Advocacy & Safety - Would you support a mandatory helmet law?

If your bike falls over (dodging a dog for example) and you land on your head, would you rather have a helmet or a smug attitude?

Ahh. The pronouncement of the righteous.

The only thing that troubles me is that I was actually trying for snark.

Apparently I'm a bit off my game.

Anyone else notice that SnoTurtle has not posted in this thread in almost 10 years since his OP?:innocent:

Do tell what your friend's fail-proof method is to avoid a driver utilizing your person for automotive target practice. I'm sure it will be revolutionary.

Yaawwwwnnn...

-Kurt

Cuda, do cagers aim at you? Is it because you ride in spandex hunched over running stop signs?
They don't aim at me on purpose that is not revolutionary just normal for me and one of the benefits of upright riding. They tend to think they can beat me to a red light but usually go around instead of through me.
I think many of you need helmets because you suck at riding a bike. I've never heard of so many people laying down their bikes and I ride on ice and snow and the leftover sand. I have spent my life under my own power I've never even had a drivers license. All the Darwin cracks are getting tired as the cracks in your helmet saving your life from a scrape and bump. I'll say that I am very lucky where I live because it was set-up in the 1600's and is ideal for bikes and walking, scored a 90 in walkability.

Cuda, do cagers aim at you? Is it because you ride in spandex hunched over running stop signs?
They don't aim at me on purpose that is not revolutionary just normal for me and one of the benefits of upright riding. They tend to think they can beat me to a red light but usually go around instead of through me.
I think many of you need helmets because you suck at riding a bike. I've never heard of so many people laying down their bikes and I ride on ice and snow and the leftover sand. I have spent my life under my own power I've never even had a drivers license. All the Darwin cracks are getting tired as the cracks in your helmet saving your life from a scrape and bump. I'll say that I am very lucky where I live because it was set-up in the 1600's and is ideal for bikes and walking, scored a 90 in walkability.

Your other posts (here and in other threads) have not only exposed that you still do not know everything there is to know about cycling, but make it quite apparent that you are also intolerant of certain members of this community (where's ILTB when you need him?).

As you do not appear to agree with my evaluation of your comment, I see that you have taken it upon yourself to argue against my point by falsely accusing me of unrelated cycling stereotypes that you, personally, dislike - stereotypes which you have no idea as to my connection or disassociation with (and therefore have no basis for your accusations).

I can only say that it is very cheap on your part - I'm ashamed of you. If you insist on insulting me, do it well, darn it! http://sifyimg.speedera.net/sify.com/connect/discussions/images/smilies/smiley_tongue.gif

-Kurt

Your other posts (here and in other threads) have not only exposed that you still do not know everything there is to know about cycling, but make it quite apparent that you are also intolerant of certain members of this community (where's ILTB when you need him?).

As you do not appear to agree with my evaluation of your comment, I see that you have taken it upon yourself to argue against my point by falsely accusing me of unrelated cycling stereotypes that you, personally, dislike - stereotypes which you have no idea as to my connection or disassociation with (and therefore have no basis for your accusations).

I can only say that it is very cheap on your part - I'm ashamed of you. If you insist on insulting me, do it well, darn it! http://sifyimg.speedera.net/sify.com/connect/discussions/images/smilies/smiley_tongue.gif

-Kurt

It's nice to know you need me. :thumb:

But really I don't don't know why you waste the electrons responding to billew's unrelated cycling stereotypes. billew got dismissed from my list of intelligent (or at least rational) posters worth responding to with "First let me say that if I see a bike with more than one light on front and rear I know there is a scardey fred behind the bars. I live in a small city with plenty of street lights." http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=8276725&postcount=19

On the positive side, he does have some nice bikes.

I support mandatory helmet laws because of higher costs. Many folks who get hurt can't afford the medical bills so they get care at our local county hospital which drivers up the costs to those who do pay. County tax payers also chip in which raises my sales and property taxes.

When the motor cycle idiots (I've about 80,000 miles on m cycles) demonstrated and got the helmet law repealed, the death/injury rate from head injuries skyrocketed.

They often leave dependants as well which sometimes requires state aid with the loss of a wage earner.

Al

I support mandatory helmet laws because of higher costs. Many folks who get hurt can't afford the medical bills so they get care at our local county hospital which drivers up the costs to those who do pay. County tax payers also chip in which raises my sales and property taxes.


You are right, there is a cost to accidental death and injury that we all pay. Let's look for the biggest offenders and start fixing those problems first.

