Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DavidS » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:31 pm

Cyclophiliac wrote:Melbourne's Herald Sun is at it again, with one of their columnists, Katie Bice, writing some rubbish about helmet-hair, self-entitled cyclists, etc. I'm not even going to post a link to this cr#p. It's clear that Australia's media do too much to suppress cycling in Australia, and none of them seem to see the elephant in the room: the fact that many other countries manage fine without mandatory helmet laws.
I never read the HUN but saw it at the Blood Bank (5 minutes max to read that rubbish) and that article just screamed "I haven't ridden a bike since I was a kid".

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
uart
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby uart » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:46 pm

Cyclophiliac wrote:Melbourne's Herald Sun is at it again, with one of their columnists, Katie Bice, writing some rubbish about helmet-hair, self-entitled cyclists, etc. I'm not even going to post a link to this cr#p. It's clear that Australia's media do too much to suppress cycling in Australia, and none of them seem to see the elephant in the room: the fact that many other countries manage fine without mandatory helmet laws.
It's paywalled anyway. The most that I could see was:
HELMETS ARE ALWAYS THE SAFEST BET
IF we let bicycle riders dump their helmets to let their hair blow in the wind, we are opening ourselves up to a world of pain, writes Katie Bice.

Mike Ayling
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Mike Ayling » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:48 am

Katie's article points out a few flaws in the Bicycle Victoria proposal, one of which is what happens when a rider takes to roads which link some of the bike paths?

Anyway even if we are the only jurisdiction in the world that has MHL's it is not going to change any time soon so get over it!

I Europe where everyone rides for transport they seem to ride a lot more sedately that the Tour de Path riders, some of whom show little respect for other path users.

Mike
Recreational e bikes - for the sick, lame and lazy!

Scintilla
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:59 am

DavidS wrote:
Cyclophiliac wrote:Melbourne's Herald Sun is at it again, with one of their columnists, Katie Bice, writing some rubbish about helmet-hair, self-entitled cyclists, etc. I'm not even going to post a link to this cr#p. It's clear that Australia's media do too much to suppress cycling in Australia, and none of them seem to see the elephant in the room: the fact that many other countries manage fine without mandatory helmet laws.
I never read the HUN but saw it at the Blood Bank (5 minutes max to read that rubbish) and that article just screamed "I haven't ridden a bike since I was a kid".

DS
:roll: :lol: :lol:

Scintilla
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:01 am

Comedian wrote:I actually do think the AGF are right on this - it is a distraction.
Tha AGF are the irrelevant distraction :roll:

They will never get 1c of my donation monies.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:58 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Comedian wrote:I actually do think the AGF are right on this - it is a distraction.
Pardon?

It's top three (with bad road/regulation design and bad driver behaviour) for cutting cyclist numbers.

And the one thing we do know is there's safety in numbers.

The AGF is a MAMIL (or MAFIL, if you like) based organisation. As such they are, by definition, incapable of understanding the importance of MHLs.
So - what I meant by that. I am speaking for QLD.

Our current labor transport minister got doored once and he loves helmets. He thinks they are the best thing ever. You'll get him to repeal them only with his cold dead hand. Not happening now. Not happening while ever he has the say.

The previous LNP government commissioned an enquiry into cycling issues which recommended a trial partial repeal (much like darwin). The LNP government said no. Both sides of politics are 100% behind MHL in QLD.

A local university has a road safety research faculty called carrs-Q. Like all universities these days - they have to get funding from the government. They have received substantial funding from the QLD government and produced a significant amount of "research" showing that helmets are awesome and are no disincentive to cycling.

https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=137754

So, IMHO given that both sides of politics support MHL, and they have a "research" organisation who will happily produce whatever is needed to justify the law, what is the point of campaigning to change it? I'm an advocate. We have lots of advocates. We all work full time jobs and have limited amounts of time to allocate to advocating. What if we spend 50% of our time advocating for MHL reform and we get nowhere? In that sense AGF is right. It's a distraction and a waste of time for advocates to spend time on it. Not because it isn't a good or worthy cause - but because it's just futile. We're better off spending our efforts on advocating for infrastructure which is pretty close to futile - but not as futile as advocating for MHL reform which is completely 100% futile. :|

I've said it before - the only way I can see MHL being reformed in QLD for the foreseeable future is if it's repealed elsewhere. Again Carrs-Q have stated that according to them it's no disincentive and it doesn't stop people cycling. If you take that out of the equation then there really is no reason to repeal it. Unfortunately the NT is different enough that they always manage to discredit it.

