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!!
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...