Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[warthog1]

There are multiple reasons to argue against mandating helmet use.
That helmets are ineffective at preventing head/brain injury or that cycling is always safe are not two of them.

So, you actually disagree with MHLs.

Maybe some more constructive engagement would be good, rather than tying up everyone's time on minor differences.

If you chose to read some posts I have said multiple times I don't agree with them.
The persistent claims that helmets provide no protection I disagree with.
I have not been making those claims, so with respect to "tying up everyones' time" perhaps stop making them.
I don't see claiming an item doesn't prevent or reduce brain injury, when it clearly does, as a "minor difference."

Helmet laws don't affect the type of cycling I engage in.
I am not that invested in removing them.

I do believe greater cycling numbers is a positive for all cyclists however.
Come up with a valid path to remove MHLs and I would support it.

[fat and old]

There are multiple reasons to argue against mandating helmet use.
That helmets are ineffective at preventing head/brain injury or that cycling is always safe are not two of them.

So, you actually disagree with MHLs.

He’s been saying that since day dot! Lol And I agree with him.

Maybe some more constructive engagement would be good, rather than tying up everyone's time on minor differences.

Problem is that for most here, “constructive engagement” is no less than agreeing with everything that is put forward by the ant-MHL posters. When anything put forward is questioned, that person is accused of “taking up everyone’s time on minor differences”. That is not constructive engagement. It’s bully boy tactics.

If I was to question the decline in cycling rates in the NT since 2011, what would constructive engagement look like?

BTW, “safety” is not a minor issue when it comes to the majority perception of cycling among potential cyclists. It’s usually the #1 concern.

[trailgumby]

BTW, “safety” is not a minor issue when it comes to the majority perception of cycling among potential cyclists. It’s usually the #1 concern.

Quite correct. While instigating MHLs has led us more or less directly to where we are now, through marginalising a largely safe activity, chasing out to other forms of transport the 60% who saw bicycles merely as a convenient way to get to A to B (leaving only the hardcore enthusiasts), and allowing government to think it had done enough and become complacent with regard to bicycle user safety, removing MHLs will not on its own reverse the damage that has been done, nor will it rectify our abusive and aggressive road culture.

Their removal needs to come alongside measures that address these safety concerns, when it becomes obvious that the low-hanging limiters have been dealt with and helmet laws are the next obvious limiter to be removed.

In the meantime car-centric propagandists like Olivier and Grzbieta need to have their selective perception dealt with, with data.

[baabaa]

Problem is that for most here, “constructive engagement” is no less than agreeing with everything that is put forward by the ant-MHL posters. When anything put forward is questioned, that person is accused of “taking up everyone’s time on minor differences”. That is not constructive engagement. It’s bully boy tactics.

I like the whole... I demand "Not theoretical studies, real world data" take, yet no one here has (or even seems to know someone first hand who) has been actually been fined for not using a helmet in the say the las five years? So yes, show us your fines which is "Not theoretical studies,(but) real world data"

This is worth a look about how things do get done in and around getting more people on bikes - would be hard to find a more knowledgeable person around Aust and international biking - If Fiona thought that MHL was worth a push in the past few years it would have been done - (AND it was given a pretty solid push by some very good policy brains and strategic people in Bike Sydney back around 2005- 2008)


I sense that no one here has a even a average policy brain or the slightest urge to be strategic as they know the laws wont change. Who knows something could if they did but nope - don't do anything leave that to others - just more noise and then nothing, then just more noise and more doing nothing.
Oh and TG when was the last NSW Operation Pedro?
I make August 2018 - have a meeting with local council about biking so would like to get at least some of my "facts" kinda right.

[trailgumby]

Oh and TG when was the last NSW Operation Pedro?
I make August 2018 - have a meeting with local council about biking so would like to get at least some of my "facts" kinda right.

That was the last time BNSW notified members, but there was I seem to recall another instance after that where they failed to give the team a heads-up before the event, the date of which I don't remember.

Fiona Campbell rocks.

