Historically, that is the usual effect of such laws. Meanwhile the streets get even more dangerous for those who continue to ride. I remember looking up the numbers from Australia’s MHLs, cycle-helmets.org. It’s not pretty.
That would be my reaction. I *voluntarily* used a helmet for a few weeks earlier this year, and without intending to change my riding habits, noticed later that I had unintentionally cut *way* back on my riding time. I simply less often felt like going for a ride. My interest increased again after putting the helmet away for good. Being *forced* to wear one likely would kill my interest completely.
How many moms will say to themselves, “if the city council has passed this ordinance, it must be because bicycling is really dangerous. The safest thing to do would be not to let Johnny ride his bicycle, and we’ll save the cost of a helmet!”
If Yehuda wants to stop The Council from further trmpling on the freedoms of American citizens then he should consider the action of a British hero, sometimes referred to as “The only man to have entered Parliament with honest intentions”.
Of course, this assumes (probably incorrectly) that a) most people don’t already own helmets – I live in a locality without a helmet law for adults, but un-helmeted riders remain the exception, rather than the norm) and b) that most people would visit the kickstand for their helmets, rather than the local big-box retailer (seems unlikely). While they’ll almost certainly see an increase in helmet sales, I suspect that the offsetting decline in cycling would kill the medium term outlook for overall profits.
No, actually that’s the *LAST* thing you want. Because some former county board member had to wait behind some cyclists during a metric century ride about twenty years ago, my community AND county got saddled with an ordinance that now requires organizers of bicycle rides, walk-a-thons, and other similar activities to obtain a parade permit for their events…even if said event does not request road closures, additional police presence, or any other special privileges. In theory, your son’s Boy Scout troop could be busted for holding a bike ride in order to qualify for a merit badge unless they went through all the rigamarole and jumped through all the necessary hoops.
And did I mention that the organization applying for the permit request must have a minimum $1 million insurance policy in force and must include the county and city as ‘additional insured parties’ on this policy?
Vancouver actually seriously wants to put a bike share in while this law is still on the books. The most amusing thing for me is that the city said they couldn’t do anything about it anyway because it is a Provincial Law, conveniently forgetting that the city has a city helmet by-law as well.
*sigh*
My safety proposal: We replace all the airbags in cars with giant spikes.
Helmets are a positive force; they contain the brains and skull fragments after the hit-and-run so the meat wagon employees don’t have to sop up what’s left of your brain housing group with a sponge and shovel.
Seattle has a mandatory helmet law, (King Co., actually) and I don’t always follow it. For things like my commute where I hit speeds in excess of 30mph, I like knowing the impact, should it happen, will be cushioned and I’m less likely to die.
When I’m going to the grocery store with my wife (on her mobility scooter) and our top speed is 6mph, I do not wear a helmet even though the *mandate* is that because I’m astride a bikecycle mo-sheen I’m in perilous danger and must protect myself.
except that bike helmets aren’t tested for those kinds of accidents.
At best they test for a +/- 2 meter drop straight onto the top of your head.
I’m not sure about you, but unless you get launched from your bike head first into a wall that’s not likely to happen.
Fact:- pedestrians have more accidents leading to death and injury per million mile walked than cyclists per million miles cycled.
Opinion:- cyclists need helmets but pedestrians don’t.
Opinion is not supported by facts so should not carry more weight. So why does it?
Because there is no objective morality. It’s a curse of all those things our big brains have given us … self awareness, knowledge (and more specifically, fear) of the future, etc.
In response to this (there was no link for a reply): “Fact:- pedestrians have more accidents leading to death and injury per million mile walked than cyclists per million miles cycled.
Opinion:- cyclists need helmets but pedestrians don’t.
Opinion is not supported by facts so should not carry more weight. So why does it”
How many pedestrians have been injured or killed in solo accidents with no one else around? My guess = zero. Cyclists can die from a head injury by simply falling at zero mph. Add in the higher speed and proximity to other traffic. We should wear hemets.
“How many pedestrians have been injured or killed in solo accidents with no one else around? My guess = zero.”
I personaly know a few who got serious head injuries without the help of alkohol or other people, just by walking. Non of them died, but I also just knew one person who died while riding a bike (frome heart attack).
Solo accidents make up just about none of the serious injuries that result from cycling. (Not literally none, but near enough to none to be a rounding error, at least for cyclist above 16 or so).
Australian laws caused a dip in bike usage initially. Now reversed.
On a personal note, accepting that a helmet will not save my life in a car – bike collision does not prevent me liking that it will prevent or minimise brain damage in a lessor accident. It is not death I fear but declining cognition.
So wear a helmet. I wear one. But I know for a (well supported) fact that the greatest contributor to my cycling safety is the degree of familiarity of car drivers to sharing the road. It has been shown that reducing cycling even a little has a dramatic impact on the rate at which cyclists get hit by cars.
