chairman, Victorian Road Trauma Committee; and Deputy Chairman, National Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Geoffrey L. Klug FRACS
Neurosurgeon; Head of Unit, Royal Children's Hospital; Assistant Neurosurgeon, Queen Victoria Hospital, Melbourne; and Member, Victorian Road Trauma Committee, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

McDermott provided a retrospective in 1992, the paper outlines their role in lobbying for MHLs
Helmet efficacy in the prevention of bicyclist head injuries: Royal Australasian College of Surgeons initiatives in the introduction of compulsory safety helmet wearing in Victoria, Australia

At a third meeting convened at the College in November 1982, it was the general view that legislation, while remaining the long term aim, should await the availability of a wider range of helmets being produced and marketed at lower cost coupled with further increases in voluntary helmet wearing rates.

Lots of leads, thanks.

The Parl. Report that Human posted a link to seems to be the one I was thinking of. I made a mistake in saying Vic Roads rather than RTA I think. I thought it was actually yellow, but am probably wrong. I guess the question is did the inquiry come about because of the study you link, or was that a submission made to the report? That, I don't know....it seems that the RTA was responding to an upswing in deaths and serious injuries. Happy either way.

Here's a timely story about Sydney Rd.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 52cug.html

Now, I cannot give any meaningful statistics beyond anecdotes, but I see many many many more utility cyclists than sports cyclists on this road (Royal Pde to Bell St). yet the survey states

In a survey of more than 800 cyclists conducted by the Victorian Greens, 60 per cent of cyclists using Sydney Road between Brunswick and Coburg also say they have been abused by either a driver or pedestrian.

So the only commonality I guess are the helmets. For those that actually wear them.

fat and old wrote:
Higher than where? Afghanistan? Japan? Finland? Or are we limiting the comparisons to countries that have a higher number of cyclists than Australia only? If so, why? Please supply the cites and references. No anecdotes of course.

You have clearly never ridden in another country, I'll just start with every country I have ever visited, and plenty I haven't. Are you seriously saying that sports cyclists aren't a higher proportion of cyclists in Australia?

fat and old wrote:This is the part I find both interesting and confusing. Is the claim that utility cyclists are not seen as an out group? Or that cyclist numbers in general as a percentage of population is the cause of out grouping?

Precisely, utility cyclists wearing everyday clothing (you know, not lycra) are far less of an out group and when lots of people used to cycle for transport as opposed to sport (you know, before the stupid mandatory helmet laws) cyclists were less of an out group. Are you seriously telling me that cyclists are not getting more crap in the media today than, say, 20 years ago? When I was a kid there was none of this crap on the radio etc. Kids less than 10 years old on the road was seen as normal not evidence of bad parenting.

fat and old wrote:You do understand that your personal opinion of helmets is just that....an opinion?

Yes, that should even be obvious to you, I'll give you a hint, have a look to the left and you will see my name and avatar, hence, it is my post and my opinion.

DS

DavidS wrote:
You have clearly never ridden in another country, I'll just start with every country I have ever visited, and plenty I haven't.

That’s marvellous. Not really relevant, but good on you for being widely travelled The statement was cyclists are outgrouped because they wear helmets. You yourself identified the media as a prime (the prime source?) of this behaviour.

Are you seriously telling me that cyclists are not getting more crap in the media today than, say, 20 years ago?

And I agree. I also read. And watch. I read and watch overseas cycling based media. Maybe you should too, because hatred of cyclists is not unique to Australia. In fact, from what I’ve seen it’s near universal. Why is that? Those other countries don’t have MHL’s. Maybe the abusers all think that they’re yelling at an Aussie tourist? I dunno.

You blokes can cherry pick your favourite o/s examples all you want. Ignoring reality..,it just makes your argument look silly.

