Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:57 am

il Padrone is the one on the left with the striped cycling cap and colourful top. I'm barely visible several rows back on the right at the back in blue.
mikesbytes wrote:Did the police give any tickets for not wearing a helmet?
They were nowhere to be seen for the ride. As I understand it the ride was a registered protest and the local police where well are that it was occurring and were briefed about the plan. They chose to not have a presence from what I could see.

Though one guy did get fined while riding to the protest ride.

Half of it was on the CCT bike path. However when negotiating most other roads impromptu traffic management occured to let the train of cyclists through. Those who took on the traffic management politely explained why the traffic was briefly being stopped and I didn't see any frustrated or stupid motorists trying to drive into packs of cyclists. (like what occured on several occasions on the Alberto Paulon ride.)

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22160
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:30 pm

Sydney is thinking of bicycle hire and is a bit concerned about the experiences in Melbourne and Brisbane. They asked for feedback on facebook. I expressed concern about the inconvenience of having to obtain a helmet. I used the parody of if you had to provide your own seat belt to get a taxi. Next thing you are going from seven eleven to seven eleven looking for seat belt. So with the added effort you decide not to catch a taxi and use another form of transport.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:20 pm

My favourite cyclists from the helmet optional ride.

Image

The average Australian would have a fit and scream child endangerment.... The HeraldSun comment feed would meltdown...

Yet it is just a mother transporting her two children and one of their friends. :mrgreen:

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby fat and old » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:46 pm

Can someone point me at the figures re the change in active transport use for school commutes post MHL intro?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Thoglette » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:01 pm

fat and old wrote:Can someone point me at the figures re the change in active transport use for school commutes post MHL intro?
ABS stats exist for 1972 onwards, ish.
http://www.timetotalk.act.gov.au/storag ... Review.pdf Pg 27 on

https://heartfoundation.org.au/images/u ... School.pdf 2012 data

Put "active travel school" into your favourite search engine.

MHL is not as important as the danger of other drivers. Which are mostly other parents dropping their kids off
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby fat and old » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:10 pm

Thank you

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW

Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DaveQB » Fri May 12, 2017 7:41 pm

Since my recent, first, crash, I am have been researching for a new helmet and been running into some helmet safety discussions. When I looked over my smashed helmet with a mate, I raised the point that the foam didn't compress and wondered if it ever would given the rigidity of it. Then I ran into this today:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-test ... ide-146500
Go down to the comments and read all the comments by

"burttthebike"

He also links to this:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Even though I do wonder about the compressibility of modern cycling helmets, I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury. From the limited reading I have done on this anti-helmet argument, it seems the it is more a case of "correlation does not mean causation". A bit like saying ambulances are no good because where ever there are, there's people injured.

I am keen for other peoples thoughts.

PS here's my helmet post-crash
https://goo.gl/photos/MmuvKQ6W2Yy25KQRA
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15587
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby AUbicycles » Fri May 12, 2017 8:21 pm

Admin says: This topic has been, on request, merged into the MHL thread.
Cycling is in my BNA

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby yugyug » Sat May 13, 2017 8:06 pm

AUbicycles wrote:Admin says: This topic has been, on request, merged into the MHL thread.
I wonder whether it's best to concentrate helmet discussion in the one thread. I know there are megathreads on other topics, but is discussion on those topics elsewhere moved to those threads with the same readiness?

There is value in having wider discussion about helmets elsewhere on the forum.

Much as some want to push it under the carpet, we can't hide from the ugly political truth that Australia almost uniquely suffers from a disastrous law maintained by over-confidence in the issue the OP raises: the efficacy of bicycle helmets. And given the recent events in Portugal and Bosnia-Herzegovina, it's clear the rest of the world understands that better than we do.

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby yugyug » Sun May 14, 2017 3:48 am

DaveQB wrote:Even though I do wonder about the compressibility of modern cycling helmets, I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury. From the limited reading I have done on this anti-helmet argument, it seems the it is more a case of "correlation does not mean causation". A bit like saying ambulances are no good because where ever there are, there's people injured.
The analogy you make about ambulances is kind of relevant. Confirmation bias is why so many trauma surgeons speak about helmet efficacy, beyond their expertise.

