You write about the effect of helmets on reducing head injuries with such confidence that it's tempting to take your word for it. But a problem with mandatory helmet laws is that they provably discourage casual riding, and bicycle riding is a healthy activity that needs to be encouraged. Some folks that claim to have epidemiological chops claim that the positive effects of the marginal cycling outweighs the negative effects of the marginal head injuries. I'm of the helmet generation, but I can't be bothered to strap one on when I'm hopping on a Pronto! in Seattle even though there is a box of them right by the bike station (and the county already has a mandatory adult helmet law). The expectation is that people are going to pay several dollars for a helmet rental when they get the machines going is laughable.
So, yeah, I wish people would strap on a helmet when they ride, but the journey from that sentiment to supporting a mandatory adult helmet law is one I won't be taking. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Brian Mink <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed > Mandatory Helmet LawDate: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:49:05 -0600From: Brian Mink > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>To: Michael Rewey > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > As someone who has worked on Rehab Units in Hospitals for my entire career > I would love to see mandatory bicycle helmet laws. Deaths are one thing, > closed head injuries are what most cyclists suffer who hit their heads > while cycling. Such injuries can be devastating and generally prevented > with more widespread helmet use. At some point we really do need to move > toward mandatory helmet usage and figure out how to fund free helmets > versus tickets and other means of getting everyone to the point where they > wear a helmet. These kinds of injuries are really easily prevented with > helmet use. > > Brian Mink > > > Michael Rewey wrote: > > > I agree with the Cal Bike Coalition opposition for many reasons. First it > would make the poor > the most likely violators. Why not motorcyclists? Why not Pedestrians. > > Mike Rewey > > On 19 Feb 2015 at 15:40, Clayton Griessmeyer wrote: > > California Bicycle Coalition is opposing a proposed mandatory bicycle > helmet (and > reflective night clothing) law. They say it will make California´s streets > less safe. > > They argue: > > Bicycling with or without a helmet savesas many as 77 livesfor every life > lost in a crash. Per hour of > participation, bicycling isthree times safer than swimming, and twice as > safe as riding in a car. And > it´s getting safer. Since 2000, by rate,the risk of bicycling injury in > California has dropped 45%. > > http > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > -- Scott M. Rose West Point Grey, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
