Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
- DavidS
- Posts: 3749
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby DavidS » Wed May 29, 2024 11:26 pm
I don't know where the straw man of not choosing a safe route came into this, clutching st straws I suppose.
I really don't care who that bloke in the old pic is, nor whether he puts a lump of foam on his head.
Vehicular cycling, is that not a tautology given bicycles are vehicles, and indeed road vehicles.
DS
- baabaa
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby baabaa » Thu May 30, 2024 7:50 am
DavidS wrote: I don't know where the straw man of not choosing a safe route came into this, clutching st straws I suppose.
DS
You asked the question and it is a very easy answer back which everyone who bikes will choose (but you already knew the answer and yet still dont seem like it).
So, a question back and on the topic ..... Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
How is your individual "work" going in and around changing the helmet laws?
Keen to know as been a few months so must be something* good by now?
(*the recent grumbling on this forum does not count)
-
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:14 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby Mr Purple » Thu May 30, 2024 11:12 am
I'm refusing to engage in any helmet debate, but am a vehicular cyclist by necessity on quite a few occasions. This is definitely not an option for the vast majority.baabaa wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 8:31 amVehicular cycling
A term coined by John Forester to describe riding a bicycle as if it were a motor vehicle. The Embassy does not believe vehicular cycling is an option that most people would choose; it effectively excludes the majority of the population from cycling.
In the vehicular cycling model, cyclists must constantly evaluate traffic, looking back, signalling, adjusting lateral position and speed, sometimes blocking a lane and sometimes yielding, always trying to fit into the “dance” that is traffic. Research shows that most people feel very unsafe engaging in this kind of dance, in which a single mistake could be fatal. Children as well as many women and elders are excluded. While some people, especially young men, may find the challenge stimulating, it is stressful and unpleasant for the vast majority. It is no wonder that the model of vehicular cycling, which the USA has followed de facto for the past forty years, has led to extremely low levels of bicycling use.
From The Walkable City, by Jeff Speck.
and then for a current take on life with less cars this is well worth a look
To do this you need to be fast, confident and have perfect judgement in pretty much every situation. And even then it often leads to a situation where a motorist refuses to recognise you as a vehicle - as my recent footage showing the Kia refusing to let me in and then deliberately narrow passing me showed. That is a classical situation of someone being forced by the road circumstances to ride their bike as one would drive a car, and even then it led me to situation where I was forced to rely on someone being a reasonable human being to remain safe, and they weren't.
The more vehicular cycling I'm forced to do, the less I want to do it. Drivers in this country simply don't have the maturity to see a bicycle as a vehicle, even if you're riding in vehicle positions at vehicle speeds. They will go out of their way to remind you they're heavier, faster and they feel the roads belong entirely to them. As a confident vehicular cyclist there are a number of roads I simply avoid because they're the perfect intersection between poor infrastructure and poor drivers and there's just no way to negotiate them safely. Give me an off road bike path every time.
If you're a vehicular cyclist and not wearing a helmet you're far braver than I am. That's all I am going to comment on in that space.
-
- Posts: 15311
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby warthog1 » Thu May 30, 2024 11:41 am
I do not see that situation resolving;
https://www.sbs.com.au/sport/article/dr ... /3yl2saxha
I expect our collective driving standard will continue to decline.
I still ride the road and have just bought a new roadie to go with the gravel bike I bought 3 years or so ago.
I am very selective about where and when I ride it now and have a radar to warn me of approaching cars. Multiple, multiple very dangerous close passes over the years. Minimum safe passing distance has helped inform the considerate drivers what to do so there are less close passes now ime. The inconsiderate bastards do not comply however.
- DavidS
- Posts: 3749
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby DavidS » Thu May 30, 2024 9:55 pm
DS
- g-boaf
- Posts: 22852
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby g-boaf » Fri May 31, 2024 9:34 am
I also ride a bicycle as if I'm a vehicle. I don't want to be relegated to paths or simply be stuck to where some embassy reckons I should be riding according to their doctrines and particular riding styles.
All riders should be able to safely ride where they want to or need to go without fear of traffic. A beautiful connected network of off-road cycle paths is not going to happen overnight or ever really, so the on-road experience has to be sorted out and very quickly.
