>> Obviously, there are issues relating to civil liberties and the like,
>> which come into play whenever you're considering making some piece of
>> safety equipment mandatory. And, personally, I'd be on the
>> libertarian side of that argument when it comes to cycle helmets. But
>> it's not unreasonable for people to take the opposite position, and
>> characterising them as "anti-cycling" if they do so is indicative of
>> a closed mind.

>There's no reputable evidence that helmet wearing significantly reduces
>serious trauma at a population level, while there is evidence that
>enforced helmet legislation reduces cycling.  So making helmets
>compulsory is anti cycling. Simple really.