Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Philistine]

Well that's nice, but, your anecdote does not equal data.

You need a new dictionary - it is only a fragment of data but it is certainly data or perhaps a datum)!

I suspect from your rather snide contribution that you strongly disapprove of MHL, and, by extension, anybody who isn't totally in lockstep with your view.

[fat and old]

A common issue with most die hard anti mhl’ers. They tend to take it badly when someone points out a positive outcome due to helmet wearing and are intent on belittling the experience as inconsequential, erroneous or extraordinary. There are notable exceptions but those people still feel compelled to point out the issues with MHL’s and society in general.

Really, supporting cycling helmets in any shape or form on this thread is like waving a red flag at a bull This thread is no longer a discussion on MHL’s; it’s an excersise in futility.

[BJL]

A common issue with most die hard anti mhl’ers. They tend to take it badly when someone points out a positive outcome due to helmet wearing and are intent on belittling the experience as inconsequential, erroneous or extraordinary. There are notable exceptions but those people still feel compelled to point out the issues with MHL’s and society in general.

Just like when someone points out the negative aspects of MHL's such as reduced participation in cycling, there are those that take it badly and feel compelled to point out how they were saved by wearing a helmet and that all cyclists should wear one. This circle is getting a little boring.

Really, supporting cycling helmets in any shape or form on this thread is like waving a red flag at a bull This thread is no longer a discussion on MHL’s; it’s an excersise in futility.

Not sure if you mis-wrote (if 'mis-wrote' is not a word, it is now!), but as far as I can tell, no one is advocating for banning bicycle helmets. This thread isn't about supporting cycling helmets or not, it's about supporting MHL's or not.

One of these days I'm going to attend one of the anti MHL rallies where a bunch of cyclists ride around without helmets, and WEAR a helmet. To demonstrate that it's not about banning helmets in any way but about choice. The issue here is whether or not you think people should have the right to choose if they wear a helmet or not.

[fat and old]

A common issue with most die hard anti mhl’ers. They tend to take it badly when someone points out a positive outcome due to helmet wearing and are intent on belittling the experience as inconsequential, erroneous or extraordinary. There are notable exceptions but those people still feel compelled to point out the issues with MHL’s and society in general.

Just like when someone points out the negative aspects of MHL's such as reduced participation in cycling, there are those that take it badly and feel compelled to point out how they were saved by wearing a helmet and that all cyclists should wear one. This circle is getting a little boring.

Really, supporting cycling helmets in any shape or form on this thread is like waving a red flag at a bull This thread is no longer a discussion on MHL’s; it’s an excersise in futility.

Not sure if you mis-wrote (if 'mis-wrote' is not a word, it is now!), but as far as I can tell, no one is advocating for banning bicycle helmets. This thread isn't about supporting cycling helmets or not, it's about supporting MHL's or not.

One of these days I'm going to attend one of the anti MHL rallies where a bunch of cyclists ride around without helmets, and WEAR a helmet. To demonstrate that it's not about banning helmets in any way but about choice. The issue here is whether or not you think people should have the right to choose if they wear a helmet or not.

Mis-wrote will do me

Agree with everything you say, except to say in no way was I suggesting that anyone has advocated for the banning of helmets; I’m not sure how I conveyed that? It remains however that this thread is predominantly the playground of the anti mhl’ers and my comment on the reactions to any positive viewpoints on helmets stands. In fact to even suggest that as I have will draw posters (obviously ) that will invariably point out that “they do too” and usually (but not always) draw some conclusion that isn’t inferred.

Once again, I point out my opposition to MHL’s on libertarian grounds.

Edit: Boring? Perhaps. Not enough to stop you or me tho

[BobtheBuilder]

They tend to take it badly when someone points out a positive outcome due to helmet wearing and are intent on belittling the experience as inconsequential, erroneous or extraordinary.

I don't think that's a fair comment. DavidS wrote an anecdote about a helmet protecting him, which is largely irrelevant to Mandatory Helmet Laws. Helmets would protect him driving, walking and jogging - pursuits which, believe it or not, have head injury rates similar to or higher than cycling. His anecdote is relevant to the safety of helmets, not whether they should be compulsory.

