1. INcomplete reporting. No mention of lowered cycling participation
2. Failure as an academic. Unable to understand difeerence between 'anti helmet law' vs 'anti helmet' as mentioned in the article
3. Failure as an academic. Refusal to draw comparisions to other countries with better cycling safety without MHL
4. Inability to see effect on socirty. Dares to mention toxic driving culture but is unable to relate how lowered, everyday cycling numbers (point 1) contributed and continues to contribute towards this toxic culture
5. Puts picture of a sport cyclist instead of a normalised cyclist
6. Did not declare article is an advert.
I'm sure there are others
Also ; I've just cancelled my SMH subscription citing this article in paricular