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

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby ozzymac » Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:31 pm

Ross wrote:coffeandwine - I don't think it's the effectiveness of a bike helmet that's in dispute, it's the part about being "forced" to wear one that seems to be the issue.

Is there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
ozzymac
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:14 pm

by BNA » Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:02 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:02 pm

ozzymac wrote:
Ross wrote:coffeandwine - I don't think it's the effectiveness of a bike helmet that's in dispute, it's the part about being "forced" to wear one that seems to be the issue.

Is there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2


Trouble is, MHL efficacy is not well settled. 'Course, you could talk about improving the law rather than repealing it. I don't see much interest in that discussion from the frequent posters in this thread. Pity...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:45 am

Ozzymac said:

I
s there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.


Yes, actually there is.

First, a seatbelt is attached to the car so its always there
Second it locks away in the car so you leave it there
Third it fixes you to the car which is not good on a bike
Fourth it keeps you inside a protective box
Fifth it protects/acts on all of your body not just the head
Sixth it actually works
Seventh it is proven to be very effective when used in conjunction with a car, no good on a bike or for peds.
Finally, it does not deter from using a car (although some may still opt not to belt up) nor did it reduce car use when introduced

With helmets
First, it's not attached to the bike so you have to bring it with you
Second it doesnt lock away in the bike so you can't leave it there
Third it is fixed to your head so also increases axial stresses
Fourth you don't have a protective box to be protected by
Fifth it only protects the head and not the rest of the body
Sixth it has very limited demonstrated benefit in major accidents
Seventh a helmet protect equally in all circumstances, car, bike, pedestrian, so why discriminate for cyclists.
Finally, it is known to deter using a bike (although some may still opt not to do one) but it demonstrably DID reduce bike use when introduced (by up to 30%)

Now for life jackets/pfd/vests
First, yes you do have to PROVIDE one for all users in a boat
Second, except for very limited circumstances you ARE NOT REQUIRED to wear it
Third, wearing is personal choice so you can wear it if you wish
Fourth, there are circumstances where it is better not to wear one
Finally, the flexibility with mandatory PFDs (not being made to wear it) is perhaps an example of how MHL use could be modified - as already done in Darwin N.T.
citywomble
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:34 am

If we are talking about mandatory life jackets then this is quite relevant.

human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sat Jun 22, 2013 2:22 pm

citywomble wrote:Ozzymac said:

I
s there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.


Yes, actually there is.

First, a seatbelt is attached to the car so its always there
Second it locks away in the car so you leave it there
Third it fixes you to the car which is not good on a bike
Fourth it keeps you inside a protective box
Fifth it protects/acts on all of your body not just the head
Sixth it actually works
Seventh it is proven to be very effective when used in conjunction with a car, no good on a bike or for peds.
Finally, it does not deter from using a car (although some may still opt not to belt up) nor did it reduce car use when introduced

With helmets
First, it's not attached to the bike so you have to bring it with you
Second it doesnt lock away in the bike so you can't leave it there
Third it is fixed to your head so also increases axial stresses
Fourth you don't have a protective box to be protected by
Fifth it only protects the head and not the rest of the body
Sixth it has very limited demonstrated benefit in major accidents
Seventh a helmet protect equally in all circumstances, car, bike, pedestrian, so why discriminate for cyclists.
Finally, it is known to deter using a bike (although some may still opt not to do one) but it demonstrably DID reduce bike use when introduced (by up to 30%)

Now for life jackets/pfd/vests
First, yes you do have to PROVIDE one for all users in a boat
Second, except for very limited circumstances you ARE NOT REQUIRED to wear it
Third, wearing is personal choice so you can wear it if you wish
Fourth, there are circumstances where it is better not to wear one
Finally, the flexibility with mandatory PFDs (not being made to wear it) is perhaps an example of how MHL use could be modified - as already done in Darwin N.T.

(emphasis in original)

Nice post.

I don't agree with quite a bit of it, but that's here nor there. The basic point, that comparing MHLs with other mandatory-PPE laws (for want of a better term), isn't particularly helpful is a good one. And the fact that there are two flavours of MHLs in Australia - those in force in the NT(reference keeps being made to Darwin, but I understood it was the whole territory?) and those in the rest of Australia is one that could, I think, do with a bit more attention.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby ozzymac » Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:16 pm

The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
ozzymac
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:17 pm

ozzymac wrote:The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.


Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby winstonw » Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:11 pm

human909 wrote:
ozzymac wrote:The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.


Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?


In case you've been asleep for the last 30 years, it is driving culture and lack of infrastructure that is harming Australian cycling.
We don't share anything in common with Holland or Denmark re these two things, so there's no comparison.
As for DAI, I suggest you take in the views of all medical specialists and their research, not just those who insouciantly support your prejudice.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby ozzymac » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:21 pm

human909 wrote:
ozzymac wrote:The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.


Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?


How the hell does wearing a helmet make me less safe on the roads?

That is the weirdest thing I have ever read!!


Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
ozzymac
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:39 pm

^^ Because there are rules that some people have given absolutely no thought to, no consideration of alternatives and don't understand that people that disagree with them are in fact the majority and have evidence to prove they are correct.

If you want to see an Australian system in place that isn't replicated across the world, look at our taxation. We have some of the highest accountant usage for income tax returns in the whole world, while being one of the most technologically proactive. Why isn't Australian taxation easier? Maybe the same reason why MHL hasn't been repealed - because Australian politicians would prefer to keep bad laws than take responsibility for reforming them.

ozzymac, you should read the thread a bit more. Yes, it IS weird. But it's true.

winstow, I would suggest you campaign for changes to driver culture. Speeding and drink driving were the normal only 30 years ago. Very different attitudes these days for these things. Perhaps if manslaughter charges were handed out more readily when drivers killed people, people would feel differently about the possibility of going to court and missing out on their own life, and reconsider the danger of taking away someone else's. It is a minority of drivers, but a very dangerous one. Helmets don't stop you getting hurt from close shaves.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6065
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sat Jun 22, 2013 9:41 pm

How the hell does wearing a helmet make me less safe on the roads?

That is the weirdest thing I have ever read!!


Ozzymac,

This thread is over 250 pages long and the answers to your question have been provided many many times.

Please go read some of the previous posts or some decent research on google before you ask any more stoopid questions.

Try starting with DAI, risk compensation, confirmation bias, or even just MHLs for starters (include "and helmets" in the search).

Evidence when they were introduced shows a drop in cycling, as a direct result, so: safety in numbers perhaps?
citywomble
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:11 pm

ozzymac wrote:
human909 wrote:
ozzymac wrote:The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.


Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?


How the hell does wearing a helmet make me less safe on the roads?

That is the weirdest thing I have ever read!!


Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2


As I understand it, the reasoning goes like this: Cycling fatality rates go down as cycling participation rates go up. A sharp drop in cycling participation has been observed, one that correlates strongly with the introduction of MHLs in Australia. Ergo, MHLs have made cycling more dangerous. Note that causation hasn't been shown, only correlation, simply because showing causation with this sort of thing is extremely difficult.

I'm not, however, aware of any data that demonstrates that introducing MHLs actually increased cycling fatality rates. To the best of my hazy recollection, they've remained more or less the same. The argument I recall being run against MHLs (by the CTC in the UK, I think) is that they drive cycling participation down while not making the fatality rates appreciably better. This argument was based, in large part, on the Australian experience with MHLs.

FWIW I don't think it's a stupid question at all. The best answer I can give is that assuming that MHL repeal made participation rates go up and that you personally continued to wear a helmet, you'd probably get the protective effects of the helmet plus the safety-in-numbers effect. How to come up with a policy that does this is an interesting question, but not a popular one in this thread...

EDIT: clarify
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:17 am

ozzymac wrote:
human909 wrote:
ozzymac wrote:The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.


Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?


How the hell does wearing a helmet make me less safe on the roads?

That is the weirdest thing I have ever read!!


I never said that wearing a helmet makes you less safe on the roads. I said that MHL makes you less safe on the roads!! Massive difference.

You still have the option of wearing a helmet and most likely you will be safer if you wear a helmet. However MHLs make the roads more risky for cyclists as there are less cyclists on the roads.
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:23 am

high_tea wrote:The best answer I can give is that assuming that MHL repeal made participation rates go up and that you personally continued to wear a helmet, you'd probably get the protective effects of the helmet plus the safety-in-numbers effect. How to come up with a policy that does this is an interesting question, but not a popular one in this thread...


