California Legislator Proposes Mandatory Helmet Law for Adults.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false. What was the rate of cycling growth in
proportion to population growth was prior the introduction of
Australia's law? I doubt if anyone has such a statistic. If the rate of
increase in cycling really went down could there have been any other reason?

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

I am very much against an adult helmet law but the California Bicycle
Coalition needs to stop trying to use weak and bogus statistics to fight
these sorts of laws. The way to fight these laws is to make the case
that cycling is not extraordinarily dangerous and that adults can make
the decision as to how much risk they want to assume just as they make
these sorts of decisions in other activities.

While we'd all like more cycling infrastructure and better drivers,
that's a long shot at best. In the meantime, helmet use should be
encouraged through education, not mandated by the government.

If this law is really being pushed by insurance companies then perhaps
they should just offer discounts to policy-holders that agree to wear
helmets.

--

"It's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
you've told them about a superior alternative your responsibility is
fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace." Mark Crispin,
inventor of the IMAP protocol.

.... ADULTS PROPOSE MANDATORY HELMET LAW FOR STATE 'LEGISLATORS' ..

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:46:50 -0700, sms
wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false. What was the rate of cycling growth in
proportion to population growth was prior the introduction of
Australia's law? I doubt if anyone has such a statistic. If the rate of
increase in cycling really went down could there have been any other reason?

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

I am very much against an adult helmet law but the California Bicycle
Coalition needs to stop trying to use weak and bogus statistics to fight
these sorts of laws. The way to fight these laws is to make the case
that cycling is not extraordinarily dangerous and that adults can make
the decision as to how much risk they want to assume just as they make
these sorts of decisions in other activities.

While we'd all like more cycling infrastructure and better drivers,
that's a long shot at best. In the meantime, helmet use should be
encouraged through education, not mandated by the government.

If this law is really being pushed by insurance companies then perhaps
they should just offer discounts to policy-holders that agree to wear
helmets.


But essentially the arguments in favor of helmets are nebulous, at
best. Or perhaps I would better say, are based on very nebulous data.

To date I've seen no data whatsoever that describes the severity of
damage, or even type of damage, used argue that bicycle helmets
actually protect the wearer and in fact one report I saw - may have
been from Australia - demonstrated that of the bicycle fatalities more
than half were wearing a helmet.... Which is the exact same thought
process that the U.S. bike mob uses to prove that wearing a helmet is
helpful by stating the more than half of the folks that visit an
emergency clinic weren't wearing a helmet.

And, it is also of interest, that in all the discussions of helmets
I've never seen anyone argue that the XYZ brand of bicycle helmet
protects better than the ABC brand. In fact the usual argument is that
the XYZ brand is lighter and has better ventilation, which has nothing
whatsoever to do with protection as, of course, the ultimate in
"lighter and better ventilation", is none :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 5:10:27 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:46:50 -0700, sms
wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false. What was the rate of cycling growth in
proportion to population growth was prior the introduction of
Australia's law? I doubt if anyone has such a statistic. If the rate of
increase in cycling really went down could there have been any other reason?

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

I am very much against an adult helmet law but the California Bicycle
Coalition needs to stop trying to use weak and bogus statistics to fight
these sorts of laws. The way to fight these laws is to make the case
that cycling is not extraordinarily dangerous and that adults can make
the decision as to how much risk they want to assume just as they make
these sorts of decisions in other activities.

While we'd all like more cycling infrastructure and better drivers,
that's a long shot at best. In the meantime, helmet use should be
encouraged through education, not mandated by the government.

If this law is really being pushed by insurance companies then perhaps
they should just offer discounts to policy-holders that agree to wear
helmets.


But essentially the arguments in favor of helmets are nebulous, at
best. Or perhaps I would better say, are based on very nebulous data.

To date I've seen no data whatsoever that describes the severity of
damage, or even type of damage, used argue that bicycle helmets
actually protect the wearer and in fact one report I saw - may have
been from Australia - demonstrated that of the bicycle fatalities more
than half were wearing a helmet.... Which is the exact same thought
process that the U.S. bike mob uses to prove that wearing a helmet is
helpful by stating the more than half of the folks that visit an
emergency clinic weren't wearing a helmet.

And, it is also of interest, that in all the discussions of helmets
I've never seen anyone argue that the XYZ brand of bicycle helmet
protects better than the ABC brand. In fact the usual argument is that
the XYZ brand is lighter and has better ventilation, which has nothing
whatsoever to do with protection as, of course, the ultimate in
"lighter and better ventilation", is none :-)

News from the US Bike Mob: http://www.pocsports.com/en/content/...w-technologies

Helmet laws are great! They increase the general fund and give police a pretext for stopping suspicious cyclists. IMO, they should also prohibit adults from riding BMX bikes. That cannot be good for your knees!

-- Jay Beattie.

give police a pretext for stopping suspicious cyclists....

leading to eliminating criminal activity on bicycle as all cyclists wearing helmets would be criminals

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 8:10:27 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:46:50 -0700, sms
wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false. What was the rate of cycling growth in
proportion to population growth was prior the introduction of
Australia's law? I doubt if anyone has such a statistic. If the rate of
increase in cycling really went down could there have been any other reason?