However, helmets themselves may, in some cases, actually be more dangerous than a bare head. Curnow (2003, 2007, amongst others) has done work on the efficacy of helmets and notes (2003) "It is shown that the design of helmets reflects a discredited theory of brain injury. The conclusions are that the meta-analysis does not provide scientific evidence that such helmets reduce serious injury to the brain, and the Australian policy of compulsory wearing lacks a basis of verified efficacy against brain injury."
Corner (1987 and p.2 Econ. Ref. Committee) has raised serious concerns about the possibility that helmets could increase rotation of the head during impact - "But the research, by Corner et al in 1987, reported that the standard tests of helmets were deficient in merely protecting against a direct blow but not reducing rotation of the head from oblique impact, and it is the main cause of fatal and disabling brain injury. Worse, Corner's experiments found that a helmet on a dummy head could increase rotation. Despite similar findings since in the USA and UK, this defect in standard helmets remains. Helmets are therefore likely to increase the risk of severe brain injury, and statistics for fatal head injuries to cyclists suggest that this did occur after the helmet laws." (Prof. Rissel, p.2 of Econ. Refs. Committee).

This research is contested by others, but the important point is that the scientific evidence is inconclusive on the protective properties of helmets. Irrespective of the impact on particular individuals, the public health evidence is pretty conclusive that mandatory helmet laws have a huge negative health effect.

As a side note, I'd say that if within a week someone's had two crashes that were serious enough to involve head impact, they are either a very high-risk cyclist or a very poor cyclist. A helmet may have helped, but better riding skills and risk assessment would have helped more.

Cth. Economics References Committee. Senate. Personal choice and community impacts Inquiry. Hearing on 16 November 2015. Retrieved from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au
Corner, J., Whitney C, O'Rourke, N, Morgan, D. (1987). Motorcycle and bicycle protective helmets: requirements resulting from a post crash study and experimental research. Federal Office of Road Safety Report CR55. Retrieved from http://coneheadhelmets.com.au/wp-conten ... Helm_1.pdf
Curnow, W.J. (2003). The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 287-292. doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00012-X
Curnow, W.J. (2007). Bicycle helmets and brain injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 433-436. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.09.013

[fat and old]

(Prof. Rissel, p.2 of Econ. Refs. Committee).

http://acrs.org.au/journals/august-2010-vol-21-no-3/

http://www.cbdbug.org.au/wp-content/upl ... leased.pdf

He finally admitted “mathematical errors” yet was unrepentant, stating that “ Our original conclusion is quite reasonable“.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/aut ... 19a9x.html

He never did resubmit the research to my knowledge.

This lassiez-faire approach to research and facts appears to continue during his submission to the Select Comittee.

But the research, by Corner et al in 1987, reported that the standard tests of helmets were deficient in merely protecting against a direct blow but not reducing rotation of the head from oblique impact, and it is the main cause of fatal and disabling brain injury. Worse, Corner's experiments found that a helmet on a dummy head could increase rotation. Despite similar findings since in the USA and UK, this defect in standard helmets remains. Helmets are therefore likely to increase the risk of brain injury, and statistics for fatal head injuries to cyclists
suggest that this did occur after the helmet laws." (Prof. Rissel, p.2 of Econ. Refs. Committee).

I’m not disputing the theory put forward....indeed helmet manufacturers recognise the issue and have addressed it

http://mipsprotection.com/helmets/

What I take issue with is Rissel’s word games and misrepresentations. He refers to the issue of “standard” helmets without explaining that there are alternatives. He then goes on to say “helmets are therefore likely to increase the risk.......”. Err....incorrect. “Standard helmets are likely...” would have been a reasonable thing to say, but that would not have suited his agenda. So he puts all helmets into the basket and hopes our politicians are too stupid to notice. A fair bet tbh.

I don’t trust or believe a thing that comes out his discredited mouth.

[DavidS]

Well that's nice, but, your anecdote does not equal data.

You need a new dictionary - it is only a fragment of data but it is certainly data or perhaps a datum)!

I suspect from your rather snide contribution that you strongly disapprove of MHL, and, by extension, anybody who isn't totally in lockstep with your view.

You know what I mean (being snide aren't you).

What reaction were you looking for? You knew what you were doing, giving an anecdote in this thread - I was just giving you what you want.

DS

[BobtheBuilder]

(Prof. Rissel, p.2 of Econ. Refs. Committee).
He refers to the issue of “standard” helmets without explaining that there are alternatives.

Well, I don't know the bloke's history as well as you, but it's not as if he's the only one with those views. His personal character isn't the issue at stake here.

