Originally Posted by elcruxio

It's not about rights man... It's about the cycling culture being absolutely destroyed after such law.
It's funny how you take Australia as an example. After the MHL cycling rates plummeted and have never recovered.
In Halifax Canada cycling rates dropped 60%.
This will happen after an MHL. It Is Proven.
Less cyclists is more dangerous for cyclists than more cyclists. If cycling numbers drop 60% it will be devastating for cyclists and will cause more deaths and serious injury than if all remaining cyclists were to wear motorcycle helmets and full body armor. The reason for this being that usually when a cyclist dies it is due to catastrophic multi organ damage and not just the head injury.

Ignorant twits like you drive me so mad you know. Have you no regard for statistics, science, logic, causality, societal structures or anything!

As a side note. Dig up a comment which helmets are more dangerous than bareheadedness. Go on, do it. I know there are a few, I've seen them but the majority here disregard said comments.
What my point (and the point of most of the rationals here) in this is that MHL's are harmful for cycling safety. Helmets in themselves are not but nor are they a god given gift for life retention. They are handy in a crash but hardly help when you are getting ground to paste under a truck (driver of which did not bother to look for the 5 remaining cyclists who continued cycling after the MHL)

I also kinda like having a lot of cyclists around. It creates the need for better infra and the resulting cycleways may be pretty neat.
I went for a three week working trip into Europe and saw the situation in Prague, Budapest, and Vienna. Budapest and Vienna had awesome cycling infrastructure, it seemed local cycling was extremely safe and a helmet was seldom to be seen. Separated cycleways all over. And bike share programs as well (you simple ****** do realize that a bike share program is impossible if there are MHL in use)