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 jules21 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:47 pm

il padrone wrote:Actually..... yes! That is all a part of our freedom. I get to make my own mistakes, rather than have someone else say what mistakes I should and should not be making.

i have a lot of sympathy for that. but as i've consistently said, the convoluted arguments trying to prove not wearing a helmet is actually a really good idea are frequently misguided and don't help. the simple and more effective argument is - it's my head and i can crack it open if i want (and i'm not judging, i've given it a good go a few times).
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

by BNA » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:03 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby Biffidus » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:03 pm

Has anyone been keeping a running tally of the arguments (for and against) over the last 200 pages?
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

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

Postby il padrone » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Philipthelam wrote: The same arguments are put forth and are rebutted by the same rebuttals... This thread has just been going around in circles. It's going nowhere. What's the point.

You're more than welcome to go and take some time-out. No-one is making you read it.

Take a month or two out - the thread will still be here :P

As for the point - well if people are talking about the issue, if non-cyclists are aware of the issue that is all a good thing. People questioning an ill-thought out rule is far better than people who blithely accept it. That approach is how this crazy rule got through in the first place. "When good men do nothing...." and all that.

Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18188
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby greyhoundtom » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:26 am

il padrone wrote:Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.

You can count me in with that group.
User avatar
greyhoundtom
 
Posts: 2514
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
Location: Narre Warren, Victoria

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

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:32 am

Philipthelam wrote:For all the guys talking about MHL for cars are you saying that you would support MHL for bikes if we had MHL for cars? How did we even get to helmet use in cars... Haha


Because it's a prime example of how bad laws are formed in light of evidence to the contrary. As was said earlier, any attempt to enact MMHL would be political suicide. It's a damn sight easier to target minorities.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25577
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby Comedian » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:43 am

DavidS wrote:Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

That's the point isn't it. 99% of the people that ride in Australia now don't mind wearing helmets, hence the bias on sites like this. Most people who don't ride because they don't like helmets don't ride... and there is an even more remote chance of them joining a cycling forum. :mrgreen:
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill. :mrgreen:

Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day. :shock: :lol:

Image
User avatar
Comedian
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby DentedHead » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:12 am

greyhoundtom wrote:
il padrone wrote:Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.

You can count me in with that group.



Same here. I was also made aware of things I'd not though of myself, like the abnormalization of cycling and the added perception of danger.

Dent.
DentedHead
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:13 am

jules21 wrote:
human909 wrote:It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little.

including the freedom to exercise poor judgment and make mistakes.

This just crystallises why I don't think you get it Jules.

Are you exposed to the lowest common denominator? Have you made serious mistakes in the past? I talk to people regularly wanting to go into debts that they should not be entertaining. I talk to people who can't find consistent work yet want to borrow thousands and pay interest despite the many 24 month interest free deals out there. I have spoken to fat people who can't seem to lose the weight. I know some who are drinking themselves to an early grave. I know others that are smoking despite all the issues. I have spoken to people wanting to borrow money for cars despite the fact that they can't survive outside of Government housing.

The freedom to make mistakes, even to our detriment, is part of our society in Australia. We even subsidise these people, at an expense which accounts for half of your taxes. Centrelink and Medicare are the biggest costs to our country. Regardless of what your opinion is about socialised welfare, that is what our nation does. For decades now.

Given that socialised safety net approach, it is disingenuous to imply that our country's values are incompatible with the freedom to wear a helmet. We're spending more than half our taxes to prop up the people who make mistakes and have incredibly poor judgment.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:27 am

Xplora wrote: This just crystallises why I don't think you get it Jules.

no, i really do get it. i work in policy, i have a grasp of these concepts.

Xplora wrote:Given that socialised safety net approach, it is disingenuous to imply that our country's values are incompatible with the freedom to wear a helmet. We're spending more than half our taxes to prop up the people who make mistakes and have incredibly poor judgment.

this is correct, and it's also the problem. people want the govt to subsidise their vices and mistakes. that is a bad idea - look at societies which self-learned to rely heavily on social services - particularly those in southern europe. it seemed good for a few decades, but the truth has been hammered home now - it doesn't work.

now MHLs are only loosely linked to that issue and i wouldn't suggest repealing that law would send us broke. but in principle, it annoys me that people feel entitled to burden society with the potential cost of exercising their freedom. that's not really freedom at all.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:17 am

jules21 wrote:but in principle, it annoys me that people feel entitled to burden society with the potential cost of exercising their freedom. that's not really freedom at all.

Taking this principle as the basis, I hope you are campaigning for the total removal of Medicare funding for all those smokers who chose to smoke and now face heart-lung transplants.... all those obese people who chose their overloaded diet and are going in for stomache stapling.... all those people who drive drunk or at speed and need emergency treatment....

