mick243 wrote:MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes. We all pay for a public health system, anything we can do to lessen the load on it by reducing the need for it in the first place can only be a good thing.
What crap. If the MHL law for cyclists had anything to do with saving health dollars they would have introduced MHLs for occupants of motor vehicles as that costs the health system a lot more, despite seat belts, the fact they are sitting in a steel box, air bags etc. Remember, occupants of motor vehicles suffer more than half of all head injuries suffered on the roads. This is a spurious argument and just shows you are clutching at straws. The cost to our health system of cycling accidents is vanishingly small compared to a lot of other costs, not least the cost of a lack of exercise.
mick243 wrote:Or, convert to Seik, apparently they are exempt from MHL......
That would be Sikh, you would convert to Sikhism. At least get your facts right.
mick243 wrote:I'm not trying to curtail your cycling freedom at all,
Yes you are, you are telling me I must plonk a lump of foam on my head if I want to ride a bike.
Of course you could argue that MHLs improve safety, but you would actually have to provide some evidence, much easier to make unsubstantiated assertions isn't it?
So let's consider the MHLs for a moment. What would we expect to see if MHLs really do make it safer for cyclists?
I would expect to see a couple of things:
firstly I would expect that a country with MHLs would have a lower injury rate than a country without MHLs. Is this the case? Actually no, Australia's injury rate for kilometres cycled is one of the worst in the world. It is not safer to ride a bike in Australia despite (because of?) MHLs.
secondly, MHLs protect one part of the body, the head. So, it would be reasonable to expect that if MHLs were effective then we would see a drop in cyclist head injuries as compared to cyclist injuries to other parts of their body. Do we see this? No, the proportion of head injuries to injuries to other parts of the body has been stable before and after MHLs.
mick243 wrote:As for MHL reducing cycling numbers, the people who "refuse to ride because of MHL" are the ones looking for an excuse not to... Probably about as any who refuse to drive because of mandatory seatbelt laws.
The comparison to seat belt laws is tired and discredited. There is little comparison between a bike and a car which has a tonne or more of momentum and can travel much faster. Seat belt laws had a demonstrable impact on the road toll. MHLs have had no impact on cyclist safety and may have made it worse - there is evidence that drivers take less care around cyclists wearing helmets. There is a lot of evidence that MHLs reduced the number of bikes on the road and also a lot of evidence that the best safety measure for cyclists is to have more cyclists on the road.
The question is where do we draw the line between freedom and regulation? Despite the fact that many more people drown than die as a result of cycling accidents, we don't mandate life jackets be worn near any body of water. We don't do this because it would be silly. We don't mandate helmets for occupants of motor vehicles despite the fact that there are many more head injuries suffered by occupants of motor vehicles than there are by cyclists. We don't do this because it would be silly. Yet we do mandate helmets for cyclists despite the fact that it is silly. It is silly because it demonstrably reduced the number of cyclists on the roads, which makes it more dangerous for cyclists on the roads. It's silly because cycling is a safe activity and certainly not dangerous enough to justify laws compelling the wearing of safety equipment.
il padrone wrote:The need to wear a helmet is code to people that the activity is "too dangerous". In Copenhagen in recent years there has been a campaign to promote greater use of helmets. As a result of that cycling rates have actually declined.
This.
This is possibly the most pernicious effect (cost?) of MHLs. They shout to the world that cycling is a very dangerous activity. It's so damned dangerous our law makers have to force people to wear safety equipment. This is a major contributor to why hardly any kids ride to school these days. Heaps rode when I was a kid, back when over 1,000 people died on the roads each year and the roads really were more dangerous. I have had arguments with people about this, they consider cycling a dangerous activity. Cycling used to be considered a desirable and healthy activity you would encourage your kids to partake in. Now, kids are discouraged from cycling because it is seen as dangerous. MHLs have been a major contributor to changing the perception of cycling.
Lastly, I just cannot understand how any cyclist can support a law which so demonstrably discourages cycling. I prefer to encourage cycling myself.
DS