The early-morning robbery that took place in Warwick on Monday, while not necessarily an eye-opener, was yet another stark reminder that something needs to be done finally about the laws pertaining to motorcycle helmets and their visors.

The country has pussyfooted around this issue for far too long in the naive belief that criminals will stop being criminals. Both political parties, as the government of the day, have had a crack at this since the vexed issue became seriously topical four years ago.

But then, as now, little or nothing has been done to force our criminal underbelly into any form of rethink that might either serve as a deterrent or facilitate apprehension and summary justice.

A spate of criminal activity in the latter half of the Noughties, including murders, prompted an outcry that Bermuda should ban heavily tinted visors on helmets. The groups Colford’s Family Against Violence and Help Save Our Bermuda began an online petition against their use in April 2011, which resulted in the matter being addressed in the House of Assembly.

Wayne Perinchief, then the Minister of National Security, sounded bullish a month later when he proclaimed “initially I would expect the police to stop people and advise them not to use tinted visors. But anyone who doesn’t get the message will then have to suffer the consequences”.

By the end of the year, his voice was significantly toned down: “While I personally favour the ban, a majority of my peers do not.”

The proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act would have had to go through the transport minister in any case and that position was held by the newly appointed Derrick Burgess. “I’m sure we will see eye to eye on the issue,” Mr Burgess was quoted as saying about planned talks in the new year with Mr Perinchief. “The most important issue at hand is public safety.”

Four years later, with the One Bermuda Alliance in government and the Progressive Labour Party out, with countless crimes having been committed by persons whose identities have been masked by full-faced, visored helmets — some in the commission of capital offences — we are told that the possibility of a ban remains off the table. This as recently as last Friday.

If it is fine to allow darker windscreens on cars to reduce air-conditioning costs, how can it not be acceptable to draft, debate and pass legislation with a view to making it difficult for those who would do us and our international reputation harm?

Anything that hinders their activities is a good thing. But how do we accomplish this and at what cost? Could that have been the stumbling block that has given successive governments pause for thought in bringing to an Act an amendment that could ultimately make our communities feel more at ease?

There is always a price to pay. There needs to be for us to get this right. Rather pay compensation to owners of these offensive helmets over the course of an amnesty period to turn them in than pay with the loss of life should the next robbery target endeavour to stand up for himself or herself.

For the Bermuda Government to come up with any meaningful legislation, there needs to be a consultation with the Bermuda Police Service. We have commended the police in these pages in recent times and hope their stance of 2015 vintage would be more accommodating than that of the senior officer who offered this 2011 classic while giving a helmet ban the thumbs-down: “If I want to conceal my identity under a crash helmet, a simple pair of sunglasses and a handkerchief tied around my face would do.”

Rather simplistic. And, yes, if the criminals want to take that route, let them. Better than allowing them to slip on a black-visored helmet and mix in with the masses who believe it cool not to be able to be seen, when the manufacturer’s intent surely was to protect from the sun’s glare.

Legally in Britain, the tint allowed on visors is 50 per cent. The Essential Guide to Protective Gear for Bikers states that “during daylight hours a tint of up to 50 per cent is OK — legal tinted visors will be marked ‘For daylight use only’.”

Were that law enforced here, we would not have an issue because the darkest visor would be a see-through that provided the necessary protection from the sun. And at night, while a criminal may still employ a “legal” helmet with visor down to commit a crime, CCTV cameras would have a significantly better chance of leading to an arrest. So to the legislation and the steps required to make this work.

First to the businesses who import and sell such helmets — the dealers, cycle liveries, repair shops — cease and desist. Compensation to be paid for stock that has been brought in, which would then be sent to a government facility to be destroyed. Bermuda Customs would be on the lookout for those who attempt to bypass the conventional middle man and “smuggle” their item into the country.

With helmet importation frozen and the store owners selling only what is acceptable by law, the next step is to give the public ample time to surrender their frowned-upon items and be in receipt of suitable compensation in return to buy a replacement. So as to head off the inevitable “helmets for cash” frenzy, which opens the door to more theft, persons would be restricted to one helmet each in the amnesty.

After this amnesty period of, say, three months, the police would be let loose to fully enforce the new law, starting with confiscating helmets and having them destroyed. Monies gained from the substantial fines for possessing an illegal helmet would help to offset the initial compensation costs. It is to be expected that the Government would come out of this with an operating balance in the red for this initiative, but it is indeed an initiative worth having — and long overdue.

Sri Lanka, an island a good bit larger than ours, took the uncomfortable decision this year to ban full-faced helmets for the same reasons — to take a bite out of crime. They, too, huffed and puffed with the legislation, but the difference was that they proceeded and made the helmets illegal in April. While the critics say the Sri Lankan lawmakers may have gone over the top and created safety issues by banning all full-faced helmets, whether or not they were fitted with dark-tinted visors, the result is that they have isolated the criminals and made the process of catching them that much easier.

Why should Bermuda resist anything similar that could make our lot better?