[trailgumby]

I like the whole... I demand "Not theoretical studies, real world data" take, yet no one here has (or even seems to know someone first hand who) has been actually been fined for not using a helmet in the say the las five years? So yes, show us your fines which is "Not theoretical studies,(but) real world data"

I was present at a Freestyle Cyclists protest ride at Centennial Park in 2018. Something like 4 or 5 police cars turned up to respond to the protest - almost more police than riders. Clearly, pootling about slowly wearing only a hat on one's head was a serious threat to public safety - or was that to Police authority?

A couple of people were fined, the rest walked their bikes the couple of hundred metres back to the start.

It's a shame the same enthusiasm isn't shown toward enforcing close passing distances.

[BobtheBuilder]

If I was to question the decline in cycling rates in the NT since 2011, what would constructive engagement look like?

What stats are you going off?

https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf

The 2019 National Cycling Participation Survey suggests rates have fallen nationally over the previous decade, not just in the NT.

Nationally, cycling participation 'in the last week' fell from 18.2% of the population to 13.8% between 2011 and 2019, a 23% fall. The NT 'in the last week' decline was from 26.3% in 2011 to 21.3% in 2019, a 19% fall.

So the decline in cycling in the NT (at least measured in terms of weekly cycling) was less than the national decline. Which would suggest there's something broader going on.

But the 'ridden in the last week' rate is still way higher than other jurisdictions, except the ACT:

NT - 21.3%
NSW - 12.9%
VIC - 13.7%
SA - 13%
QLD -13.5%

what would constructive engagement look like?

Well it wouldn't look like continually bringing up little niggly points, which you are incorrect about, about every conceivable possible objection to the anti-MHL argument, many of which are straw man arguments and/or based on selective or incorrect use of statistics.

BTW, “safety” is not a minor issue when it comes to the majority perception of cycling among potential cyclists. It’s usually the #1 concern.

No, and the perception that cycling is so dangerous that you need a helmet, leads people to think it's terribly unsafe. If you leave aside risky types of cycling and cycling at speed on busy roads, with your head down and no mirror, none of which most normal people do, cycling is largely safe.

[DavidS]

Cycling is largely safe, but when you say that people object by claiming you said cycling is "always" safe. Nice straw man but unconvincing.

The evidence that helmets prevent things like concussion is not robust because 1 thing helmets do not do is stop your brain from rattling around your head if your head gets hit. Sure, wearing a helmet can protect you from getting stitches from a nasty gash, but preventing brain injury is a whole different matter.

I have had arguments with people about how dangerous cycling is. What is brought up, every time, is how come helmets are mandated unless cycling is particularly dangerous? Most activities don't require helmets, cycling does, therefore it must be particularly dangerous, not just dangerous, but particularly dangerous. So dangerous that protective equipment is required, by law.

The perceptions caused by MHLs are ruinous to cycling as a mode of transport.

DS

[warthog1]

Cycling is largely safe, but when you say that people object by claiming you said cycling is "always" safe. Nice straw man but unconvincing.

The evidence that helmets prevent things like concussion is not robust because 1 thing helmets do not do is stop your brain from rattling around your head if your head gets hit. Sure, wearing a helmet can protect you from getting stitches from a nasty gash, but preventing brain injury is a whole different matter.

I have had arguments with people about how dangerous cycling is. What is brought up, every time, is how come helmets are mandated unless cycling is particularly dangerous? Most activities don't require helmets, cycling does, therefore it must be particularly dangerous, not just dangerous, but particularly dangerous. So dangerous that protective equipment is required, by law.

The perceptions caused by MHLs are ruinous to cycling as a mode of transport.

DS

There have been multiple references indicating helmets reduce brain injury when worn in a head strike.
Including an explanation of how they do it.


