*sigh*. Yes, dear.

How does it have nothing to do with it? :confused:

It doesn't matter whether or not it is in a place with or without MHL's. The MHL law, by forcing everyone to wear a helmet, merely brings to the forefront whether or not people care about wearing helmets. If ridership is dropping, obviously they do. This doesn't just disappear when you go to an area without an MHL, because presumably those places with MHL's did not have them at one time (since ridership dropped from somewhere). The MHL simply acts as a way to test the assertion that people have or do not have compelling personal reasons to wear a helmet (for our purposes).



NYC isn't really a good comparison with the rest of the country. They have higher rates of transit use, cycling in general....

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say there are a lot of other factors in NYC that are helping cycling numbers that are outweighing any negative impact from helmet pressures. Which is a good thing, no doubt.

But it does make one wonder what damage it may be doing...

As to whether I have YAS (yet another study), nope. As I noted, this was merely a logical conclusion. Some people have strong reasons against wearing helmets, demonstrated by drops in ridership when a new MHL is enacted (i.e., it used to be free-to-choose then became compulsory). It follows that even if there is no compulsory law, if they are made to feel they need a helmet to cycle, those people may just choose not to cycle (since we've already demonstrated that when they needed to by law they opted out). Either that, or one would need to eliminate or make the personal reasons against wearing a helmet less compelling. I don't see that happening in most cases, myself. But if you can do it, I guess the above also shows that there is definitely a market for it! :D

If you only see an effect after enacting a law, the law doesn't serve a test of what happens in the absence of the law. QED.

It's possible that the effect of MHL are transient (that is, like many laws, people have to get used to it).

It doesn't necessarily "folllow" that there would be the same effect as being compelled (with the threat of a fine) to do something.

Some people might be discouraged (some people, with all that risk compensation stuff might be encouraged) by the mere choice to wear/not-wear a helmet but you have no idea whether the numbers are significant at all.

That's good logics, but irrelevant.

Helmet laws are stupid. They are enacted by tax and spend b'crats for another revenue stream.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really not seeing the relationship? Seriously, this is like trying to nail Jello to a tree...

I say again helmet laws are passed only for the revenue by tax and spend b'crats. They really dont give a damn about cyclist safety, they just want the money the can get in fines.

For once I agree with you. I think it's also partly done to be seen to be 'doing something' without having to actually address the root cause of any perceived problem. It's a bit like painting a line 2' from the edge of the road and calling that a bike lane.

I think you're both right to a degree.

I believe laws such as MHL are enacted mostly with best intentions of constituent well-being but without best reasoning or research. In other words, on reflexive and simple logic they make sense, but a comprehensive review would likely show a far more complex situation with less decisive support, if any, for the reflexive course of action.

The revenue comes into play after the law is enacted because once in place, no one wants to do without the revenue stream, even when evidence supports change.

Yes besides the revenue that the b'crats want, it gives the appearence that they are concerned and doing "something".

You grossly underestimate the importance of those "b'crats" to the wellbeing of society.

Hagen

At what cost to the taxpayers. All b'crats know is how to spend money. In the case helmet laws it is ONLY the revenue they care about.

I kept quiet until you said that....... Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be said that would underestimate their importance! Mostly worthless union fodder that sit out their term on the taxpayer's dime causing frustration and havoc and then go off on their bloated retirement.......I have no respect for them whatsoever! There was a time when they at least had to pass somekind of test for civil service and they couldn't have a criminal record - these days, they may not even be able to speak English! and God only knows about their criminal past!

It's not a discussion I wish to take with you here, so all I can do is to ask you to read some serious litterature about political and economical theory. Fox News isn't it.

Hagen spending other peoples money (taxpayer) is not what I would call an honorable pursuit. Spending that money on what they precieve to be safety related issues such as helmet laws is a waste of money. Safety is the responsibility of the individual as he or she sees it. Here is a fact you can take to the bank. B'crats dont "give" us anything without taking it from someone else (taxpayer). Then pretending they are "concerned" by passing helmet laws is a joke.

It's not a discussion I wish to take with you here, so all I can do is to ask you to read some serious litterature about political and economical theory. Fox News isn't it.

hagan Tax and spend b'crats spending money on stupid laws like helmet laws is just what you said ---theory!!! What the b'crats never want to talk about is the cost of application of such laws. It is nothing more that big intrusive government that people dont need!!!!

So I guess you are not a fan of public roadways, protected wildernesses, firefighters, libraries, police officers, public schools, plowing, aid to the poor and elderly, scientific research, etc etc etc.

. . .loud tv commercial laws, the list is endless.

snow

This is a thread on bike helmets. It is not a forum on leftwing political spending in the larger sense.

My point is tax and spend b'crats spending time and money on helmet laws is a total waste of money. Having the police chase down a cyclist without a helmet is a total waste of police time. They have far bigger fish to fry.

I am for personal responsibility, and suggest everyone ride with a helmet for several reasons. Yet making a criminal out of someone that disagrees with me and rides without a helmet is stupid.

You consistently refuse to educate yourself. Sad, really.

I don't mind you folks highjacking the thread - in fact find it kind of amusing, all things considered - but do take issue with the idea that the inevitable result of "education" is a belief in the efficacy of socialism.

Your impression of what I write must be the result of a serious short circuit.

I'm probably just not educated enough.