"standard" helmets are still legal, though, aren't they? Still used by many people, who are told they are protective, that they can't ride safely without one?

[Mububban]

As a side note, I'd say that if within a week someone's had two crashes that were serious enough to involve head impact, they are either a very high-risk cyclist or a very poor cyclist. A helmet may have helped, but better riding skills and risk assessment would have helped more.

Yes, I caused the first crash due to lack of skill and misjudging a line, but I will not blame myself for someone else hitting me with their car by not slowing down and checking before proceeding through a give way intersection. And shame on you for victim blaming a fellow cyclist when you know nothing of the details.

As to the topic at hand, MHL, I believe adults should be able to choose to wear a helmet or not, especially if it increases activity levels and improves the overall public health. But in the current anti-cycling climate, I can't see any law like helmet choice being put through without some amendment being tacked on along the lines of "if you choose not to wear a helmet then suffer a head injury, you won't be covered by the public health system."

[human909]

Yes, I caused the first crash due to lack of skill and misjudging a line, but I will not blame myself for someone else hitting me with their car by not slowing down and checking before proceeding through a give way intersection. And shame on you for victim blaming a fellow cyclist when you know nothing of the details.

I didn't see much victim blaming. Your attempt at shaming rather than engaging in the topic does not bode well for a robust discussion. Neither does you initial comments which really don't show the effectiveness of helmets in the way you think they do.

As to the topic at hand, MHL, I believe adults should be able to choose to wear a helmet or not, especially if it increases activity levels and improves the overall public health. But in the current anti-cycling climate, I can't see any law like helmet choice being put through without some amendment being tacked on along the lines of "if you choose not to wear a helmet then suffer a head injury, you won't be covered by the public health system."

And yet the NT functions just fine without functional MHLs.

Furthermore you comments about the health system are absurd and would go against EVERYTHING the health system is based upon.

[fat and old]

(Prof. Rissel, p.2 of Econ. Refs. Committee).
He refers to the issue of “standard” helmets without explaining that there are alternatives.

Well, I don't know the bloke's history as well as you, but it's not as if he's the only one with those views. His personal character isn't the issue at stake here

No, it’s not. And apparently he’s quite a nice fella, passionate about his agenda of public health. His professional character however leaves much to be desired, and as one of the go to “authorities” on MHL’s should be beyond reproach. It’s not IMO and I will point this out every time somebody uses he or his arguments to support their POV. He had the chance given to adjust his research and resubmit but failed to do so.

I have no issue with people submitting all and sundry pieces of research, anecdotes etc in support of their position. Just so long as it’s accurate and reasonable. Previously you stated

DavidS wrote an anecdote about a helmet protecting him, which is largely irrelevant to Mandatory Helmet Laws.

It was actually member Mubabban. That’s not a big deal, DavidS has done the same thing, accusing Member Philistine of recounting that anecdote. What seems to happen to some anti MHL’ers is that they see their POV in dispute or an opportunity to push that POV and go into Defcon5 mode without thinking. Thus regaling people for things they haven’t said, inferring things that were not inferred and generally not thinking things through. That’s the only issue I have.

Mubabban’s anecdote is extremely relevant to MHL’s. It is a real world example of what the original proponents wanted to achieve. A helmet saved someone from greater injury. It worked. You (and others) will dismiss it as an unproven anecdote. You (and others) will even engage in a bit of victim blaming in an effort to discredit the anecdote. None of that matters, because you cannot prove that it didn’t make a difference. My impression is that anti MHL’ers despise these “anecdotes” because of these reasons and will continually howl them down as they post their stories and videos of people in Holland riding about helmetless and “safe”.

Guess what? There’s no difference. They’re ALL anecdotes.

standard" helmets are still legal, though, aren't they? Still used by many people, who are told they are protective, that they can't ride safely without one?

“Standard” helmets are legal; in fact they’re the ones that the state gov supplies for their hire bikes in Melbourne. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in a worse case scenario tbh. Maybe they get sued? Who knows. Obviously in some situations they are protective. I’m not sure that we are told that we “can’t ride safely” without one? I’d agree we are told that it’s “safer with one”, that would be enough to bring MHL’s on line but I admit I’m not sure on this. Others would be able to give better evidence or citations on that.

[BobtheBuilder]

DavidS wrote an anecdote about a helmet protecting him, which is largely irrelevant to Mandatory Helmet Laws.

It was actually member Mubabban.

Yes, my mistake, I got lost in the cutting and pasting.

What seems to happen to some anti MHL’ers is that they see their POV in dispute or an opportunity to push that POV and go into Defcon5 mode without thinking. Thus regaling people for things they haven’t said, inferring things that were not inferred and generally not thinking things through. That’s the only issue I have.

It was a typo, that's all.

DavidS wrote an anecdote about a helmet protecting him, which is largely irrelevant to Mandatory Helmet Laws.

This forum is called Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion), not Are helmets effective. That is why the anecdote is irrelevant. It does not make an argument for them being compulsory, it just makes an assertion that they helped him twice in one week.

You (and others) will even engage in a bit of victim blaming

This is a straw man argument. I wasn't victim-blaming. Two accidents in a week that involve a head impact is highly unusual. I've ridden a whole life and never hit my head coming off a bike. That includes a stint as a bike courier in Sydney. I was just making the point that the cyclist is likely either to have poor technique or is a risk-taker. Risk-taking is fine and in that context wearing a helmet may make sense, if Curnow's research, amongst others, has got it wrong. Either way, it is not an argument for helmet-wearing to be compulsory.

Unless you believe it should be compulsory for motor vehicle occupants and joggers?

I don't oppose helmet laws from libertarian grounds, for instance I'm totally in favour of seatbelt laws, which have a huge and proven safety effect, I'm opposed to them because they have marginal, if any, safety value for many of the (rare) times the ordinary rider comes off a bike and a well-demonstrated population-level massive negative health impact.

in an effort to discredit the anecdote. None of that matters, because you cannot prove that it didn’t make a difference. My impression is that anti MHL’ers despise these “anecdotes” because of these reasons

I can't speak for others, but I wasn't discrediting the anecdote, I was saying that it's not relevant to whether helmet-wearing should be compulsory when cycling. Despite my reservations about helmets, I wear one when I'm undertaking risky riding (which is about 5% of my riding), as do most riders all over the world, no law affecting the majority of low-risk riders needed.

[BobtheBuilder]

And yet the NT functions just fine without functional MHLs.

We certainly do, and you see far more cyclists (particularly utility cyclists) around my small town and in Darwin city than you do in the rest of Australia, even with our often intense heat and sun. There are too many confounding factors to make clear arguments that this is because of the helmet laws, but the correlation between riding patterns in the NT and similar countries where there aren't MHLs (i.e. all of them except NZ) is fairly strong, i.e. much higher proportion of utility cyclists and higher overall levels of cycling.
Yet, if you join the mountain-bikers or road-racers, in those contexts they will almost 100% have helmets, but utility cyclists are almost 100% non-helmeted. This correlates with one of the (many) arguments against MHL, that cyclists engaging in risky riding wear helmets regardless of the law. The law just discourages the large segment of cyclists who use bikes for ordinary, practical transport. A segment that is, post-MHL (except in the NT), a small segment.

[fat and old]

DavidS wrote an anecdote about a helmet protecting him, which is largely irrelevant to Mandatory Helmet Laws.

This forum is called Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion), not Are helmets effective. That is why the anecdote is irrelevant..............

I'm opposed to them because they have marginal, if any, safety value for many of the (rare) times the ordinary rider comes off a bike.

If you are not basing your assertion on the efficacy of helmets the what is it?

I don’t see how you can remove the efficacy of the item from the discussion tbh, but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.

[fat and old]

My mates looking at me, all dressed up, helmet in hand waiting to go for a ride while I argue this shiz Best I go. All the best from Melbourne, have a nice day in a warm paradise you bastard

[Thoglette]

I don’t see how you can remove the efficacy of the item from the discussion tbh, but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.

If you are not basing your assertion on the efficacy of helmets the what is it?

Because, after twenty years of trying, there is zero evidence that MHLs have a measurable effect on head injury rates. (See BMJ (Goldacre, B; Spiegelhalter, D (2013) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3817). )

Helmet efficacy has become the venue of last resort of the welded-on pro-MHL researcher (Hello Jake Olivier)

Let me translate: helmet efficacy is so unimportant to overall cyclist injury rates (compared to, say, psycho drivers and bad road design or even the 'safety in numbers' effect) that it's drowned out in the noise.

