Why? You mean to tell me that there is no way to have helmet dispensers
at the Kiosks? Seems like all the arguments against are economic
arguments based on all or nothing logic/arguments. Don't see a lot of
creative thinking here.
Brian Mink
Monona
Mitchell Nussbaum wrote:
I (almost) always wear a helmet, so a mandatory helmet law wouldn't affect me
if it were adopted in Wisconsin. But it would probably destroy bike-sharing in
Madison and Milwaukee.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Meiers"<[email protected]>
To: "Charles' 'STRAWSER"<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 9:10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law
I am not going to take a position one way or another on helmet laws but the
Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute has a rebuttal to some of the most common
objections to helmet laws, about 1/3 of the way down the page. You might find
it interesting to read. As an aside this website has everything you want to
know about helmets and more.
http://www.helmets.org/negativs.htm
Steve Meiers
Safety educator
(608) 267-1102
Box 2986
Madison WI 53701
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of STRAWSER,
Charles
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 8:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law
The safety of cyclists on the road is most highly (positively) correlated
with...the number of cyclists on the road.
See "Safety in Numbers slide on John Pucher's presentation of his research here:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BikeWalkPublicHealth_April%206.pdf
As for Mike Rewey's question: "Why not motorcyclists? Why not Pedestrians?"
Well why not CAR DRIVERS?
""The results [of studies in Australia show] that a ["motoring helmet"] headband can
greatly reduce the severity of an impact to the head [by up to] 67 percent with the honeycomb cardboard
prototype, when compared with an impact with no headband."
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html
Here's the CDC on barriers to helmet use (and hence why requiring it would
discourage cycling):
Barriers to helmet use include cost, the wearability of bicycle helmets, and a
lack of knowledge regarding helmet effectiveness (33). In addition, some
school-age children (i.e., children less than 15 years of age) believe that
wearing a helmet will result in derision by their peers (34). Among older
children and adults, rates for helmet use are influenced by some of the same
demographic factors as rates for seat belt use (e.g., age, education, income,
and marital status) (14,33), and some of the reasons given for not wearing
helmets are similar to those given for not wearing seat belts (e.g., rider was
on a short trip, helmets are uncomfortable, and negligence) (14). Approaches to
overcoming some of these barriers to helmet use include community-based
programs (33) and bicycle helmet legislation, which may be particularly
effective among school-age children (34-37).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm
I think it's in every individual cyclist's best interest to wear a helmet and
visible clothing (and I do so myself, and require it of my son), but it's
clearly in the best interests of cyclists in aggregate to eliminate ANY laws
that discourage cycling, including helmet laws. Anyone advocating any laws that
would discourage cycling is either uninformed, or does not really have the best
interests of cyclists (in aggregate) at heart.
Now I must go and get the marshmallows to roast on the flames of the helmet war
that is about to ensue.
chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
Rewey
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