Seems to me that "burttthebike" is correct. The studies do indicate that globally as helmet wearing goes up the risk of injury goes up.

There causal-correlation issue is important, and there is debate about. Risk compensation is one thing.

What I think is more important is the mix of different styles and types of riding. Countries like the Netherlands have huge numbers of cyclists that ride conservatively without helmets in upright bikes and rarely have serious injuries. Australia did too once, relatively to the number of cyclists we have now. But as helmet safety propoganda and MHL took hold, more and more conservative, safety minded cyclists stopped riding. The sporty, athletic types who don't mind wearing helmets did not, and these types take more risks and rides less conservatively. So the relative injury rate goes up as the number of cyclists goes down (as would be shown in Australia, if we had good data on it, which we don't). This is why a study in the Netherlands showed you are much more likely to end up hospital if you wear a helmet than if not. But this doesn't mean the helmets don't have some benefit at the individual level, it's just that it's not clear at the population level due to the huge inhibitory effect helmet promotion has on safety minded potential cyclists.

IMO the individual efficacy of helmets is massively overrated anyway, they don't protect against concussion and a cracked helmet is not an indication the helmet worked.

If you look into it, the human skull and scalp is wonderfully evolved to handle moderate impacts, but no one likes to think about that because bloody scalps are icky.

Hey, here's a thing: why is it that only pro-helmet cyclists call them "lids"? I reckon its got something to do with 'safety theatre'.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby Thoglette » Sun May 14, 2017 12:57 pm

DaveQB wrote: I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury.
And I know people who 100% believe what they read in some very old books. There's nothing I can do to change your belief system, regardless of the evidence.
DaveQB wrote: I am keen for other peoples thoughts.
Be warned you've now been merged into the MHL thread, which is primarily not about the efficacy of helmets. Rather it is about the efficacy (or otherwise) of MHLs.

But I'll give you my thoughts, as an early adopter of helmets I consider them particularly useful for those engaged in high risk cycling. That is, riding likely to result in a hard impact with the ground. They're marginally useful when hit by cars: when a suitable head impact occurs in the "goldilocks" zone - not too soft, not too hard. And only if the other injuries aren't critical.

Like safety boots, they are useful PPE if you have very long exposure times and medium risk riding (high speeds, rough roads).

For tootling to to the shops for milk or to the train station they are a damned inconvenience.

Strangely enough, before MHLs that's exactly what the varied population of cyclists was doing: BMX/MTB used helmets, shoppers did not. Those who did not wear helmets stopped riding when MHLs were introduced.

It is the "damned inconvenience" factor which damns helmets as a "must wear" on three fronts.
1. They reduce the total number of trips taken, increasing the risk for other riders (population accident rates are almost flat w.r.t. participation)
2. They reduce the total number of trips taken, resulting in significantly worse health outcomes for the population and worsening congestion.
3. They signify that cycling is both dangerous and "not normal", exacerbating the problems above.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby Comedian » Sun May 14, 2017 3:48 pm

DaveQB wrote:Since my recent, first, crash, I am have been researching for a new helmet and been running into some helmet safety discussions. When I looked over my smashed helmet with a mate, I raised the point that the foam didn't compress and wondered if it ever would given the rigidity of it. Then I ran into this today:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-test ... ide-146500
Go down to the comments and read all the comments by

"burttthebike"

He also links to this:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Even though I do wonder about the compressibility of modern cycling helmets, I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury. From the limited reading I have done on this anti-helmet argument, it seems the it is more a case of "correlation does not mean causation". A bit like saying ambulances are no good because where ever there are, there's people injured.

I am keen for other peoples thoughts.

PS here's my helmet post-crash
https://goo.gl/photos/MmuvKQ6W2Yy25KQRA
As noted - this thread is about MHL not the effectiveness of helmets.

