Originally Posted by
sudo bike
This is pretty close to where I'm at. I think Bell and SafeKids have the same interests they've arrived at independently. Bell supports them because they have complimentary goals, but it's nothing so nefarious as hiring them in the hopes that they'll go further than they themselves are willing to, due to liability; a sort of "hired gun" as hagen put it. It's two entities that are natural allies, and so pool together. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's one thing to support helmet use (as Bell does) and another support helmet legislation (as SafeKids does) just as it's one thing to say helmet use reduces injuries (both do) and another to say helmets prevent death (as SafeKids does).
Common sense tells us the best way to stay intact is to avoid an accident all together, but as I've shown in several links, there are a number of helmet promotion groups that say it's more important to wear a helmet than to avoid an accident in the first place.
One tactic Bell has used and been rewarded for using, is their "Courage for your Head" campaign. Inviting consumers into a classic case of risk compensation, Bell encouraged risky behavior through the faith in the protective abilities of their product
here is another example that displays a ridiculous premise/set of priorities.
this comes from an image of a helmet clipped off of a video made by a helmet advocacy group