The other issue is, cyclists are not a single homogenous blob. Rather cyclists and cycle trips (including use of bicycles as wheeled toys - hello BMX and MTB racers) are a range of barely related activities. Trying to bundle them all up under one measure of efficacy is flawed. Some of these activities do have a reasonable risk of whacking oneself in the head. Whereas riding to the pub or train station does not (somewhere earlier in this thread there;s a youtube of dozens of bicyclists falling over on some black ice - yet no one hits their head).

The problem for MHL proponents, and I'll say it again until I go blue in the face, is that those cyclists who benefit from helmet use are likely to already be wearing them.

That is, the existing MHL examples do very little to promote helmet wearing among those who would benefit (and who are, largely, not on public roads in the first instance).

But they have a very clear negative effect on overall participation rates (Heart Foundation 2015, RAC 2016, BA 2017 or ask any parent of teens or any commuter with a "hair do") and are, anecdotally, part of the blame-the-victim (aka "shared responsibility") attitude from the anticyclist press and anticyclist ministers & bureauocrats (hello NSW police) .

There is an increasing body of evidence that MHLs are not merely correlated with poor cycling-as-transport participation rates and lousy cycling injury rates but are causative (e.g. https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k94/rr-2)

That's why helmet efficacy is not worth talking about, (at least, no more than clip-in vs flat pedals), in terms of bicyclist population safety and thus MHLs

[hunch]

My mates

Sounds unlikely!

Furthermore you comments about the health system are absurd and would go against EVERYTHING the health system is based upon.

That old chestnut of bearing all the costs of an accident sans helmet, refuses to die even here it seems.

This article from the other week https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-eco ... 50571.html gives some indications of the numbers involved. At fault drivers get to impose on the health and welfare systems in the billions - there's never mention of tossing them out into the snow.

[human909]

This forum is called Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion), not Are helmets effective. That is why the anecdote is irrelevant. It does not make an argument for them being compulsory, it just makes an assertion that they helped him twice in one week.

Exactly. And very well said.

This is why anecdotes about a helmet (possibly) protecting somebody is not really relevant to this thread. (I say possibly because the result absence of a helmet is unknown.)

And people jumping into this forum thinking they have a novel argument because of their personal anecdote gets annoying.

Most people who want MHLs removed have no
issues with helmets. I own helmets for many sports, none of them are compulsory except bicycle helmets. All of them are objectively more dangerous than cycling.

[human909]

If you are not basing your assertion on the efficacy of helmets the what is it?

I don’t see how you can remove the efficacy of the item from the discussion tbh, but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.

I thought you have been around this thread long enough for this not to be needed to be explained.

Helmets can be shown to be very effective at preventing heading injuries in everything from rock climbing to showering. Yet no MHLs exist for these activities.

What is critical in the discussion concerns the NEED to the laws to be in place.

1. What is the issue?
2. Does the law proposed help solve the issue.
3. Is the reduction of freedom from the law worth it's benefit.

MHLs don't even pass the second hurdle.

[fat and old]

This forum is called Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion), not Are helmets effective. That is why the anecdote is irrelevant. It does not make an argument for them being compulsory, it just makes an assertion that they helped him twice in one week.

Exactly. And very well said.

This is why anecdotes about a helmet (possibly) protecting somebody is not really relevant to this thread. (I say possibly because the result absence of a helmet is unknown.)

And people jumping into this forum thinking they have a novel argument because of their personal anecdote gets annoying.

Taken from the first post on this thread, by Moderator. First sentence.

Welcome to the helmet thread. All discussion relating to the use (mandatory or otherwise) of helmets belongs here.

This post also links to this thread

http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... =6&t=31310

Explaining the reasons for this thread we are posting in. Taken from that

There are no special rules for the thread, just the standard forum guidelines. Feel free to debate MHL's, the percieved/actual benefits of helmet use and the like in this thread to your hearts content, provided it's within the guidelines.

1. What is the purpose of this thread?
2. Does the anecdote by Member Mubabban meet this purpose?
3. Can any member dictate how a Moderator initiated thread can be changed to suit his own purposes?

Regardless of how any member feels, there is no ambiguity about the initiating post. ALL discussion. Mandatory OR otherwise.

Edit: I welcome a moderator’s input on my understanding here. I may be wrong and am happy to withdraw this post if so.