FWIW I think that for sports cycling.. on balance I would wear one. In regards to serious brain injury I think sometimes they help, and sometimes they probably make it worse. I do think they protect against unpleasant but non life threatening scalp cuts and abrasions. Personally - the next helmet I get will be one that has the least protrusions from it. I have a Kask Mohito which is better than most. They also make one called a Protone which I'll get next. Very smooth at the back.

I think helmets are a PITA for short shopping trips etc which I often do. It's all a bit moot though - as you don't have the choice in Australia. There is one thing that is pretty much beyond debate - that they do protect you from getting a fine for not wearing a helmet. :roll:

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DavidS » Sun May 14, 2017 5:04 pm

Comedian wrote:There is one thing that is pretty much beyond debate - that they do protect you from getting a fine for not wearing a helmet. :roll:
I knew they had a use . . . but that's about it for a commuter like me.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21329
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby g-boaf » Sun May 14, 2017 7:10 pm

DaveQB wrote:Since my recent, first, crash, I am have been researching for a new helmet
Have a look at the POC Octal, it's quite a good one. Great ventilation, comfortable fit - you hardly notice it. Saw one from a 50km/h accident (in a race, on a descent) and it seemed to do the job quite well. And please people, don't launch into an attack on the skills of the rider... I shouldn't have to say that, but I just know one of you will... :roll:

I've also had a S-Works Evade, don't really notice any benefit of the super-aero design of that helmet. And in summer time it gets super hot to wear that one, so that's not great.
Thoglette wrote:For tootling to to the shops for milk or to the train station they are a damned inconvenience.
Some low speed accidents can result in really, really bad injuries, while some higher speed ones aren't so bad. So it's really luck of the draw there.
yugyug wrote:Hey, here's a thing: why is it that only pro-helmet cyclists call them "lids"? I reckon its got something to do with 'safety theatre'.
I don't think there is anything to do with anything and you are probably reading too much into it. Just a figure of speech, some people say things one way, others say it another way. I'm not really influenced one way or the other.
Last edited by g-boaf on Sun May 14, 2017 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jasonc
Posts: 12170
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby jasonc » Sun May 14, 2017 7:14 pm

g-boaf wrote: Some low speed accidents can result in really, really bad injuries, while some higher speed ones aren't so bad. So it's really luck of the draw there.
You as more likely to slide rather than hit and stop in a high speed off

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21329
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby g-boaf » Sun May 14, 2017 7:21 pm

jasonc wrote:
g-boaf wrote: Some low speed accidents can result in really, really bad injuries, while some higher speed ones aren't so bad. So it's really luck of the draw there.
You as more likely to slide rather than hit and stop in a high speed off
You can indeed hit and stop in a high speed off as well, it's down to your surroundings. Hope like heck that it doesn't happen - but it can do, and the results are sobering. That can happen in racing, fast technical descents. :(

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DavidS » Sun May 14, 2017 9:29 pm

The problem with the arguments above is that the reality is that having an accident in the first place, especially if you are riding from A to B rather than racing, is very low. All the talk above about how even a low speed accident can cause injury ignores the main point of this argument, that the rate at which cyclists have accidents where a helmet would help is too low to justify making them mandatory. Add into the equation that more cyclists increases safety on the roads and we know mandatory helmet laws reduced the number of cyclists on the roads, and the law really looks silly.

Cycling really is not that dangerous. It is one of the most pernicious impacts of MHLs that there is now a perception that cycling is dangerous to the extent we have doctors describing riding a bike on Melbourne's roads as verging on suicide (The Age October 2011).

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby Thoglette » Sun May 14, 2017 11:06 pm

DavidS wrote:Cycling really is not that dangerous.
And, at the risk of repeating myself:

We don't have mandatory slip-slop-slap laws for stepping out in the sun.
We don't have mandatory helmet laws for showering or bathing.

