You clicked the link to say that you believe helmets should be compulsory for all cyclists. That's one extreme of the continuum of views, mainly held by non-cyclists although some cyclists also think this.
If you have arrived at this view because some other group or organisation has persuaded you of it, it would be helpful if you could think about the reasons they advanced. Was it:
Or maybe something else? If there's another reason I haven't
covered do please
contact
me and let me know.
But above all I would like you to explore some of the reasons why helmet laws fail. Whether you
still consider, after reading the evidence, that helmet promotion and
use is good, well, that's outside the scope of today's
conversation. But I would like you to go away secure in the
knowledge that every single time a hemet law has been enacted, it has
failed to yield the benefits on which its proposers secured its
support. And yet, despite the widely documented failure of such
laws and their damaging side-effects, not
one of them has been repealed. And that's a really great
reason not to repeat the failed experiment again.
Finally, let me leave you with this thought: after looking around
this website and maybe
my
own site, are you prepared to concede that my choice of whether to
wear a helmet on any given ride is a fully informed one? If you
will admit that, then you need to think long and hard about the
fundamental premise of helmet compulsion, which is that everybody
who chooses not to wear a helmet for any ride is necessarily wrong.
There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and making
their decision illegal.