NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Thread started by trickmilla at 08.17.10 - 10:43 am
Whether you are an Always, Usually, Sometimes, or Never wearer of helmets.
few of us here would begrudge the mayor for fiercely advocating that all people wear helmets at all times.
However,
Many of us agree that a law that requires people to wear helmets is: unnecessary, counter-productive, and a waste of time, egislative resources and political capital.
Lets discuss this.
Then we can organize our thoughts and send them to the mayor to help keep him on track with things that will truly save more lives: Education, Infrastructure, Safer streets, and MORE CYCLISTS ON THE ROAD.
I'm copying my post cause these kids are just overwhelming it with their stupid comments.
If you think about it. In the day time we can't pull over someone for riding with no lights, cause duh, it's day time. So if we had this helmet law, we'd be able to pull over quite a few riders. I like the mayor's thinking on this. He's waaaaaay ahead of the game!
Hello Mayor V! Loved the BBQ a couple of weeks ago. Wish you the best.
I'm a firm believer in wearing helmets, but I did once leave the house without my helmet and didn't realize until I was halfway to work that something felt wrong. And guess what?! Not having the helmet on did not act as a magnet attracting my head to the ground. Helmet use should NOT be mandatory; it is an attempt to place responsibility for safety and blame for any injury on the rider and no responsibility for safe driving on other road users with whom we share the road. The mayor needs to focus on the 3 foot safe passing law and give up this nonsense about mandatory helmet use.
One other thing: people make the analogy that helmet use is like seat belt use or having airbags. It's not. Automobile manufacturors are required to install seat belts and airbags. If you're going to regulate helmet usage then require bike retailers to include them with all bicycle purchases. Oh, what, that won't work? Of course it won't! It's a stupid idea and a bad analogy.
Officer Friendly I applaud you on your thoughtful comments yet you seem so lazy by copying and pasting the same BS you wrote on another thread. Get a new idea!
There is tons of data out there on the issue. Copenhagenize.com talks about it all the time and Australia which currently has a adult helmet law is in a debate about repealing it.
I agree that one should choose to wear a helmet but don't want the state of California making that choice for me.
Foldie responding to a comment by Officer Friendly
08.17.10 - 11:13 am
I am firmly against a helmet law (for 18+ at least... for under 18, I could go either way).
I think you will have a very hard time defeating this law for exactly the reason Officer Friendly is talking about. It is a revenue stream, and the nature of government (regardless of its purpose) is to fight tooth and claw for revenue, not the safety, happiness, and wellbeing of its citizens.
Government is a machine very similar to a corporation; it wants your money, first and foremost. And realistically, it can't do anything without money, but there are better, more honest ways of getting it than this.
Anyway, I always wear a helmet, and I encourage everyone to. Just because a helmet is not 100% effective in all collisions doesn't mean it can't save your life in some collisions. "Helmets don't work in collisions over 500mph" is not a valid excuse not to wear one. Yeah yeah, I know, they're not cool looking or whatever.
Mexico city repealed their helmet law this year. Looks like one of the reasons helmet laws are being repealed is due to bike share programs. Which brings up a side note that was not addressed yesterday. Should the city institute a bike share program?
helmets are great but the number one issue is that the streets aren't safe not that we should be wearing more armor because the streets aren't safe.
The fact that the conversation wasn't steered away from this and towards hit and run laws needs to be addressed by the Bicycle lobby.
The BAC needs to get rid of the old white men and get some progressive people in there. I mean how many times do we have to hear a 90 year old Alex Baum ramble on incoherently. I don't care that he know's Lance Armstrong and every tour de france champ. I want safer streets.
Collating data on the number of cyclists in Australia as well as fatality and injury rates from before and after helmet laws were introduced - every region apart from the Northern Territory has one - the study shows that death and injury risks are lower when there are more cyclists on the roads, but that cyclist numbers plummeted once helmet laws were introduced.
Specifically, if the number of cyclists doubles, the risk of injury per kilometre falls by about 34 per cent; if the number of cyclists halves, the risk per kilometre is about 52 per cent higher.
This is a bad idea, just like the bike license law. It's my opinion that the law should remain the same where only under 18 is required to wear helmets. Mandatory Helmet laws do not in any way make the streets safer.
I remember how fun it was to ride in the back of pickup trucks before LE went all Stormtrooper over it.
