three (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
threeplusfire) wrote2006-08-25 08:21 am
threeplusfire) wrote2006-08-25 08:21 am
why I can't take the cycling community here seriously
So we can all agree that wearing a bike helmet is much safer than not wearing a helmet, we can all agree on a law for folks under 17 to wear helmets, we all acknowledge that helmets help prevent some serious injuries and that most people wear them... but making a regulation that you sould wear a proper safety helmet while riding a bike is some terrible infringement on life and liberty and will turn people off the sport of cycling? Whiskey tango foxtrot Mulder?
I frankly don't understand why this is such an issue or why the entire damned cycling community seems up in arms over it. This is another reason why I can't take the cycling community too seriously. They make a lot of noise about wanting bikes to be considered equal to cars and other wheeled vehicles, fine. But then half the cyclists I see don't follow traffic laws like stop signs. We have seat belt laws for our cars. Why shouldn't we have a helmet law for bicycles? I don't see seat belt laws or regulations about proper safety equipment preventing people from driving, playing football, etc. I would perhaps give them more of a nod if they were to cry "We think the city just needs money so they are looking to write us tickets!" Well, we could already make half out city budget with traffic tickets written to aforementioned cyclists who don't stop at stop signs or red lights.
I've included the text of the article below, as well as the link to the Stateman's site wher eyou have to register to read.
Council may order study of bicycle helmets
Dozens of cyclists ready to speak out against mandatory law.
By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, August 25, 2006
The T-shirts, naturally in Tour de France yellow, succinctly expressed the position of the dozens of serious cyclists crowding Austin City Council Chambers on Thursday: "Helmet good. Law bad."
The council, which late Thursday had yet to begin hearing from a procession of speakers on a proposal to require helmets for adult cyclists, is likely to go with a different slogan: "Helmet good. Eighteen-month study even better."
Cyclists and others lined up Thursday evening at City Hall to sign up to speak to the City Council. About 150 people registered to weigh in on a proposal to require helmets of all adults who ride bicycles in city limits.
Brewster McCracken, one of three council members who put the helmet hearing on Thursday's agenda, said in the afternoon that a council majority favors commissioning a lengthy bicycle safety study rather than changing city ordinances.
Although that probable outcome was percolating at City Hall hours before the hearing was to have begun, about 150 people nonetheless signed up to have a say or register a yea-or-nay position. Many of them disagree with former Austin Mayor Bruce Todd, who after suffering severe head injuries in November in a bike crash near Lockhart began pushing to extend a 17-and-younger helmet requirement to adults.
Todd, mayor from 1991 to 1997, said mandating helmet use is just common sense.
"Until this law is passed, there will be people who will die and people who will be injured unnecessarily," Todd said. "I sure wouldn't want that to happen on my watch."
Emergency room doctors told Todd's family that the helmet he was wearing saved his life. Most — but not all — opponents of Todd's proposal don't dispute that helmets protect them, and most of them wear helmets most of the time. But opponents say wearing helmets should remain a personal choice. Having such a law in Austin, they argue, will discourage people from taking up a sport that is good for them and good for air quality.
"If you send a message that this is so dangerous that we need a law that you have to wear a helmet, that's a very discouraging element," said Rob D'Amico, a spokesman for the League of Cycling Voters.
Austin and its hard-core cycling community have been down this bumpy road before, and Todd was in the middle of the fray then as now.
The City Council in 1996, led by Todd, passed a law requiring all cyclists to wear helmets. Todd left office in June 1997, however, and the succeeding council narrowed the law four months later to apply only to children 17 and younger.
Austin police in the nine years since have issued just nine citations to youths, and only one since 2002.
Todd, aware of the council's leanings, said national surveys and an informal local count show that about 75 percent of those riding bikes don't wear helmets. Research, according to material passed out by Todd, indicates that helmets decrease the chance of severe brain injury by 74 percent.
"I'd hate for us to waste time on a study that will tell us nothing we don't already know," Todd said.
I frankly don't understand why this is such an issue or why the entire damned cycling community seems up in arms over it. This is another reason why I can't take the cycling community too seriously. They make a lot of noise about wanting bikes to be considered equal to cars and other wheeled vehicles, fine. But then half the cyclists I see don't follow traffic laws like stop signs. We have seat belt laws for our cars. Why shouldn't we have a helmet law for bicycles? I don't see seat belt laws or regulations about proper safety equipment preventing people from driving, playing football, etc. I would perhaps give them more of a nod if they were to cry "We think the city just needs money so they are looking to write us tickets!" Well, we could already make half out city budget with traffic tickets written to aforementioned cyclists who don't stop at stop signs or red lights.