Overseas I don't have problems on any roads with motorists, they are courteous and respectful. I'm far away from anywhere with dedicated cycling infrastructure and often on narrow (and sometimes very busy) roads but it's not a problem.
-
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:14 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby Mr Purple » Fri May 31, 2024 10:39 am
The problem is the occasional driver in Australia doesn't even recognise you as a human, let alone a vehicle. As in that example I posted - that moron put me in a situation where he both wouldn't let me in, and then wouldn't give me the slightest margin to ride in the shoulder. I was actually a little surprised that a couple of cyclists pointed out I was technically in the wrong - yes, this is correct but I believe my only mistake in that situation was to trust someone to have the slightest degree of consideration when they clearly didn't.g-boaf wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 9:34 amI also ride a bicycle as if I'm a vehicle. I don't want to be relegated to paths or simply be stuck to where some embassy reckons I should be riding according to their doctrines and particular riding styles.
All riders should be able to safely ride where they want to or need to go without fear of traffic. A beautiful connected network of off-road cycle paths is not going to happen overnight or ever really, so the on-road experience has to be sorted out and very quickly.
Overseas I don't have problems on any roads with motorists, they are courteous and respectful. I'm far away from anywhere with dedicated cycling infrastructure and often on narrow (and sometimes very busy) roads but it's not a problem.
That's the problem with vehicular cycling in this country. You do it properly and motorists and even other cyclists will point out things like 'you were going too fast' or ' what were you doing riding in the middle of the lane?' That's the only way to safely do it - as fast and as aggressively as possible, otherwise you're just another target. The problem is that drivers won't recognise you as a legitimate road user even if you're going faster than the speed limit. I've had drivers go absolutely ape at me because I'm 'holding them up', when I'm actually doing the exactly same speed of the queue of car traffic I'm riding in. Bizarre stuff. Drivers in this country are simply too immature to realise this.
You're quite right though - there's never going to be a bike path network that doesn't involve us riding in places we really don't want to be a lot of the time. It's compounded in Brisbane by many of the excellent bikeways having their only access via roads which really aren't a safe place for cycling in the slightest. They never seem to consider that.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 22852
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby g-boaf » Fri May 31, 2024 7:46 pm
Councils just want to tick boxes without upsetting the majority.Mr Purple wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 10:39 amYou're quite right though - there's never going to be a bike path network that doesn't involve us riding in places we really don't want to be a lot of the time. It's compounded in Brisbane by many of the excellent bikeways having their only access via roads which really aren't a safe place for cycling in the slightest. They never seem to consider that.
-
- Posts: 2079
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:52 pm
- Location: Albury NSW on the mighty Murray River
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby brumby33 » Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 pm
Now I know that doesn't affect us here but let me tell you, Governments around the world have taken notice of the Mandatory laws here in Australia, it's pretty well known.
So, will Mr Ramsay go on a further crusade and push for Helmet laws in either the UK and/or the US.
I bet his fall was followed by an extremely lengthy string of explicative words a bit more than "Golly Gosh" I know I would've!!
I hope he heals well, he looks like he's in a hell of a lot of pain and he's definitely got a shake about him....it's obviously really scared him.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8Qz4eap ... _copy_link
VWR Patagonia 2017
2003 Diamondback Sorrento Sport MTB
- Thoglette
- Posts: 6710
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby Thoglette » Sun Jun 16, 2024 9:59 pm
It’s would be as stupid as the MRB crowd (who don’t even ride on the road) turning up at a Senate enquiry to support MHLs. Oh.
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ
-
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
- Location: Remote NT
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby BobtheBuilder » Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 am
Indeed. By the looks of his injuries he should have been wearing hip or torso padding. Something from the cricket section of his local sports shop would do the trick.Thoglette wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 9:59 pm_If_ he calls for MHLs it would be yet another case of a “sporting” cyclist, who had already chosen to wear a helmet (along with padded shorts, Lycra top and silly shoes) to mitigate the risks of “sporting” cycling, telling people who aren’t taking the same sort of risks what we should do.
It’s would be as stupid as the MRB crowd (who don’t even ride on the road) turning up at a Senate enquiry to support MHLs. Oh.
More to the point, why don't we hear people who have car accidents (or fall over whilst jogging) telling us we should wear helmets?
A narrative (not based on facts) has been established, that's why.