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

I am very much against an adult helmet law but the California Bicycle
Coalition needs to stop trying to use weak and bogus statistics to fight
these sorts of laws. The way to fight these laws is to make the case
that cycling is not extraordinarily dangerous and that adults can make
the decision as to how much risk they want to assume just as they make
these sorts of decisions in other activities.

While we'd all like more cycling infrastructure and better drivers,
that's a long shot at best. In the meantime, helmet use should be
encouraged through education, not mandated by the government.

If this law is really being pushed by insurance companies then perhaps
they should just offer discounts to policy-holders that agree to wear
helmets.


But essentially the arguments in favor of helmets are nebulous, at
best. Or perhaps I would better say, are based on very nebulous data.

To date I've seen no data whatsoever that describes the severity of
damage, or even type of damage, used argue that bicycle helmets
actually protect the wearer and in fact one report I saw - may have
been from Australia - demonstrated that of the bicycle fatalities more
than half were wearing a helmet.... Which is the exact same thought
process that the U.S. bike mob uses to prove that wearing a helmet is
helpful by stating the more than half of the folks that visit an
emergency clinic weren't wearing a helmet.

And, it is also of interest, that in all the discussions of helmets
I've never seen anyone argue that the XYZ brand of bicycle helmet
protects better than the ABC brand. In fact the usual argument is that
the XYZ brand is lighter and has better ventilation, which has nothing
whatsoever to do with protection as, of course, the ultimate in
"lighter and better ventilation", is none :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

I remember reading results of studies that stated that the more aero a helmet was the more likelihood there was of sustaining rotational head/neck injuries.

A big problem with most bicycle helmets is that the standards they must meet now are actually less than they were in the 1980s and another big problem was that the standards in the 1980s were not based on what actually caused concussions because at that time what caused concussions wasn't fully understood.

So many times I see helmets or read reports of helmets that broke apart upon or just after impact. Whatever force the helmet sustained prior to breaking is usually fairly low and once broken there's very little protection left to prevent traumatic brain injury. Show me a broken helmet and I'll tell you that you have a helmet that failed to protect in the manner that it's supposed to.

Cheers.

On 11/03/15 12:23, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 8:10:27 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:46:50 -0700, sms
wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html



Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the
California Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least
they did not claim that cycling decreased after the introduction
of the Australian mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used
to see all the time by uninformed people. The claim is now that
cycling growth was less than population growth, which may or may
not be true, but the previous claim of a decrease was patently
false. What was the rate of cycling growth in proportion to
population growth was prior the introduction of Australia's law?
I doubt if anyone has such a statistic. If the rate of increase
in cycling really went down could there have been any other
reason?

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced
then vast numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching
television and eating junk food rather than going out on their
bicycles. I really hope that those opposed to helmet laws are
able to restrain themselves from making these bogus arguments
that are so easily debunked because it will only work against
them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets, driving
helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

I am very much against an adult helmet law but the California
Bicycle Coalition needs to stop trying to use weak and bogus
statistics to fight these sorts of laws. The way to fight these
laws is to make the case that cycling is not extraordinarily
dangerous and that adults can make the decision as to how much
risk they want to assume just as they make these sorts of
decisions in other activities.

While we'd all like more cycling infrastructure and better
drivers, that's a long shot at best. In the meantime, helmet use
should be encouraged through education, not mandated by the
government.

If this law is really being pushed by insurance companies then
perhaps they should just offer discounts to policy-holders that
agree to wear helmets.

But essentially the arguments in favor of helmets are nebulous, at
best. Or perhaps I would better say, are based on very nebulous
data.

To date I've seen no data whatsoever that describes the severity
of damage, or even type of damage, used argue that bicycle helmets
actually protect the wearer and in fact one report I saw - may
have been from Australia - demonstrated that of the bicycle
fatalities more than half were wearing a helmet.... Which is the
exact same thought process that the U.S. bike mob uses to prove
that wearing a helmet is helpful by stating the more than half of
the folks that visit an emergency clinic weren't wearing a helmet.

And, it is also of interest, that in all the discussions of
helmets I've never seen anyone argue that the XYZ brand of bicycle
helmet protects better than the ABC brand. In fact the usual
argument is that the XYZ brand is lighter and has better
ventilation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with protection
as, of course, the ultimate in "lighter and better ventilation", is
none :-) -- Cheers,

John B.

I remember reading results of studies that stated that the more aero
a helmet was the more likelihood there was of sustaining rotational
head/neck injuries.

A big problem with most bicycle helmets is that the standards they
must meet now are actually less than they were in the 1980s and
another big problem was that the standards in the 1980s were not
based on what actually caused concussions because at that time what
caused concussions wasn't fully understood.

So many times I see helmets or read reports of helmets that broke
apart upon or just after impact. Whatever force the helmet sustained
prior to breaking is usually fairly low and once broken there's very
little protection left to prevent traumatic brain injury. Show me a
broken helmet and I'll tell you that you have a helmet that failed to
protect in the manner that it's supposed to.

