Psamathe wrote:Seems to me that first people need to demonstrate a significant safety improvement before arguing for compulsion. And seems to me that despite many attempts there is still not real evidence.
I know that, and you know that, but to Joseph and Jane Q. Public, "I cracked my helmet and that would have been a fractured skull without it!" really is
real evidence, especially if it comes from someone they know or a trusted figure (and if you've got a well-meaning paediatric nurse banging the drum to "save children's lives" that's the sort of thing that passes for "trusted figure").
Psamathe wrote:And to start arguing for legislative changes (or spending public money on safety campaigns) before there is any demonstrable effect it just madness. The case for compulsion seems to be "it's just obvious" which is not really a strong case.
I know that, and you know that, but to the Rt. Hon. William T Backbencher who has no science background and believes pretty much the same thing as his constituents Mr. & Mrs. Public and has just been drawn for a private member's bill, the case made by the paediatric nurse who's just lobbied him with this Great Idea to do what those sensible folk down-under have done about helmets to save children's lives
looks like a winner.
We have to keep on (and on, and on) with the evidence (or lack thereof), but you can never underestimate the power of human stupidity and assume just because it's obvious to you it'll be clear to folk up to and including Westminster politicians. It's worth looking at Boardman's comments on the Transport Select Committee a couple of years back: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25200562
to see the sort of depths we're plumbing.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...