Long story short, this is a very emotional debate, but I believe that the reasons for eliminating bike helmet laws are overwhelming.
In time, even the most staunch opposition has come around.
What do you think?
My argument in brief (see link above for more):
1. People are far more likely to cycle without helmet laws (in every example worldwide, including BC).
2. The individual and public health gains from more cycling far outweigh any potential safety gains from helmet laws.
3. Beyond health and safety, the social, economic, cultural, and environmental benefits of more cyclists/cycling far outweigh the potential benefits of helmet legislation.
4. The more people cycle, the safer it is: Greater presence, more awareness, more infrastructure, eventually policy, etc.
5. The actual safety benefits of helmets are disputed (but not part of my argument)
6. Bicycle accident rates increase with helmet use in some studies.
7. Risk of accident and serious head injury from cycling is not high, particularly compared to driving and other activities in which helmets are not required.
9. It violates people's personal freedom and beliefs (e.g., more plastic in landfills, etc.)
11. You will save way more tax dollars and lives by encouraging more active, healthy lifestyles.
I'm sure there's more (less wear on roads, less pollution, etc. etc. etc.).
Obviously, infrastructure and other policy should go hand-in-hand to promote a better, safer, more efficient cycling culture.
The post.