And: cycling ain't cycling. There are significant differences in the risk profiles associated with the very, very different sorts of cycling that are popular around the world. Once you remove "sporting" cycling such as BMX, MTB and road racing, cycling is rather mundane and risk free.

But the pro-MHL crowd do not want to have this conversation. Because it rapidly highlights the one remaining risk and it's root cause: driver attitudes.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby Comedian » Mon May 15, 2017 7:39 am

Thoglette wrote:
DavidS wrote:Cycling really is not that dangerous.
And, at the risk of repeating myself:

We don't have mandatory slip-slop-slap laws for stepping out in the sun.
We don't have mandatory helmet laws for showering or bathing.

And: cycling ain't cycling. There are significant differences in the risk profiles associated with the very, very different sorts of cycling that are popular around the world. Once you remove "sporting" cycling such as BMX, MTB and road racing, cycling is rather mundane and risk free.

But the pro-MHL crowd do not want to have this conversation. Because it rapidly highlights the one remaining risk and it's root cause: driver attitudes.
You forgot.. we don't have mandatory driving helmets and we should. But no one wants that personal imposition.

http://www.monash.edu/muarc/research/ou ... ns/atsb160

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby fat and old » Mon May 15, 2017 8:31 am

A few things.
Thoglette wrote:
DaveQB wrote: I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury.
And I know people who 100% believe what they read in some very old books. There's nothing I can do to change your belief system, regardless of the evidence.
What evidence has the OP supplied to back his belief? None that I know of. I can no more make comment fairly on non existent evidence than you can. Maybe it's just an emotional belief. Maybe not. We don't know.
Comedian wrote: As noted - this thread is about MHL not the effectiveness of helmets.
Indeed. I wonder if that's what the OP had in mind when making the initial post. Did he request the merge, or was it Mod induced in order to control the spreading of the MHL issue? As put by Yugyug
I wonder whether it's best to concentrate helmet discussion in the one thread. I know there are megathreads on other topics, but is discussion on those topics elsewhere moved to those threads with the same readiness?

There is value in having wider discussion about helmets elsewhere on the forum.
I'd agree with that. Is it possible to have that wider discussion without introducing MHL's? TBH, based on past experience I'd think not. I would love to see it proved otherwise. One of the older assertions anti-MHL'ers raised was the possibility of helmets causing injusy in and of themselves though things like friction caused by skidding (raised above and elswhere in threads as diverse as one regarding the mounting of cameras on helmets), possibility of strangulation by the straps (YY has raised that one), and the rotational forces on the neck and head when striking something. I have personally pointed out the rise of MIPS equipped helmets has shown an appreciation of this by manufacturers and consumers yet the anti-MHL lobby has always remained silent on this (which is a good thing).
Because it rapidly highlights the one remaining risk and it's root cause: driver attitudes.
I don't think that there is anyone on this board who would disagree with that. Is it what the OP had in mind with his post though?

I knew they had a use . . . but that's about it for a commuter like me.
I think helmets are a PITA for short shopping trips etc which I often do
For tootling to to the shops for milk or to the train station they are a damned inconvenience.
Common thoughts, and fair enough more than likely. However, I will ( and have previously) point out that my brother died from head injuries incurred in a cycle accident. No other vehicles involved, he simply missed a corner and rode into a light pole. At walking speed. No helmet (1963). He is what many here would call an "outlier". I will point this out, because

It can happen.

The juxtaposition of my friend being killed a few years back when a car went over him; in spite of wearing a helmet; should swing the tide back in favour of the anti-mhl argument. Or at least a centrist viewpoint.

I find that many instances that disagree with the pro-cycling attitude that you naturally get on a Cycling Forum are glossed over (such as the recent death of a pedestrian in Melbourne). This is understandable. It does not make for decent, rational or fair discussion. Maybe that sort of discussion could be had about helmets. I don't know.

As usual, I must point out that I am anti-MHL. On a libertarian basis. I do accept the downturn in cycling was accelerated by MHL's. I do not accept that this (a reduction in cycling) was not going to happen, or that MHL's are responsible for that downturn to the degree that some here assert. I simply do not accept the level of gov. interference involved (with regards to MHL's). On adults anyway. On children below 13 or so I'm undecided.