So the only chance will be is if somewhere else in Australia repeals MHL and there is a cycling explosion which proves how big a disincentive it is. Sorry.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:04 pm

Comedian wrote:Our current labor transport minister got doored once and he loves helmets. He thinks they are the best thing ever. You'll get him to repeal them only with his cold dead hand. Not happening now. Not happening while ever he has the say.
I've given up on transport ministers: there's no "win" in repealing MHLs for them. It's the Health and Finance ministers (or treasurer) that we need to chase. Possibly the planning ministers.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:29 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Comedian wrote:Our current labor transport minister got doored once and he loves helmets. He thinks they are the best thing ever. You'll get him to repeal them only with his cold dead hand. Not happening now. Not happening while ever he has the say.
I've given up on transport ministers: there's no "win" in repealing MHLs for them. It's the Health and Finance ministers (or treasurer) that we need to chase. Possibly the planning ministers.
Good point. Certainly in QLD though I think that would have a snowballs chance.

The other thing to add is I think we would have more success in lobbying for better infrastructure if MHL was repealed. We'd have more cyclists, and a MHL repeal puts more emphasis back on roads authorities to provide safer facilities.

But - as I've said it's a moot point. I can't see anything changing for many years unless somewhere else changes and forces the issue.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:38 pm

Comedian wrote:What if we spend 50% of our time advocating for MHL reform and we get nowhere? In that sense AGF is right. It's a distraction and a waste of time for advocates to spend time on it. Not because it isn't a good or worthy cause - but because it's just futile.
Expecting instant reform is futile, we do need to go for winnable battles. But keeping the discussion alive isn't futile, which is exactly what some cycling advocacy groups are doing and BN has now joined in. Cycling advocacy isn't spending 50% of their time on MHL reform. In fact far from it. Most organisations including BN spend very little time on it.

However if it is never mentioned the we make no movement no matter how slight towards getting it repealed. So what is the issue with BN putting forward their views and making press releases to keep the discussion alive? More to the point why is AGF using BN press announcement and running interference on it saying it is a distraction?
Comedian wrote:The other thing to add is I think we would have more success in lobbying for better infrastructure if MHL was repealed. We'd have more cyclists, and a MHL repeal puts more emphasis back on roads authorities to provide safer facilities.
Exactly. And it is all a big feedback loop in encouraging cycling.

The changes in cycling in Melbourne in the last decade have seen that. The spread of cycling is quite apparent over time.
Image

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:39 pm

human909 wrote:
Comedian wrote:What if we spend 50% of our time advocating for MHL reform and we get nowhere? In that sense AGF is right. It's a distraction and a waste of time for advocates to spend time on it. Not because it isn't a good or worthy cause - but because it's just futile.
Expecting instant reform is futile, we do need to go for winnable battles. But keeping the discussion alive isn't futile, which is exactly what some cycling advocacy groups are doing and BN has now joined in. Cycling advocacy isn't spending 50% of their time on MHL reform. In fact far from it. Most organisations including BN spend very little time on it.

However if it is never mentioned the we make no movement no matter how slight towards getting it repealed. So what is the issue with BN putting forward their views and making press releases to keep the discussion alive? More to the point why is AGF using BN press announcement and running interference on it saying it is a distraction?
Comedian wrote:The other thing to add is I think we would have more success in lobbying for better infrastructure if MHL was repealed. We'd have more cyclists, and a MHL repeal puts more emphasis back on roads authorities to provide safer facilities.
Exactly. And it is all a big feedback loop in encouraging cycling.

