View Single Post
Old 06-03-12, 04:35 PM
  #2504  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
There's some new news on the legislation front. Looks like a New York City councilman is proposing a Mandatory Helmet Law there.

http://gothamist.com/2012/05/31/new_...s_mandator.php



Interesting that the Deputy Mayor says no major city [in the USA] has imposed an MHL. Seattle is a fairly major city and it is covered by King County's MHL.
Originally Posted by Brennan
^^Oh brother, here we go.

This quote is a classic:

"Not wearing a helmet is worse than not wearing a seatbelt. You're endangering...the lives of those in your community." - Council Member David Greenfield

Oh really? By not wearing a helmet, I'm endangering the lives of the people of my community, how exactly?

Here's another gem, from a WSJ article about this proposed helmet law:

"The best way to get killed if you're riding a bicycle is to not wear a helmet." - Council Member David Greenfield


I can't even chart the absurdity of these statements. How do people like this even get elected?


Oh wait, here's another one from this guy, reported by Capital New York. The hits just keep on coming:

"The reality is, a helmet is instant safety." - Council Member David Greenfield
After having lived with an all ages MHL for the last 16 years, this type of response is no surprise to me.

With a challenge to our law before the courts, the upcoming Velo-City conference, and the first public bike share system in North America that will require helmet use, the issue is getting some press.

In a recent column, BCs Cheif Medical Officer said that there is:

a) no evidence helmet laws discourage cycling,

b) public bike shares are not affected by helmet laws (because people carry helmets around when they are planning to use public bikes), and

c) that a comparison with The Netherlands works in BCs favor because the rate of head injury for cyclists is far higher there, than here.

Throw in the columnists opinion that simple falls from bicycles result in devastating brain damage, and the case is complete.

For me the most compelling argument for mandatory helmets is that children are the most likely to suffer permanent brain damage from a bike accident...

... as a parent it was always much easier to get my kids to follow safety rules if the adults had to follow them too.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Hel...770/story.html

This is why this thread is important, ignorance is harmful. Misprioritizing helmet use results in more danger to cyclists and lowers the worth cycling brings to society.

Last edited by closetbiker; 06-04-12 at 08:20 AM.
closetbiker is offline