Mulger bill wrote:Been said before, but if we follow that line to the terminal, there's lots of other activities that will qualify for PPE. How far are you prepared to comply?
But we're not talking about other activities. We're talking about cycling.
I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it's hypocritical or unfair to target cycling in particular for compulsory safety laws, just that since that's what we have, there are other ways of viewing it.
Xplora wrote:An even cheaper way would be banning all forms of motorised transport above 30kmh. Cars are involved in an ENORMOUSLY greater number of fatalities and injuries.
...that would be disastrous!
For good or ill, Australia's economy and society relies on motorised vehicles, while bicycles are mostly recreational.
I truly wish that was a good argument for a more responsible auto culture, but there simply isn't any serious comparison between mandatory bike helmet laws that mildly inconvenience cyclists, and laws that would severely cripple road transport.