Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:03 pm

human909 wrote:
trailgumby wrote:As ridiculous as the lycra obsession among Joe Public is, I have to agree.

Thanks.

No matter how many times it is said though people continue to take such comments and observations as personal attacks on the way they choose to ride. And defensiveness and denial of reality follows.


As far as I can see there's been two posters "pro-Lycra" (for want of a better term) in this phase of the discussion; myself and g-boaf. I cannot speak for him; I can say unequivocally that I have not taken anything posted by anyone else as a personal attack. (TBH nor do I think
g-boaf did). I am well aware of what Thoglette referred to earlier.....The Other.

I merely disagree with the hypothesis that the "normalisation" of cyclists....clothing, style of ride etc would make any real difference to the state of affairs if those cyclists habited the same roads as "sports cyclists". There's just too much evidence to the contrary, on this very board. Take cycling out of the microsystem that is the inner city or bike paths and it's a whole different world.

I do wonder; seriously; why you thought anyone took what has been discussed as a personal attack?

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12702
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby trailgumby » Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:59 pm

Where I'm coming from f&o is that there is clearly a particularly virulent strain of prejudice against lycra-clad sports cyclists in some quarters. Magda Szubnski's infamous skit with that other poor excuse for a comedienne seem to speak on behalf of that whole section of the population.

I'm under no illusions that "normalised" clothing will suddenly remove that view of cyclists as "cockroaches on wheels". However, they prejudice does seem to be slightly less virulent.

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:16 am

fat and old wrote:I do wonder; seriously; why you thought anyone took what has been discussed as a personal attack?

I didn't say anything about a personal attack. But it is pretty clear even by your responses that you are defensive about this and letting that influence your opinions.

"Pro-Lycra". It has never been about that.

Like trailgumby has said there the prejudice is stronger " lycra-clad sports cyclists". Or in my words there is more hate towards 40 year old MAMILs than there is towards 10 year old children riding to school.

I wouldn't think that is a controversial statement.

trailgumby wrote:I'm under no illusions that "normalised" clothing will suddenly remove that view of cyclists as "cockroaches on wheels". However, they prejudice does seem to be slightly less virulent.


THIS. Same deal with helmets. Normal clothes and helmet free heads isn't going to turn Sydney into Amsterdam and it isn't going to suddenly make joe public love cycling. However steps towards normalisation of cycling are small and every step makes a small difference.

Meanwhile everybody is should be free to wear and ride what they want. But there is no need to be ignore reality. (Do you really think myself and trailgumby are "normal" average mum/dad cyclists?)

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:46 am

trailgumby wrote:Where I'm coming from f&o is that there is clearly a particularly virulent strain of prejudice against lycra-clad sports cyclists in some quarters.


Mate, I'll cop that when there's a family bbq on! :lol: One SIL is extremely vocal when it comes to cyclists on the road. I just don't engage the subject.....bad things will happen.

I have not said anything to the contrary, at all. I've been in furious agreement throughout this phase of the thread on the subject of lycra bashing. Go back and look....show me anything that suggests otherwise?

human909 wrote: I didn't say anything about a personal attack.


No matter how many times it is said though people continue to take such comments and observations as personal attacks on the way they choose to ride.


??? Your words, not mine. Look, as I said; I didn't take it that way, so I don't care. :)

Like trailgumby has said there the prejudice is stronger " lycra-clad sports cyclists". Or in my words there is more hate towards 40 year old MAMILs than there is towards 10 year old children riding to school.

I wouldn't think that is a controversial statement.


Again, as above. Nor is it controversial. It does not reflect on the point I've been making, however. Does it?

But it is pretty clear even by your responses that you are defensive about this


Au contraire, I have nothing to be defensive about. Why would I? I am simply and constantly correcting your (and others) misunderstandings of my assertion. :) I'm not sure why that is....maybe I'm not making sense?

I believe that if the same roads that the sports cyclists use....let's take Beach Rd and The Dandenongs as an example.....were populated by the same volume of utility cyclists dressed in an acceptable, Joe Public manner going about their business in an orderly fashion the haters would decrease by a negligible amount. The issues would remain the same; in fact if you were to start having Mary take Sally to Kindergarten on her Byke down the 1 in 20 they'd be worse. There'd be howls of child endangerment. They are not where they belong in the eyes of the majority of motorists.