If some dumb-shit wants to crack their head open for some ignorant reason, let them do so.
Thinning the herd and preservation of resources come to mind.
I heard about this on NPR this morning and I do wear a helmet but don't see it necessary to force others to. I sincerely believe that by passing a law that forces people to wear helmets, motorists that are not aware of cyclists will see it as some kind of free pass to drive erratically. I mean, they already do and putting a piece of plastic on someone's head gives the perception of survival and safety that just doesn't hold up to tons of steel.
And while the non-riding public might view people who don't wear helmets as the ones at fault for accidents, I imagine that they'll start using the "daredevil" argument for when everyone wears a helmet.
Helmets don't make for safe streets. They just let you survive some collisions.
Indeed. It will go down just like the mandatory motorcycle helmet law did. I thought that the Hell's Angels going to bat would stop it. But the law was passed anyway. Why? Because it generates revenue.
It will be a bright future for those in the helmet manufacturing biz.
I'm against a law for helmets for people over 18. It should be up to the individual.
Certain bikes lend themselves to head injuries more than others. And a bicycle helmet is not a motorcycle helmet, it won't help in a high speed collision with a car.
I think it depends on where you live and how people ride, too. A person is not likely to wipe-out on a Dutch bike or a beach cruiser, and cars in Denmark are mindful of bikes.
That is not the case in LA where I am, cyclist ride "fixies" really fast with no breaks and have to skid sideways to stop, that is how most fall in my part of town.
I think that in LA laws should be modified according to type of bike. I don't even know how I could make myself fall off a beach cruiser or Dutch bike and hit my head, the bike geometry prevents this.
But other bikes have geometry which actually encourage head-first collisions and instability during quick maneuvers in emergency situations...bikes where you're slumped forward cause you to loose your natural ear equilibrium and force the rider into an unstable posture unable to react in a moments notice. Plus, if they crash or hit an object they hit head first because they are positioned like a torpedo on their bike with their head as the point of the torpedo.
These factors need to be considered when it comes to helmet laws - if the rider is not sitting up with tier arms at their side and their forearms at a 45 degree angle to the ground then helmets can make a big difference. People on cruisers and dutch bikes who sit upright should not have to wear them, and if LA does a bike-share program then those are the kinds of bikes they will use to entice commuters of all ages and fitness levels, like they do in Australia and Denmark.
There is a reason why the number one commuter bike, the Dutch bike, has not changed in over a hundred years.
The motorcycle helmet law passed because the insurance companies wanted it.
I don't know if they have similar interest in bicycle helmets.
I just read the Mayor's blog on the bike summit.
He really wants to shove helmets down our throats.
Now I wish Villaraigosa had really cracked his head in his bike accident.
I think you will have a very hard time defeating this law
What law? So far, all we're talking about is Mayor V saying that he plans to "ask the [California state] legislature" to pass a helmet law. You guys do know that it doesn't work that way, right? I mean, the mayor doesn't just pick up the phone and ask for a law to be passed and BOOM, next Monday at 8:00 AM the law is in effect?
PC responding to a comment by outerspace
08.17.10 - 4:59 pm
PC - he's a former speaker of the assembly, so it's not as hard for him as you might think. When the time comes, if he follows through, cyclists will have to hustle to respond.
we didn't, as a constituency direct the conversation towards hit and run law... there wasnt enough emphasis on hit and runs... he slipped that helmet thing in and no one really had a comeback off the cuff...
Roadblock responding to a comment by Alex Thompson
08.17.10 - 7:52 pm
Well, many people, including myself, put a lot of energy into crafting the questions he had to answer, and making sure that good ones got up there. How many of the Google questions were asked/answered? I think it was 2. It ended up being a distraction.
Maybe, since you have a relationship with the Mayor's office, you can turn him around Roadblock.
when I made my comment, I was trying to get across the point that we should be focusing on creating an environment where the streets are safe, not one in which we have to put on more armor to be "safe"....
Roadblock responding to a comment by Alex Thompson
08.17.10 - 8:10 pm
The requirement for wearing a helmet, as proposed by the mayor, is just an acknowledgment of their failures. They could make the streets much safer for all users, whether they be auto drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. And there's practically no need for additional infrastructure or new laws passed. All they need to do is crackdown on speeds of the cars on the road. Just about all the streets that aren't congested have drivers going 10 mph, 15 mph, sometimes even more than that. What that does is make the streets a whole heck of a lot more unsafe for all users. As a side benefit, this also makes a great revenue generator.
