Originally Posted by
FBinNY
The issue isn't whether cyclists want MHLs or not, because they won't be asked. They weren't polled in Australia, as the states there, and finally the country passed MHLs. Nor were they consulted in Dallas, TX and the various counties in WA, when MHLs were passed there.
MHL's will be proposed by well meaning politicians, possibly responding to parental concerns, or other "nanny's" out there. Unfortunately, if there's no debate about the limitations of helmet protection, or if they believe posters like some here who keep repeating the idea, that all intelligent cyclists wear helmets they'll see only an upside and have no reason to vote no when a proposal is put before them.
Feel good legislation always passes because it's hard to argue against. If anybody wants to virtually assure passage, all they need to do is wait for someone to die of a no-helmet TBI in a bicycle MVA, or simple bike crash while riding on an MUP, then propose a law named for the victim -- "Jill's Law" --and push it "so Jill won't have died in vain and this doesn't happen to anybody else" (sound familiar?).
I don't claim (like some do) that helmets offer little benefit, though I strongly suspect than many, if not most, have unreasonably high expectations of the level of protection. But if any discussion of helmet limitations is shot down and suppressed, we can expect to see more MHLs.
So my challenge to helmet advocates who claim to oppose MHLs, is to encourage open discussion about what helmets do and don't do, so if MHLs are proposed there'll be a history of discussing saying that though they help, they are not a panacea.
I highly doubt that this thread of ad-hom ankle-biting and pantie-twisting will save us from the next MHL legislation.
The Bare Head Brigade is far more vocal in their objection to MHLs. But for many, anti-MHL is a fall back position. They post that they don't wear a helmet for all of the reasons that helmets suck, are ineffective, unneeded or dangerous. When those reasons are rejected by the Helmet Nannies, they come back to, "Just don't make it a law." The result is nobody here disagrees with them on that point. The debate stops so they have won the internet, for the day.
This has played out time and time again in this thread.
On the other side, the Helmet Nannies post their arguments filled with anecdotal evidence and the much referenced "85% prevention" study. These arguments are shot down, and rightly so, by the Bare Head Brigade. So the Helmet Nannies fall back on the "organ donor," "only smart riders wear helmets," and "think of the kids!" statements.
This has also played out multiple times in this thread.
I do agree that cyclists won't be the ones trying to pass helmet laws. However, arguing about the efficacy of helmets does little to counter those who would make them mandatory.