It’s much more statistically defensible to attribute the ‘initial’ drop in biking to the helmet law than the subsequent rise. Too many other things have happened in society (eg. the dramatic increase in the price of gas, increased urbanization, growth of cycling infrastructure) that could reasonably influence cycling rates positively.
I wear a seatbelt, drive defensively and have a car with pumped up tyres, excellent brakes and airbags (front and side). I ride with a helmet, using quiet streets or separated lanes. I have regular health checks and keep my family’s immunisations up to date. When I go to loud concerts I use ear plugs, I wear a helmet when skating, along with wrist guards. Oh and I wear sunscreen and use sunglasses too.
I’ve had concussion a few times (prior to bike helmet laws) along with skin cancer scares. I am a very firm believer in prevention.
The comments here have a lot of common themes along the lines of personal choice, yet nothing along the lines of corresponding responsibilities. I have made the decision to prevent injury and illness wherever possible as I am responsible for and too, others. I think it terribly unfair that a loved one should suffer the agonies of caring for me or grieving for me, because of choices I’ve made.
He should be down at the courthouse, not complaining at the shop.
I thought he was on his bike riding over to the courthouse/city hall?
Helmet sales at the Kickstand shop = profit :p
that is assuming that people don’t just give up cycling and get back into their smokeboxes…
Historically, that is the usual effect of such laws. Meanwhile the streets get even more dangerous for those who continue to ride. I remember looking up the numbers from Australia’s MHLs, cycle-helmets.org. It’s not pretty.
As you say – the news from ‘down under’ is bleak!
So Joe is trying to be the ‘Glass half full’ guy…
1/2 full, 1/2empty, that can be relative http://nd01.jxs.cz/985/697/5b1fca67cb_45702015_o2.jpg
If the glass is half empty, get a smaller glass. Better yet, drink from the bottle.
@Birch Creek – Like
That would be my reaction. I *voluntarily* used a helmet for a few weeks earlier this year, and without intending to change my riding habits, noticed later that I had unintentionally cut *way* back on my riding time. I simply less often felt like going for a ride. My interest increased again after putting the helmet away for good. Being *forced* to wear one likely would kill my interest completely.
How many moms will say to themselves, “if the city council has passed this ordinance, it must be because bicycling is really dangerous. The safest thing to do would be not to let Johnny ride his bicycle, and we’ll save the cost of a helmet!”
No comment yesterday – lost for words.
I notice that Yehuda hasn’t slept.
If Yehuda wants to stop The Council from further trmpling on the freedoms of American citizens then he should consider the action of a British hero, sometimes referred to as “The only man to have entered Parliament with honest intentions”.
That would be Mr. Fawkes, correct?
Yehuda has about six weeks to find two tons of gunpowder. As a measure of last resort, obviously.
Clearly, this must be a nightmare story line… Wake Up YEHUDA!!! Wake UP!
Even the cycle haven of Portland Oregon has a local nut trying to restrict cyclist rights, for an amusing take see:
http://grist.org/cities/the-bicycle-menace-in-portland-one-driver-bites-back/
Now, here’s a helmet that should be made mandatory.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/75002848@N00/2945161320/
“WHAT! You went over my helmet”-Lord Yehuda
@ Nfeht – Like
Of course, this assumes (probably incorrectly) that a) most people don’t already own helmets – I live in a locality without a helmet law for adults, but un-helmeted riders remain the exception, rather than the norm) and b) that most people would visit the kickstand for their helmets, rather than the local big-box retailer (seems unlikely). While they’ll almost certainly see an increase in helmet sales, I suspect that the offsetting decline in cycling would kill the medium term outlook for overall profits.
It’s time for a bike-a-thon (featuring helmets, of course!) clogging the street in front of Nanny State’s house.
No, actually that’s the *LAST* thing you want. Because some former county board member had to wait behind some cyclists during a metric century ride about twenty years ago, my community AND county got saddled with an ordinance that now requires organizers of bicycle rides, walk-a-thons, and other similar activities to obtain a parade permit for their events…even if said event does not request road closures, additional police presence, or any other special privileges. In theory, your son’s Boy Scout troop could be busted for holding a bike ride in order to qualify for a merit badge unless they went through all the rigamarole and jumped through all the necessary hoops.
And did I mention that the organization applying for the permit request must have a minimum $1 million insurance policy in force and must include the county and city as ‘additional insured parties’ on this policy?
Ah yes, mandatory helmet laws……
Vancouver actually seriously wants to put a bike share in while this law is still on the books. The most amusing thing for me is that the city said they couldn’t do anything about it anyway because it is a Provincial Law, conveniently forgetting that the city has a city helmet by-law as well.
*sigh*
My safety proposal: We replace all the airbags in cars with giant spikes.
Spikes don’t go far enough – a Lb or 2 of C4 triggered by the airbag charge?
i see the effects of a mandatory helmet law and it’s not what you are presenting.