It's really shocking that we should have institutions and schemes in society that care for the well-being and good health of our citizens, eh?

:roll: :P
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18188
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:31 am

il padrone wrote:It's really shocking that we should have institutions and schemes in society that care for the well-being and good health of our citizens, eh?

the issue isn't about denying them care - that should be a right - rather, who pays? is allowing people to make poor choices affecting their health and promising to ensure they won't be out-of-pocket really "care(ing) for the(ir) well-being and good health"? or is it just the easy way out?

if you want to smoke, drink or do anything that doesn't harm your neighbour - my view is, go for it. but the best system would allow for private health insurers to offer policies with premiums set by accounting for the associated risk. if their data really showed cycling without a helmet was, in overall terms, better for your health - then you could expect a discount.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:27 pm

il padrone wrote:Personally I am aware of several people who have changed their tack on the helmet rule since these discussions have been taken up, have looked at the evidence for MHL and found it sorely wanting.

Count me in on that group too. I was fairly indifferent on the issue before encountering this debate on BV and BNA forums. Certainly having travelled and cycled extensively overseas I was never of the opinion that helmetless is terrible however I've never really had a problem with wearing a helmet myself so I largely didn't care.

jules21 wrote:but in principle, it annoys me that people feel entitled to burden society with the potential cost of exercising their freedom. that's not really freedom at all.

Please get rid of this notion that riding without a helmet puts a greater cost risk on society. This is simply not born out by fact. Furthermore a helmet wearing Lycra road warrier is far more likely to end up in hospital than a young helmetless female cycle commuter on a upright bicycle.

Are you annoyed at the people who rockclimb? The people who ski? The people who drive cars with no air bags? What about people who cycle when they could just catch the train? All of these are freedoms that are more risky than more regular alternatives.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:29 pm

human909 wrote:Are you annoyed at the people who rockclimb? The people who ski? The people who drive cars with no air bags? What about people who cycle when they could just catch the train? All of these are freedoms that are more risky than more regular alternatives.

i made my position clear above and you can easily read that i'm not annoyed by those things, per se.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:15 pm

jules21 wrote:.... but in principle, it annoys me that people feel entitled to burden society with the potential cost of exercising their freedom. that's not really freedom at all.

Heavy fat long term diets and smoking cannot be done without considerable risk to the person, and therefore the public purse WILL be paying over the population. You can't stand by the sideline for both of those. Drinking can be done responsibly, but it's never performed that way for a large cross section of the community. Sadly, our native populace can't seem to do drinking very well at all.

I understand your position, but I'm trying to point out that there is no middle ground for these behaviours. This is why your position isn't really consistent. Occasional high fat meals, occasional drinking, occasional helmetless riding, is not going to impact society negatively across population statistics. Responsible moderation is the key, and this can't be legislated when you refuse prohibition as an option. :idea: The alternative is simply education and encouragement. Enforcement is largely impossible for these activities.

I share your user pays mentality, but I disagree profoundly that a population of poor diet/heavy drinking/smoking people are being forced into user pays systems, and given that we don't enforce much more serious risk health areas then I don't see any cause to pick out the helmet as a special case.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:37 pm

Xplora wrote:Heavy fat long term diets and smoking cannot be done without considerable risk to the person, and therefore the public purse WILL be paying over the population. You can't stand by the sideline for both of those.

i'm not - i'm saying people should pay. in fact, they already do with alcohol and tobacco - through heavy taxes on their consumption. these taxes have been highly successful in curbing consumption - particularly for smokes. i would support extending that to other food types with a proven health risk - e.g. saturated fats.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:53 pm

jules21 wrote:
Xplora wrote:Heavy fat long term diets and smoking cannot be done without considerable risk to the person, and therefore the public purse WILL be paying over the population. You can't stand by the sideline for both of those.

i'm not - i'm saying people should pay. in fact, they already do with alcohol and tobacco - through heavy taxes on their consumption. these taxes have been highly successful in curbing consumption - particularly for smokes. i would support extending that to other food types with a proven health risk - e.g. saturated fats.

Yes. It is fine to hold the opinion that we should move to the User Pays system, however we do not. Under the CURRENT ethics system, MHL does not make sense. Our society will support you, either as a dribbling head injury victim or a svelte leg shaving Cadel type with a VO2 MAX to rival Cadel's. Egalitarianism is the flavour of the month, and as such, we shouldn't suppress the free choice to wear a helmet or not. There are bigger social ills that do not suffer similar indignity. Banning smokes and booze to under 18s sure worked... regulation is pointless when it cannot be truly enforced.