What I would do is push to make our streets safer by bringing down the speeds cars are traveling. You go more than 5mph over the posted speed and you risk getting a speeding ticket. There's a reason there's a posted speed limit on the street.
Where is the talk about an EIR for the bike plan? Where is the talk about reducing the numbers of "accidents" that maim and kill? No, it's all about some stupid foam hat from this guy.
Place responsibility where it belongs - on the people in cars doing the killing and maiming; on the engineers and politicians with their design goals that disregard walking ,cycling, human life, commerce, and civility,
Ok, we're agreed. For numerous reasons, many of which are discussed above, this law is a stupid idea.
Next step: stop the Mayor before he gets any further with this idea.
How? He didn't listen to us in person. He doesn't seem to be listening to us on twitter, or through the multiple blog posts.
Ideally, there should be some official response from one or more groups (BAC, LACBC, Bikeside, CICLE, others?) denouncing the idea as terrible, with cogent reasons. Chances of getting the BAC to condemn the move? I'm guessing the chances are zero but if we could at least get it on the agenda for the next meeting that would be a step forward (although I guess the next meeting isn't until Oct. Fuck). After all, I think it was a member of the BAC that, alone, voiced support so we need to explain to that member where we're coming from and get him to do a 180.
We all think this is a horrible idea. Let's move on it before Mayor V gets any more press attention with it.
seems like we shouldnt focus too much on this helmet law proposal... fuel to the fire.... lets just keep his mind business with hit and run law, 3 ft to pass and infrastructure.
Roadblock responding to a comment by Rach Stevo
08.17.10 - 11:03 pm
He listed it as his second priority in the Huffington Post article. If the helmet law dies away, then we can kiss goodbye to everything else (e.g. driver education, pot hole fixin', speedy implementation of the bike plan), except for the 3 feet law, which was listed first.
If he can't even follow through on one of his top two priorities, why would he bother with anything less?
Just think about the meeting. Of all the issues, suggestions and ideas brought up, which one did the Mayor keep coming back to, despite jeers and boos, despite an almost complete lack of support?
You've gotta hand it to Mayor V., it's kind a brilliant plan for getting the less law abiding cyclists off the road.
Arguing about whether the light was red or green when you get pulled over is open to debate, but whether you are/are not wearing a helmet is a different story, and I can see plenty of people being less excited about party rides if helmets are made mandatory. (Nevermind that those rides are exactly when you SHOULD be wearing a helmet.)
This law is a bit overkill, as there are plenty of law abiding folks who doOn't like helmets too.
I sure wish he'd focus on the real safety problems facing cyclists in L.A.
none of the above. has nothing to do with law abiding cyclists or not. it's that if you have to wear a piece of armor to travel on something so innocent as a bicycle, your doing it wrong.
I think this car culture is still biasing us towards this attitude that bicycle needs to be fast and dangerous... it's a bicycle... it's so simple. it should stay simple. it shouldnt require a ton of training and protective gear or special clothes. just like a car.
the mayor would be wise to rethink the helmet thing.... we've gotten quite a bit of publicity with no money or coordination... wait till we rally behind a cause that EVERYONE is on board with.
I don't agree with the helmet law. However I would agree on having a law for cyclists to be able to ride on the streets only with a license.
With that note I also would love to have more strict licensing tests for Drivers. in Japan you'd have to pay roughly 2000$ in order to obtain your license. On top of that you'd have to pass a very vigorous driving test. This involves a very complex driving course with learning to control your car in wet ground skid.
I really have to agree with the problem lying with how easy it is to get a driver's license...
It's also not going to do anything. People are still not going to wear helmets, this proposed law will just allow people to blame victims when they die after being squashed by an inattentive driver.
Look how many people still talk on the phone and drive, even though there is a law about it?
I like djwheels framing of the issue, but I hope going forward we can present the mayor with the data and then focus the conversation on the important issues.
Hopefully, it's clear I'm not trying to make light of rape in any way. It's just an attempt to turn the whole blame the victim arguments that constantly come up on their head.