Also, as usual, I admire the input that Yugyug has into these threads.
We don't have mandatory slip-slop-slap laws for stepping out in the sun.
Because they're not readily enforceable. I challenge you to find a primary school that does not have mandatory use of some form of hat as protection against sun when outside. Or an outdoor employer who does not have to provide sunscreen, long sleeves and trousers. TBH, that should be easy; nonetheless it is more common than not.

Musing thoughts.

Edit. I'm not in agreement with using comparisons in general TBH. Arguments such as that above, on sunscreen. Or the mandatory use of helmets in cars etc. To my way of thinking, if an argument cannot stand alone i.e. "MHL's are wrong because they suck, and here's the evidence" then it is a losing argument. Pointing out another's failings to enhance your own place in society never does it for me. And I simply refuse to adopt the victim mentality so common to cyclists.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon May 15, 2017 8:55 am

Oh yeah, something that's been bugging me since I came across it last week in another thread.

Somebody claimed that cycling was dangerous. The context was moron motorists. The reply was that cycling isn't dangerous, the cars make it so.

Isn't it then dangerous anyway? The reply confirms this, doesn't it?

BJL
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BJL » Mon May 15, 2017 9:36 am

fat and old wrote:Oh yeah, something that's been bugging me since I came across it last week in another thread.

Somebody claimed that cycling was dangerous. The context was moron motorists. The reply was that cycling isn't dangerous, the cars make it so.

Isn't it then dangerous anyway? The reply confirms this, doesn't it?
You're victim blaming. Cyclists don't put themselves in danger by riding on the roads. The dangers presented by motorists are imposed on us by motorists. It makes me angry whenever motorists bleat on about the roads being unsafe for cyclists when it's them who are causing most of the dangers. Cycling in itself is very safe.

Is it dangerous for women to walk around alone late at night?

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon May 15, 2017 9:58 am

Ok, lets accept that I'm victim blaming. Just like everyone else, on whatever subject they care to. Including yourself.

I also accept that the dangers are supplied by motorists to a large degree. Does that mean that there are no dangers when cars and cyclists interact? Does the presence of a cyclist somehow negate and remove the dangers posed by the car?

Does the tree present a danger to a downhill MTB'er? The rock gardens?

How can you do something in safety when there are dangers all around? Cycling does not exist in a vacuum.

Yes, it is dangerous for women to walk around at night, with or without a male/female partner. Unfortunate but true. Recognising that fact is not victim blaming; it's recognising a problem that needs fixing. Preferably with extreme deterrence, such as castration. Feel good society my a&$.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Mon May 15, 2017 12:59 pm

So I learnt something today. Since my mate got hit by a car I've learned a lot about CTP insurance. What it is and what it does. In QLD it's an at fault system. IE if the cyclist was deemed to be 0% at fault in the crash they receive 100% benefit. Say they were 50% - then 50% benefit. Potentially if they were deemed 100% at fault they may get nothing. Unlike QLD, Victoria has a no fault system as does TAS and WA.

When looking at what NSW has (it has an at fault system with some concessions) .. I found this little beauty. Even if the cyclist was deemed to be 0% at fault they may wear some of the blame...

The benefits you may receive may be reduced if the accident or your injuries were partly your fault. You would be partly at fault if, for example, you were:
• driving at an unsafe speed
• travelling in a vehicle when you knew the driver was affected by alcohol or drugs
• not wearing a seatbelt
not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle or bicycle
• driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
The evil is strong in that one..

http://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/green-slips/ ... green-slip

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Mon May 15, 2017 1:58 pm

fat and old wrote:Yes, it is dangerous for women to walk around at night, with or without a male/female partner.
Only in the society you and your parents and your neighbours have created for yourself where you live.

It is not the case where I live.

Now, both our positions are based on our personal beliefs as much any statistical measure.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elantra