Here's what I said (& the comments are there again!):
"For us mere mortals who have tracked the 20 years worth of 'academic helmet ping-pong,' it seems a little bit rich when one side claims that the other is biased and their not.
As far as I can make out from a literature review that I have conducted, the only thing bicycle helmets protect you from are fines."
...notwithstanding the appalling grammatical error I made ('their not', as opposed to they're not - ouch, mea culpa) I am still smarting from his intimidating invective and his palpable anger towards me - but I refuse to be abused into silence.
There goes the 'rosy glow' I had about academics in their tax-payer funded ivory towers.
Hi Sue, don't let some angry boffin upset you. A child can see that MHLs have affected the cycling culture in this country. I was personally put off cycling for 9 years because of the law and have many friends who still do not cycle because of the stupid law. I don't need a peer reviewed article to tell me something I know for a fact.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Gary, for your support.
ReplyDeleteWhat really gets me is that it's chaps like him who heavily influence policy and the law.
Actually to me he doesn't come over very 'boffin-like' at all - the ones I have had the good fortune to be around have been charming and courteous no matter how much they may have disagreed with my point of view.
Despite his clear attempt to browbeat me, I take heart from this new evidence that helmet promoters and their ilk are feeling the pressure of having to go through the motions again of proving their helmet-loving position given that the proverbial cat is almost back out of the bag again in Australia.
Thanks again.