The changes in cycling in Melbourne in the last decade have seen that. The spread of cycling is quite apparent over time.
Image
I'm quite glad BN have done that to keep it alive as you say. And I agree - it's somewhat of a loop. Nobody rides, so we don't get safe infra - so nobody rides..... MHL repeal would be quite a "free kick".

But - it's not happening in QLD. There is one person in QLD you have to convince - the transport minister. While it's not his whole call he would have to initiate any repeal. And if you have a scale of 1-10 in terms of MHL believer he's an 11. Maybe a 12. Does that help to explain the situation? I'm aware of him watching a Freestyle ride and commenting to someone that "I'm saving those people from themselves". :cry:

And yes - apart from Freestyle Cyclists in BNE none of the advocates spend any time on MHL. It's a waste of time - and if you tweet in the general direction of the transport minister about MHL you'll be blocked for good. So if you do advocate on MHL you'll have all channels for anything else firmly shut down.

We need another Australian capital to repeal - and then have a mode share jump from 2 to 20. That's about what it will take I reckon to call out the lies.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: BN toe-in-the-water on The Guaridan

Postby AUbicycles » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:43 pm

human909 wrote:
AUbicycles wrote: 1. Victoria still has no Minimum Passing Distance law. This is not specifically a failure of Bicycle Network as they have advocated this and I am sure have been politically active (along with other groups) in Victoria. But the law still hasn't been updated so the chance of having the MHL laws removed would be even harder.
How is this relevant? MPD law is no magic bullet. In fact it shows a failure of road safety. The Netherlands doesn't have MPDLs.
I see a misunderstanding, the reference to the MPD is specific to the success of getting a highly publicised cycling safety issue on the table in Victoria, so not further discussion on the merits of the law for safety and whether it can be enforced.
Cycling is in my BNA

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:09 pm

The announcement from BN isn't about getting the laws changed today. Or tomorrow. It is about getting the message out there. Getting discussion happening. Change doesn't just spring up overnight, it takes time. Just because one safety initiative hasn't been addressed doesn't mean others should be ignored.

In the meantime, cycling is still booming in inner Melbourne at rates seen nowhere else in Australia. The critical mass has been reached and there is no stopping it. Laws can play catch up to the reality of wheels on the ground.

opik_bidin
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby opik_bidin » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:14 pm

somehow, I find reason 3,4,5 silly, shouldn't come from an academic person on a academia media.

https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=137754

Jake olivier quoted again folks,

1.Head injuries are a very serious issue. They often have life-long consequences for individuals and their families. The cost to the community is enormous. It makes sense to focus on preventing head injuries.

2.Helmets are very effective in preventing or reducing the severity of head injuries. Most scientific studies show reductions of more than 50% regardless of whether a motor vehicle was involved in crash or not. Being off the road doesn’t mean that helmets aren’t needed.

3.Helmet laws result in high wearing rates. CARRS-Q studies have observed many thousands of bicycle riders across Brisbane and other areas of Queensland and overall wearing rates are greater than 95%. Taking away the requirement to wear a helmet off-road will see fewer riders wearing helmets when they go on the road.

4.Laws are most effective when they are able to be enforced. It is easy for police to see if a rider is not wearing a bicycle helmet, much easier than to see if a driver is using a mobile phone.

5.The high wearing rates resulting from helmet laws mean that many bicycle helmets are sold. This has led to bicycle helmets becoming much cheaper in Australia than in countries without a law.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:20 am

opik_bidin wrote:somehow, I find reason 3,4,5 silly, shouldn't come from an academic person on a academia media.
Agreed it is appalling.

1 & 2 are also academically bad too none of it addresses likelihood. Yes we all know head injuries are bad, and we all know helmets can be used to prevent them. Arguments 1 & 2 pretty much can apply to any activity including climbing ladders.


But the notion that academia is unbiased is probably more untrue now than it ever has been. To get anywhere in academia you need to follow the line of your supervisors and then your senior academics and the university, all while meeting the biases of the journals you need to publish in to stay relevant in academia.

You don't get to be the director of QUT’s Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety by asking, let alone researching the controversial questions.


