Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[g-boaf]

The thing is that these issues are linked.

A few people above have mentioned that riding on roads overseas is far less of a problem than riding on roads in Australia. One can also mention that bikes and cars shared Australian roads for decades, without the need for separate infrastructure, until, what, the last 20-30 years?

Part of the issue of mandating the wearing of helmets is that it gives off a perception that cycling is a specifically and particularly dangerous activity. After all, most activities don't have legally mandated head protection. Cycling must be dangerous. I've had this very argument with a number of people, the argument usually ends when they say "but then why do you have to wear a helmet when cycling, it must be dangerous".

Of course, we know one thing about cycling safety: more bikes on the roads leads to more room for cyclists on the roads.

So, take away the anti-cycling MHLs, positively promote cycling, do something about the perception cycling is a particularly dangerous activity (it isn't, even though most Australian drivers are clueless) and we can make the roads safer.

Always remember: roads are not infrastructure for motor vehicles, they are infrastructure for road vehicles: bicycles are road vehicles. If the roads do not cater for all road vehicles then something is wrong.

In any case, mandating safety equipment for an activity which is seen as normal and not dangerous in the vast majority of countries is really admitting that something has gone very wrong. It is a policy which is the wrong way around - the first thing policy should do is to remove danger, not try and protect against danger. They are also a failed law: helmets protect one part of the body and one part only: the head. Have head injuries as a proportion of total injuries suffered by cyclists gone down? No - law has failed even on its own terms, get rid of it.

DS

If helmets are the thing that has caused car drivers to behave so badly around riders, then why isn’t the same occurring overseas where people do still sometimes wear helmets?

Can you answer that one?

Yes, you didn’t say that, and no, I didn’t say that, so we will get the “didn’t say that” statements out of the way already.

[BobtheBuilder]

If helmets are the thing that has caused car drivers to behave so badly around riders, then why isn’t the same occurring overseas where people do still sometimes wear helmets?

Can you answer that one?

Why is it so hard to understand?
MHLs
> less bikes on the road
> roads seeming like places for "motor vehicles" specifically, rather than places for all road users
> less awareness of bicycles / greater sense of entitlement for motor vehicle operators
> more dangerous for bicycles

And it's a positive feedback loop.

Add to that the feeling that if you aren't wearing a helmet you become even more of a target to some of the most aggressive drivers who think you're an irresponsible law-breaker so they can be even less careful.

[DavidS]

No I didn't say that, although I did see the correlation (and possibly the implication) when I wrote this. I thought I would let it fly and see what people concluded from the correlation

I'm not sure why Australian drivers are so inconsiderate, and why this has got worse. There is a correlation with the helmet laws, how much of a correlation I don't know, but I can't see the direct causation.

Might have something to do with cyclist numbers reducing and also the mix of cyclists on the road changing, less utility cyclists and more sporting cyclists. You can see the attitude towards "lycra warriors" which, although not at all justified (who gives a crap what people choose to wear on a bike?), is real.

I still think that MHLs are a total failure, cyclists are not safer on the roads now than before these were brought in. The MHL law has failed to deliver on what it promised: safer cycling. It has no justification and, if removed, I would hope we can challenge the perception that cycling is somehow uniquely dangerous and encourage more cyclists which would make it safer on the roads.

DS

[g-boaf]

If helmets are the thing that has caused car drivers to behave so badly around riders, then why isn’t the same occurring overseas where people do still sometimes wear helmets?

Can you answer that one?

Why is it so hard to understand?
MHLs
> less bikes on the road
> roads seeming like places for "motor vehicles" specifically, rather than places for all road users
> less awareness of bicycles / greater sense of entitlement for motor vehicle operators
> more dangerous for bicycles

And it's a positive feedback loop.

Add to that the feeling that if you aren't wearing a helmet you become even more of a target to some of the most aggressive drivers who think you're an irresponsible law-breaker so they can be even less careful.

If you want more riders on the road, then you're going to have to lobby the politicians really hard to get plain clothes Police on bicycles with unmarked Police cars nearby in radio contact. So when motorists do the wrong thing, the report is on the radio to the waiting car and that car gets pulled over and fined.

The moment that happens you will see an immediate change in driver behaviour. The drivers will be super cautious around any riders they see because of the risk they might get in trouble.