Every single hate site that I have seen posts up videos and pictures of the Holland experience as an example of "Good" cyclists. Why? Because they in their place....off road, in cycle lanes and on back streets. Every one of them. Every hate site rails against cyclists on the road, not using the cycle lane, or just being there. Every one of them.

The vast majority of Advocacy sites perpetuate this sham that we belong on the paths and in our place on the road as well, further feeding the prevailing POV.

Normal clothes and helmet free heads isn't going to turn Sydney into Amsterdam and it isn't going to suddenly make joe public love cycling. However steps towards normalisation of cycling are small and every step makes a small difference.


Not outside of the parameters I've set. I will believe it when I see it.

Perhaps the issue here is that others are being defensive of their own position which leads them to not only not acknowledge my assertion but to pretend it doesn't exist?

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:59 am

It's been acknowledged. But it is believed that the evidence is contrary to it.

In my experience even a touring cyclist in long pants, loose shirt, broad hat and panniers is treated differently from a head down Lycra clad cyclist.

Your inability to acknowledge ANY difference is head in the sand stuff.

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:53 am

human909 wrote:It's been acknowledged. But it is believed that the evidence is contrary to it.

In my experience even a touring cyclist in long pants, loose shirt, broad hat and panniers is treated differently from a head down Lycra clad cyclist.

Your inability to acknowledge ANY difference is head in the sand stuff.


Of course there are differences; I have indeed acknowledged this. As long as you as a cyclist are where you're supposed to be. You can check; it's there in black and white :)

As long as you are where you are supposed to be. Not without exception; there are always outliers as you know.

Are you seriously disputing the mountain of evidence here, on this very board of this issue? The MM thread has 663 pages of it.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=58039

I can guarantee at least a dozen entries from IP.....pants, shirt, touring cyclist. DavidS...flat bar non lycra comuter. The list goes on.

And I'm not talking about the odd touring cyclist or couple of Uni kids in Carlton. I'm talking about putting ALL of the lycra wearers and utility cyclists into shirts and pants then letting them loose on Beach Rd in the same numbers seen currently on a Saturday or Sunday. Kids and all. (Which I think would be pretty grouse btw)

Why is this such an issue to you and others? We have a disagreement...one that's not likely to be resolved. You have your evidence...which I mostly agree with. I have my evidence, which you mostly discount....situation normal. I can agree to disagree without accusing you of willful blindness. :)

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:23 am

Further to my assertion....

The absolute wall of outrage and outright lies that spring up whenever improved cycling infrastructure is proposed when it impacts on motorists.

Anything at all on Sydney Rd. The natural home of the "normal" cyclist. A thoroughfare that would benefit from streetscaping and boulevarding.

Anything at all on St. Kilda Rd. Again, a heavily used, "normalised cyclist" heavy route into the city. The uproar over the installment of a separated cycle lane is well known here.

Both of these streets are heavy with shirt/trouser/thongs type riders on all manner of cycles. The type which are "less hated". Why is it so hard to get any decent outcome for them in those locations? The majority don't wear lycra, no big peletons....why is it so?

Any new Cycle lane that results in one less traffic lane, such as the Old Calder Hwy near Macedon. Cycle lane created, then removed after a few months of agitation. Result? Death of a cyclist.

I'm sure that most members here are well aware of these issues....as are the posters of late.

As long as we are where we are supposed to be.

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:34 am

Oh, I meant to answer this too

human909 wrote: (Do you really think myself and trailgumby are "normal" average mum/dad cyclists?)


Yes, I do. Normal is as normal does. Seriously, you ride a bike around. How special do you think you/we are? :wink: :lol:

Of course, you could engage in other activities that deem you abnormal. Do you?

RobertL
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby RobertL » Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:12 pm

As ridiculous as the lycra obsession among Joe Public is, I have to agree.


What gets me is that lycra gym wear has become incredibly popular, with no backlash. A lot of women seem to wear their Lorna Jane and Rockwear etc everywhere, but it doesn't generate the same sort of hatred among Joe (or Jo) Public.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 3143
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:59 pm

RobertL wrote: but it doesn't generate the same sort of hatred among Joe (or Jo) Public.

