I don't think they've made a credible argument here. This is true regardless of whether the arguments they raise have merit otherwise (e.g. police interactions.)
People are well justified in looking at them askance for their choice of framing device. It's manipulative and dishonest, or at the very least comes off that way.
> I don't think they've made a credible argument here.
That seems irrelevant to whether that's a fair way to frame the article.
> People are well justified in looking at them askance for their choice of framing device.
Yes, but I think, if you ask that question, you also have to ask, "what would be the best way to frame this article?" I don't think there's such an obviously better answer.
> It's manipulative and dishonest, or at the very least comes off that way.
A key argument of the article is that mandatory helmet laws don't improve cyclist safety. I don't see how it is dishonest to frame the article that way.
If you're looking to persuade someone to make a decision you want them to make, it's usually best to speak to their concerns, not your own. You can call that manipulative if you want, but I think a lot of people would just call it persuasive.
People are well justified in looking at them askance for their choice of framing device. It's manipulative and dishonest, or at the very least comes off that way.