Mandatory helmet laws have a contested impact at a population level - negligible positive impact (if any) on traumatic injury and a more significant (also contested) impact on public health by discouraging cycling. Yet the issue is treated in the same league as mandatory seat belts and drink driving laws, both of which have a clear, demonstrable and massive positive impact on both rates of traumatic injury and public health.
- MichaelB
- Posts: 15344
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby MichaelB » Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am
BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 am.....
Mandatory helmet laws have a contested impact at a population level - negligible positive impact (if any) on traumatic injury and a more significant (also contested) impact on public health by discouraging cycling. Yet the issue is treated in the same league as mandatory seat belts and drink driving laws, both of which have a clear, demonstrable and massive positive impact on both rates of traumatic injury and public health.
Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.
Re Red comment - This has oft been cited, and understand and accept that some have 'reported' not cycling because of MHL, but also seen more evidence that the traffic conditions/MM prevent even more.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 22852
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby g-boaf » Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am
They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".
I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.
-
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:42 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby tpcycle » Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:16 pm
"They" being the true believers or the true disbelievers? Anecdotally I know people who do not cycle because of MHLs but I do not know anyone who cycles because of MHLs - that may just be because of the company I keep. I'm sure "they" will tell me I am wrong.
- Thoglette
- Posts: 6710
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby Thoglette » Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:26 pm
Fail is the right word. We are talking about the impact of MHLs, not the efficacy of helmets per se. It turns out that cyclists are pretty good at judging risk and tend to wear helmets in high risk situations (peletons, long commutes, MTB) anyway.
Once again, despite the best efforts of pro-MHL researchers over decades, no one has come close to showing a positive impact from them.
Is that clear enough?
So, should we ignore all three of them, then?
The very few studies and surveys that dare ask That Question (e.g. RAC 2015) universally find that MHLs are a top three issue, well above all the other options provided (e.g. weather) for (everyday) cycling.
Let me be clear: these are studies with large numbers of respondents and high quality outcomes indicating that MHLs significantly reduce (everyday) cycling.
The solitary before-and-after study I’ve been able to find (NSW Govt) showed a massive drop in school-age cycling. The author spent quite a bit of time trying to avoid the obvious conclusion.
Now we have two generations of parents who have been mislead about the inherent risk of (everyday) cycling by the pro-MHL crowd. And an actual higher risk due to reduction in “visible cyclists”, more driven trips, and more pro-car infrastructure.
Meanwhile, (everyday) cycling is linked with positive health outcomes every time anybody looks.
Given the failure of MHLs to deliver on their promise, one only needs a very, very small reduction in participation rates to result in a nett negative outcome. A few pages back you’ll find two Dutch studies comparing the pair and demonstrating exactly this.
In short, helmets save lives but MHLs cost lives.
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ
- g-boaf
- Posts: 22852
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby g-boaf » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:02 pm
I'm not getting dragged into that - that's for someone else to debate. Otherwise things always get into a "I never said that" or "you must have misunderstood what I said", etc.tpcycle wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:16 pm"They" being the true believers or the true disbelievers? Anecdotally I know people who do not cycle because of MHLs but I do not know anyone who cycles because of MHLs - that may just be because of the company I keep. I'm sure "they" will tell me I am wrong.
-
- Posts: 2079
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:52 pm
- Location: Albury NSW on the mighty Murray River
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby brumby33 » Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:29 am
Heres a follow up article in reference to Helmets and Gordon's Ramsay's stack.....brumby33 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 pmBritish Chef Gordon Ramsay had a massive bicycle accident around the weekend in the USA, apparently he's an avid Cyclist .....anyway, he's black n bruised all over and now on the Helmet crusade.
Now I know that doesn't affect us here but let me tell you, Governments around the world have taken notice of the Mandatory laws here in Australia, it's pretty well known.
So, will Mr Ramsay go on a further crusade and push for Helmet laws in either the UK and/or the US.
I bet his fall was followed by an extremely lengthy string of explicative words a bit more than "Golly Gosh" I know I would've!!
I hope he heals well, he looks like he's in a hell of a lot of pain and he's definitely got a shake about him....it's obviously really scared him.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8Qz4eap ... _copy_link
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/othe ... 1ece&ei=29
VWR Patagonia 2017
2003 Diamondback Sorrento Sport MTB
- baabaa
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby baabaa » Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:01 am
Was that written by ChatGPT, GPT-4 or Google Gemini?brumby33 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:29 am
Heres a follow up article in reference to Helmets and Gordon's Ramsay's stack.....