DJwheels responding to a comment by trickmilla
08.18.10 - 9:19 am
But I am just saying ... there is a lot of people that will stop listening if rape is made as a comparison.
The fact that urban cycling is heavily dominated my men will also complicate using it as an analogy.
Some will end up debating the validity of the analogy and not focus on what we are trying to say. The chance of distraction is way to high with this one, in my book.
come on guys... djwheels is giving you an analogy to work from... change the analogy... he gave you the format, now go with it...
Here's an example,
Making cyclist wear helmets as law is like making dog owners use muzzles so they dont bite anyone. The better approach is to encourage and implement a system of education & resources to train dogs not to bite. Then you have friendly dogs who dont need muzzles and in the end wont bite anyway... or something like that... i dont know...
I need some coffee.....
md2 responding to a comment by trickmilla
08.18.10 - 10:32 am
Right now bicycling is a right.
Lets keep it that way.
There are very minimal safety requirements for a bike to be legal and with the exception of a front blinky, any street bike you buy comes out of the store, street legal.
I think most opposition to this proposal stems from the fact that what will make biking even safer is when more people are doing it.
Right now many drivers are unaware that cyclists are on the road, and have a right to be on the road. This raises the incidents of road rage, and of cyclists being hit by somebody who just isn't looking for a cyclist.
We have all seen near misses in both of these cases, and we all know somebody who has been injured by a driver who was, driving recklessly, aggressively, or not paying attention.
The bottom line is that Cycling is a RIGHT driving is a privilege. We should not be compelled by law to don armor (as wise of a personal decision it may be) because our rights (and our bodies) are being trampled by those who abuse the privilege of driving.
Cars are deadly machines.
The biggest killer of people under 18
Bikes are not killers. Thats why cycling is a right and why we don't need a llicence to operate a bike, and we don't need any more laws that restrict the use of a bicycle.
What we need is culture that respects our right to use the road.
trickmilla responding to a comment by AestheticMynd
08.18.10 - 10:35 am
I request that you work to get a law in place for all road users to where mandatory elbow pads. Car drivers can fall when exiting their vehicles, pedestrians can slip on the poorly maintained sidewalks and well you know how cyclists can hurt their elbows.
This law would save countless lives and prevent our hospitals from becoming over crowded with elbow injury victims.
Thank you
Foldie 1
Foldie responding to a comment by Alex Thompson
08.18.10 - 10:44 am
So far no one has changed my mind. I'm still in favor of getting this law passed. It will help in curbing crime too. What voter doesn't want to see crime drop? Trying to change voters minds about this is going to be next to impossible.
Good thing is that it seems like the concept of presenting a litany of absurd analogies has caught on.
Next time we're caught up in this debate with the mayor's office we can just rattle them off.
The more analogies the better.
I'm all for presenting data and studies that show that helmet laws are ineffective in terms of increasing safety overall. I just think when you're up at the podium at these public hearings for 60 seconds, it's a lot easier to get the point across by using some more conventional debate tactics. Gotta know the audience. Numbers and studies only resonate with bike nerds like us and maybe some transportation engineers, not the polilticos.
Gotta dumb it down for them, if ya know what I mean.
DJwheels responding to a comment by trickmilla
08.18.10 - 11:29 am
If the mayor is pro-helmet then he should focus on positive messages with respect to helmet use. Make them available for anyone who wants one. Same goes for public health where any talk of bicycles seems to be framed around the responsibility of wearing a helmet rather than the responsibility of automobile drivers to not hit the cyclist. We all want to live in a safe healthy city where cycling is focused around enjoyment (positive!) rather than avoiding danger (boo negative).
Right now many drivers are unaware that cyclists are on the road, and have a right to be on the road. This raises the incidents of road rage, and of cyclists being hit by somebody who just isn't looking for a cyclist.
In my experience, road raged drivers are not mad because they don't know we have a right to be on the road; they are mad because they know and they don't think that we should. We are in their way when we are exercising that right, and in their pea brains they don't care that we are living creatures that can be injured or killed, or that we're helping the environment, staying in shape, blah blah blah. I tell drivers that are honking at me all the time to look up CVC 21202 etc etc bla bla bla and they give me the finger. They know we are "protected" by the law, but they don't think we should be, because it inconveniences them.