I've included the text of the article below, as well as the link to the Stateman's site wher eyou have to register to read.
Council may order study of bicycle helmets
Dozens of cyclists ready to speak out against mandatory law.
By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, August 25, 2006
The T-shirts, naturally in Tour de France yellow, succinctly expressed the position of the dozens of serious cyclists crowding Austin City Council Chambers on Thursday: "Helmet good. Law bad."
The council, which late Thursday had yet to begin hearing from a procession of speakers on a proposal to require helmets for adult cyclists, is likely to go with a different slogan: "Helmet good. Eighteen-month study even better."
Cyclists and others lined up Thursday evening at City Hall to sign up to speak to the City Council. About 150 people registered to weigh in on a proposal to require helmets of all adults who ride bicycles in city limits.
Brewster McCracken, one of three council members who put the helmet hearing on Thursday's agenda, said in the afternoon that a council majority favors commissioning a lengthy bicycle safety study rather than changing city ordinances.
Although that probable outcome was percolating at City Hall hours before the hearing was to have begun, about 150 people nonetheless signed up to have a say or register a yea-or-nay position. Many of them disagree with former Austin Mayor Bruce Todd, who after suffering severe head injuries in November in a bike crash near Lockhart began pushing to extend a 17-and-younger helmet requirement to adults.
Todd, mayor from 1991 to 1997, said mandating helmet use is just common sense.
"Until this law is passed, there will be people who will die and people who will be injured unnecessarily," Todd said. "I sure wouldn't want that to happen on my watch."
Emergency room doctors told Todd's family that the helmet he was wearing saved his life. Most — but not all — opponents of Todd's proposal don't dispute that helmets protect them, and most of them wear helmets most of the time. But opponents say wearing helmets should remain a personal choice. Having such a law in Austin, they argue, will discourage people from taking up a sport that is good for them and good for air quality.
"If you send a message that this is so dangerous that we need a law that you have to wear a helmet, that's a very discouraging element," said Rob D'Amico, a spokesman for the League of Cycling Voters.
Austin and its hard-core cycling community have been down this bumpy road before, and Todd was in the middle of the fray then as now.
The City Council in 1996, led by Todd, passed a law requiring all cyclists to wear helmets. Todd left office in June 1997, however, and the succeeding council narrowed the law four months later to apply only to children 17 and younger.
Austin police in the nine years since have issued just nine citations to youths, and only one since 2002.
Todd, aware of the council's leanings, said national surveys and an informal local count show that about 75 percent of those riding bikes don't wear helmets. Research, according to material passed out by Todd, indicates that helmets decrease the chance of severe brain injury by 74 percent.
"I'd hate for us to waste time on a study that will tell us nothing we don't already know," Todd said.
no subject
Cyclists are only hurting themselves by not wearing helmets, you are never going to make an accident with a car worse by not wearing a helmet.
I remember you being quite upset by the smoking bans, which is clearly somethng that affects other people. And how upset would you be if smoking was banned altogether?? The effects of smoking clearly kill more people than bike accidents. People like to do things that are not in their best interest, and don't want to have to worry about being arrested when they do so.
no subject
But I don't see this as an infringement of personal liberties. I think the issue here is laws and regulations regarding the use of vehicles and the roads. I constantly hear that cyclists want to be regarded as fair users of the roads, that they should be given the same precedence as vehicles and have the same right to use the road. If that is the case, then it doesn't seem untoward to me that we have safety laws and mandate safety equipment the same way we do for cars.
We're certainly not talkinga bout benning cycling here though, and I find it absolutely ludicrous that anyone has the audacity to say that people won't want to take up riding a bike if they have to wear some safety gear.
no subject
I started cycling again when our daughter went to school - I got a helmet straight off, & Hi-Vis gear cos I wanted to make sure I'd still be there to collect her after school. Besides which, my husband & son wanted me in one piece, my husband still does.
Then there are all the other people involved in clearing up after an accident - traffic staff, paramedics, hospital staff et all, many of whom could have been working on another emergency if you'd been wearing a helmet when you came off!
So go do things which aren't in your best interest if you like. Just don't expect too many others to show too much sympathy, or patch you up!
no subject
And for the record I've never been on my bike without a helmet. I don't think it should be a law for adults though.