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/othe ... 1ece&ei=29
- uart
- Posts: 3264
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
- Location: Newcastle
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby uart » Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:36 am
I'm still looking forward to the article showing Random Geordy with a massive big bruise on his arse and the caption "if I wasn't wearing padded shorts then I could have suffered brain damage".brumby33 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:29 amHeres a follow up article in reference to Helmets and Gordon's Ramsay's stack.....
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/othe ... 1ece&ei=29
-
- Posts: 2079
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:52 pm
- Location: Albury NSW on the mighty Murray River
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby brumby33 » Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:11 am
Maybe he should stick to corsets haha
For his age though, he does look rather fit....but does anyone trust a skinny chef!!
VWR Patagonia 2017
2003 Diamondback Sorrento Sport MTB
-
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
- Location: Remote NT
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby BobtheBuilder » Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:50 am
MichaelB wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 amBobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 am.....
Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.
At a POPULATION LEVEL the evidence that MHLs have led to a meaningful change in injury rates is CONTESTED.
Definition of traumatic injury: physical injuries of sudden onset and severity which require immediate medical attention
At a POPULATION LEVEL there is CONTESTED evidence that MHLs have had a meaningful impact on cycling rates.MichaelB wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 amBobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 amRe Red comment - This has oft been cited, and understand and accept that some have 'reported' not cycling because of MHL, but also seen more evidence that the traffic conditions/MM prevent even more.
-
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
- Location: Remote NT
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby BobtheBuilder » Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:00 pm
Yes, indeed.g-boaf wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am
They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".
I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.
It's impossible on this forum to get ahead with actually DOING anything about MHL's because someone always drags things back to first principles (usually in good faith, sometimes not) and you have to demonstrate the same thing over and over again.
I've previously suggested to admin creating a separate topic/thread for people who accept the (yes, contested) evidence against MHLs and want to move the discussion forward, but it wasn't received favourably.
- Thoglette
- Posts: 6710
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby Thoglette » Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:04 pm
Only in the sense that the link between fossil carbon emissions and global warming is ‘contested’.BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:50 amAt a POPULATION LEVEL there is CONTESTED evidence that MHLs have had a meaningful impact on cycling rates.
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ
- baabaa
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby baabaa » Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:53 pm
This discussion is full of a lot of misinformation, but to state that this place (or the admin) has or is stopping you from doing anything about MHL is a plain and simple disinformation.BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:00 pmYes, indeed.g-boaf wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am
They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".
I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.
It's impossible on this forum to get ahead with actually DOING anything about MHL's because someone always drags things back to first principles (usually in good faith, sometimes not) and you have to demonstrate the same thing over and over again.
I've previously suggested to admin creating a separate topic/thread for people who accept the (yes, contested) evidence against MHLs and want to move the discussion forward, but it wasn't received favourably.
-
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
- Location: Remote NT
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
Postby BobtheBuilder » Wed Jun 19, 2024 3:59 pm
Not sure what you're reading, but I didn't say that.baabaa wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:53 pmThis discussion is full of a lot of misinformation, but to state that this place (or the admin) has or is stopping you from doing anything about MHL is a plain and simple disinformation.BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:00 pmYes, indeed.g-boaf wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am
They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".
I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.
It's impossible on this forum to get ahead with actually DOING anything about MHL's because someone always drags things back to first principles (usually in good faith, sometimes not) and you have to demonstrate the same thing over and over again.
I've previously suggested to admin creating a separate topic/thread for people who accept the (yes, contested) evidence against MHLs and want to move the discussion forward, but it wasn't received favourably.
I said that any attempt to move the conversation forward is derailed by people wanting to go back over ground that's been covered in depth for many years. Most of it in good faith, some just for a good old Aussie stir.
A solution would be to have a thread for people who agree on certain basic premises (e.g. they fall on one side of the contested debate on the evidence), so those of us who are convinced MHLs are a bad idea can move forward (pro-MHL people can have all the other threads!). This suggestion was shut down in no uncertain terms in one to one messaging with a member of the admin team.
Just stating that to avoid any confusion and/or misinformation. Not suggesting anyone is "stopping me" from doing anything about MHL.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.