Remind me to call you if I ever get involved with politics. Can I turn these into a letter just incase I ever have to fight a MHL in my hometown?Quote:
It might be pointed out in this case that, according to NYC DOT, cyclist safety has increased with increasing bicycle use, without the nuclear option of a MHL, that helmet use is an outlier regarding this particular statistic, and that a MHL is unlikely to change this trend significantly.
All kinds of appropriate responses in this case:
- Suggest at public hearing and in editorials that the law be expanded to include motor vehicle operators and passengers, since they are, by far, the leading group of head injury recipients, and thus a drag on the public coffers.
- Suggest that the proposed law be amended to include 4 hrs of mandatory bike safety instruction in schools and driving classes, which is shown to have a greater effect regarding bike rider safety than mere use of a helmet.
- Ask the councilman point blank why he is proposing this law in stark contrast to published studies regarding overall cycling safety, and who/what prompted him to introduce such legislation.
- Ask the councilman in a public meeting why he wants to decrease cycling in the City, since that's what MHL's have been proven to do, with resultant decrease in cyclist safety and increase in constituent mortality rates.
But while these suggestions would be more than appropriate and very effective in killing this proposed law, I'm sure the screeching bare-head brigade will offer up at least a bushel's worth of impotent outrage and useless posturing -- supported by scientific studies -- instead of effective politicking.