What effects do you see? There’s no helmet law where I am so I’m curious. Thanks.
Helmets are a positive force; they contain the brains and skull fragments after the hit-and-run so the meat wagon employees don’t have to sop up what’s left of your brain housing group with a sponge and shovel.
I feel like this trip was made just for me.
I mentioned yesterday how the process is moving way too fast for real world legislation. Haha.
Bad Laws have a way of getting passed quickly.
Seattle has a mandatory helmet law, (King Co., actually) and I don’t always follow it. For things like my commute where I hit speeds in excess of 30mph, I like knowing the impact, should it happen, will be cushioned and I’m less likely to die.
When I’m going to the grocery store with my wife (on her mobility scooter) and our top speed is 6mph, I do not wear a helmet even though the *mandate* is that because I’m astride a bikecycle mo-sheen I’m in perilous danger and must protect myself.
except that bike helmets aren’t tested for those kinds of accidents.
At best they test for a +/- 2 meter drop straight onto the top of your head.
I’m not sure about you, but unless you get launched from your bike head first into a wall that’s not likely to happen.
Pointing out logical fallacy that seems to be implied … “not tested for X” is not the same as “not effective for X”.
Not to forget: They are being tested falling on your head dismounted from your body.
What a wonderful cause for organizing. It’s always easier to rally against evil than for virtue.
But evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. To us, Nanny and others of her ilk are evil. But to them, cyclists are evil. Who’s right?
Facts determine who is right, not opinions.
Now there’s a statement with which many a philosopher would have a field day.
By whose opinion are facts determined and accepted?
By whose opinions will accepted facts be weighted and applied?
Facts are objective opinions are subjective.
Fact:- pedestrians have more accidents leading to death and injury per million mile walked than cyclists per million miles cycled.
Opinion:- cyclists need helmets but pedestrians don’t.
Opinion is not supported by facts so should not carry more weight. So why does it?
Because there is no objective morality. It’s a curse of all those things our big brains have given us … self awareness, knowledge (and more specifically, fear) of the future, etc.
In response to this (there was no link for a reply): “Fact:- pedestrians have more accidents leading to death and injury per million mile walked than cyclists per million miles cycled.
Opinion:- cyclists need helmets but pedestrians don’t.
Opinion is not supported by facts so should not carry more weight. So why does it”
How many pedestrians have been injured or killed in solo accidents with no one else around? My guess = zero. Cyclists can die from a head injury by simply falling at zero mph. Add in the higher speed and proximity to other traffic. We should wear hemets.
perhaps if you stand a chance of falling of your bike, hitting your head and dying when there is noone else around… you should get a tricycle!
“How many pedestrians have been injured or killed in solo accidents with no one else around? My guess = zero.”
I personaly know a few who got serious head injuries without the help of alkohol or other people, just by walking. Non of them died, but I also just knew one person who died while riding a bike (frome heart attack).
Solo accidents make up just about none of the serious injuries that result from cycling. (Not literally none, but near enough to none to be a rounding error, at least for cyclist above 16 or so).
Australian laws caused a dip in bike usage initially. Now reversed.
On a personal note, accepting that a helmet will not save my life in a car – bike collision does not prevent me liking that it will prevent or minimise brain damage in a lessor accident. It is not death I fear but declining cognition.
Do you wear a helmet in your car? why not? what makes you fear dissapear once you entered a vehicle that causes more head/brain damage than a bike?
So wear a helmet. I wear one. But I know for a (well supported) fact that the greatest contributor to my cycling safety is the degree of familiarity of car drivers to sharing the road. It has been shown that reducing cycling even a little has a dramatic impact on the rate at which cyclists get hit by cars.
Thus, for my own safety, I oppose helmet laws.
It’s much more statistically defensible to attribute the ‘initial’ drop in biking to the helmet law than the subsequent rise. Too many other things have happened in society (eg. the dramatic increase in the price of gas, increased urbanization, growth of cycling infrastructure) that could reasonably influence cycling rates positively.
I wear a seatbelt, drive defensively and have a car with pumped up tyres, excellent brakes and airbags (front and side). I ride with a helmet, using quiet streets or separated lanes. I have regular health checks and keep my family’s immunisations up to date. When I go to loud concerts I use ear plugs, I wear a helmet when skating, along with wrist guards. Oh and I wear sunscreen and use sunglasses too.
I’ve had concussion a few times (prior to bike helmet laws) along with skin cancer scares. I am a very firm believer in prevention.
The comments here have a lot of common themes along the lines of personal choice, yet nothing along the lines of corresponding responsibilities. I have made the decision to prevent injury and illness wherever possible as I am responsible for and too, others. I think it terribly unfair that a loved one should suffer the agonies of caring for me or grieving for me, because of choices I’ve made.
“I have made the decision to prevent injury and illness wherever possible”
so you use a helmet in cars? and on stairs?