You need to get out a bit more! Perhaps not here, but various places in the US have proposed bans (use your favourite search engine or start in Montana)

Meanwhile, back in QLD
Bike helmets should be optional in Queensland, Brisbane deputy mayor says
Patrick Williams ABC News online wrote:Queensland's helmet laws should be relaxed to make protective headwear optional for "low-risk cycling", Brisbane's deputy mayor says.

Adrian Schrinner took to Twitter this morning to raise his concerns, questioning why it was mandatory for all cyclists to wear helmets.

He said people undertaking "low-risk cycling", such as using Brisbane's CityCycle bikes, should not be made to wear them.

"Seat belts save lives, but they aren't mandatory for passengers on council buses? Why are helmets mandatory for low risk types of cycling?" he said.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:06 pm

fat and old wrote:Yes, I do. Normal is as normal does. Seriously, you ride a bike around. How special do you think you/we are? :wink: :lol:

Quite special merely by riding a bicycle for transport. The statistics support it. Various other attributes separate enthusiasts such as myself and trailgumby and most likely you from the larger cycling cohort.

It is kinda self evidentiary when you arrive at a busy international airport and park your bicycle in the official bicycle parking area and your bicycle is the only bicycle there when your park and when you leave.
I think it is around 100,000 passengers per day.

fat and old wrote:Of course, you could engage in other activities that deem you abnormal. Do you?

Cycling for transport is abnormal in this country.

I do participate in other abnormal activities. But cycling is the only one that seems to have popular hate being driven at it.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12702
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby trailgumby » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:49 pm

fat and old wrote:Oh, I meant to answer this too

human909 wrote: (Do you really think myself and trailgumby are "normal" average mum/dad cyclists?)


Yes, I do. Normal is as normal does. Seriously, you ride a bike around. How special do you think you/we are? :wink: :lol:

Of course, you could engage in other activities that deem you abnormal. Do you?

Feeling disappointed if the weekend ride length has less than three digits left of the decimal point? Check.
Rides around in circles in the bush for 24hrs tag teaming with three other dudes 15 years his junior? Check.

Yep, pretty normal for "normal" average mum/dad cyclist ;)

g-boaf
Posts: 8604
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby g-boaf » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:00 pm

Thoglette wrote:
RobertL wrote: but it doesn't generate the same sort of hatred among Joe (or Jo) Public.

You need to get out a bit more! Perhaps not here, but various places in the US have proposed bans (use your favourite search engine or start in Montana)

Meanwhile, back in QLD
Bike helmets should be optional in Queensland, Brisbane deputy mayor says
Patrick Williams ABC News online wrote:Queensland's helmet laws should be relaxed to make protective headwear optional for "low-risk cycling", Brisbane's deputy mayor says.

Adrian Schrinner took to Twitter this morning to raise his concerns, questioning why it was mandatory for all cyclists to wear helmets.

He said people undertaking "low-risk cycling", such as using Brisbane's CityCycle bikes, should not be made to wear them.

"Seat belts save lives, but they aren't mandatory for passengers on council buses? Why are helmets mandatory for low risk types of cycling?" he said.


Cycling could be made safer if the sacred cows in motor vehicles had the fear of god driven into them that if they close pass or hit a rider, they'll automatically be in really huge trouble.

That will change attitudes fast, especially if they think they'll end up behind bars.

Tonight, despite wearing activity specific clothing (rolleyes) - I had all motorists give me plenty of room. And one patient ute driver actually waited behind me so I could go past some parked cars easily.

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:54 am

trailgumby wrote:Feeling disappointed if the weekend ride length has less than three digits left of the decimal point? Check.
Rides around in circles in the bush for 24hrs tag teaming with three other dudes 15 years his junior? Check.

:oops:
I had to resort to general oddball behaviour. Meanwhile you just go for the elite fitness angle and put me to shame. :lol: :P

(I did start getting quite cycling fit last year. But now my commute is 40km so I am unfortunately driving most days. My bike fitness has certainly dropped significantly.)