Why is that so hard to understand. If only the anti-MHL people would be as vocal on matters like that as they were about helmets.

[warthog1]

If helmets are the thing that has caused car drivers to behave so badly around riders, then why isn’t the same occurring overseas where people do still sometimes wear helmets?

Can you answer that one?

Yes, you didn’t say that, and no, I didn’t say that, so we will get the “didn’t say that” statements out of the way already.

Some places o'seas can be shi ite too apparently.
The cycling community where I am has people who have raced overseas.
A UK cycling team stayed over here for our Summer for a couple of years running.
Maybe it is just English speaking counties.
Heard stories of terrible aggressive driving in both the UK and the US.

I agree more people cycling improves the lot for all cyclists.
I don't think you can blame the selfish aggressive nature of many of our drivers solely on a lack of cyclists though.
We are a nation that has a significant proportion who are aggressive, arrogant turds unfortunately.
It would appear the US and UK share some of the same problem too.

[warthog1]

I still think that MHLs are a total failure, cyclists are not safer on the roads now than before these were brought in. The MHL law has failed to deliver on what it promised: safer cycling. It has no justification and, if removed, I would hope we can challenge the perception that cycling is somehow uniquely dangerous and encourage more cyclists which would make it safer on the roads.

DS

I see MHLs as an attempt to place the burden of safety on the vulnerable rather than those who cause the injury, motor vehicle drivers.
The attitude still pervades our governments.
Implement minimum passing distance laws but concurrently increase the cost of various cycling misdemeanors such as not wearing a helmet.
One type of offence creates a potentially lethal risk to others, the other affects only the "offender"
Guess which one is policed?

[DavidS]

I still think that MHLs are a total failure, cyclists are not safer on the roads now than before these were brought in. The MHL law has failed to deliver on what it promised: safer cycling. It has no justification and, if removed, I would hope we can challenge the perception that cycling is somehow uniquely dangerous and encourage more cyclists which would make it safer on the roads.

DS

I see MHLs as an attempt to place the burden of safety on the vulnerable rather than those who cause the injury, motor vehicle drivers.
The attitude still pervades our governments.
Implement minimum passing distance laws but concurrently increase the cost of various cycling misdemeanors such as not wearing a helmet.
One type of offence creates a potentially lethal risk to others, the other affects only the "offender"
Guess which one is policed?

Yep, just makes the problems worse.

DS

[fat and old]

The general consensus hereabouts is that having overpowered e-bikes on bike paths is dangerous. So what’s the difference between that and having cyclists share a road with motor vehicles?

[tpcycle]

The general consensus hereabouts is that having overpowered e-bikes on bike paths is dangerous. So what’s the difference between that and having cyclists share a road with motor vehicles?

Geez you come out with some ill considered nonsense. What does that even mean and what relevance does it have to anything? Are you suggesting motor car drivers should wear helmets when they are sharing roads with B-doubles (hint that's sarcasm)? Or do you have some other obtuse tangent to MHLs?

As to a link between MHLs and Australian driver behaviour... Bicycle helmets are dork hats, cyclists wear dork hats, cyclists are dorks, dorks are fair game. Or something like that. Actually my feeling on the matter is that it is much easier for drivers to objectify and dehumanise someone on a bicycle when their head is obscured by a helmet.

Here are a couple of dorks fit for a bit of mocking... (and why not a punishment pass as well for good measure?)

[fat and old]

The general consensus hereabouts is that having overpowered e-bikes on bike paths is dangerous. So what’s the difference between that and having cyclists share a road with motor vehicles?

Geez you come out with some ill considered nonsense. What does that even mean and what relevance does it have to anything?

The way I see it is that if overpowered e bikes require separation then so do cyclists and cars. That’s all.

As for you feeling like a dork, here.

https://www.udemy.com/course/confident/ ... gIXaPD_BwE

On line self esteem class. Maybe it would help, dunno, but good luck with it

[uart]

The general consensus hereabouts is that having overpowered e-bikes on bike paths is dangerous. So what’s the difference between that and having cyclists share a road with motor vehicles?

Maybe we could allow arbitrarily powerful e-bikes on footpaths too, and just introduce mandatory body armour laws for pedestrians.

