[Creakyknees]

http://www.bikesidela.org/mayor-villaraigosa-declares-helmet-war-on-california/

"At the recent Los Angeles Bike Summit Mayor Villaraigosa unexpectedly announced that he would push for state-level legislation that would make it mandatory for all cyclists in California, regardless of age, to wear a helmet when riding. Currently the law in California requires only those aged 17 years and under to wear helmets. "

1. Helments cramp my style.
2. This proposed law is a great way to convince the general public that bike riding is too dangerous for normal people.

 

[rogger]

Well, that would increase city revenue without having to spend a dime on proper bicycle infrastructure while maintaining an equal net net result safety wise. Well done that man!

 

[DieselDan]

Funny how us so-called ignorant folk here in South Carolina can see through the bravo sierra and see that these helmet laws have been lobbied and supported by helmet manufacturers without any evidence that helmets really help.

 

[wim]

Funny how us so-called ignorant folk here in South Carolina can see through the bravo sierra and see that these helmet laws have been lobbied and supported by helmet manufacturers without any evidence that helmets really help.

Apart from he argument about the effectiveness of helmets, the mandatory aspect gets cyclists off the road. Given the choice between having to wear a helmet or not cycling, many people choose to stop cycling. But it's an issue complicated by statistics. The fewest bicycle fatalities per distances ridden in a major world city occur in Amsterdam—where, as you probably know, no one wears a helmet.

 

[oroy38]

Funny how us so-called ignorant folk here in South Carolina can see through the bravo sierra and see that these helmet laws have been lobbied and supported by helmet manufacturers without any evidence that helmets really help.

Smack your head on the ground at 25mph with a helmet on. Repeat without the helmet.

I've seen and taken spills that would have ended badly without a helmet on. Fabio Casartelli would probably still be around if he was wearing a helmet. Jens Voigt might not be if he wasn't.

 

[MR_GRUMPY]

Great idea.
Maybe this law would help keep cycling wankers off the roads, so that strange people would stop waving at me.


This would never happen in Illinois. They don't even have a motorcycle helmet law here.

 

[oroy38]

This would never happen in Illinois. They don't even have a motorcycle helmet law here.

Nor here in PA where I go to school. Some people call it the "You have your right to die" clause.

 

[foofighter]

i read on some of the live tweets about this and the mayor didnt want to do anything to address the bicycle vs vehicle issue but rather doing something like this to give everyone the impression that he's doing something to create cycling safety...funny that having a helmet wouldnt have done much for his elbow injury.

The one councilman Rosendahl did step up and supported some measure, too bad he's evil with regards to other political issues that I dont agree with him on.

 

[il sogno]

I wear my helmet almost all the time. The only time I don't wear it is when I ride to the salon on my corner to get a pedicure. It would suck to have to wear a helmet for that two minute ride.

My friend was at that meeting. She said Villaraigosa got boo-ed when he brought this up.

 

[pigpen]

Smack your head on the ground at 25mph with a helmet on. Repeat without the helmet.

I've seen and taken spills that would have ended badly without a helmet on. Fabio Casartelli would probably still be around if he was wearing a helmet. Jens Voigt might not be if he wasn't.

I seriously doubt Casartelli would have been alive even with a helmet.
He hit his head on a square peice of concrete (have you seen the barriers in the Pyrenees) doing 50mph. And chances are Voight would have walked away.

 

[ewitz]

I can understand people wanting the choice but to argue that helmets don't actually save lives in falls involving head trauma is ignorant.

 

[Creakyknees]

I can understand people wanting the choice but to argue that helmets don't actually save lives in falls involving head trauma is ignorant.

where has that argument been made in this thread?

 

[den bakker]

Apart from he argument about the effectiveness of helmets, the mandatory aspect gets cyclists off the road. Given the choice between having to wear a helmet or not cycling, many people choose to stop cycling. But it's an issue complicated by statistics. The fewest bicycle fatalities per distances ridden in a major world city occur in Amsterdam—where, as you probably know, no one wears a helmet.

of course the average speed of a bike in amsterdam is around 3 mph and you can easily avoid cars on your daily commute. I have 7 miles, albeit another city than amsterdam, and share the road with cars for less than 3000ft. So how does this apply to the states?

 

[Mel Erickson]

where has that argument been made in this thread?

I believe one could reasonably infer that argument was made right here http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=2949225#poststop

 

[Mike T.]

If this mayor was really serious about reducing head injuries and not about grabbing easy attention by being a do-good helmet nanny he would lobby for all vehicle drivers and pedestrians to have to wear helmets as their head injury numbers dwarf those of cyclists. But then that's a battle he wouldn't dare take on.

 

[Hank Stamper]

If this mayor was really serious about reducing head injuries and not about grabbing easy attention by being a do-good helmet nanny he would lobby for all vehicle drivers and pedestrians to have to wear helmets as their head injury numbers dwarf those of cyclists. But then that's a battle he wouldn't dare take on.

yeah, so do their participation numbers. You can't be serious? Are you?

 

[brandtw]

I'd be in favor of having His Honor volunteering to do some helmet testing... using his head...

 

[Mike T.]

You can't be serious? Are you?

Absolutely. Why not? Figures from Canadian statistics that show about 50% of all head injuries motorist/pedestrian generated and 2% are bicycle related. Try here -

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/

Now WHO should be wearing helmets? It's a wee bit hypocritical to attempt to mandate cyclists' helmets while discriminating against other "vulnerable" people.

 

[philippec]

well, that would be one way to really get cyclists off the streets.

 

[Hank Stamper]

Absolutely. Why not? Figures from Canadian statistics that show about 50% of all head injuries motorist/pedestrian generated and 2% are bicycle related. Try here -

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/

Now WHO should be wearing helmets? It's a wee bit hypocritical to attempt to mandate cyclists' helmets while discriminating against other "vulnerable" people.

I just find it stunning that you don't seem to understand the significance of the difference between absolute numbers and percentages or think the audience is dumb enough not to. Obviously there are more head injuries amoungst motorists and pedestrians compared to cyclists because there are so many more of them. But to take that absolute and apply it to the relative usefullness of a helmet is absurd.

More people in China get head injuries than in the National Football League. I guess all people in China need to wear helmets or perhaps someone playing in the NFL can't benefit from a helmet compared to walking in China.

I don't care if adults wear a helmet or not......but you really don't see the hole in your point?