Cycling is a popular form of recreation and method of commuting with clear health benefits. However, cycling is not without risk. In Canada, cycling injuries are more common than in any other summer sport; and according to the US National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, 52,000 cyclists were injured in the US in 2010. Head injuries account for approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of fatal injuries among injured cyclists. In many jurisdictions and across all age levels, helmets have been adopted to mitigate risk of serious head injuries among cyclists and the majority of epidemiological literature suggests that helmets effectively reduce risk of injury. Critics have raised questions over the actual efficacy of helmets by pointing to weaknesses in existing helmet epidemiology including selection bias and lack of appropriate control for the type of impact sustained by the cyclist and the severity of the head impact. These criticisms demonstrate the difficulty in conducting epidemiology studies that will be regarded as definitive and the need for complementary biomechanical studies where confounding factors can be adequately controlled. In the bicycle helmet context, there is a paucity of biomechanical data comparing helmeted to unhelmeted head impacts and, to our knowledge, there is no data of this type available with contemporary helmets. In this research, our objective was to perform biomechanical testing of paired helmeted and unhelmeted head impacts using a validated anthropomorphic test headform and a range of drop heights between 0.5m and 3.0m, while measuring headform acceleration and Head Injury Criterion (HIC). In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively). These biomechanical results for acceleration and HIC, and the corresponding results for reduced risk of severe brain injury show that contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/

They reduce the force experienced by the brain within the skull.
They replicate and improve on the protection provided by the skull and meninges.
Spead and reduce the load experienced by the brain.

As described by one of our forum doctors, this thread is an exercise in futility.

[bychosis]

Agree that cycling is largely safe as well. BUT, I’m a cyclist, like the forum members here and have been cycling for a long time knowing the risks. Us knowing it’s pretty safe doesn’t do much to convince the rest of the population that think cycling is unsafe. Pretty much the only thing that is going to convince the ‘others’ is seeing heaps more cyclists - catch 22.

It’s potentially also a consequence of helicopter parenting, which has been played to in media. Know that you have to wear a helmet - must be unsafe. Not allowed on the footpath (for some) - unsafe. Traffic is heavier and faster - unsafe. More distracted drivers - unsafe. Bike will get stolen - unsafe. Parents can’t see/contact you - unsafe. Pedophiles and murderers - unsafe. etc etc etc. If cycling isn’t safe for kids, they don’t get to learn it is actually pretty safe the old way therefore they are too scared as adults.

[trailgumby]

There have been multiple references indicating helmets reduce brain injury when worn in a head strike.
Including an explanation of how they do it.

Yet, at a population level, brain injury rates haven't much changed. Why is that?

The same thing has happened in the NFL. Helmets protect heads and reduce impact forces, yet head injury rates remain largely unchanged. In fact, CTE from repeated concussions is a growing problem, just as it is here without helmets.

There is an answer to why. It's at the core of this contradiction. Hint: it's to do with human behaviour, with a similar dynamic to why building more roads doesn't reduce traffic congestion except for a short term blip.

Let's see if you can figure it out.

[tpcycle]

I like the whole... I demand "Not theoretical studies, real world data" take, yet no one here has (or even seems to know someone first hand who) has been actually been fined for not using a helmet in the say the las five years? So yes, show us your fines which is "Not theoretical studies,(but) real world data"

Unsure if it was now more than 5 years ago but it was definitely in 2017 that I was fined $165 (or thereabouts) including a victims of crime levy for riding a bicycle without a helmet. I just didn't want to hear the sanctimonious waffle from the policeperson who pulled me over so instead of biting my tongue and begging forgiveness I told them what I really thought about this asinine law and how ridiculous it was and of course I reaped the consequences. When in Australia I usually wear a helmet fine protective device and it is 100% effective - now that's real world data - bicycle helmets have a 100% success rate against helmet fines - about the only thing that I find they are good for.

[warthog1]

There have been multiple references indicating helmets reduce brain injury when worn in a head strike.
Including an explanation of how they do it.

Yet, at a population level, brain injury rates haven't much changed. Why is that?

The same thing has happened in the NFL. Helmets protect heads and reduce impact forces, yet head injury rates remain largely unchanged. In fact, CTE from repeated concussions is a growing problem, just as it is here without helmets.

There is an answer to why. It's at the core of this contradiction. Hint: it's to do with human behaviour, with a similar dynamic to why building more roads doesn't reduce traffic congestion except for a short term blip.

Let's see if you can figure it out.

The evidence I have read on here that at a population level injury rates haven't much changed comes from a statistician who is associated with an anti MHL organisation.
You make some tenuous comparisons there. Nfl players are just colliding harder. They were colliding anyway.
Most cyclists aim not to collide and fall off but I expect the argument will now be mandating helmet use has turned us all into risk takers.
I have read it on here previously in any case.
I do agree however it has likely resulted in less utility cyclists.

I am simply disagreeing with the repeated assertion that helmets provide no protection from brain injury in the event of a head strike.
The evidence is that they do.

[fat and old]

If I was to question the decline in cycling rates in the NT since 2011, what would constructive engagement look like?

What stats are you going off?

Happy to use yours, as you seem to have an issue with my position

The 2019 National Cycling Participation Survey suggests rates have fallen nationally over the previous decade, not just in the NT.

Nationally, cycling participation 'in the last week' fell from 18.2% of the population to 13.8% between 2011 and 2019, a 23% fall. The NT 'in the last week' decline was from 26.3% in 2011 to 21.3% in 2019, a 19% fall.

For some reason, you go further than addressing my statement.

So the decline in cycling in the NT (at least measured in terms of weekly cycling) was less than the national decline. Which would suggest there's something broader going on.

But the 'ridden in the last week' rate is still way higher than other jurisdictions, except the ACT:

NT - 21.3%
NSW - 12.9%
VIC - 13.7%
SA - 13%
QLD -13.5%

Fair enough, I'm not disputing that. Nor did I question it. I simply asked about the decline cycling rates in the NT. And as per usual, you gave me a "but it's better than other jurisdictions" line. So what? Are you going to engage constructively or just keep telling me how bad it is elsewhere?

I would have thought constructive engagement would be to explain why cycling rates are declining in spite of the lack of enforced MHL's? It's a fair question. Clearly having no MHL's as a barrier to cycling is not arresting the decline in numbers. Why is it an automatic assumption that cycling numbers will increase in other states if MHL's are relaxed? I note that you state that

But the 'ridden in the last week' rate is still way higher than other jurisdictions, except the ACT

No numbers supplied? I'll assume that they are greater than the NT. (found them. 22.2%.). How is that explained given that the ACT has MHL's and is pretty much the opposite to the NT in weather?

Something I found in your linked survey is interesting

Respondents aged 15 or older were asked a range of questions about whether they would consider riding for
transport trips. These respondents were then classified into four categories depending on whether they had
undertaken cycling trips for transport over the past month or indicated they would consider doing so. Across
Australia 70% of respondents indicated they were not interested in riding for transport (Figure 2.17). Most of
the remainder (26%) indicated they were interested but did not currently ride for transport. This group may
already ride for recreation purposes and indicated they could conceivably ride for transport. Around 3%
identified themselves as cautious riders; that is, they already ride for transport but prefer circuitous routes to
avoid traffic. The remaining 1% identified themselves as confident transport riders; that is, they already ride
for transport and will take the shortest route irrespective of traffic.

NT: Cautious riders 5% Confidant riders 1%
Vic: Cautious riders 3% Confidant riders 1%

Take the kids out of the equation, look only at "transport riders" and the numbers seem a bit closer. Way more aspiration in the NT, but the conversion rate isn't there.

It's not a simple issue that can be dismissed with condescending statements such as

Let's see if you can figure it out

[baabaa]

The 2019 National Cycling Participation Survey suggests rates have fallen nationally over the previous decade, not just in the NT.

The 2019 National Stone Skipping Participation Survey would suggest the same-
Not a good year for any surveys - how many people in eastern Aust just stopped riding in early 2019 due to the smoke from back burning then the bushfires. Oh and something around Covid19, lockdowns and how many stayed/ worked from home for the rest of the year

[tpcycle]

The evidence I have read on here that at a population level injury rates haven't much changed comes from a statistician who is associated with an anti MHL organisation.

Why doesn't a pro-MHL organisation publish a simple graph showing a dramatic drop in head and brain injury rates post the adoption of MHLs? If the label on the tin is true "85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" then it'd be simple wouldn't it and glowing proof of their efficacy as a health intervention? All I've seen are graphs which closely follow any drop in participation.

[tpcycle]

The 2019 National Cycling Participation Survey suggests rates have fallen nationally over the previous decade, not just in the NT.

The 2019 National Stone Skipping Participation Survey would suggest the same-
Not a good year for any surveys - how many people in eastern Aust just stopped riding in early 2019 due to the smoke from back burning then the bushfires. Oh and something around Covid19, lockdowns and how many stayed/ worked from home for the rest of the year

Ummm, just coz it says COVID-19 doesn't mean 2019 was impacted. I was flying internationally on New Year's eve 2019/2020 and covid was just a very small blip on the radar.

[fat and old]

The evidence I have read on here that at a population level injury rates haven't much changed comes from a statistician who is associated with an anti MHL organisation.

Why doesn't a pro-MHL organisation publish a simple graph showing a dramatic drop in head and brain injury rates post the adoption of MHLs? If the label on the tin is true "85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" then it'd be simple wouldn't it and glowing proof of their efficacy as a health intervention? All I've seen are graphs which closely follow any drop in participation.

Here you go

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Australia

Results Immediately following bicycle helmet legislation, the rate of bicycle fatalities per 1 000 000 population reduced by 46% relative to the pre-legislation trend [95% confidence interval (CI): 31, 58]

Conclusions

In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors.

I'm sure there's a graph in there somewhere, I don't care enough to pay for it

BTW, I AM NOT AN ANIMALLLLL....oops, PRO MHL'er

[baabaa]

The 2019 National Cycling Participation Survey suggests rates have fallen nationally over the previous decade, not just in the NT.

The 2019 National Stone Skipping Participation Survey would suggest the same-
Not a good year for any surveys - how many people in eastern Aust just stopped riding in early 2019 due to the smoke from back burning then the bushfires. Oh and something around Covid19, lockdowns and how many stayed/ worked from home for the rest of the year

Ummm, just coz it says COVID-19 doesn't mean 2019 was impacted. I was flying internationally on New Year's eve 2019/2020 and covid was just a very small blip on the radar.

True - was not clear - was really two points, one about the smoke in 2019 and how people in NSW and the ACT stopped doing any activity due to the health hazards of the back burning smoke - and that two, that using any data from 2019 and beyond will now be difficult due to the actual bush fire smoke and then covid19 - was in the far south of China at the end of 2019 and the "news" about covid19 was that it was not definitely not going to be a small blip, so my personal time scale of when covid really started is a little warped.

[tpcycle]

The evidence I have read on here that at a population level injury rates haven't much changed comes from a statistician who is associated with an anti MHL organisation.

Why doesn't a pro-MHL organisation publish a simple graph showing a dramatic drop in head and brain injury rates post the adoption of MHLs? If the label on the tin is true "85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" then it'd be simple wouldn't it and glowing proof of their efficacy as a health intervention? All I've seen are graphs which closely follow any drop in participation.

Here you go

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Australia

Results Immediately following bicycle helmet legislation, the rate of bicycle fatalities per 1 000 000 population reduced by 46% relative to the pre-legislation trend [95% confidence interval (CI): 31, 58]

Conclusions

In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors.

I'm sure there's a graph in there somewhere, I don't care enough to pay for it

BTW, I AM NOT AN ANIMALLLLL....oops, PRO MHL'er

Are these the same guys who said that MHLs increased cycling rates? https://acrs.org.au/files/papers/arsc/2 ... livier.pdf

Are these the same guys who said to the senate enquiry in 2015 that they didn't ride bicycles because it was too dangerous?

[tpcycle]

The 2019 National Stone Skipping Participation Survey would suggest the same-
Not a good year for any surveys - how many people in eastern Aust just stopped riding in early 2019 due to the smoke from back burning then the bushfires. Oh and something around Covid19, lockdowns and how many stayed/ worked from home for the rest of the year

Ummm, just coz it says COVID-19 doesn't mean 2019 was impacted. I was flying internationally on New Year's eve 2019/2020 and covid was just a very small blip on the radar.

True - was not clear - was really two points, one about the smoke in 2019 and how people in NSW and the ACT stopped doing any activity due to the health hazards of the back burning smoke - and that two, that using any data from 2019 and beyond will now be difficult due to the actual bush fire smoke and then covid19 - was in the far south of China at the end of 2019 and the "news" about covid19 was that it was not definitely not going to be a small blip, so my personal time scale of when covid really started is a little warped.

I wasn't on the ground in China on New Year's eve I was on a flight from USA to HK. But I'm pretty sure the outbreak started in December 2019 when half the staff at Wuhan wet market came down with it. It was definitely a blip on the radar in the western news sphere. I think it's a stretch to say Australian surveys from 2019 could in anyway be impacted by COVID.

[BobtheBuilder]

The 2019 National Cycling Participation Survey suggests rates have fallen nationally over the previous decade, not just in the NT.

The 2019 National Stone Skipping Participation Survey would suggest the same-
Not a good year for any surveys - how many people in eastern Aust just stopped riding in early 2019 due to the smoke from back burning then the bushfires. Oh and something around Covid19, lockdowns and how many stayed/ worked from home for the rest of the year

Ok, well use another year then. I've looked at the most recent pre-Covid data in detail. If you think 2019 is wrong, show us the numbers for earlier years.
Covid started to impact Australia in 2020 by the way.

[trailgumby]

I am simply disagreeing with the repeated assertion that helmets provide no protection from brain injury in the event of a head strike.
The evidence is that they do.

I have never said helmets provide no protection. What I have said is that such protection is quite limited, and the price we are paying for that limited protection is likely to be costing us more early deaths and life-altering outcomes than it is saving, through poorer community health from inactivity related lifestyle diseases.

The evidence I have read on here that at a population level injury rates haven't much changed comes from a statistician who is associated with an anti MHL organisation.

The more relevant question is why is he associated with that anti-MHL organization? In the absence of evidence of actual conflict of interest I'd suggests it is likely to be a result of the strength of his conviction based on his analysis. It is, after all, in the current political climate around this issue a potentially career limiting move.

Unlike many, I have found it is much easier (and many hundreds of thousands of dollars less expensive) to align oneself to reality than to try to conform reality to one's pre-conceived ideas. I was initially pro-MHLs but find that viewpoint is no longer sustainable.

Note that I am not anti helmet. I am anti helmet laws.

You make some tenuous comparisons there. Nfl players are just colliding harder.

You've put your finger on the core issue without even realising it. Why are they colliding harder?

The evidence suggests a phenomenon called "risk compensation" is at play, where people using protective gear thinking they are at less risk of consequences take more risks and "go harder" until they are back at the same point with outcomes.

It's exactly like "induced demand", where people take up a good offered for free (in this case injury reduction rather than travel time savings) until the good is used up and the level of disbenefit (TBI and CTE rather than congestion) returns to prior levels.

People without helmets tend to be more conservative than those wearing them. Those wearing helmets take more risks because they feel safer. It is one of the reasons that PPE is regarded as least impactful in the hierarchy of controls.

[BobtheBuilder]

Here you go

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Australia

Evidence from the most rabidly pro-MHL group of people imaginable? You dispute the basis of any evidence from people who are anti-MHL, but then quote evidence from people with a very distinct ideological stance. Evidence that has been credibly disputed on this site many times, as you would know.

I know you enjoy derailing the conversation, so <sigh> ... actually, no, I'm not going to take the bait. Search back through the forum on why this is unreliable. Or read this for some of the reasons why - http://www.cycle-helmets.com/olivier-et-al-critique.pdf

And it doesn't include a graph showing a drop in "head and brain injury rates", it shows a drop in bicycle fatalities / population and asserts that these are due to helmets.

But, sure, let's revive this silly discussion and then you can keep insisting you don't agree with MHLs.

[BobtheBuilder]

As described by one of our forum doctors, this thread is an exercise in futility.

Why don't you just leave it?

Your sole contribution seems to be disingenuously picking apart people's arguments instead of finding common ground, telling people they're wasting their time because they haven't got the solutions to changing MHL and telling people this whole thread is useless.

Take your own advice and leave those of us who want to discuss constructively to it.


If so much oxygen wasn't taken up with straw man arguments, we might actually be able to get around to discussing how to get the law changed.