From the National Safety Council: 45,800 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005, and 2.4 million were injured. That's a pretty big chuck of the accidental deaths and injuries for that year. So, should we ban cars?

Speedo

I support mandatory helmet laws because of higher costs.
Al


You want a knee jerk law passed at your expense?

I support mandatory helmet laws because of higher costs....

You are correct that mandatory helmet laws lead to higher health care costs for the community that has them. Strange reason to support them though.

Hey, Cuda I wasn't trying for an insult really I was trying to figure out why you are such a target. I rarely get grief from cars and from reading the forums drop bars and spandex piss-off cagers more than upright riders do. As far as lights go my Raleighs with lights get used when weather permits but I'm not worrying about lights because there is no difference when I use them. The white tail and reflector on my lightless Raleigh works just as well as the Raleigh with a tail light. I'm still here and haven't been rear ended yet. The accidents I've had have been during the day. I think that speaks for it's self. I have only my experience as a life long bicycle rider not a reformed cager "getting back into biking" and the fact that millions of people all over the world ride without helmets or lights and have since the introduction of the safety bicycle 120 years ago. I've never made claim to have the ultimate knowlege of cycling just forty-five years of doing it everyday. My state has a manatory helmet law for children under fifteen years old I feel this is enough.

Hey, Cuda I wasn't trying for an insult really I was trying to figure out why you are such a target.

Never said I was a target. Don't go twisting things again.


I rarely get grief from cars and from reading the forums drop bars and spandex piss-off cagers more than upright riders do.

So you are saying that drop bars and spandex make you inherently evil? :lol:


As far as lights go my Raleighs with lights get used when weather permits but I'm not worrying about lights because there is no difference when I use them.

Because the stock Sturmey bulb setup is insufficient. You should see what some folks have done with LED's in the stock setup, with a stock Dynohub.


The white tail and reflector on my lightless Raleigh works just as well as the Raleigh with a tail light. I'm still here and haven't been rear ended yet.

Just because you haven't been hit now does not mean you won't be hit later. That said, I cannot begin to estimate the possibility that you might be rear-ended without being able to take a look at the locations you ride, and what time of day you ride on them.


The accidents I've had have been during the day.

What type of accidents?


I think that speaks for it's self.

No, it doesn't. It only proves that you've had accidents in the daytime - that's all. In fact, if you were to give me a proper synopsis (I doubt it) of your daytime accidents, I could probably tell you that you could have had the same accident at night.


I have only my experience as a life long bicycle rider not a reformed cager "getting back into biking" and the fact that millions of people all over the world ride without helmets or lights and have since the introduction of the safety bicycle 120 years ago. I've never made claim to have the ultimate knowlege of cycling just forty-five years of doing it everyday.

Age and time does not necessarily make one wiser. Nothing personal - "jusy sayin'."


My state has a manatory helmet law for children under fifteen years old I feel this is enough.

I tend to agree with you there, only as I do not believe mandatory laws requiring something that will not endanger anyone else's safety if not used (unlike proper lighting and handling skills). If someone wishes to ride without a helmet, let them - that individual knowingly takes the risk for him/herself, and life goes on. End of subject.

-Kurt

It's nice to know you need me. :thumb:

But really I don't don't know why you waste the electrons responding to billew's unrelated cycling stereotypes.

If a troll is discredited early on, it reduces the possibility that they might magically gather a group of equally worthless followers months down the road - I've seen the Stupidity Herd Syndrom more then once. I dare say it could even turn A&S into a bigger mess then it is already.


On the positive side, he does have some nice bikes.

Except for the unfortunate fact that the '54 Sports or '75 DL-1 might end up wrecked someday (dibs on the headlamp - I need one for my '51 Sports "C" Tourist). At least the the Herc, Triumph, and '66 Sports are reasonably easily replaceable with identical examples if damaged.

-Kurt

Yes, everyone who uses the public roads, sidewalk, mups. So that includes motorcyle,cars,trucks,bicycle,skaters,joggers, walkers. Insurance company wins while more people die waiting for organ donation.

The accidents I've had have been during the day. Or maybe you were just too drunk to remember the nighttime accidents!

Did you ever ride a bicycle while intoxicated?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7475314&highlight=#post7475314

Or maybe you were just too drunk to remember the nighttime accidents!

Did you ever ride a bicycle while intoxicated?...


Well the ride on thursday went fine and the one on friday and tonight I'll do it again. car free drinking and riding yee-ha...

isn't this a familiar theme when the question of imposing rules on others comes up?