Lets not forget that this is the organisation that is hosting the "International Cycling Safety Conference 2019" in 2 weeks!

https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/inte ... ence-2019/


You can also see some of her research here:
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/41798/1/Monograph_5.pdf

The same hand waving exercise persist even in the published work. Even when it briefly 'addresses' and then ignores opposing views. The continued use of statistics of rate of helmet wearing as proof that MHLs work boggles the mind.

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:46 pm

human909 wrote:The continued use of statistics of rate of helmet wearing as proof that MHLs work boggles the mind.
Yes, it's such a puerile statement, especially in answer to the assertion that MHLs reduce rates of cycling! There is no logical connection between the two statements. Obviously people who already wore helmets were going to continue wearing them; people who really love cycling are going to wear them if there's a good chance of getting caught, even if they hate it (that's me when outside the NT!); people who are on the fence are going to wear them. But people who really hate helmets, or don't care much either way about helmets or cycling but can't be bothered with a helmet are not going to ride. And there's lots of them.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:51 pm

human909 wrote: In the meantime, cycling is still booming in inner Melbourne at rates seen nowhere else in Australia. The critical mass has been reached and there is no stopping it. Laws can play catch up to the reality of wheels on the ground.
Why isn't the inner Melb thing being screamed about? Or studied? Is it because it doesn't match what the people paying for research want to hear? Has there been MHL compliance research done?

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:20 pm

Comedian wrote:Why isn't the inner Melb thing being screamed about? Or studied? Is it because it doesn't match what the people paying for research want to hear?
Not much in it for the academics. Why are so many people cycling? Largely the same mix of elements at play as in any place where cycling is common place. A few unique factors that got the ball rolling and it has snow balled from there.
Comedian wrote:Has there been MHL compliance research done?
From MY observation, even in these suburbs, MHL compliance seems to be strong. But certainly less than elsewhere.

Every now and again I think there is some head helmet counting excercises down. But I doubt they have good geographical breakdown on it. It is hard enough getting cycling data, we mostly have to rely ONE DAY every 5 years. (We do have a yearly bicycle count Super Tuesday which I believe we can credit BN (formally BV).

From what I understand Victoria as a state has had one of the highest rates of helmet compliance. I think strong enforcement for decades is part of it, but at a stretch you might credit the lack of the laid back nature of places like FNQ, Byron, Manly etc....

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:12 pm

human909 wrote:
Comedian wrote:Why isn't the inner Melb thing being screamed about? Or studied? Is it because it doesn't match what the people paying for research want to hear?
Not much in it for the academics. Why are so many people cycling? Largely the same mix of elements at play as in any place where cycling is common place. A few unique factors that got the ball rolling and it has snow balled from there.
Comedian wrote:Has there been MHL compliance research done?
From MY observation, even in these suburbs, MHL compliance seems to be strong. But certainly less than elsewhere.

Every now and again I think there is some head helmet counting excercises down. But I doubt they have good geographical breakdown on it. It is hard enough getting cycling data, we mostly have to rely ONE DAY every 5 years. (We do have a yearly bicycle count Super Tuesday which I believe we can credit BN (formally BV).

From what I understand Victoria as a state has had one of the highest rates of helmet compliance. I think strong enforcement for decades is part of it, but at a stretch you might credit the lack of the laid back nature of places like FNQ, Byron, Manly etc....
I'll admit.. if I was an academic hoping to eat and pay rent... pitching my research on how rubbish the helmet law is to the transport department for funding wouldn't be a road I'd be going down..

madmacca
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: BN toe-in-the-water on The Guaridan

Postby madmacca » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:40 pm

human909 wrote:
tubby74 wrote:MPD has been a waste of time in NSW. Police don't care, and thanks to the AGF it came in with a huge attack on cyclists that saw injury rates rise, riders drop and conditions significantly decline. The AGF takes a contrary position only to serve it's own publicity
I'm on the fence on MPD. My original stance before it was even introduced was that it was unnecessary and greater emphasis should be put on enforcing existing laws. And a sensible approach to cyclist safety rather than a rule based one. I reluctantly conceded that it probably is better than nothing, especially if it enables proper prosecution. However the latter hasn't occured.

99.9% of the time motorists are not being watch by police so if you want good safe behavior you need strong education and strong enforcement. Neither of this has occured with MPD so its ineffectiveness is unsurprising.


In contrast I generally see far safer passing in inner Melbourne. Why? Because cyclists are everywhere, regular people. Women, children and BABIES on the back of bikes. Getting more people cycling is the BIGGEST influence on a safer cycling culture.


But hey. I take no issues with AGFs agenda. Except when their agenda involves running obstruction against other advocacy. Simple question of WHY?
I'm of the opinion that MPD's themselves do little to change driver behaviour. What has the bigger impact is the publicity campaign that often (and should) accompanies the introduction of such MPD laws.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15583
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby AUbicycles » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:19 pm

This may be stating the obvious.. however as suggested here with the discussion on academics, medical professionals and organisations tend to actively encourage and promote helmets.

Yes, I said it would be obvious... but it continues... their focus is limit injury and prevent deaths as a result of being hit by a vehicle or other accidents / collisions. But in the case of cycling, there appears to be no focus / activity in the bigger picture of prevention.

In the cases of smoking, skin cancer, obesity and general road safety, there is more activity from medical professional bodies (Australian Medical Association) to actively lobby for preventative action.

Here is a 2015 article from the Australian Medical Association - "Freedom of choice a weighty problem". It concentrates on food problems and sugar tax which the food industries oppose. The AMA hold the general view of limiting choice to improve health and this also relates to helmets which are also mentioned.

My question is, if cycling was safer, would medical professionals relax their stance because there is more prevention?
Cycling is in my BNA

Cyclophiliac
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Cyclophiliac » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:54 pm

My question is: why DON'T medical professionals strongly advocate for the use of helmets in the large number of activities which have a higher injury rate than cycling? Where does this emphasis on the dangers of cycling come from? (as opposed to walking, driving, home renovations, etc., all of which can result in severe head impacts)

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:30 pm

human909 wrote:
Comedian wrote:Has there been MHL compliance research done?
From MY observation, even in these suburbs, MHL compliance seems to be strong. But certainly less than elsewhere.
Respectfully disagree. It’s interesting you mentioned other “laid back” areas, as one commonality is proximity to the coast. Which brings me to my disagreement. Dromana to Rye on the peninsula had a much higher number of lidless riders. On a weekend they may be a minority due to the large numbers of cyclists along Pt Nepean Rd but come the weekdays they’re almost a majority again. I’ve noticed this over the last 5 years or so living there half the time.

Another point to make is that in areas such as Heidelberg and Broady to name two lidless types would be a higher percentage of total numbers. Overall numbers are much lower than inner Melbs so it’s not as noticeable unless you’re looking for it. It would be interesting to hear from people based around Dandenong or Altona/Werribee.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Wed Nov 07, 2018 11:34 pm

Cyclophiliac wrote:My question is: why DON'T medical professionals strongly advocate for the use of helmets in the large number of activities which have a higher injury rate than cycling? Where does this emphasis on the dangers of cycling come from? (as opposed to walking, driving, home renovations, etc., all of which can result in severe head impacts)
Generally, children don’t do these things.

Cyclophiliac
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Cyclophiliac » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:57 am

fat and old wrote:
Cyclophiliac wrote:My question is: why DON'T medical professionals strongly advocate for the use of helmets in the large number of activities which have a higher injury rate than cycling? Where does this emphasis on the dangers of cycling come from? (as opposed to walking, driving, home renovations, etc., all of which can result in severe head impacts)
Generally, children don’t do these things.
Can you clarify, please? I don't know what you mean.

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:33 am

fat and old wrote:
Cyclophiliac wrote:My question is: why DON'T medical professionals strongly advocate for the use of helmets in the large number of activities which have a higher injury rate than cycling? Where does this emphasis on the dangers of cycling come from? (as opposed to walking, driving, home renovations, etc., all of which can result in severe head impacts)
Generally, children don’t do these things.
a) yes, children do walk - and run, and even watch golf, which has a terrible head injury rate.

b) you may not be aware, but MHLs apply to adults as well.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users