Cheers.


The medical profession pushed hard for bicycle helmets in Australia.
What annoys me most now is that if someone suffers a head injury and was
wearing a helmet the trauma surgeons claim the injury would have been
much worse without a helmet, or they'd be dead, yet I wager none of the
trauma surgeons are engineers or forensic crash investigators or the
like. They see a head injury and a damaged helmet and claim the helmet
saved the wearer.

--
JS

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false.

Those who, unlike Scharf, are interested in actual data, should examine the
first graph at http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
It shows cycling participation in terms of raw numbers, and in per capita
terms.

Furthermore, note the details of the survey questions that generated the data.
From '93 to '94 the survey counted a person as a cyclist if they had cycled in
the past week. From '94 to '97, a person was counted as a cyclist if they
rode in the past _two_ weeks. And after that, a person was a "cyclist" if
they rode any time in the past _year_. IOW, the questions changed in a way
that masked the true drop in cycling. Things are actually worse than the
graph shows.

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

Scharf has never spoken before legislators on the mandatory helmet question.
I have, successfully.

So once again, we have Scharf giving authoritative advice on a matter he knows
next to nothing about.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:33:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false.

Those who, unlike Scharf, are interested in actual data, should examine the
first graph at http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
It shows cycling participation in terms of raw numbers, and in per capita
terms.

Furthermore, note the details of the survey questions that generated the data.
From '93 to '94 the survey counted a person as a cyclist if they had cycled in
the past week. From '94 to '97, a person was counted as a cyclist if they
rode in the past _two_ weeks. And after that, a person was a "cyclist" if
they rode any time in the past _year_. IOW, the questions changed in a way
that masked the true drop in cycling. Things are actually worse than the
graph shows.

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

Scharf has never spoken before legislators on the mandatory helmet question.
I have, successfully.

So once again, we have Scharf giving authoritative advice on a matter he knows
next to nothing about.

- Frank Krygowski

One thing I've often wondered about helmets is how to keep your head cool on those really hot and very humid days?

I wear a helmet sometimes but its primary purpose for me is to mount the mirror I use. With the helmet mirror I can put on or take off sunglasses if and when needed. I have very poor hearing and use the helmet mirror to monitor the road behind me. Unlike bar mounted mirrors I don't have to take my eye off the road even to glance into the mirror. However, on those really hot and very humiod days I forgo the helmet and ride my touring bike that has over the bars brake cables coming out of brake body mounted Mirrcycle mirrors. I have one on each btake lever so I can still see behind me in curves instead of looking at fields.

Cheers

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:08:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:33:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 6:46:57 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-commute-20150310-story.html

Inevitably, in these debates, Australia comes up. I saw a claim about
Australian cycling rates by someone associated with the California
Bicycle Coalition. But I was pleased that at least they did not claim
that cycling decreased after the introduction of the Australian
mandatory helmet law, which is a claim we used to see all the time by
uninformed people. The claim is now that cycling growth was less than
population growth, which may or may not be true, but the previous claim
of a decrease was patently false.

Those who, unlike Scharf, are interested in actual data, should examine the
first graph at http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
It shows cycling participation in terms of raw numbers, and in per capita
terms.

Furthermore, note the details of the survey questions that generated the data.
From '93 to '94 the survey counted a person as a cyclist if they had cycled in
the past week. From '94 to '97, a person was counted as a cyclist if they
rode in the past _two_ weeks. And after that, a person was a "cyclist" if
they rode any time in the past _year_. IOW, the questions changed in a way
that masked the true drop in cycling. Things are actually worse than the
graph shows.

Soon we'll see the argument that if a helmet law is introduced then vast
numbers of former cyclists will stay at home watching television and
eating junk food rather than going out on their bicycles. I really hope
that those opposed to helmet laws are able to restrain themselves from
making these bogus arguments that are so easily debunked because it will
only work against them. And please, no one bring up walking helmets,
driving helmets, bathroom helmets, etc. if testifying at public hearings
about this bill!

Scharf has never spoken before legislators on the mandatory helmet question.
I have, successfully.

So once again, we have Scharf giving authoritative advice on a matter he knows
next to nothing about.

- Frank Krygowski

One thing I've often wondered about helmets is how to keep your head cool on those really hot and very humid days?

I wear a helmet sometimes but its primary purpose for me is to mount the mirror I use. With the helmet mirror I can put on or take off sunglasses if and when needed. I have very poor hearing and use the helmet mirror to monitor the road behind me. Unlike bar mounted mirrors I don't have to take my eye off the road even to glance into the mirror. However, on those really hot and very humiod days I forgo the helmet and ride my touring bike that has over the bars brake cables coming out of brake body mounted Mirrcycle mirrors. I have one on each btake lever so I can still see behind me in curves instead of looking at fields.

Cheers

No problem at all. Run the tube from your "hydration device" (do they
really call it that) to the top of your helmet an give the bladder a
squeeze every few minutes.

Or if you have a powerful hub generator you can probably adapt a
windshield washer pump :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.