They (the people who support laws) have issues, therefore we all have issues?

For me, this is a very close call.

I support mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders but not for cyclists.

It's either nanny laws, or spending lots of money on medical costs when idiots injure themselves...


You seem to be assuming that, all other factors being equal, a society with a mandatory helmet law would have lower health care costs than a society without. There is plenty of evidence pointing the other direction. That is, mandatory helmet laws may cost society more money than they save because they keep people off bikes...


Care to post the data?...


For instance:

Scuffham and Taylor, "New Zealand bicycle helmet law -- do the costs outweigh the benefits?" Injury Prevention, 2002, 8: 317-320.

... DL Robinson, "No Clear Evidence From Countries that Have Enforced the Wearing of Helmets," BMJ, 2006; 332: 722-725...

Just flipping around this morning and I found another one

http://ashe2008.abstractbook.org/presentations/642/

from the American Society of Health Economists:

Intended and Unintended Effects of Youth Bicycle Helmet Laws

Over the past 15 years, 21 states have adopted laws requiring youths under a certain age (generally 16) to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. Previous evaluation research finds that these laws significantly reduced youth bicycling fatalities, and the prevailing view is that fatalities fell because helmet use increased. In this paper we confirm that helmet laws reduced fatalities, but we uncover robust evidence of an alternative and unintended mechanism: helmet laws significantly reduced youth bicycling. We find this result in standard two-way fixed effects models of self-reported cycling behaviors, as well as in augmented triple difference (DDD) models that explicitly account for cycling behaviors of youths just above the helmet law age threshold. The reduction in cycling also obtains using independent samples of parental reports of child bicycling behaviors. Our evidence on the effects of helmet laws on helmet use is mixed, though in all cases we find that previous approaches common in the public health literature dramatically overstate the true effects on helmet use. A full cost-benefit analysis of helmet laws should take into account the previously ignored reductions in youth cycling.

to the supporters who point to reductions of fatalities in areas that have instituted helmet laws, it would seem that if those laws reduced people who ride bikes, there are less bike riders to die and as I first stated as the experience in my province after it passed a MHL, ridership not only dropped as usage rates raised, but fatalities increased dramatically before leveling off to normal rates a couple of years on.

Or maybe you were just too drunk to remember the nighttime accidents!

Did you ever ride a bicycle while intoxicated?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7475314&highlight=#post7475314

Tell that one down at the AA meeeting later for chuckle. If I'm not mistaken beer and bikes kinda go together isn't a ususal tip for wrench job some beers? I never said I get faced. There seem to be plenty of bikes down at the brew-pub when it's warmer.

As far as accidents there are two the first one I was 14 and hit from behind went over the bars and into the grassy shoulder just a scrape and bump in the elbow no head contact.
The second time ten or so years later in San Clemente Ca. A girl ran a red light and I went over the bars and her hood again just a bump or two elbow and skinned knee.both times the bikes were totaled out by the drivers insurance company.

I ride in the winter and some times I lay the bike over but not really a crash just sliding out. I live on a concrete paved street it gets slippery.

I ride in the winter and some times I lay the bike over but not really a crash just sliding out. I live on a concrete paved street it gets slippery.

There is this great invention called studded tires...

-Kurt

I know about studded tires but for the money and the fact that it's not all ice just a little patch of it at the bottom of a street it happened one time. Most of the winter is on dry to wet with patches of ice at intersections. I don't have any problems with my 27x1 1/4 regular treads. It's mostly keeping in control and being careful. I guess you don't need any snow tires in Miami.
To answer something earlier I live in Newport it's a small city laid out in 1639 and into the victorian age before cars. There is only one three mile section of four lane road. There is ample traffic that is easy to keep up with.As far as bright lights who cares when there is a car twenty feet behind you and most streets have less than 500 ft sight lines. It's a great place to ride and I feel sorry for you guys that live where it's so dangerous on two wheels. In a few months I can filter off 60 or 70 cars on my ride for coffee, cars aren't so dangerous at four or five MPH it's not like FL at all nice and slow with a long history of cycling. I not a troll I just have a much better place to ride.

... beer and bikes kinda go together ...


:trainwreck:

Numerous incidents where a helmet saved you from being seriously injured or killed? I recommend that you immediately quit bicycling since you are either so careless, clueless and/or accident prone that bicycling is just too dang dangerous for you. That you are still alive in spite of reckless cycling has more to do with good luck than the risk reduction capability of your various broken helmets.