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:55 am

human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:Yes, I do. Normal is as normal does. Seriously, you ride a bike around. How special do you think you/we are? :wink: :lol:

Quite special merely by riding a bicycle for transport. The statistics support it. Various other attributes separate enthusiasts such as myself and trailgumby and most likely you from the larger cycling cohort.


I'm probably somewhere north of halfway between you fellas.....but I don't feel special. I feel like a bloke who chooses to do what he enjoys.

And I definitely don't equate "special" with "abnormal". Oh, I realise that there's probably some definition of those words that defines what we do as being that. They're just labels, however. Really no different to the labels that motorists attach to us, as cyclists.

I guess I believe that riding a bike does not define who you are. What you do with your life does. Sure, it may be an important part; maybe the most important part; of your life (unless you're married). It still remains as an example....a symptom if you will....of who you are. Not the driver.

If you believe that you are abnormal, then you'll go through life ultimately unsatisfied with the things you believe make you abnormal. life's too short to be constantly looking for the next high which becomes harder and harder to achieve until only extreme action gives the result you want :)

I don't want to be seen as abnormal on the roads. I want to be seen as I feel....another bloke using what what's in front of me as is my right, without persecution or fear. Motorists are like big ol' hounds. They smell fear. They want us to feel abnormal. They need us to feel as though we don't belong. I refuse to deal myself into that game. How can I do that if I don't feel the way they want me to?

Edit to bring the discussion back to MHL's :lol:

The helmet issue is in the same boat for me. I'm well against it on the libertarian POV. It starts and ends there.

Again, I'm normal. Wearing a hat does not make me feel abnormal. It makes me feel like I'm wearing a hat. I don't think other people are abnormal for wearing a hat, nor do I think they're abnormal for not wanting to. They just are. It's therefore hard for me to reconcile or agree with the sometimes rabid attitudes that some anti-MHL'ers have towards helmet wearing cyclists, whether they are pro or anti. The concept that I; through the act of wearing a helmet; am disadvantaging somebody else that doesn't want to wear a helmet simply doesn't wash with me. If I was to accept that, then I would have to accept that other cyclists are impeding on my life through their actions, irrelevant as they may be. You can't have one without the other.

And who has time for that, unless it's a clear and imminent danger?

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:41 pm

Well off topic now....

fat and old wrote:If you believe that you are abnormal, then you'll go through life ultimately unsatisfied with the things you believe make you abnormal.

I guess we have different world views... I'm abnormal. I've never been normal and I'm not about to be. Even within a cycling cohort I'd be standing whether it would be Beach Road or the streets of Amsterdam.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12702
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby trailgumby » Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:09 pm

human909 wrote:
trailgumby wrote:Feeling disappointed if the weekend ride length has less than three digits left of the decimal point? Check.
Rides around in circles in the bush for 24hrs tag teaming with three other dudes 15 years his junior? Check.

:oops:
I had to resort to general oddball behaviour. Meanwhile you just go for the elite fitness angle and put me to shame. :lol: :P

(I did start getting quite cycling fit last year. But now my commute is 40km so I am unfortunately driving most days. My bike fitness has certainly dropped significantly.)

Yeah, well you're probably way ahead of me at the moment. This post-flu asthma has knocked the stuffing out of my motivation.Even socialising and talking I'm pulling out of because I collapse into coughing fits. Seeing a specialist early next week.

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:46 pm

RobertL wrote:
As ridiculous as the lycra obsession among Joe Public is, I have to agree.


What gets me is that lycra gym wear has become incredibly popular, with no backlash. A lot of women seem to wear their Lorna Jane and Rockwear etc everywhere, but it doesn't generate the same sort of hatred among Joe (or Jo) Public.


stoopid flkr...too hard for me :lol:

fat and old
Posts: 2797
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:50 pm

human909 wrote:Well off topic now....

fat and old wrote:If you believe that you are abnormal, then you'll go through life ultimately unsatisfied with the things you believe make you abnormal.

I guess we have different world views... I'm abnormal. I've never been normal and I'm not about to be. Even within a cycling cohort I'd be standing whether it would be Beach Road or the streets of Amsterdam.