[Disclaimer]
This is just my experience and may not represent the bulk of drivers in LA, but I have had encounters with a dozen or so drivers that took the time to yell at me out of their windows, and their responses to citation of the law are extremely consistent.
If the politicians aren't paying attention to statistics then we're really screwed. When ever I watch You Tube or read Wiki or something on the internet about certain topics and it shows statistics I'm usually quite Surprised/Amazed. Is there a way we can show them the data in 60 seconds?
Yes. In fact, since most of the studies contradict each other many of them can be left out. We only need a few attention-grabbers. e.g.:
A US cyclist is 380 times more likely to be wearing a helmet than a cyclist in the Netherlands but is 5 times more likely to be killed on the road.
The number of cyclists in Australia declined by 15% in the first 6 years following the implementation of a helmet law. (Australia subsequently won "Fattest Nation on Earth" in 2008 and is considering repealing its helmet laws)
Doubling the number of cyclists on the road decreases the risk of a collision by 30%. Decreasing the number of cyclists on the road by 15% increases the risk of collision by 10%.
etc. etc.
Rach Stevo responding to a comment by AestheticMynd
08.18.10 - 11:33 pm
** Helmets vs risk of fatality numbers estimated from graph created by Cycle Touring Club (CTC) and European Cyclists Federation for "Safety in Numbers Campaign". The graph is up on Bikeside:
Note: there are other studies that suggest bicycling rates dropped by much more, up to 40%. I was just being conservative. Somebody at some point should go through and figure out the most reliable number to use.
** "Australia's Future Fat Bomb", Stewart S. et al., 2008, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute
** "Safety in Numbers", Jacobsen, P., 2003, Injury and Prevention, vol. 9, pp. 205-209. Alex posted the link for this somewhere north of here but here it is again:
Sure, there are drivers that don't know we are allowed in the street. Those drivers can be educated. I was just pointing out that the type of driver that is going to cause a collision is [usually] the type of driver that doesn't care what the law says because he/she doesn't think we [deserve] to be in the street, regardless of what the law says (or they just can't be bothered).
Any given driver has to be willing to be educated or all this talk about educating drivers is moot. MOST people won't rob a bank or run a cocaine smuggling ring, but do you think educating the public is going to stop the people who already do that stuff from continuing to do it? Do you think people who rob banks just didn't know it was illegal?
Saying drivers aren't looking for bikes is a cop out. It is a driver's responsibility to be alert and aware of everything in and alongside the road. Period. If a cyclist is riding in the prescribed manner (correct side of the road, visibility aids in place, etc) then no driver ever has any excuse for hitting a cyclist, ESPECIALLY "oh i jus din't see him lol."
outerspace responding to a comment by trickmilla
08.19.10 - 12:46 pm
i suspect that the mayor did not actually set his ass on a bike or even really eat it on venice blvd. i think its all a hoax, i sat through the bike summit, and all i heard was "we are planning to create a commitee to plan to plan to plan blah blah", and for anything that would really help any cyclists commute "we will look into that/plan it out later." I just see this mandatory helmet thing as an excuse to not do anything other than paint a few lines, and charade like any real progress will occur. i heard no question of "when can we expect to see improvements?"
lets not forget that this is the same ass-wipe thats in trouble for taking advantage of free tickets to games and concerts, and that was caught cheating on his wife with the lady from telemundo.
Werd. The Manditory helmet law is just a way of putting the onus on us. The big problem with this is that they (supposedly) want to protect us from dying but they are okay with us getting hit by cars. ...just don't die from it.
Riders should be responsible as well. Not take red lights Because they feel like it or they dont want to stop.
We should all watch out for our own safety as well.
I drive only when I absolutely have to and if I depend on most drivers to actually care to pay attention or know how to drive properly I'd probably be died or badly hurt.
And the same goes for when I ride my bike.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
Nohocyclechic.blogspot.com
The requirement for wearing a helmet, as proposed by the mayor, is just an acknowledgment of their failures. They could make the streets much safer for all users, whether they be auto drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. And there's practically no need for additional infrastructure or new laws passed. All they need to do is crackdown on speeds of the cars on the road. Just about all the streets that aren't congested have drivers going 10 mph, 15 mph, sometimes even more than that. What that does is make the streets a whole heck of a lot more unsafe for all users. As a side benefit, this also makes a great revenue generator.
you do need some coffee, you got is backwards.