On 12/3/2013 3:51 PM, James wrote:
On 04/12/13 10:09, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:
http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/

I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with
"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their
position.

I agree.

The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been
disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.

I disagree. Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were
introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to
dissuade people from riding.

No way. No statistics show this. Cycling rates continued to increase
even in places where MHLs were introduced. Whether or not the rates
would have increased more without an MHL is unknown. So many factors
contribute to cycling rates that it's not possible to isolate the cause
of an increase or decrease to one specific factor.

What you'll now see from the AHZs is an admission that cycling rates
increased even after an MHL was introduced with an additional claim that
the increase did not keep up with population growth and hence was
decrease percentagewise. If this is true, then they insist that the
reason for the percentage decrease is an MHL. Of course the reality is
that it could be for a variety of reasons from the demographics of the
population increases to changes in fuel prices to global warming.

The other big lie is dependent on the first big lie--that the
non-existent decrease in cycling will lead to more obesity as all those
people that abandon cycling rather than wear a helmet will doom
themselves to a life of television viewing and junk food eating.

Why can't they just say "we're adults, we can decide if we're willing to
accept the slight extra risk?" It would be a much stronger position than
fabricating lies about helmet effectiveness or cycling rates.