Andre Jute wrote:

What is your argument against saving perhaps up to 400 American
cyclists by mandatory helmet laws, Franki-boy? Do tell.


I think the viable counter argument is (picking a number from air)
50,000 heart attack deaths a year that would have been prevented by
people riding who don't because they won't wear a helmet. I am not
saying the number is valid, or that the conclusion on preventable
heart attacks is correct, but that seems to be the gist of the
argument.

Pointing solely at the "400 American deaths" without considering the
other alternative is an emotional appeal, which can work if the other
health factors can be buried and ignored. It does seem shortsighted.

For the record, I wear a helmet all the time, but don't have a strong
opinion either way on making it legally mandatory.

-dB