[London Boy]

If you want more riders on the road, then you're going to have to lobby the politicians really hard to get plain clothes Police on bicycles with unmarked Police cars nearby in radio contact. So when motorists do the wrong thing, the report is on the radio to the waiting car and that car gets pulled over and fined.

The moment that happens you will see an immediate change in driver behaviour. The drivers will be super cautious around any riders they see because of the risk they might get in trouble.

Why is that so hard to understand. If only the anti-MHL people would be as vocal on matters like that as they were about helmets.

I think you are wrong. People still speed, despite plod hiding in the bushes with his radar pointed at them. People still use their phones, despite the cameras and the fines. Having plod go after motorists who shave cyclists will have much the same effect.

The whole point of cycling safety is about attitude, not enforcement. I think the anti-MHL people understand this.

Also, I think the anti-MHL people are vocal on things other than MHL's. Perhaps you're just not listening to them.

[London Boy]

If helmets are the thing that has caused car drivers to behave so badly around riders, then why isn’t the same occurring overseas where people do still sometimes wear helmets?

Can you answer that one?

Yes, you didn’t say that, and no, I didn’t say that, so we will get the “didn’t say that” statements out of the way already.

Some places o'seas can be shi ite too apparently.

I'm a Pom. I grew up riding in the UK, and I've ridden in Europe and Australia.

Australian motorists are the worst, by a comfortable margin. In the UK, there are some motorists who are a bit dodgy, but nothing like the proportion here down under. And there isn't that sense of 'other', and all that goes with it, like you get here. In the UK, cyclists are just people on bikes, while here it's like they are a different species, for many motorists at least.

I am pretty sure that division is caused by the MHL's. The statistics show as much anyway. The reason is probably not too hard to work out. MHL's reduce casual cycling. MHL's mean that going for a ride, however long or short, requires special preparation. You can't just get on and ride.

It would be an interesting experiment, to force the people at greatest risk of head injury to wear helmets, and see if that division remains, or is reduced or eliminated. MHL's for motorists as well as cyclists. The great leveller.

[DavidS]

The general consensus hereabouts is that having overpowered e-bikes on bike paths is dangerous. So what’s the difference between that and having cyclists share a road with motor vehicles?

Bike paths were made for bicycles, which are an unpowered (except by the human propelling it) vehicles.

Roads were made for road vehicles, bicycles are road vehicles. How many times does this need repeating?

By the way, this is a thread about mandatory helmet laws, not about eBikes, overpowered or not. Why do some bring up unrelated issues, is there a name for such people I wonder?

London Boy, I dream of being able to just jump on a bike without having to make sure I've made all the preparations and just go for a casual spin, aah I do remember such days in my youth . . .

DS

[warthog1]

If helmets are the thing that has caused car drivers to behave so badly around riders, then why isn’t the same occurring overseas where people do still sometimes wear helmets?

Can you answer that one?

Yes, you didn’t say that, and no, I didn’t say that, so we will get the “didn’t say that” statements out of the way already.

Some places o'seas can be shi ite too apparently.

I'm a Pom. I grew up riding in the UK, and I've ridden in Europe and Australia.

Australian motorists are the worst, by a comfortable margin. In the UK, there are some motorists who are a bit dodgy, but nothing like the proportion here down under. And there isn't that sense of 'other', and all that goes with it, like you get here. In the UK, cyclists are just people on bikes, while here it's like they are a different species, for many motorists at least.

I am pretty sure that division is caused by the MHL's. The statistics show as much anyway. The reason is probably not too hard to work out. MHL's reduce casual cycling. MHL's mean that going for a ride, however long or short, requires special preparation. You can't just get on and ride.

It would be an interesting experiment, to force the people at greatest risk of head injury to wear helmets, and see if that division remains, or is reduced or eliminated. MHL's for motorists as well as cyclists. The great leveller.

That isn't consistent with what the high mileage competitive cyclists from the UK have reported to me.
Plenty of aggressive knuckleheads in the UK too from their reports.
Still despite having a British passport I've never been there.
I have universal reports of continental Europe being better.


You will find our meatheaded driving attitude toward cyclists precedes the MHLs however.
We've never been good.
The sense of other can also be attribited to wearing lycra and riding in groups taking up their roadspace whilst not paying rego.

I accept we are world leaders at arrogant stupidity in many areas though and aren't well traveled enough to personally dispute our driving credentials on a world level.
We are shi ite anyway.

