simonn wrote:il padrone wrote:Few of these doctors and engineers were actually commuting cyclists
That's good. We shouldn't want public policy based on anecdote.
No, it is fact better letting our betters make laws telling how us how we should behave. The world is full of people who want to deny the freedom of others because they think they know better. Look at how that worked out for the stolen generation.
simonn wrote:I doubt anybody expected a reduction in cycling due to an increase in safety measures.
I doubt anybody cared. Cycling was seen by policy makers as something for kids and recreation for adults.
simonn wrote:Seat belt laws had been shown as effective*. Helmets on motorcycles had been shown as effective*. Helmets had been shown as effective* in other fields etc. So why, given all this, would MHLs for bicycles be a bad thing?
Were you riding bikes in the 80s? I still remember most cyclists I knew complaining about this law.
simonn wrote:The dilemma faced by policy makers now is that on average helmets do reduce the severity of head injuries, however even if they reduced the level of cycling when first introduced, the level of cycling is increasing now.
Do I need to insult your intelligence of why this is a very poor argument? Its sort of like saying sure I've lost my leg, but my other one is getting stronger each day. The damage of MHLs remains while MHLs remain.
simonn wrote:This, along with the fact that the cycling community is small and the anti-MHL community even smaller makes removing MHLs politically risky, or even irrelevant (as in much bigger fish to fry). It is also slightly hamstrung by it being a state and slightly federal issue, while most activism and building of cycle facilities happens at the council level.
Yep it is difficult. But that doesn't mean that we should abandon the fight for freedom the rest of the world endures.