Comedian wrote:martinjs wrote:
They don't need to, they can take 5 seconds of their lives, stick a helmet on their heads and off they go to a better healthier life. If they don't have a bike or helmet a lot of shops do package deales.
That was easy, now I'm fit and healthy and wearing a helmet.
Trouble is it's all about frame of mind and really has nothing to do with the helmet at all.
Yeah.. but you see that's the bit you're missing. You're used to riding with a helmet and as you say it hasn't stopped you. I'm the same, I'm doing 1000k a month - and everyone of them wearing an approved polystyrene hat (APH). Even if given the choice tomorrow probably 90+% of them would still be with a APH.
So that's great - but that's my point. Because you're used to it you don't see the problem. But my point is that there are lots of people out there who it just makes it that little bit too hard, or they don't want their hair to get messed up, or they don't like the sweaty head, or the looks or whatever - but it means they aren't cycling! Personally, I am 100% sure that a repealing of mhl would result in a very significant increase in cycling.
When MHL were introduced there was a massive reduction in cycling. I don't deny that there are other factors, but I still think we'd see a big increase. If we see a big increase in cycling - then that makes it safer for everyone which in turn makes cycling even more attractive.
I understand what your saying, I just think it's silly, really, if someone chooses not to ride because of the helmet law I'm pretty sure if the law disappeared they would still find away not to ride. We have a few in Leeton who either don't like the law or don't know (never spoken to them) and they still ride, they just don't wear a helmet.