closetbiker

Every time I stick my neck out, I think I might be creating a problem for myself but I've been more than surprised at the support I've received when I've stuck it out.

A few years ago I started to ask a few questions in the local advocacy cycling groups. I received more than a bit of flack for my questions. The last couple of years, I started speaking up again and didn't get as much flack. When I wrote my first helmet column, I thought I was sure to get some stiff feedback, but I received so many emails from so many people, I realized I had misread popular opinion.

The local advocacy groups are now emailing me in confidence supporting my stance, even if they are keeping quiet about it publicly.

I wondered how my official "outing" in this article would be taken by my paper. It's one thing to write I think enforcing helmet laws are counter-productive for cycling advocacy or that the manner in which the law was passed was done by misrepresentation, but quite another to state up front, I'm breaking the law, and I'm doing it on purpose. That could be seen not just as unlawful behavior, but seen as an endorsement or encouragement for others to do the same. I showed my editor the article and said I hoped my status as an" outlaw" doesn't reflect poorly on the paper. She said, "We like outlaws" and only the only regret she had was that the article didn't mention that I write for her paper. That's great support.

I think if I do get a ticket, I might turn it into an opportunity to gain more attention on the law. Who knows. Maybe the paper will stand by me, use it's legal department and use the issue to sell some papers. Who doesn't love controversy?

Giffen

It's pretty simple logic really.

Most permanent brain damage results from rotational head injuries. Bicycle helmets are designed and tested to mitigate linear impacts, not rotational impacts. There is no discussion here.

The question is, can bicycle helmets do something they weren't designed to? In this case, there is no reason to believe so. (Enlighten me if I missed something, but I think I've read all the arguments.)

I think most supporters of bicycle helmets are unaware of the dichotomy in the basic categories of head injuries. Basically ignorance.

kludgefudge

I think you're doing the right thing, but then again, I am doing the same thing. (the not wearing a helmet thing. not the writing articles about not wearing helmets thing.)The helmet law is so stupid and spottily enforced that if we can convince people that its ok to not wear a helmet if you don't want to, more people will start doing it, law be damned. and the fuzz will be even less likely to pull us over. (or buzz us in their cruisers while shouting "WHERES YOUR HELMET" on their loudspeakers. Because that's really safe.)

I think if more people start riding without helmets (if they don't want to wear them) it will lead to more public discussion around the issue, and maybe even the asking of that very important question: "Should we abolish the mandatory helmet law?" (I know, its a pretty big maybe.)