View Single Post
Old 01-25-14, 01:42 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,368
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2750 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 332 Posts
Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
I've basically sworn off this thread as pointless, but for the record, I never said (accused?) that bicycle advocates were asking or would ask for MHLs. I said they couldn't be counted on to speak against them.
You said it here:

Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
Yes, the issue isn't necessarily whether bicycle advocates are in favor of mandatory helmet laws, but what they would say if public hearings were held on the subject. When laws like this are proposed there's usually a period of public hearings (show trials). Often these are poorly publicized with insiders such as perceived "spokespeople" or "leaders" within the affected class getting advance notice or invitations to speak on behalf of their "constituency". So the question is, would a bicycle who's a dedicated helmet wearer, and believes they saves lives (assumption based on the fact that they wear one) speak for or against a mandatory use law?

When Westchester Co. NY proposed a mandatory use law, most of the bicycle community"spokespeople" offered support speaking of possible lives saved. It was the outsiders who tended to speak in opposition, and ultimately is was the police who killed it because they saw an enforcement nightmare.

If we look at places where there are mandatory use laws in the USA, we see many cities with active bicycle advocacy and often salaried bicycle advocates. Coincidence?
Here you are suggesting that there is a positive correlation between MHL and "active bicycle advocacy". (If they could "not be counted on", there would be no correlation. If they were effectively against them, there would be negative correlation. Of course, it's possible that MHL will be passed even if they are actively against them.)

I don't believe you have any idea whether there is an actual positive correlation at all.

Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
There's a key difference, but the ultimate effect is the same.
The "ultimate effect" isn't necessarily the same.

If "you" keep saying that "bicycle advocates are for MHL" when they are not, then they won't be inclined to listen to "you". If "you" address what they say their position is, you are indicating that "you" are paying attention and they will be much more likely to consider "your" position.

Last edited by njkayaker; 01-25-14 at 02:05 PM.
njkayaker is offline