Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
This is most definitely NOT the crux of the matter. Ehrm. Sorry, let me start again. To say this is the "crux of the matter" is ludicrous and sanctimonious drivel and shows you have no sense of principle. Sorry. I forgot my allotment of over-the-top adjectives.
If we're talking about the societal cost regarding insurance and covering the cost of treating the uninsured, head injury as a result of bicycle use is small fry. Again, automobile accidents are either the leading cause or the second leading cause of head injury depending on which sources you use.
I'm completely comfortable with my principles--any time a MHL proposal comes up in my state or town, I am more than willing to present facts and figures indicating that an amendment covering all road users, including automobile operators and passengers, should be added. It's a useful argument as an anti-MHL advocate. Not my fault the figures work to my favor; not my fault people see helmet use in automobiles as silly while the same people think helmet use by bicyclists is a good thing.
Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
Just because one risk category is not address means we cannot address a different risk category? Please, support your point that helmet wearing while cycling has anything at all to do with driving a car. If you think car safety regulations are insufficient (remember, there are already a lot of them, just not helmets), then there is no reason for not addressing these two separate issues concurrently.
*Did you just suggest that "...cars are a much better example" of a ludicrous argument? I agree, but I'm not really sure how this meshes with the rest of your post.
Sure, we can address different risk categories, but why start with outliers like cyclists and motorcyclists? Why not go for the very obvious low-hanging fruit, automobile drivers and passengers? Since they are the worst transgressors, the most head injured, the greatest cost to society, shouldn't we start with them first?
Answer: Because it's not politically feasible. Wearing helmets in cars is just silly, right? So once you point out the discrepancy regarding societal costs, usually MHL advocates grumble and fade into the background while their silly bill fails to make it out of committee. As it should.
You have completely misinterpreted my reply if you think that I connected helmet wearing while cycling to driving a car. I am addressing political expediency and the complete farce of a majority acting against the interests of a minority, while ignoring the hypocrisy involved.
Ultimately, I'm saying that all road user should be required to use helmets or none should be. If helmets are necessary for cyclists or motorcyclists, then they are rather obviously needed for motorists who represent the majority of head injury and societal costs.