Huh? It is a popular one. The best policy to do this is a simple repeal of mandatory helmet laws. What makes you think that the majority of cyclists won't continue to wear helmets?
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:58 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:The best answer I can give is that assuming that MHL repeal made participation rates go up and that you personally continued to wear a helmet, you'd probably get the protective effects of the helmet plus the safety-in-numbers effect. How to come up with a policy that does this is an interesting question, but not a popular one in this thread...


Huh? It is a popular one. The best policy to do this is a simple repeal of mandatory helmet laws. What makes you think that the majority of cyclists won't continue to wear helmets?

(emphasis in original)

By the same token, what makes you think the injury/fataility rate will improve? The objection to MHLs is, correct me if I'm wrong, that they didn't really affect injury/fatality rates but that participation went down. It doesn't follow that repealing MHLs will improve the injury/fatality rate either.

There are at least the following choices on offer:

MHLs as implemented in Australian states
MHLs as implemented in Darwin
MHLs as implemented in sundry US states and probably elsewhere (not so familiar with them myself)
some other, yet-untried flavour of MHL.
no MHLs at all

That's just for starters.

You will note that in the UK the courts have put their oar in, holding that not wearing a helmet can be contributory negligence in certain circumstances. There's a policy right there. Not a statute and certainly not a criminal one, but a policy nonetheless.

So there's a lot more to talk about than the Australian-state MHLs and whether or not to repeal them.

EDIT: "statute", not "de jure law". Sheesh, what was I thinking? :oops: :oops:
Last edited by high_tea on Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:07 am

Just to throw a cat amongst pigeons, I think you might be safer around drivers without a helmet in a lot of situations. If a driver doesn't have the presence of mind to care about you with a helmet they won't are about anything that does not present as a clear and present danger. My kids are not safer against cars with a helmet because I am not interested in peeling them off the footpath with 20 vs 80 % brain impairment while they are still paralysed. Helmets create the illuson of safety. The people who should wear them have a reasonable expectation of Accidental head contact. some MTB riding, abseiling, many construction sites... But riding down the street? There will be one or two paralysed a year riding on the road, so it can happen, but the same number of children drown in buckets each year. Legislation does not eliminate risk and MHL will never resolve that, as our unchanged injury rate attest.

Contributory negligence is a funny thing. I would argue that the driver is the negligent one, using a vehicle far beyond its necessary purpose at speeds which belie the danger that the vehicle presents the public. I understand the argument... But philosophically it just can't hold water. The reason I take this angle is that pedestrians are just as vulnerable as cyclists without a helmet, but walking without regulation is a human right, so I don't think we would hold a ped to be negligently contributing to their injuries because they were hit and did not wear a helmet. Courts can be biased and wrong.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6065
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:39 am

high_tea wrote:By the same token, what makes you think the injury/fataility rate will improve? The objection to MHLs is, correct me if I'm wrong, that they didn't really affect injury/fatality rates but that participation went down. It doesn't follow that repealing MHLs will improve the injury/fatality rate either.

There are at least the following choices on offer:

MHLs as implemented in Australian states
MHLs as implemented in Darwin
MHLs as implemented in sundry US states and probably elsewhere (not so familiar with them myself)
some other, yet-untried flavour of MHL.
no MHLs at all


Why would I support anything that reduces cyclists freedoms in such a draconian way and yields no benefits to cyclists?

I'm confused why your would too.
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:26 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:By the same token, what makes you think the injury/fataility rate will improve? The objection to MHLs is, correct me if I'm wrong, that they didn't really affect injury/fatality rates but that participation went down. It doesn't follow that repealing MHLs will improve the injury/fatality rate either.

There are at least the following choices on offer:

MHLs as implemented in Australian states
MHLs as implemented in Darwin
MHLs as implemented in sundry US states and probably elsewhere (not so familiar with them myself)
some other, yet-untried flavour of MHL.
no MHLs at all


Why would I support anything that reduces cyclists freedoms in such a draconian way and yields no benefits to cyclists?

I'm confused why your would too.


More to the point, why would you conclude a priori that all MHLs are bad, based on the Australian experience?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:34 am

Thanks for not answering the question.