Precisely, utility cyclists wearing everyday clothing (you know, not lycra) are far less of an out group

What, like the Sydney Rd utility cyclists, here in Melbourne? Yeah, ok.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 52cug.html

In a survey of more than 800 cyclists conducted by the Victorian Greens, 60 per cent of cyclists using Sydney Road between Brunswick and Coburg also say they have been abused by either a driver or pedestrian.

60%!!!!! 6 out of 10! That only leaves 4. I’d say that constitutes a majority.

Go on blaming helmets and Lycra for all of cyclings ills. I don’t really care. I still ride about, sometimes without a helmet, usually with. The only person I blame for something bad happening to me is the person responsible. Sometimes that’s me, sometimes not. Cest la vie Hey, it’s ok to use another language if I’m not a native yeah? Please?

fat and old wrote: And I agree. I also read. And watch. I read and watch overseas cycling based media. Maybe you should too, because hatred of cyclists is not unique to Australia. In fact, from what I’ve seen it’s near universal. Why is that? Those other countries don’t have MHL’s. Maybe the abusers all think that they’re yelling at an Aussie tourist? I dunno.

Only in the Anglosphere. Abuse is extremely rare in western Europe and other places where utility cycling is normal (and helmets rare & lycra rarer). Search any anglophone forum for tales from tourists and you'll struggle to find an incident of abuse in the sea of "OMGosh aren't the drivers wonderful" comments.

In my considered opinion there are a number of factors at play. These include pork barrel infrastructure; comedians looking for the next target to driver/population mind sets (the ABC is notorious for using the same MAMIL photos to re-illustrate articles from the Conversation) and the resurgence of entitled, shameless kleptocrats stoking tribalism for political gain. However, "the silly plastic hat" is a recurrent theme. And MHLs remove the option of "normal" riding: if you leave the helmet at home you are, by definition, a "scoff law cyclist" and a "temporary Australian".

Some nice straw men there Fat 'n Old.

I said cyclists wearing everyday clothes are less of an out group, and that the proportion of cyclists who cycle for sport rather than transport is higher in Australia because silly mandating of useless lumps of plastic on cyclists' heads discourages utility cycling.

That is all I said and I stand by it. Your snide comment about travel and stretching my words to claim I blame helmets and lycra for all of cyclings' ills just show the weakness of your arguments.

I still don't get the support for the anti-cycling MHLs.

DS

DavidS wrote:Some nice straw men there Fat 'n Old.

Yep. While there has been back and forth from both views. The increasing use of straw-man arguments and simple pendantry is tiresome.

DavidS wrote:I said cyclists wearing everyday clothes are less of an out group, and that the proportion of cyclists who cycle for sport rather than transport is higher in Australia because silly mandating of useless lumps of plastic on cyclists' heads discourages utility cycling.

Both those statements are pretty clearly established in a rudimentary perusal of commentary in Australia. Of course it isn't binary. Utilitarian cyclists still face many issues of out grouping. The difference is all over the media hate. Especially in the "I ride a pushbike but" comments.

DavidS wrote:Your snide comment about travel and stretching my words to claim I blame helmets and lycra for all of cyclings' ills just show the weakness of your arguments.

Par for the course.... Lycra is even worse to bring up on these forums in my experience. Having been consistently accused at hating Lycra or blaming people who wear Lycra. With pretty much all of us being cycling enthusiasts, to imply wearing cycling specific clothing can bring about negative effects on cyclists as a group is tantamount to blasphemy around here. It is amazing the difficulty that so many people have in accepting their own behaviour (even if individually acceptable) can have negative societal repercussions is the barrier here. (HINT: NONE of us, cyclists or non cyclists manage to live lives that don't have some negative social repercussions.)

fat and old wrote:And I agree. I also read. And watch. I read and watch overseas cycling based media. Maybe you should too, because hatred of cyclists is not unique to Australia. In fact, from what I’ve seen it’s near universal. Why is that?

You serious? Hatred of cyclists is near universal? You should get out more.

