The safety of cyclists on the road is most highly (positively) correlated with...the number of cyclists on the road. See "Safety in Numbers slide on John Pucher's presentation of his research here: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BikeWalkPublicHealth_April%206.pdf
As for Mike Rewey's question: "Why not motorcyclists? Why not Pedestrians?" Well why not CAR DRIVERS? ""The results [of studies in Australia show] that a ["motoring helmet"] headband can greatly reduce the severity of an impact to the head [by up to] 67 percent with the honeycomb cardboard prototype, when compared with an impact with no headband." http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html Here's the CDC on barriers to helmet use (and hence why requiring it would discourage cycling): Barriers to helmet use include cost, the wearability of bicycle helmets, and a lack of knowledge regarding helmet effectiveness (33). In addition, some school-age children (i.e., children less than 15 years of age) believe that wearing a helmet will result in derision by their peers (34). Among older children and adults, rates for helmet use are influenced by some of the same demographic factors as rates for seat belt use (e.g., age, education, income, and marital status) (14,33), and some of the reasons given for not wearing helmets are similar to those given for not wearing seat belts (e.g., rider was on a short trip, helmets are uncomfortable, and negligence) (14). Approaches to overcoming some of these barriers to helmet use include community-based programs (33) and bicycle helmet legislation, which may be particularly effective among school-age children (34-37). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm I think it's in every individual cyclist's best interest to wear a helmet and visible clothing (and I do so myself, and require it of my son), but it's clearly in the best interests of cyclists in aggregate to eliminate ANY laws that discourage cycling, including helmet laws. Anyone advocating any laws that would discourage cycling is either uninformed, or does not really have the best interests of cyclists (in aggregate) at heart. Now I must go and get the marshmallows to roast on the flames of the helmet war that is about to ensue. chuck -----Original Message----- From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Rewey Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law I agree with the Cal Bike Coalition opposition for many reasons. First it would make the poor the most likely violators. Why not motorcyclists? Why not Pedestrians. Mike Rewey On 19 Feb 2015 at 15:40, Clayton Griessmeyer wrote: California Bicycle Coalition is opposing a proposed mandatory bicycle helmet (and reflective night clothing) law. They say it will make California´s streets less safe. They argue: Bicycling with or without a helmet savesas many as 77 livesfor every life lost in a crash. Per hour of participation, bicycling isthree times safer than swimming, and twice as safe as riding in a car. And it´s getting safer. Since 2000, by rate,the risk of bicycling injury in California has dropped 45%. http _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