[g-boaf]

If you want more riders on the road, then you're going to have to lobby the politicians really hard to get plain clothes Police on bicycles with unmarked Police cars nearby in radio contact. So when motorists do the wrong thing, the report is on the radio to the waiting car and that car gets pulled over and fined.

The moment that happens you will see an immediate change in driver behaviour. The drivers will be super cautious around any riders they see because of the risk they might get in trouble.

Why is that so hard to understand. If only the anti-MHL people would be as vocal on matters like that as they were about helmets.

I think you are wrong. People still speed, despite plod hiding in the bushes with his radar pointed at them. People still use their phones, despite the cameras and the fines. Having plod go after motorists who shave cyclists will have much the same effect.

The whole point of cycling safety is about attitude, not enforcement. I think the anti-MHL people understand this.

Also, I think the anti-MHL people are vocal on things other than MHL's. Perhaps you're just not listening to them.

You cannot say it’s wrong unless it actually happens here like the Police did over there. The more consistently the law is enforced the better.

Otherwise, let’s not enforce speeding laws and let people just go as quickly as they want, right?

[Comedian]

Pro-MHL advocates often suggest it's mostly road design and cycleway infrastructure that is holding riding back, which is simply not true.

BTB, you’ve pointed out my various deficiencies here, and fair enough, I’ll cop that you see things that way. So let me be clear. Unambiguous. Straight to the point.

That’s bollocks on multiple levels.

Cycling advocates and those they survey ( that’s the important bit mate), not solely MHL advocates all put road design and infra way above MHLs as a deterrent to cycling. I have never seen anything that suggests otherwise. If you have, I’d like to see it and stick my foot back in my mouth.

Can I say.. I'm involved in cycling advocacy. Not sports cycling advocacy, utility cycling advocacy. I think I can be pretty confident that probably 95% of the people in those groups believe strongly that cycling would be better off without MHL.

However, there is a (sometimes spoken) of belief that if they work really hard and advocate for better cycling conditions that we might actually get some wins. I actually think in recent times I can point to all their efforts making a difference.

However - advocating for MHL repeal is seen (and I think quite rightly) as an utter waste of time. The current transport minister is a fervent MHL supporter. He sees himself as saving people from themselves. While he's running the show there is 0 recurring chance of it being changed. Also.. once you advocate for MHL reform he will effectively shut all the doors to you. So if you advocate for MHL reform that's it.

Further there is so much inertia driven by MHL. As I've said before - most people who cycle now are pro MHL (or they wouldn't be riding). Of all the people that don't cycle undoubtedly the vast majority support MHL too.. hey it's not their problem anyway. And then you have decades of "research" funded by academics to prove that MHL is the right thing.

So, the advocates spend their time and energy advocating for things that might actually be changeable. Like better cycling conditions. If things change then they might again advocate for repeal but only if enough of them think directing energy that way is a better use of resources.

Perhaps all the "Covid riders" might change things. Who knows.

[fat and old]

Pro-MHL advocates often suggest it's mostly road design and cycleway infrastructure that is holding riding back, which is simply not true.

BTB, you’ve pointed out my various deficiencies here, and fair enough, I’ll cop that you see things that way. So let me be clear. Unambiguous. Straight to the point.

That’s bollocks on multiple levels.

Cycling advocates and those they survey ( that’s the important bit mate), not solely MHL advocates all put road design and infra way above MHLs as a deterrent to cycling. I have never seen anything that suggests otherwise. If you have, I’d like to see it and stick my foot back in my mouth.

Can I say.. I'm involved in cycling advocacy. Not sports cycling advocacy, utility cycling advocacy. I think I can be pretty confident that probably 95% of the people in those groups believe strongly that cycling would be better off without MHL.

However, there is a (sometimes spoken) of belief that if they work really hard and advocate for better cycling conditions that we might actually get some wins. I actually think in recent times I can point to all their efforts making a difference.

However - advocating for MHL repeal is seen (and I think quite rightly) as an utter waste of time. The current transport minister is a fervent MHL supporter. He sees himself as saving people from themselves. While he's running the show there is 0 recurring chance of it being changed. Also.. once you advocate for MHL reform he will effectively shut all the doors to you. So if you advocate for MHL reform that's it.

Further there is so much inertia driven by MHL. As I've said before - most people who cycle now are pro MHL (or they wouldn't be riding). Of all the people that don't cycle undoubtedly the vast majority support MHL too.. hey it's not their problem anyway. And then you have decades of "research" funded by academics to prove that MHL is the right thing.

So, the advocates spend their time and energy advocating for things that might actually be changeable. Like better cycling conditions. If things change then they might again advocate for repeal but only if enough of them think directing energy that way is a better use of resources.

Perhaps all the "Covid riders" might change things. Who knows.

I don't disagree with you at all. I have no doubt (and agree...again) that cycling would be better off without MHL's. I simply haven't seen anything to suggest that removal of MHL's is seen as more important than infra in getting more bums on bikes.

I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive driving around cyclists if MHL's were removed to be honest.

The covid riders are proving that helmets are optional in Melbourne.

[BobtheBuilder]

I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive driving around cyclists if MHL's were removed to be honest.

Unlikely. It wouldn't be seen as "illegal" anymore.

What little research there is on this demonstrates that drivers behave on average more dangerously around helmeted riders. This is hypothesised on a number of factors, including risk compensation - in other words the riders look more "protected" so there's less reason to consider safer behaviour near them.

[BobtheBuilder]

I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive driving around cyclists if MHL's were removed to be honest.

Unlikely. It wouldn't be seen as "illegal" anymore.

What little research there is on this demonstrates that drivers behave on average more dangerously around helmeted riders. This is hypothesised on a number of factors, including risk compensation - in other words the riders look more "protected" so there's less reason to consider safer behaviour near them.

Can I say.. I'm involved in cycling advocacy. Not sports cycling advocacy, utility cycling advocacy. I think I can be pretty confident that probably 95% of the people in those groups believe strongly that cycling would be better off without MHL.



Further there is so much inertia driven by MHL. As I've said before - most people who cycle now are pro MHL (or they wouldn't be riding). Of all the people that don't cycle undoubtedly the vast majority support MHL too.. hey it's not their problem anyway. And then you have decades of "research" funded by academics to prove that MHL is the right thing.

So, the advocates spend their time and energy advocating for things that might actually be changeable. Like better cycling conditions. If things change then they might again advocate for repeal but only if enough of them think directing energy that way is a better use of resources.

Perhaps all the "Covid riders" might change things. Who knows.

Most cycling advocates privately oppose MHLs but most cyclists support them? That suggests at least some energy could be spent educating cyclists.

However - advocating for MHL repeal is seen (and I think quite rightly) as an utter waste of time. The current transport minister is a fervent MHL supporter. He sees himself as saving people from themselves. While he's running the show there is 0 recurring chance of it being changed. Also.. once you advocate for MHL reform he will effectively shut all the doors to you. So if you advocate for MHL reform that's it.

I think this is a rather short-sighted and narrow view - we need to use many strategies for change - this is how European cycling has got so mainstream and continues to push hard to improve further, not through some magical difference in the quality of their drivers or society.

There is definitely a place for conservative advocates to use traditional ‘insider’ lobbying tactics with the current Minister, but there is also a place for other styles of advocacy and political action.

All of which is separate to the issue of MHLs themselves, which is what this thread is about. Are MHLs good or not? Not, are we likely to be able to change MHLs in the current policital climate.

[fat and old]

I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive driving around cyclists if MHL's were removed to be honest.

Unlikely. It wouldn't be seen as "illegal" anymore.

What little research there is on this demonstrates that drivers behave on average more dangerously around helmeted riders. This is hypothesised on a number of factors, including risk compensation - in other words the riders look more "protected" so there's less reason to consider safer behaviour near them.

That risk compensation argument is based on the assumption that not only are all drivers equally predictable but that their behaviour doesn’t stray outside what society considers reasonable. Ok.

My reasoning:

We have had 30 years of MHL’s
Society has become much more risk adverse

I can see more drivers having an attitude along the lines of “Hey, you didn’t want to look after your own safety so buggered if I’m gonna worry about it. So cop this”.

Sure, anti MHL’ers won’t want to see this as a possibility cos it ruins their dream of acceptance by wider society, and I can sympathise. But there’s way to many precedents for me to ignore that possibility.