Thomas Vangsness Jr. C, et al. "The Prevalence of Bicycle Injuries in a Large Urban Hospital". Int J Adv Res Ortho 2019, 2(1): 180008.

No idea of the bone fides of the journal. Via BicycleDutch (comments section of the article).

Thoglette wrote:Thomas Vangsness Jr. C, et al. "The Prevalence of Bicycle Injuries in a Large Urban Hospital". Int J Adv Res Ortho 2019, 2(1): 180008.

No idea of the bone fides of the journal. Via BicycleDutch (comments section of the article).

some things that hooked my eye lens

The most common mechanism of injury was collision with a motor vehicle without being thrown off (44%) followed by collision with a motor vehicleand subsequently being thrown off (26%).

The overall use of helmet was 14%.

The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.84).

It should also be noted that the prevalence of allsignificant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048).

Discussion: The most common cause of these reported urban injuries was a low velocity collision with a motor vehicle
without being thrown off. This data showed a paradoxical finding regarding the protective effect of helmets.

Thoglette wrote:Thomas Vangsness Jr. C, et al. "The Prevalence of Bicycle Injuries in a Large Urban Hospital". Int J Adv Res Ortho 2019, 2(1): 180008.

No idea of the bone fides of the journal. Via BicycleDutch (comments section of the article).

A very interesting paper Thoglette, thanks for sharing that.

My immediate thoughts were around the implications of this data being collected in a jurisdiction where helmet usage is not mandatory, and in particular the relevance of this to of risk compensation.

In many ways I think that a study like this, where there is no MHL, is likely to be more unbiased than one where data is collected under MHL. In particular, if you think about risk compensation, this is likely to get severely distorted in a strongly enforced MHL jurisdiction (like here in Oz).

In general, lower risk riders (slower speed and/or safer paths) are more likely to self choose not to wear a helmet in a non MHL environment, whereas under a very strict MHL regime it's actually the risk takers that are more likely to do the scofflaw thing. In my opinion, this is a really significant reason for the results of this study being as they are.

To explain away these sorts of studies I thought the accepted wisdom of Australian pro MHL researchers is to say that fewer non helmet wearing than helmet wearing head injured cyclists presented at emergency departments because the non helmet wearing victims died at the scene. Fits with their world view and has the added bonus of furthering their scare campaign.

Thoglette wrote:
Only in the Anglosphere. Abuse is extremely rare in western Europe and other places where utility cycling is normal (and helmets rare & lycra rarer). Search any anglophone forum for tales from tourists and you'll struggle to find an incident of abuse in the sea of "OMGosh aren't the drivers wonderful" comments.
.

I don't support mandatory helmet laws.
Not sure i agree with what I have quoted however.
Australia is pretty much the only country in the anglosphere where helmets are mandated.
It therefore doesn't follow that it is necessarily the helmet law leading to the animosity here, if animosity is prevalent in other anglo countries.
I don't accept either that the prevalence if sports cyclists is necessarily the reason for the enmity on our roads. Competetive cycling is very popular in continental Europe.
The professional athletes are considered sporting icons over there.
I think we are just a dumb, pig ignorant and bigotted country. We like to be outraged and hate on people who don't fit the perceived popular norms.
Commuting cyclists are largely accepted and always have been imo.
The outright hatred has always been reserved for sports cyclists.
Lycra wearing road cyclists will remain an outgroup regardless of the popularity or prevalence of commuting cyclists. The clothing and activity is well established as an outgroup.
I don't see there is any correlation in acceptance between the two tbh.

warthog1 wrote:

Thoglette wrote:
Only in the Anglosphere. Abuse is extremely rare in western Europe and other places where utility cycling is normal (and helmets rare & lycra rarer). Search any anglophone forum for tales from tourists and you'll struggle to find an incident of abuse in the sea of "OMGosh aren't the drivers wonderful" comments.
.

