g-boaf wrote: I don't care if the helmet laws are gone -
....
Getting people actually riding for transport purposes in places where there aren't pretty cycleways or separate infrastructure will take a big change in the way people drive around bike riders. I'm guessing some pretty serious penalties that are easy to enforce is going to be the thing that will change driver behaviour.
I agree about the driver behaviour but you still miss the point of MHLs. They're not about saving lives - they are about punishing cyclists.
Helmet laws are part of the subjugation of cyclists by the car culture, they are both symptomatic and emblematic of "driver attitudes".
They promote victim blaming: if the rider isn't wearing a helmet it's not the drivers fault, and anyway, it can't be the driver's fault because cycling is inherently dangerous (otherwise there wouldn't be helmet laws, would there?)
Mandatory helmet laws and similarly silly regulations and punative punishments (e.g. anti "dink" rules, excessive fines for missing bells) will be removed if "driver attitudes" actually change. How? Either as part of the cause or as a consequence.
As part of the cause if removed as part of a "progressive" suite of "pro cyclist" activities, such as enacted & enforced safe passing legisation; strict liability and a raft of "anti-car" policy actions: money spend on alternatives to private car use; return of parking spaces to productive uses; reductions in speed limits; etc etc etc
As a consequence because once it is "obvious" that car drivers, not helmets, are the key determinant in cyclist traffic injuries, And MHLs are redundant, ridiculous red tape.
As long as not wearing a helmet is grounds for stop-and-search plus a $500 fine you should care.
As long as not wearing a helmet is grounds for excusing assault or ignoring negligence resulting in injury you should care.
* yes, those words, and literally. As in "cockroaches on wheels". As in Magda. As in your favourite Farcebok page.