Would you agree that MHL is ridiculous in our current environment?
Xplora
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:07 pm

As an economist and an advocate of efficient markets and choice I'm a fan of user pays. As a advocate of support for the less well off I'm an advocate of welfare. In many cases these do not oppose each other. However in the case of health it is very hard to effectively implement an effective and efficient user pays system without significantly disadvantaging the needy in our society.

But all this is greatly beside the point. The health impacts of not wearing a helmet are negligible. MHLs have a negative health impact.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:00 pm

human909 wrote:As an economist and an advocate of efficient markets and choice I'm a fan of user pays. As a advocate of support for the less well off I'm an advocate of welfare. In many cases these do not oppose each other. However in the case of health it is very hard to effectively implement an effective and efficient user pays system without significantly disadvantaging the needy in our society..

no, you can subsidise the needy. the trick is to not subsidise the costs of their stupid decisions, but rather the costs of mitigating measures. with health, this would mean subsidising the cost of their health care insurance. the problem with this is, and this will upset people but it's the truth, that some (or many, but again, i'll get myself in trouble here) are needy in the first place due to having poor judgment. the same poor judgment is what will lead some of them to fail to take advantage of privatised health insurance, even when it's subsidised to the point where it is affordable.

so where you've written "significantly disadvantaging the needy", it is more accurate to say "significantly disadvantaging the stupid". now that is not to suggest for one second that needy=stupid, as many needy people would easily take advantage of the type of scheme i'm proposing. but some (the stupid ones) inevitably will not. the question is - what to do about them? the solution at the moment is to just cover their costs (this is a problem i've described with MHLs at the moment - where someone can choose to ride without a helmet and incur $millions in lifetime care costs on behalf of the gullible public). i ask - do we do the same thing for equally stupid people who gamble their life savings away? no we do not. double standard.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:59 pm

jules21 wrote:(this is a problem i've described with MHLs at the moment - where someone can choose to ride without a helmet and incur $millions in lifetime care costs on behalf of the gullible public)


You have continued to bring up health costs as a point of debate and yet you have continued to fail to even make a slight case that MHL prevents $millions in health costs. You continue to assume that not wearing a helmet is a poor health decision but there is nothing to show that this is the case. There are entire countries that are making these 'stupid decisions' yet somehow they don't have a problem. But of course you know better than entire nations where everybody cycles. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4728
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:03 pm

jules21 wrote: "significantly disadvantaging the needy", it is more accurate to say "significantly disadvantaging the stupid". now that is not to suggest for one second that needy=stupid, as many needy people would easily take advantage of the type of scheme i'm proposing. ... double standard.

I would strongly argue that the needy ARE the stupid. The needy are always in a temporary situation... but if you STAY needy, you are stupid. In this country, there are truckloads of jobs you can leapfrog into because you can't walk or belong to some minority. This isn't a discussion that reflects Australia in the 70s or 80s... but today. And you can get ahead much easier when you are disabled or disadvantaged than me, a white middle class male.

Anyway... the point is... Australian welfare doesn't punish or provide incentives for dumb people to be smart. The lowest common denominator is looked after. The situations you describe simply don't exist. Your food is covered, your hospital bill is covered. :idea: There is no reason to hold cyclists accountable for their actions, because no one is held accountable either. You seem to think that people gambling their life savings away isn't punished - this is true. They are brought to the bottom of the pile, and then the public purse looks after them. The only penalty for these boofheads is that they go from the top of the pile to the bottom. They aren't punished for their decision, they are simply stripped of their higher status. That's not a punishment. Only the criminal code punishes people.

We probably have a similar social attitude Jules... but you seem to miss the fact that the only punishment for the silly is a lack of reward. They won't go hungry, they won't excel, but that's their decision. You can't control these things. Tons of people will try very hard and still end up no better than the Newstart Veteran of 10 years. Tragic? Yes. But that's life.

MHL is an attempt to deny basic reality - riding isn't dangerous, and occasionally bad things happen. No point having a cry about these things. There are worse problems to address in social policy. :idea:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Baldy » Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:41 pm

toolonglegs wrote:I am wondering why the people who have zero interest in using Strava are so interested in having it regulated?.


damhooligan wrote: Thats easy....

The people that are not interested in using it are concerned .
Hence the regulation bit...


toolonglegs wrote:So people should have the choice as to whether they wear helmets or not... because a rational person should be able to make that decision for themselves with out it being forced upon them... but that same person should be banned from uploading their ride files to a website because they can't make the rational decision as to whether they should ride safely or not.
Next doctors will be saying Strava is bad because people are having heart attacks trying to beat the local Pantani up up Alpe D'Harbour Bridge.


damhooligan wrote:Just stop with the helmet reference.....
Been said before....
If you wanna go helmet there is another thread for this....

