Originally Posted by
rydabent
FB
Im saying that if the b'crats see enough people wearing helmets, they will stay off our backs. I may want to ride without a helmet in a local park on my trike.
You have it 100% backward. If they see enough people wearing helmets, they'll sense comunity support for helmets and feel safe to mandate them. Also, as more people wear helmets, not wearing them will become indefensible. Many years ago (before, and in the early days of helmets) I was on the board of a non profit that ran bicycle tours for youths. When helmets started gaining acceptance, we had to work with our insurer regarding whether to insist that out participants wore them, and how hard to enforce the rule. We got to where we recommended them, but didn't enforce a rule. This lasted a few years, until our insurer came back to us saying that just about all other organizations were mandating helmet use and enforcing the policy. They felt they'd b at a serious disadvantage defending us, and our (now in the minority) policy of not enforcing helmet use, in the event of an injury and lawsuit. That's when we also made them mandatory.
While we like to claim to be the most free country, the reality is that those holding minority views are at a disadvantage here in the USA. This is especially true on "motherhood and apple pie issues, like safety.
Cigarette smoking only became as highly regulated as it is now because the number of smokers became small enough that it's safe to alienate them. If 40% of Americans smoked, politicians would be wary of losing votes with tough regulation. Drinking has fared better because more people do so. And obesity, which shortens more lives, and has a greater impact on health care costs is immune from any serious effort to manage it, except for minor chipping at the edges.