[fat and old]

BTW, on the subject of this thread and “what’s allowed”

There are no special rules for the thread, just the standard forum guidelines. Feel free to debate MHL's, the percieved/actual benefits of helmet use and the like in this thread to your hearts content, provided it's within the guidelines.

“and the like” Cycling advocacy as it relates to MHL’s sounds like that?

[g-boaf]

I wouldn't be surprised to see more aggressive driving around cyclists if MHL's were removed to be honest.

Unlikely. It wouldn't be seen as "illegal" anymore.

What little research there is on this demonstrates that drivers behave on average more dangerously around helmeted riders. This is hypothesised on a number of factors, including risk compensation - in other words the riders look more "protected" so there's less reason to consider safer behaviour near them.

What research is that, do you have it available to show here now? Numbers, facts please.

I’m feeling we should do an experiment, all of us who are riding now (and apparently supporting MHL) should stop riding totally (or use an indoor trainer) in order to prove we don’t support MHL. We can see how that will improve the situation for riding.

[London Boy]

If you want more riders on the road, then you're going to have to lobby the politicians really hard to get plain clothes Police on bicycles with unmarked Police cars nearby in radio contact. So when motorists do the wrong thing, the report is on the radio to the waiting car and that car gets pulled over and fined.

I think you are wrong. People still speed, despite plod hiding in the bushes with his radar pointed at them. People still use their phones, despite the cameras and the fines. Having plod go after motorists who shave cyclists will have much the same effect.

The whole point of cycling safety is about attitude, not enforcement. I think the anti-MHL people understand this.

You cannot say it’s wrong unless it actually happens here like the Police did over there. The more consistently the law is enforced the better.

Otherwise, let’s not enforce speeding laws and let people just go as quickly as they want, right?

Fallacious logic. Speeding laws are enforced and people still speed. Phone use laws are enforced and people still drive along texting. Drug driving laws are enforced and people are still high on ice behind the wheel.

What works in reducing any kind of undesirable behaviour is making it socially unacceptable. You do that by changing attitudes. Enforcement is always second best, even if we assume - and we can't - that there will be enough of it.

I don't know if you are aware of the 'hierarchy of control', which is the industry standard model for risk management. I am familiar, since I have worked as a risk manager in the mining industry and they are all over that kind of thing. In essence, the least effective form of protection against risk of injury is PPE. In our context there is one argument, which has yet to be rebutted, that helmet laws were introduced as an alternative to more effective alternatives that are (or were) perceived as more expensive or less politically palatable.

I think my own experience is that cycling in Australia is less safe than cycling in the UK, and vastly less safe than cycling in most of Europe. That is down almost entirely to attitude and level of participation. It certainly isn't down to mandatory helmets, because the UK and Europe do not have those laws (except in some jurisdictions for children).

[baabaa]

I don't know if you are aware of the 'hierarchy of control', which is the industry standard model for risk management. I am familiar, since I have worked as a risk manager in the mining industry and they are all over that kind of thing. In essence, the least effective form of protection against risk of injury is PPE. In our context there is one argument, which has yet to be rebutted, that helmet laws were introduced as an alternative to more effective alternatives that are (or were) perceived as more expensive or less politically palatable.

Wait and think about what you just put down on paper as it is a paper shuffler shuffling words.

Do you know of any worker who would walk into and then onto a mine site today without steel capped boots? I come from the agricultural sector and people just wear this PPE stuff now because it works not because they are told to. I have many friends who have lost an arm, some fingers, and then others a few feet. In a funny way farmers are now using PPE as it has helped these people to know they are working and not just living a lifestyle and they stop and think is the next job they do worth doing slowly and safely

People need to do the other than MHL stuff now.
I have been in endless bike safe meetings which have gone to water when both pro and anti start talking on this topic. I could be wrong but most people that I know who fought firmly against MHL when it was coming in, still feel and understand that argument was lost long ago.
If both sides stopped using "the data because.....x y z" and whole mess of the correlation does not imply causation stuff, you can clearly explain to the people that make laws, that this law is just dumb.

It is dumb because people can and do choose in other countries. Some people think it is smart to use a helmet other dont. That is it .
We in Aust are dumb but not that much dumber....
With slower speeds and better infra you then have a data set as a base to move on, because with or without MHL we will still need a safe place to ride. The safer they are the less the police bother. Worked in Manly