Caught that too, eh? I just hope I never end up behind him in a paceline.


Honestly, not everyone here knows the situation at hand regarding the close calls he got. Please be careful not to judge people. Advising someone to quit something they love is not very nice also. Give the guy a break, huh?

Calling someone careless or clueless is not really fair. Nobody wants to get hurt by a car. I'm pretty certain that almost all of us here on BF try to be careful. Cars are no fun to get hit by and I'm sure he understands that.

Thanks

http://server.iii.org/yy_obj_img/img_748318_1_0.gif

The rate of Pedestrians death is almost equal to motorcycle riders, only if they were wearing helmets.
Just think if everyone wore helmets for most activities we would all look like dorks but deathrate would plummet. I'm serious in mandating helmet laws for sledding (2 deaths in last 3 years), snowmobiling (5 deaths - 3 drowned in icy waters), skiing (1 death), drunk peds (7 deaths last year) etc...

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5/?table_sort_748367=5

DRIVING BEHAVIORS REPORTED FOR DRIVERS AND MOTORCYCLE OPERATORS
INVOLVED IN FATAL CRASHES, 2007


Behavior
Number
Percent
Failure to keep in proper lane or running off road 15,571 28.0%
Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed limit or racing 11,948 21.5
Under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication 7,551 13.6
Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.) 4,704 8.4
Failure to yield right of way 4,004 7.2
Overcorrecting/oversteering 2,465 4.4
Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer 2,423 4.4
Swerving or avoiding due to wind, slippery surface, other vehicle, object, nonmotorist on roadway, etc. 2,106 3.8
Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless or negligent manner 1,857 3.3
Making improper turn 1,621 2.9
Vision obscured (rain, snow, glare, lights, building, trees, etc.) 1,481 2.7
Drowsy, asleep, fatigued, ill, or blacked-out 1,404 2.5
Driving wrong way in one-way traffic or on wrong side of road 693 1.2
Other factors 9,303 16.7
None reported 19,030 34.2
Unknown 738 1.3
Total Drivers (1) 55,681 100.0%

As for those who choose not to wear a helmet, I see a gradual but steady improvement to the human gene pool, as the non-helmet-wearing population is reduced

[This message has been edited by bikeboy (edited 03-06-2000).]

Fortunately, there is absolutely no evidence supporting this smug and repugnant sentiment. If your vision had any validity at all, it could also be applied to cyclists in general . . . the gene pool would be undergoing a purge of cyclists in general, as we are all more likely to be killed on a cycle than someone who never rides (duh).

In reality, I think you will find that plenty of cycling fatalities involve victims (with and without helmets) who have (thankfully) already procreated, hence, having already made their ongoing contribution to the gene pool. The proclivity to cycle, not being a genetically determined reflex, is likely no more prevalent in the off spring of non-helmet crash victims than in the offspring of those who met their ultimate fate bareheaded.

I take extreme exception to this gene pool comment whenever, wherever it rears its ugly head.

Caruso

Hmm, looks like I replied to a really old post. My sentiment remains the same, however.

Caruso

The idea that a helmet will save you when impacted by a few hundred thousand foot-pounds of force is perilously close to fantasy.

It's mostly the journey through the air we're worried about and the impact with the ground, possibly the hood of the car, considering very few vehicles have bumpers at head level.

The majority of head injuries in the USA are caused by car accidents. Until helmets are mandatory for automobile and truck drivers and passengers--i.e. helmets required by all road users/passengers--bike and motorcycle helmet laws have no merit. The argument for helmet laws based on societal cost is the lousiest argument to make for bike- or motorcycle-specific helmet laws, and any legislator bringing it up as an argument for helmet laws should lose their seat for being absolutely too stupid to legislate, or in the pocket of one special interest or another.