Uploading and comparing files/riding data is fine.
There are plenty of other ways then just strava to do this.
Thats not the issue.
The issue is that it promotes racing on public roads.
It promotes cyclists to take more risks.
They promote it.
That i see as a concern.

Is it a problem?
Mayby not. But can it become one?
yes.
As 2 deaths are already linked. More can follow.


At first I thought it was a language thing but now I am starting to think you are a roo short in the top paddock.

That you cannot or refuse to see the comparisons in logic is staggering. Even me pointing it out feels like stating the blindingly obvious.

The reason we have MHL is because of people who did not ride bikes and had no interest in riding bikes being concerned for bike riders. Hence the regulation bit....Anything ringing a bell here?

Was there a problem with people killing themselves by not wearing helmets, well it happens but anti -MHL argument says it was not so prevalent to be a problem. BUT could it become one? Yes. Someone had died while not wearing a helmet....more can follow.......um hello? This is anti-mhl 101...

Ok now onto racing on public roads. You know we race on public roads most weekends all around the country/world right? Yes we need a police permit to hold an official race on public roads but there are no police escorts at my club and all we have is a front and tail car with lights/signs[volunteers from the club, ie other racers]. My point is there is no supervision during the race, people are expected to act within the law and ride safely. And guess what! Just like other road users the vast majority of them do just that.

So what is not a race on public roads? Any ride that does not need a police permit would be my guess.

You say strava encourages racing and I say strava encourages you to ride as fast as you can. There is a strava competition on right now, it is a hillclimb comp. It is on a hill with a 50kph speed limit, my best effort was 25kph and the winner is 29kph. Done on seperate days. There was a segment that existed on the same hill before this comp and the times were much the same. And this might be surprising to you but people were riding up this hill at 29average and faster long before strava existed. It would help your case if you can point out what is so dangerous about riding at half the speed limit and in some cases alone?

Question: What is the difference between riding as fast as you can to beat a pb time on a section of road and doing the same to beat someone elses time who did it 6months earlier. The fact you are riding as fast as you can does not change, so your behaviour on the road does not change. This can be done perfectly legally with no risk to anyone but yourself and even then its minimal. You can do this with a stop watch. Then compare your result with others, something that has been happening since the birth of bicycles I would have thought.

Lastly let me give you a tip, anyone who has been on strava more than 5mins will know you take most KOM's with a very large grain of salt. Even most hill climbs are wind effected and if they are not then the lead up to them can be. Not to mention the number of other things that can alter performance.

I don't even care if you reply or not I'm just calling you out on the blatant hypocrisy. I am sure your mates here will come to your aid with plenty of spin, which is understandable,you need it.
Baldy
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Postby jacks1071 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Baldy wrote:So what is not a race on public roads? Any ride that does not need a police permit would be my guess.


Any ride with 2 or more people is a "race"
Our Website is: http://www.pro-liteoz.com Find us on Facebook by searching for "Pro-Lite Australia"
User avatar
jacks1071
 
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Mackay, QLD

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

Postby Baldy » Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:37 pm

Shhhhhh :lol:

Racing on public roads only applies to stravagics .......not drivers taking off from the lights flat out to just cut in front of you and stop at the next set of lights 150m up the road.
Baldy
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Postby DentedHead » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:41 am

jacks1071 wrote:
Baldy wrote:So what is not a race on public roads? Any ride that does not need a police permit would be my guess.


Any ride with 2 or more people is a "race"



Er... What? Riding with my 8yo son to teach him how to ride on the road is a race???
A leisurely ride with my wife to encourage her to cycle is a race?

Really hope you were trolling.

Dent.
DentedHead
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm

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

Postby Kenzo » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:53 am

DentedHead wrote:
jacks1071 wrote:Any ride with 2 or more people is a "race"


Er... What? Riding with my 8yo son to teach him how to ride on the road is a race???
A leisurely ride with my wife to encourage her to cycle is a race?

Really hope you were trolling.

Dent.

You'd be surprised how the other person may see it...
In the case of your son - how much happier is he if you say, "Gee you got to the bridge faster than me!".. ?
Encouraging your wife to ride is the same - how do you measure improvement? How do you let her feel 'success' on the bike? You compare to another rider....

But no, I doubt jacks was trolling - more just making a little joke which you've decided to turn into a literal statement.

Lighten up, ride without a helmet across a grassy field and let the wind through the follicles :-D
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

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



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