THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW 
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 8:51:11 PM UTC, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

The other major point is that in the States an attitude has grown up in which outright murder by automobile has become socially acceptable.

And you would approach this problem by restricting bicycling?

Don't be silly. And don't try to put silly words in my mouth. There is zero evidence, except in Krygowski's wet dreams of a fascist state in which people do as he tells them to do, that mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists.

This is typical anti-helmet zealot crap. You have no solutions except just to let people die, but you abuse me for wanting to reduce the death toll. You're sounding more like the execrable Krygowski every day, Danno.

What's more, unlike you, I have long since offered a solution to the adverse relationship of automobiles and cyclists on US roads. If you don't remember it it is because you AHZ jerk yourself up any time someone mentions helmets and stuff your ears so as not to hear, and shout abuse so loudly that you don't hear the common sense all around you.

What I suggested was simple, that every State should legislate a one-metre clearance zone around every bicycle, and enforce it. That would put the onus of proof on the driver who hits the cyclist, and soon a change of attitude would follow. Krygowski could work for that, instead of spending all his energy fighting all his (mainly imagined) enemies. You could work for it. But you don't; instead you abuse me for even mentioning helmets. It is this misdirection of energy which makes the AHZ so contemptible.

Andre Jute
My mind is in gear. Is yours?