Originally Posted by
njkayaker
It's "cost effectiveness" (cost/benefit ratio) that is the argument. If something is "effective" but too expensive, then it really doesn't matter that it's "effective".
Helmets don't have to cost "$70". No one knows whether they would have fewer injuries (there's no data to support that conclusion). And, again, you don't have to do just one thing.
You really don't know whether there would be fewer injuries. And helmets are not necessarily without value for "safe" riders either. And, again, you can do both. And, you can read Allen's "Street Smarts" for nothing and get most of what you'd get from a LAB class (I paid $35) for free.
You should be. And you are talking about it (your "$70" helmet).
Yeah, OK...
I'm just going to keep teaching safety and maintenance courses, riding my bike, advocating for cycling, standing up against MHLs whenever they are mentioned in my municipality or state, and for the most part, wearing a helmet while riding.
Let me wrap this up by reiterating my overarching intent regarding suggesting helmet use in cars: Sure, seriously suggesting such is silly, but it is a very effective tactic to use politically. In practical politics, things don't get picked apart like they do here, and what sounds like a silly argument can actually form part of a whole which leads to MHLs failing at the committee/public hearing level.