Originally Posted by
hagen2456
You've got it wrong if you're "all flustered" about "helmet use" - not "helmet laws". Get it?
Helmet use can encourage risk compensation in the form of riding, as well as in other forms. It will, of course, signal to others that cycling is dangerous. And helmet laws will so even more, and will keep a number of people from cycling, for that and other reasons.
No, I don't get it... I'm not talking about helmet laws. As I've said before, helmet laws are bad, m'kay? I'm talking about helmet use by those who choose to do so.
I don't believe that helmet use or even helmet manufacturers are solely responsible for the perception that cycling is dangerous. Helmet manufacturers might certainly use that perception to their advantage, but they are not responsible for the perception of danger in cycling. By your own admission, there are those riders who will strap on a helmet with the mistaken belief that it will provide them with some kind of magic force field, protecting them from all dangers on the road. Assuming they stick with it, a helmet has actually encouraged another rider to get on the road... where they find that it is actually much less dangerous than anticipated, and may, in time, having not used their helmet for its intended purpose over a length of time, decide not to wear one.
While we may have studies about what MHLs do for ridership where such nonsense is enacted, do we have any data points regarding ridership vs. helmet use where MHLs do not exist?
Also, I'd posit that it is less about helmet manufacturers doing the scaremongering and more about lawyers in the USA. The reason helmets are mandated by cycling orgs and event promoters have less to do with their beliefs that cycling is dangerous and helmets will help or some kind of conspiracy involving kickbacks from helmet companies, more to do with liability and fear of being sued by a helmet user or their estate.