Meh...you're an individual. That's cool. Not abnormal :D

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 4942
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby bychosis » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:13 pm

Image
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5247
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:38 pm

Thoglette wrote:Meanwhile, back in QLD
Bike helmets should be optional in Queensland, Brisbane deputy mayor says
Patrick Williams ABC News online wrote:Queensland's helmet laws should be relaxed to make protective headwear optional for "low-risk cycling", Brisbane's deputy mayor says.

Adrian Schrinner took to Twitter this morning to raise his concerns, questioning why it was mandatory for all cyclists to wear helmets.

He said people undertaking "low-risk cycling", such as using Brisbane's CityCycle bikes, should not be made to wear them.

"Seat belts save lives, but they aren't mandatory for passengers on council buses? Why are helmets mandatory for low risk types of cycling?" he said.


Unfortunately this is just one politician playing politics. He's local and with the LNP. He can't change the helmet law. He's lobbing pineapples at the Labour state transport minister who can. Unfortunately he's pro MHL.

What the local guy is failing to mention though, is that when the state was held by the LNP last term that they conducted a cycling review which amongst other things recommended relaxing MHL. This was summarily rejected by the LNP state transport minister "because I'm a cyclist and a helmet has saved my life". Oh well.

Meanwhile the local Councillor prevails over an administration that is big on saying they support cycling but actually only supports cycling when it fits in with what motorists perceive they need. IE they spend all the money ripping up and replacing existing bike paths in floodways but won't give us safe routes where bike riders need to ride because car drivers might think they are loosing road space.

human909
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:34 pm

A totally unrelated article but with a completely relevant title:

How to solve 1000s of crimes with a stroke of a pen

To bring it back to topic. What is currently being gained by fining people for riding without helmets? Where is the benefit?

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 4942
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby bychosis » Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:15 am

human909 wrote:A totally unrelated article but with a completely relevant title:

How to solve 1000s of crimes with a stroke of a pen

To bring it back to topic. What is currently being gained by fining people for riding without helmets? Where is the benefit?

Only, saving people from themselves. :roll: by making everyone wear a plastic bucket on their noggin they obviously prevent thousands of head injuries presenting to Emergency. Saves a crap load of money doesn't it?
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DavidS » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:41 pm

bychosis wrote:
human909 wrote:A totally unrelated article but with a completely relevant title:

How to solve 1000s of crimes with a stroke of a pen

To bring it back to topic. What is currently being gained by fining people for riding without helmets? Where is the benefit?

Only, saving people from themselves. :roll: by making everyone wear a plastic bucket on their noggin they obviously prevent thousands of head injuries presenting to Emergency. Saves a crap load of money doesn't it?


Yep, love that argument that helmets, or even helmet laws, save thousands of lives, pure speculation. People can wear them when they want to, many riders would still wear helmets, especially those more at risk such as cyclists riding at speed in groups or those on mountain trails. As an adult I don't need to be saved from myself. :roll:

If the problem is that the roads are not safe enough for one category of road vehicle, namely bicycles, then the roads need to be improved rather than imposing a safety device of dubious utility in an accident with over a tonne of car.

As for the assertion that this saves a crap load of money, that argument might have some credibility if not for:

Image

If saving money in our health system was really a factor then cyclists would be well down the list of those who need safety equipment, many more occupants of motor vehicles suffer head injuries than cyclists.

I am constantly amazed at the calibre of argument in favour of MHLs, and I still can't understand why cyclists want to discourage cycling, especially when there is evidence that more cyclists on the road is safer for cyclists.

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 4942
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby bychosis » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:03 am

DavidS wrote:I am constantly amazed at the calibre of argument in favour of MHLs, and I still can't understand why cyclists want to discourage cycling, especially when there is evidence that more cyclists on the road is safer for cyclists.

DS


It's just our current mentality all round. It's 'dangerous' so you need PPE. Same in workplaces, have to wear hard hats on road construction sites when the only thing likely to hit you in the head is bird droppings. Have to wear hi-vis 'everywhere' etc. the perception is riding on the roads is dangerous, many thing you must have a helmet, hi-vis, lights, gloves, a bell (and Lycra :roll: ) or you will most certainly be hit.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users