A PDF of the paper.

http://web.gsm.uci.edu/~kittc/Carpenter%20Stehr%20Bicycle%20Helmet%20Laws%20Manuscript%2012%2002%202007.pdf



Just flipping around this morning and I found another one

http://ashe2008.abstractbook.org/presentations/642/

from the American Society of Health Economists:

Intended and Unintended Effects of Youth Bicycle Helmet Laws

Over the past 15 years, 21 states have adopted laws requiring youths under a certain age (generally 16) to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. Previous evaluation research finds that these laws significantly reduced youth bicycling fatalities, and the prevailing view is that fatalities fell because helmet use increased. In this paper we confirm that helmet laws reduced fatalities, but we uncover robust evidence of an alternative and unintended mechanism: helmet laws significantly reduced youth bicycling. We find this result in standard two-way fixed effects models of self-reported cycling behaviors, as well as in augmented triple difference (DDD) models that explicitly account for cycling behaviors of youths just above the helmet law age threshold. The reduction in cycling also obtains using independent samples of parental reports of child bicycling behaviors. Our evidence on the effects of helmet laws on helmet use is mixed, though in all cases we find that previous approaches common in the public health literature dramatically overstate the true effects on helmet use. A full cost-benefit analysis of helmet laws should take into account the previously ignored reductions in youth cycling.

to the supporters who point to reductions of fatalities in areas that have instituted helmet laws, it would seem that if those laws reduced people who ride bikes, there are less bike riders to die and as I first stated as the experience in my province after it passed a MHL, ridership not only dropped as usage rates raised, but fatalities increased dramatically before leveling off to normal rates a couple of years on.

In my experience, those who wear helmets often seem to need them.

In my experience, those who wear helmets often seem to need them.
That would be me. The bicycle helmet seems to be the perfect platform for my adjustable visor (commute to work is heading east and the commute home is heading west, so I either need a visor or would need to move to the other side of work); also perfect for a helmet mounted HID light and most of all, my helmet mounted mirror.:p

Oh yeah, in 27 years of commuting, the helmet ONCE saved me from a major headache when a motorist hit my rear wheel from the side and sent me to the ground hard and fast.

It's mostly the journey through the air we're worried about and the impact with the ground, possibly the hood of the car, considering very few vehicles have bumpers at head level.
That may be what you're worried about, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are, or should be. You should check out some pictures of cars that have struck cyclists. There will usually be an indentation in the windshield surrounded by a web of cracks. It speaks volumes, and anyone who's ever seen the results firsthand knows the bitter futility of depending upon a few ounces of Styrofoam in that scenario.

I support mandatory helmet laws because of higher costs. Many folks who get hurt can't afford the medical bills so they get care at our local county hospital which drivers up the costs to those who do pay. County tax payers also chip in which raises my sales and property taxes.

When the motor cycle idiots (I've about 80,000 miles on m cycles) demonstrated and got the helmet law repealed, the death/injury rate from head injuries skyrocketed.

They often leave dependants as well which sometimes requires state aid with the loss of a wage earner.

Al

Ignoring the fact that your logic allows intrusion into any part of your personal life on the basis of cost -- "Yes officer, I am wearing a condom, no officer, that's not whole fat milk in my refrigerator" -- there doesn't seem to be any evidence that helmet laws result in reduced taxes or insurance rates. We get the occasional nebulous "Head injuries cost $____ per year while widespread helmet use reduces head injuries by _____ percent" business, but if any of that supposed savings is making it into the taxpayers pocket, we have yet to see proof of it.

Honestly, not everyone here knows the situation at hand regarding the close calls he got. Please be careful not to judge people. Advising someone to quit something they love is not very nice also. Give the guy a break, huh?
I know the guy falls off his bike a lot and thinks that's a good reason to force everyone else to wear a helmet. "I'm cold so everyone put on a sweater!".


Calling someone careless or clueless is not really fair.
Forcing people to change their lives because some people are careless or clueless is even less fair.


I'm pretty certain that almost all of us here on BF try to be careful.
New here, eh?

That would be me. The bicycle helmet seems to be the perfect platform for my adjustable visor (commute to work is heading east and the commute home is heading west, so I either need a visor or would need to move to the other side of work); also perfect for a helmet mounted HID light and most of all, my helmet mounted mirror.:p

Oh yeah, in 27 years of commuting, the helmet ONCE saved me from a major headache when a motorist hit my rear wheel from the side and sent me to the ground hard and fast.

With all that weight on your head, I'm surprised you don't need a neck-brace. Oh geez, now I've done it: someone's gonna propose mandatory neck-braces now.

Of course, what I meant was that, often, those who wear helmets have a curious habit of falling off their bikes, not watching where they're going and running into things.

Of course, what I meant was that, often, those who wear helmets have a curious habit of falling off their bikes, not watching where they're going and running into things.

Oh, come on! Now you're just taking silly in another direction.

Speedo

Oh, come on! Now you're just taking silly in another direction.

Speedo

but is it any sillier than mandating a device which is meant to protect children from minor injuries while falling from their bicycles for everybody who crashes with cars in traffic all the while claiming that because helmets prevent those minor injuries for children they will prevent the deaths to those who collide with cars?

