Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Peter writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


The reduction is due to traffic conditions, which have gotten worse.

The traffic conditions didn't change appreciably between the year
before the helmet law was enacted and the year after. Yet there was a
very obvious effect on the number of bicycles in the school racks.

We had basically zero decline the year the helmet law went into effect,
and I'm in the Bay Area too. Most of the kids had helmets anyway (even
if just tied to the bike).


The things you describe don't happen at any of the three schools that
I pass.

They happen in a school nearby where I live. The parking area is set
for diagonal parking right in front of the school, so parents pull
over, facing the wrong way, and then continue, driving the wrong way
in or near the bike lane until they can cross. It is very
disconcerting to see a car moving straight towards you on the wrong
side of the road, with no idea of the driver notices you or not.


Your claim was that the helmet law can't affect ridership since it's
not enforced by the police. But at least in my neighborhood it is
enforced by the schools and anyone who wants to ride to school must at
least wear a helmet when on the school grounds. This requirement was
made clear both to the children and to parents during back-to-school
activities.

So they'll take it off once off the school grounds, and no one
anything about it.


I had one in the '50s - when were they "not available?"

They weren't available where I lived ... at least I never saw anyone
use one. With no demand, that might not be surprising.


It was mostly a "little kids ride
bikes" thing. If it isn't one excuse, it's another, but I see no
reason to blame helmets.

The 30% or so drop in ridership when surveys were done in NZ and
Australia just before and after helmet laws went into effect would
seem to be one good reason. I didn't keep any statistics at the
schools I observed, but there was a similar drop.

I don't believe you ... I saw no such drop in the year the helmet law
went into effect and we live in the same general area. Are things
*that* different on the other side of the bay? I've no idea about
Australia or NZ, but maybe the law was actually enforced there. It
sure hasn't been where I live.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB