Cycling in Sydney Australia
Hits all of the key points. Nice to see. Go Sarah!
Forgive my cynicism, but do you think that it could be to inflame debate on the matter to build more website clicks to get more advertising revenue to get more anti-cycling sentiment activated by more perverse measures. It's a good article, but why would you believe that the Terror publishes anything without ulterior motives. News is in their name only, not the papers!
Keep's us arguing about this instead of us drawing attention to how inadequate the politicians are in providing us with safe infrastructure.
Forgive my cynicism, but do you think that it could be to inflame debate on the matter to build more website clicks to get more advertising revenue to get more anti-cycling sentiment activated by more perverse measures.
Dabba - you need to go for a meditative, feel-good ride :-)
Thank you Dr Peter. I'll get the medication filled right away! :-)
BTW, should it be taken with or without coffee?
It should be taken both with and without coffee
That sounds like 2 doses of medication.
I only get 30k's to the cappuccino and my average distance is >50k's, so it looks like one will have to be a small dose!
If JP is right then I imagine that Sarah (or an agent thereof) approached News with, "hey, checkout the massive number of comments and controversy this opinion I had got on facebook. Want to publish a syndicated article on the same theme? Yes you say? How many words? My price per word is X".
Sarah Wilson posted her thoughts on this on fb several days ago...and copped an absolute bullocking for it!
Not to offend the brilliant and lovely Ms. Wilson, but it appears to me she could post anything on her FB page and cop a bollocking.
SW: "Nice weather today" FBT: "F-you hippie! It's a drought!"
SW: "I gave up sugar." FBT: "F-you hippie! Nobody tells me how to eat!"
* FBT = Facebook troll.
"But in the main I've weighed up the evidence for everyday riding - the kind that helps fight obesity and heart disease and cuts down on traffic congestion - and concluded that it is far more rational to not wear one."
Fair go, do what you want but that is not really what the science says. It implies that MHLs are not a good thing, not that not wearing a helmet is more rational. Helmets good, MHLs bad etc.
I took that more along the lines of:
"I'm more likely to use the bike everyday, casually and for adhoc trips if I ditch the helmet requirement... therefore traffic benefit, health benefit etc etc"
Hard to argue that. The other reason I like this column is that it's from a somewhat popular person to the average punter on the street. Someone they might actually take notice of.
On the other hand, if a lefty academic writes an anti MHL column in the Conversation, it's largely preaching to the choir... Doesn't reach the masses.