It does make me wonder how many people are actually cycling at this forum, and how many are just stirring the pot.
Seeing as how I'm the new bloke, I might as well answer this
Started riding again a month or so again after a 9 year break. I'd be what's called a recreational cyclist I guess......I'm doing it to lose weight and gain fitness because I enjoy it. I only ride maybe 30-40 minutes per morning (any more and I'm kackered
) and 2-4 hrs at a go Saturday and Sunday. Slowly and with time to look around me and enjoy the scenery. Bike paths, main roads (Northern suburbs Melbourne), anywhere really. Day or night.That probably doesn't qualify me for an opinion as you stated earlier......but I stopped letting myself be bullied back in Kindy, 44 years ago....except by the wife, that is
There has been nothing I can see that refutes or engages with my response to the study - namely, that the study doesn't address the fact that effectiveness of helmets for cyclists vs motorcyclists has very little to do with the legitimacy of legislative compulsion to wear them, especially when advocates and sympathisers for the MHL won't acknowledge that peds or car users would equally benefit from wearing a helmet as a cyclist.
I have no issue with acknowledging that peds and car users would benefit from wearing a helmet. A suit of unobtanium armour would go even better.
But "equally" as much as a Cyclist? No. There's no way in hell I'll agree that a helmet is "equally" beneficial. And I'd bet that the majority of the general community would agree with me. I'd also bet that faced with that argument, the majority of the general community would look at the proponant of any such statement with a little more amusement than is normal. Note.......I'm not even interested in statistics, studies or any supporting evidence that exists to back that assertion. As far as I'm concerned, it will be skewed to favour the proposer's agenda. Yes....that's right. I have already decided that it is silly to even bother reading it. As will the majority of the population. (Doubt it? Then why aren't the Greens in power?
Helmets/no helmets is not
an "intellectual" pursuit to most people. I have no doubt it is for you, and I can respect that....but it isn't for me. And many others. And you need to respect that. You don't want to wear one? Ok by me. I don't care. But you seriously believe that no helmets will increase the take up of cycling in this country? Good luck with that
Now we get down to this bit.....
Cycling just isn't dangerous enough to justify this law, but this law certainly fuels the myth that cycling is very very dangerous, and all those who support this law are supporting the view that cycling is a particularly dangerous activity.
Yes. I believe that cycling in some situations for some people is dangerous. And anything that can be done to mitigate that risk is good. I'm not going to shove that opinion down anyone's throat (hey....any OH&S reps here? Safety comittee members? Maybe they can give us their opinion on whether or not wearing helmets on cycles would be mandatory if cycling was a workplace activity? Like a Grand tour for example
).....but I will take that attitude in my own house, with my own children. And I'd expect others to raise their children as they see fit
. But don't be telling me that I'm doing something wrong, because it's none of your business
I reckon you've seen all this before so I'll leave it here. Oh...wait....
Would you want your kids undertaking an activity which is so dangerous they are legally required to wear a helmet?
As I've said already....yes. Why not? Just because you have to wear a helmet doesn't mean you're gonna die.
Sheesh....bit dramatic this attitude innit? "oooo....you have to wear a helmet!!!!! This is soooooooo dangerous..."
C'mon man.....give it up. That sort of argument lets you down