I don't support mandatory helmet laws.
Not sure i agree with what I have quoted however.
Australia is pretty much the only country in the anglosphere where helmets are mandated.
It therefore doesn't follow that it is necessarily the helmet law leading to the animosity here, if animosity is prevalent in other anglo countries.
I don't accept either that the prevalence if sports cyclists is necessarily the reason for the enmity on our roads. Competetive cycling is very popular in continental Europe.
The professional athletes are considered sporting icons over there.
I think we are just a dumb, pig ignorant and bigotted country. We like to be outraged and hate on people who don't fit the perceived popular norms.
Commuting cyclists are largely accepted and always have been imo.
The outright hatred has always been reserved for sports cyclists.
Lycra wearing road cyclists will remain an outgroup regardless of the popularity or prevalence of commuting cyclists. The clothing and activity is well established as an outgroup.
I don't see there is any correlation in acceptance between the two tbh.

This may be meandering off topic somewhat.. but further.. re aussies hating on cyclists. It's one of the few (only?) outgroups you can physically endanger or kill without fear of any meaningful reprisal.

Since the 1m law change in QLD (or at least since around the time it came in) I've seen the incidence of "shaving" and generally threatening driving go from occasional to the new normal. In general I believe this to be a deliberate behaviour. Yet, report these to the police and unless you happen to get a cycling cop they advocate for the driver and won't act. Further we've seen people with trucks hit and kill cyclists and say "I saw him but thought I missed him. Sorry". As far as our judicial system is concerned that seems to be adequate. I think if would be hard to explain to someone from outside. Oh well.

Comedian wrote:Oh well.

That appears to be the general response, yes.

Agree with the social acceptability of discriminating against road cyclists.
You cant do it on the basis of religion, sex, race or sexual orientation anymore.
We provide a valid alternative now that all of those have been taken away.

Comedian wrote: This may be meandering off topic somewhat.. but further.. re aussies hating on cyclists. It's one of the few (only?) outgroups you can physically endanger or kill without fear of any meaningful reprisal.

Since the 1m law change in QLD (or at least since around the time it came in) I've seen the incidence of "shaving" and generally threatening driving go from occasional to the new normal. In general I believe this to be a deliberate behaviour. Yet, report these to the police and unless you happen to get a cycling cop they advocate for the driver and won't act. Further we've seen people with trucks hit and kill cyclists and say "I saw him but thought I missed him. Sorry". As far as our judicial system is concerned that seems to be adequate. I think if would be hard to explain to someone from outside. Oh well.

You know there's actually historical precedence for what you're saying there Comedian. There's pretty much a perfect analogy from last century in terms of the reluctance of police to pursue rape charges in cases where a prostitute was raped. While things have obviously changed in this regard due to pressure from the women's movement, I'm pretty sure it was something of a poorly kept secret at the time.

If you look at the thinking behind these two things you can see that it's pretty much the same in each case. In the case of the rape of a prostitute, the police thinking would have been that their virtue is so low that it's not really be worth protecting. In the case of cyclists it's probably along the lines that their regard for their own safety is so low (due to outgrouping and distorted perceived risk) that their safety is not really worth protecting.

Comedian wrote:

warthog1 wrote:

Thoglette wrote:
Only in the Anglosphere. Abuse is extremely rare in western Europe and other places where utility cycling is normal (and helmets rare & lycra rarer). Search any anglophone forum for tales from tourists and you'll struggle to find an incident of abuse in the sea of "OMGosh aren't the drivers wonderful" comments.
.

I think we are just a dumb, pig ignorant and bigotted country. We like to be outraged and hate on people who don't fit the perceived popular norms.

This may be meandering off topic somewhat.. but further.. re aussies hating on cyclists. It's one of the few (only?) outgroups you can physically endanger or kill without fear of any meaningful reprisal.

I'd never even heard of Coal Rolling until Comedian posted a link. I haven't seen it in Australia yet, although I haven't been near Innisfail or Mareeba lately