[DavidS]

Posting an anecdote is about as useful as mandating helmets for cyclists.

I presume the poster got the reaction they wanted. Posting an anecdote about how a helmet allegedly saved them, in a heated discussion about mandatory helmet laws, is a calculated act.

The impact of this law has been clear from day 1, reduced rates of cycling and the government washes its hands of cycling safety stating they have done their bit.

DS

[Thoglette]

Regardless of how any member feels, there is no ambiguity about the initiating post. ALL discussion. Mandatory OR otherwise.

Edit: I welcome a moderator’s input on my understanding here. I may be wrong and am happy to withdraw this post if so.

You may or may not remember that back then there was no C&A subforum. And somewhere in the hundreds of pages there's several on whether we should have a separate efficacy thread (I'd actually like one, particularly whether the current AS/NZS is worth the cost of admission v.s. the alternatives.).

But, with respect to MHLS, (and as I said earlier) efficacy has long since been shown to be a red herring.

Red Herring (n)
1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
2. Something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with. [Sense 2, probably from the use of smoked herrings to lay scent trails for hounds to follow.]

[Philistine]

Posting an anecdote is about as useful as mandating helmets for cyclists.

I presume the poster got the reaction they wanted. Posting an anecdote about how a helmet allegedly saved them, in a heated discussion about mandatory helmet laws, is a calculated act.

DS

*****Anecdote alert*****

I never owned a helmet in the pre-MHL days. In England I even rode a motorbike without a helmet in 30mph areas (but not on high speed roads). Helmets were mandatory on motorbikes when I came to Australia, and so I wore one. They became mandatory on bikes soon afterwards, and so I wore one.

I don't approve of the nanny state and I would prefer to be able to decide for myself, but what I don't get is why the discussion has to be so acrimonious. Why is this such a big deal?

BTW - what is so terrible about anecdotes. Is it not perfectly natural that our posts should be framed around our own experiences?

[Thoglette]

but what I don't get is why the discussion has to be so acrimonious.

One side of the argument has (with a few notable exceptions) regularly ignored data and arguements they don't like and reverts to ad hominem attacks (usually framed as "we're qualified and you're not" but without any support)

That we are having a discussion on efficacy or the role of anecdotes (especially OMG MY HELMET SAVED MY LIFE) again tends to make the other side of the debate somewhat, ah, curt in their responses.

The big deal is that the evidence says that MHLs are one of the three major drivers of the low cycling participation rate in this country.

BTW - what is so terrible about anecdotes. Is it not perfectly natural that our posts should be framed around our own experiences?

Anecdotes and (more so), unstructured observation are important "sniff tests" for theory. If you can't fit your anecdotes (or more correctly, sets of genuine experiences) within the theory there's likely something wrong with the theory.

This is where most of the anti-MHL movement came from: the mismatch between the claims made and the lived experience.*

But anecdotes are not data and suffer from confirmation bias. Which is why they need to be followed up with actual research and real data.

Worse, they are used (e.g. by the ABC w.r.t MHLs) as evangelical, revealed "proof" even when logically irrelevant the argument at hand. (see also OMG MY HELMET SAVED MY LIFE)


* the original push for cyclists and driver MHLs were in direct response to the actual, measured effect of MHLs for motorcyclists. But motorcyclists tend to have different causes of accident and injury from cyclists. And then there's different types of cyclists.

[fat and old]

Regardless of how any member feels, there is no ambiguity about the initiating post. ALL discussion. Mandatory OR otherwise.

Edit: I welcome a moderator’s input on my understanding here. I may be wrong and am happy to withdraw this post if so.

You may or may not remember that back then there was no C&A subforum. And somewhere in the hundreds of pages there's several on whether we should have a separate efficacy thread (I'd actually like one, particularly whether the current AS/NZS is worth the cost of admission v.s. the alternatives.).

But, with respect to MHLS, (and as I said earlier) efficacy has long since been shown to be a red herring.

Red Herring (n)
1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
2. Something that draws attention away from the matter being discussed or dealt with. [Sense 2, probably from the use of smoked herrings to lay scent trails for hounds to follow.]

With respect to this thread, it has been shown that Mubabban’s post was relevant to the original outline of the proposed discussion. Drawing attention to the possible split into a separate discussion on helmet efficacy is entirely reasonable and worth doing. Having a sook or claiming annoyance because you don’t like it is worthy of a 2 year old.