Talking points
(please pick ONE or TWO points, not the whole kitchen sink)

• Helmet laws discourage cycling. Other cities which passed helmet laws saw the number of cyclists plummet. If we want America to be independent of foreign oil, we should be encouraging cycling, not discouraging it.
• Helmet laws divert attention from REAL bike safety initiatives, like training cyclists & motorists, and installing bike lanes.
• Personal safety should be a personal choice. What's next, a ban on eating fatty foods? Most helmet law proponents don't seem to understand the difference between helmets being a good choice and making it a crime not to wear one.
• The law unfairly targets cyclists. Far more motorists and pedestrians die from head injuries. So why pick on cyclists?
• Motorists who injure cyclists will have an extra excuse. Drivers who injure or kill cyclists often face little to no penalties, even when they were clearly at fault. Once we have a helmet law, we can forget about an injured cyclist (or the surviving family of a dead one) collecting from an at-fault motorist if the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.
• The punishment doesn't fit the crime. When Austin first toyed with an all-ages helmet law 10 years ago, unhelmeted cyclists often went to jail (not just ticketed) for not wearing a helmet. A nine-year-old boy in Florida was handcuffed for not wearing a helmet.
• Minorities may be targeted. When the child helmet law was actively enforced, over 90% of the no-helmet tickets went to black and Hispanic kids.
• Even helmet promoters aren't behind it. The Austin Cycling Association, which donates hundreds of helmets to local kids and requires helmets on its group rides, doesn't support the mandatory helmet law.
• Bike helmets are overrated. As helmet use surged in the 90's, head injuries among cyclists went UP, not down. Countries with the fewest helmeted cyclists also have the fewest head injuries among cyclists.