Originally Posted by
closetbiker
I've dropped this conversation for a while now but I thought a few might like to know
how that court challenge to BCs helmet law turned out.
After the judge heard all the evidence he said that he doesn't believe that there is a "safety in numbers" effect for cyclists, or that ridership in BC has decreased because of the law, and despite his acknowledgement of there being much evidence that questions the efficacy of bicycle helmets, he felt that because majority of the literature he reviewed still supports the conclusion that helmets are beneficial in reducing head injuries and saving lives, the law will continue to stand.
So keep it up Helmeteers, the "evidence" (often not evidence at all, often merely supposition) you provide leads to laws for all.
No helmet, no bike. It's for our own good.
Blame "helmeteers" all you want, doesn't mean it's so. Especially where an ill-informed judge making a political decision is concerned. "Judge made a decision I don't agree with, therefore helmeteers are at fault for MHL."
Yeah, right.
Except all those pro-helmet people who are, by and large, anti-MHL. And those who fight such legislation.
Need to refine your claims, too: who is responsible for pro-helmet "evidence"--individual pro-helmet riders as you are claiming here, or corporations making money off helmet laws who fund much cited pro-helmet studies, as has been cited in the past?