Originally Posted by
mconlonx
...
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.
...
One last word for me before I'm finished saying my part.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/
In this link lies the safety regulations for cars. Section 200 deals with passenger crash protection. There are 12 separate regulations applicable to all passenger cars dedicated to protection from head injury, including head restraint (head rest), seat belts, and airbags amongst other things. You want to add another? If you bring up helmets for drivers, in addition to all the requirements for seats, seatbelts, airbags, head restraints, roof crush resistance, steering wheel collapse, windshield behavior, etc., you will rightfully be laughed out of the room.
Contrary to regulations on passenger cars being "not politically feasible", there are enough rules and regulations on the safety systems in cars to safely double the car's price. And traffic accident fatalities have
decreased drastically as a result. What more do you want to ask? What's a $20 helmet compare to all that? Or are you just jealous that cars get cool airbags and stuff for head injury protection and we only get to wear a plastic hat? Maybe
this is more your style.