If you throw in a good set of leathers,I'll consider it.Seems sort of silly to just protect my head.

With all that weight on your head, I'm surprised you don't need a neck-brace. Oh geez, now I've done it: someone's gonna propose mandatory neck-braces now...One or two pounds are not so bad. Especially since I have continued weight lifting starting in 1969 (when I began lifting for high school football). I can still do 10 reps of 200 pound neck lift on all four sides of the neck.

Most cyclist that ride in an aero position, have pretty strong neck muscles on the back of the neck.

But I suppose for those that need it, we could design a new helmet with a helium filled bladder for cushioning and making the helmet lighter than air.

Did somebody say neck brace (http://www.pinkbike.com/news/rc-evolution-neck-brace-2008.html)?

All the same arguments made for helmet use apply to cycling-specific neck braces. But they're not worn in the TdF, therefore not considered "cool", so any mention of them during a helmet debate is considered a silly distraction. Hmm...

This thread still blabbering on?

-Kurt

Yes, but it just hasn't been the same without your insights. :thumb:

This thread still blabbering on?

-Kurt

You do suppot mandatory blabbering, I presume. :D

Yes, but it just hasn't been the same without your insights. :thumb:

Insights? I've said something worth hearing? I better edit that post right now...



You do suppot mandatory blabbering, I presume. :D

I certainly do. Blabber away. ;)

-Kurt

Inside Edition just ran a piece on risky behavior, based on a consumer report. They repeated cycling with no helmet in 3 different parts of the segment. They even brought on a Consumer Report guy spouting the misleading helmet statistics.

The video showed a girl on a cruiser with a ball cap on and weaving all over the road, including into the oncoming lane.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/consumer-protection/risk-taking/overview/risk-taking-ov.htm

Columbus just passed a mandatory helmet law for kids on bikes (and trikes and scooters and other toys). The main doctor sponsor of the ordinance spoke out in favor of it at council. He argued that head injuries from cycling were second only to head injuries from motor vehicle accidents as causes of death to kids. When I asked why council was only dealing with the second highest cause of injury instead of the first (and therefore why they weren't requiring helmets for kids in cars), I was told simply that they were focusing on bikes only. No reason.

I also pointed out that burglars and other criminals in Columbus would be happy for the diversion of police resources.

I think people should wear helmets (my helmet has saved me from pain, and that's a good enough reason to wear one), but I'm opposed to the law. It's just an excuse for cops to harass kids on bikes. The evidence doesn't support helmets for cyclists any more than it supports helmets for pedestrians, golfers, or passengers in cars.

The video showed a girl on a cruiser with a ball cap on and weaving all over the road, including into the oncoming lane.

Typical. Ignore the obvious hazards, and nag about the popular ones.

-Kurt

Columbus just passed a mandatory helmet law for kids on bikes (and trikes and scooters and other toys). The main doctor sponsor of the ordinance spoke out in favor of it at council. He argued that head injuries from cycling were second only to head injuries from motor vehicle accidents as causes of death to kids...

Me thinks the good doctor is doing his best to be misleading in order to support his cause.

I'd like to ask the doctor just what was the extent of the typical head injury a child would see an attending physician for.

I'll bet they were superficial, and I'd further bet that the head injuries that resulted in death, were the results of collisions with motor vehicles, something bicycle helmets are not designed for.

:rolleyes:I was a motorcyclist for 30 years, rode hundereds of thousands of miles and yes, I wore a helmet for all those years and miles. Still I have friends that rode the same years and miles and "never" wore a helmet, as we said: "Let Those Who RIDE, DECIDE", weither they want to wear a helmet. I really distain the "Nanny government" ideal that a "Mandantory Helmet Law" brings on. We are supposed to be a "freeer" society, but we want to constantly restric ourselves to be SAFE. Now that I've changed my 2-wheels for a bicycle I still wear a helmet, I can see the merits but it's "MY Choice" and that's the way it should stay, jmho.

Most people, like the doctor, discount the benefits to health from riding a bike.

The issue is bigger than accidents. The issue is health.

There's a chance someone can fall on stairs and hurt themselves, yet it's acknowledged that taking the stairs instead of an elevator is better for us in spite of that risk. Throw in the experience of areas that have instituted MHL's and you find that the evidence is that fewer people ride when a MHL is passed.

Health professionals are lowering the state of health when they endorse MHL's.