"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

The key to defeating MHLs is not to babble like Frank and Roger, it is to
formulate a position based on factual information. You will never convince
politicians to listen to you, as opposed to listening to ER and trauma
physicians, in regards to the statistics on the severity of injuries of
helmeted versus non-helmeted patients; you have no data only speculation.

If you use the personal freedom argument they'll counter with the seat belt
argument. ...

One I used was that we had people riding very short distances on quiet
residential streets to reach a train station, and that whether they
used a helmet or not, their commute (which was mostly by train) would
be safer than driving. Meanwhile there were not enough bike lockers
to go around, leaving the helmet tied to the bike was risky due to a
vandalism problem, and carrying it into work (without a bike) was
simply awkward.

I did get a favorable written response from my elected representative
and it was detailed enough that the letter was obviously read. I got
the impression that they really appreciated getting factual, rational
statements about the proposed legislation. We ended up with a helmet
law anyway, but it didn't pass until the next year and it excluded
adults.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB