I’ll be using various words, expressions and descriptors such as Anti MHLers, Anecdotes, !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!, Data whores, Opinions, Pseudo science and more in this post. These are being used as an easy way to get my message across using a readily understood vernacular. They are not being used to denigrate nor cause offence. I'm gonna use unattributed quotes as examples, but not with the intent of being personal. I hope you don't get upset, but if that’s how you feel, then sorry, but not my fault. Look in the mirror.
It's been interesting just watching the ebb and flow of this thread these last few days. Baby Jesus would be happy. The discussion was so collegiate that the Virgin Mary herself could have joined in without fear of being offended. And Joseph could have stood off to the side, ignored as always but content with the world. Why is it so? Why indeed.
I believe that it’s because the Anti MHLers have been left to their own devices. They’ve even had a bit of kumbaya bonding when regaling us with their war stories of their dealings with the Dark Side of the Force. It’s so encouraging and wholesome I got…..excited .
What’s made it interesting (apart from the Pseudo Science of watching a human ant’s nest) is that it’s been chockas full of anecdotes! Yes, anecdotes. The very thing that the !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! are pilloried for repeatedly. I personally asked about clothing etc regarding utility cyclists. Does wearing cycling gear mean you are not a utility cyclist was my gist. I had anecdotal evidence provided. And that was fine and made sense to me. But we all know what would have happened if I entered an anecdote to support any answer I gave regarding helmet use.
Evidence. Another thing…maybe the major thing….that gets people all huffy and puffy. And again in the last few days there’s been some examples of the inconsistent approach some Datawhores will take. Evidence such as the Monash Study and Portland data was introduced by the !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!. Relatively recent, relatively new. The antiMHL side was sick of this within a few days.You have your opinion; I have my evidence.
It took two posts before Olivier was wheeled out and canned.The Portland data and the Monash report have been comprehensively discussed. Can we pls move on?
Gee, I’ve never seen that before. Apparently, no one had, because no one complained about Olivier being “comprehensively discussed”. We dodged one there.And here is the rub: efficacy is rarely defined but widely touted (and misquoted - see Olivier's works over the years)
I asked a while back What can the anti MHL’ers learn from the e-scooter experience? I was jumped on. It wasn’t until I supplied a “fuller” explanation that an answer of sorts without angst was supplied. And even though it missed that mark at least it was civil. And the answers kept coming. Essentially, scooter riders seem to get away with stuff that cyclists would be nailed to the cross for. This was established in the usual Whataboutist manner many anti MHLers take. What about him? What about them? What about her? As a father, I recognize this behavior, and I can’t say I’ve seen it since my boys were in Grade 2. Of course this led to some argy bargy which established that essentially, if you’re not a loudmouth moron you won’t be fined. Unless the Police are on a mission, they won’t do more than talk. And lets face it, they’re rarely on a mission.
The galling part to all of this is that the answer to my question was there. It was being spoken about. It was being related. It was even raised and dismissed by one antiMHLer unknowingly. And in todays environment, it’s the only way forward that I can see.
Don’t wear a helmet if you don’t want to. Stop carrying on about the injustice of it all. Stop asking why the other bloke doesn’t have to. Just don’t wear it.
It’s established and accepted that increased numbers of wheeled vehicles on the road (I’m including scoots and ebikes here. If you really want to argue that they’re somehow different in establishing numbers on the road you go with that.) increases society’s recognition and attention to them, which leads to greater awareness.
Surely it follows that greater numbers of riders without helmets leads to a greater acceptance? Various members here have already stated thisMy recent observation after a fair bit of riding over a half week in Sydney and Melbourne CBDs is that drivers were far more considerate of bikes compared to 10 or 20 years ago. My unscientific feeling was that this was due in large part to the incredible numbers of food delivery e-bike riders on the streets. Drivers might not like them, but they see them all the time, so they are just generally more aware of bikes. Raw numbers in themselves make cycling safer, because seeing cyclists (and scooter riders) becomes normalised.
Now we don’t “know” this to be factual, but there’s no denying the basics. That’s what I believe anyway. More people riding without helmets will lead to a normalization of that activity.The thing is that many ride around on a scooter without a helmet and they seem to get away with it
So don’t wear a helmet. This is the way.