I support cycling and would like to see it grow in Australia. MHLs have been one of the clear impediments to that. The Australian experience of MHLs have not been a success by any measure of cycling rates and accessibility.
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:51 am

Xplora wrote:Contributory negligence is a funny thing. I would argue that the driver is the negligent one, using a vehicle far beyond its necessary purpose at speeds which belie the danger that the vehicle presents the public. I understand the argument... But philosophically it just can't hold water. The reason I take this angle is that pedestrians are just as vulnerable as cyclists without a helmet, but walking without regulation is a human right, so I don't think we would hold a ped to be negligently contributing to their injuries because they were hit and did not wear a helmet. Courts can be biased and wrong.


I suggest you go and read the cases. It's much easier than reading back through this monster thread. I don't recall them having anything to say about the analogy with pedestrian regulation, probably because no sane person considers pedestrian and cyclist regulation to be remotely equivalent. Surprise surprise, they do consider why cyclists should wear helmets (tl;dr lots of cyclists in the UK do, apparently, and helmet efficacy is well-settled) and the reasoning doesn't apply to pedestrians. Anyway, don't take my word for it. They're fairly short cases, and easy to find. I personally think there's a bit wrong with the policy they impose.Basically, you're only ever going to get a finding of contributory negligence in a low-speed, bike-only crash. Pretty much the exact situation where you don't have to wear a helmet in Darwin. Go figure. In fairness, the policy is there because of issues of causation rather than anything else, but I still reckon it's a pretty odd result.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby biker jk » Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:00 pm

human909 wrote:
ozzymac wrote:The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.


Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?


Cycling through red lights does more harm to Australian cycling. Just the other day I watched a current affairs program which set up a camera on Oxford St, Paddington and observed around 50 cyclists riding through red lights over a short period of time. They interviewed a blind man who had been struck by cyclists riding through the red light on three separate occasions. The public relations damage riding through red lights does to cycling advocacy is enormous. MHLs are a third order issue in comparison.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:53 pm

biker jk wrote:Cycling through red lights does more harm to Australian cycling. Just the other day I watched a current affairs program which set up a camera on Oxford St, Paddington and observed around 50 cyclists riding through red lights over a short period of time. They interviewed a blind man who had been struck by cyclists riding through the red light on three separate occasions. The public relations damage riding through red lights does to cycling advocacy is enormous. MHLs are a third order issue in comparison.


WT?? MHLs caused massive declines in cycling rates. They have resulted in massive failures of bike share schemes in Melbourne and Brisbane. They have made cycling a non starter for hundreds of thousands of people. A few cyclists going through red lights? How does that stop other people from getting on bikes?

As has been said in many other threads. Cyclists are their own worst enemy when it comes to advocacy.
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby biker jk » Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:32 pm

human909 wrote:
biker jk wrote:Cycling through red lights does more harm to Australian cycling. Just the other day I watched a current affairs program which set up a camera on Oxford St, Paddington and observed around 50 cyclists riding through red lights over a short period of time. They interviewed a blind man who had been struck by cyclists riding through the red light on three separate occasions. The public relations damage riding through red lights does to cycling advocacy is enormous. MHLs are a third order issue in comparison.


WT?? MHLs caused massive declines in cycling rates. They have resulted in massive failures of bike share schemes in Melbourne and Brisbane. They have made cycling a non starter for hundreds of thousands of people. A few cyclists going through red lights? How does that stop other people from getting on bikes?

As has been said in many other threads. Cyclists are their own worst enemy when it comes to advocacy.


You know the CPF survey found that just 16.5% of respondents cited MHLs for not cycling versus 67.1% citing unsafe road conditions. It's a third order issue. Please stop wasting time on it. Riding through red lights does far more damage to cycling advocacy. You do know what that is don't you? Winning over politicians to implement policies that benefits cyclists. The public relations disaster that comes from riding through red lights makes cycling advocacy that much harder.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:48 pm

biker jk wrote:The public relations disaster that comes from riding through red lights makes cycling advocacy that much harder.


:roll: Yep, just like drink drivers and speeding motorists stop politicians from building more freeways. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:28 pm

Don't forget the funerals H. hundreds of funerals. Bikerjk, don't pretend that there is any possible comparison on the basis of reason. SCA has the right idea. Cars are the problem, not bikes.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6065
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit