Report: City should consider mandatory helmet law for bicyclists
By adamg on Wed, 05/15/2013 - 1:01pm
Mayor Menino says he wants to reduce injury rates among bicyclists by 50% by 2020. This report examines current bicycling trends in Boston and offers some suggestions, including looking at mandatory helmet use for all bicyclists, greater enforcement of existing traffic laws among both motorists and bicyclists and continuing to expand bicycle-friendly facilities and lanes in the city.
The report identifies specific problem routes and neighborhoods; perhaps not surprisingly, these tend to be centered in densely packed areas of the city, in particular those heavily populated by students, such as Comm. Ave. and Allston/Brighton.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Comments
(No subject)
It only took two oomments....
It only took two oomments.... ;-)
They should also consider
enforcing the laws and ticket bikers who choose to violate them.
They should also consider
enforcing the laws and ticket motorists, MBTA drivers, Truck Drivers, and pedestrians who choose to violate them.
I believe that the report
I believe that the report recommends increased enforcement for both bikers and motor vehicle drivers.
Aaaaa
They do(minus the MBTA and Pedestrians)! I can certianly remember the last time seeing a car pulled over. A biker, never!
Citation Please!!!!!
Pro tip
Pro tip: playing the "[citation needed]" card is more effective if the early content of your post is not itself an uncited statement. Like, for instance, one could point to the recent BPD efforts at ticketing bicyclists at a few busy intersections in Allston as evidence that you do not know what you are talking about.
OK, back to contest to see who can make the most ridiculous cyclist strawman!
Aaaaa
It was not meant to be taken serious, Swirly makes that exact statement every time she disagrees with your opinion.
citation please
Care to back that up with statistics where I've asked for a citation, and it wasn't intended to get some flaming raver to back up a wildass claim?
I've seen quite a few get
I've seen quite a few get pulled over right in front of the Central Sq. station (Anon, 2013).
That's in the report.
That's in the report.
Mandatory helmet laws in
Mandatory helmet laws in Australia and cut cycling rates in half while doing nothing to reduce the # of injuries. Depending on the type of collision a helmet either does something or does nothing depending on the type and location of impact (i.e. getting doored and falling a helmet will help, being crushed by a multi-ton vehicle it won't). It would be better for the city to focus on safety in numbers, enforcement, and infrastructure rather than relying on mandating a safety device which isn't helpful in all situations.
Meanwhile, in Canada
Mandatory helmet laws for kids cut the rates of head injuries in half while the rates of other injuries held steady.
In other words, it cut the rate of head injuries in half and didn't change the amount of cycling kids did.
My vote would be for Boston to start enforcing the helmet laws for kids, since the epidemiology is pretty solid and clear about the benefits for kids. Then, as people aged, they would already be in the habit of using one.
no, actually
There was a spike in the number of injuries following the law's enactment, and then they dropped, because cycling rates dropped.
Thanks for getting almost everything about that study wrong, though.
no, actually
No, actually, the study found that hospitalizations for brain injuries fell by 54% between 1994 and 2003. Other studies have conclusively shown that helmet laws had no measurable impact on rate of bike ridership. What they were not able to do was conclusively say that the 54% decrease was due primarily to helmet laws.
But thanks for the completely incorrect analysis, and for making yourself look silly for angrily refuting someone who wasn't wrong!
then why do most cycling advocates say otherwise?
The "other studies" you linked to claims only that in PEI and Alberta, cycling rates didn't change. PEI and Alberta are not areas where most cycling is probably recreational, not commuter/transportation.
The vast, vast majority of areas where mandatory helmet laws have been enacted - cycling rates have FALLEN. This has been proven time and time again, with Australia being the best example. And in the US, cycling rates plummeted in the 90s, helmet use went up, but head injuries skyrocketed.
You were last in Charlottetown or Calgary
When? I've had quite the blast cycling in both cities, actually.
PEI also has a rather attractive stretch of the Trans Canada which is marketed to tourists but used by locals as well.
No, actually, they went up
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada_helmets.html
Note the 2002 newspaper report, shocked that head injuries went up.
In the US around the same time, helmet use had skyrocketed, cycling rates plummeted, and yet head injuries skyrocketed.
Public health officials TEN YEARS AGO declared that helmets were not working and not enough.
How many times does it have to be said? The solution isn't covering cyclists in bubblewrap. It's STOPPING PEOPLE FROM HITTING THEM.
Clearly helmets
Clearly helmets help.
Obviously they won't protect you from several thousand pounds of vehicle, they do however protect your head if you are ejected from you bike. I know from first hand experience.
I'm convinced that I wasn't wearing a helmet during my accident, I wouldn't be here to type these words.
Clearly underwear helps
Clearly underwear helps.
I know from first hand experience.
I'm convinced that I wasn't wearing underwear during my accident, I wouldn't be here to type these words.
(What you're committing is called a false attribution error.)
No false attribution. Helmets
No false attribution. Helmets do improve safety in the impact situations they are designed for. The issue is all the other situations in which a collision occurs where the helmets are useless. Labeling them as the mandatory solution to all collisions is a disservice to public safety just as much as the anti-helmet zealots which deny that helmets offer any level of protection. Keeping your skull from fracturing is a big deal even if one does suffer TBI from an impact. Doctors can do more for you with your brains semi-scrambled in your head compared to splattered all over the street. Many severe head juries would have been fatal if it weren't for a bit of foam absorbing some of the impact.
Well then...
....let's test it out! We'll slam your head into the ground with no helmet but some exciting underwear on your ass. Then we'll do it again with the underwear on your head and see the results. Finally we'll do a run with the helmet on your head and no underwear on you. I think that should be all the science you need.
Wearing a helmet will not help you if you're run over by a bus. Being propelled through the air and slammed into the ground or into another vehicle will probably result in some serious shit regardless of your helmet status. Some jackass dooring you, causing you to fly ass over tea kettle..., well a helmet is the difference between having a skull fracture or having some scrapes and bruises (and maybe a busted limb or something - depending on how fast ypou're going). I don't think the original commenter was saying that helmets are magical force fields, but your snarky rebuttal is pretty stupid. Of course a helmet will help mitigate head injuries in many minor bike accidents - data supports it and many folks' first hand experience supports it. The point to argue is whether the govmint needs to be mandating that adults wear 'em. I have no opinion on that score. I wear one by choice, not by threat of a fine.
well then...
....let's test it out! We'll slam your head into the ground with a helmet on.
And then you'll find out how ineffective they are.
beat you to it!
Already happen to me. Car pulled out -- didn't see me - I rode into the side of his front end and went ass-end over his hood landing on my head on the other side of his car. A little dazed (some would say that's my norm) and some scrapes on the shoulders and elbows, but otherwise ok. The helmet was cracked, but my head wasn't. And to quote Neil Diamond (via Davey Jones) "now I'm a believer." Had I not been wearing that helmet it would have been much worse. (But relative to the statistics argument - the accident still would have happened.)
Ditto
I don't have to even hassle my boys to wear their helmets. My son remembers when I didn't show up to a picnic and they picked me up at the hospital.
I kept the helmet, and they used it for show-n-tell. It has a 4" crack up the back and is clearly deformed from absorbing the impact that my skull would have taken. I had a contracoup headache for a week, but it beats being 6ft under.
No safety device is helpful in all situations.
As wearing a seatbeat doesn't always save a life but I like to wear 'em nevertheless because stats show that in many situations, a seatbealt will save your life. But I digress.
If you are about to be crushed by a "multi-ton vehicle," you are correct, whether you are wearing a helmet or not is the least of your worries.
However, since you only have one head and one brain, why not take a bit of extra precaution and stick a helmet on it, for all those accidents where you will not be "crushed" but thrown, knocked down, and/or sideswiped, either by a vehicle, car or bike, a pedestrian, a skateboarder, and where you will might just become airborne? Your head will have a more of a chance of staying in one piece if you hit a windshield and/or pavement wearing a helmet.
I was under..
I was under the understand and correct me if I am wrong. Mass already has a helmet law.
Seems like they just need to enforce it.
I also wonder how this will effect Hubway since it is "bring your own helmet".
I think that's just for the
I think that's just for the 12 and under crowd. Or, that was the case when I was 12 and under.
Just for Under age 16
There is also no penalty for violating the law.
16 and younger
That's under MA General Laws, Ch. 85, Sec. 11B. Riders and passengers on bicycles under 16 years must wear a helmet (except for wee ones in trailers).
http://1.usa.gov/15tNgU5
Stopping
for red lights and using helmets would do wonders to reduce collisions and injuries.
Just curious
How does using helmets reduce collisions, like getting doored or right hooked? I understand that my helmet will keep me safer if these situations happen and stopping at red lights is a big reason why I haven't been run over by a car but I guess I'm just puzzled to where you connect more helmets equals less collisions.
See also
Stopping for red lights and using seatbelts.
I can spot cyclists
running red lights at every major intersection on my daily commute, far more frequently than cars. Cars do run red lights, but not to the degree with which cyclists do.
Come downtown
Also, box blocking is running a light.
Park and observe as well - you see far fewer cars run lights when sitting in your car in traffic than you do if you actually stand at the corner and watch. It is pretty common - particularly the "three free on red" behavior.
Let the carnival begin.
I believe the helmet law pertains to children.
The report is quite amazing in it's scope. It would be interesting to see it expanded to include all the metro area.
If cops start writing tickets
If cops start writing tickets to cyclists that run red lights, then who is going to stand around and play with their cell phones at construction sites?
They should also enact...
A helmet law for pedestrians
and a helmet law for
and a helmet law for motorists. everyone should just wear helmets all the time. problem solved.
A few other conclusions one can draw from this report...
1. If you're going to run red lights, pay attention. I ride daily and I do go through lights when safe, and I don't really see it as any worse than jaywalking. I've never had a close call from that in four years of riding in Boston, but I've also seen plenty of bikers blow through intersections and nearly cause accidents. I'm surprised to find that 28% of all bike/car collisions involve a biker running a light/stop sign but that has got to stop. If you aren't absolutely certain there are no cars coming, just don't go.
2. The specter of bike-pedestrian collisions that's always brought up in these threads is a red herring. The numbers are so low as to be essentially meaningless (35 injuries in 2012 vs ~1700 bike/car incidents).
3. Allston/Brighton is a deathtrap for cyclists and the infrastructure badly needs to be improved. It's crazy to me that there are still no bike lanes on Brighton Ave or Cambridge St between Union Sq and the river when this data shows those are among the highest-traffic bike corridors in the city AND each has more bike crashes than even the rest of the Allston area. Also, the intersection of Comm Ave and Barvard is incredibly dangerous for everyone, not just bikers. A start would be restricting the turns that can't and can't be made from those carriageways.
Not for nothing
But Brighton Ave was recently repainted between Twin Donuts and Shabu-Zen. The right inbound car lane now has the bicycle markings.
conversely
Looking at the accident data in Allston/Brighton, it is amazing that anyone would still ride a bike through there.
Unrelated, i see NO issue with a person on a bike going through a red light if they have stopped at the light AND if there is NO traffic. I understand motorists and their "well if bikes want to be treated equal than they have to act equal" logic, but if that person on the bike wants to get some lead time and get moving then why not.
As for restricting turns than can and cannot be made from a carriageway there, i am not sure if there is a no left on either carriage way, i feel like there has to be, or should be, but anyone going to the left from a carriage way at that intersection is being a moron and creating a traffic nightmare.
Ride through there daily
It is a nightmare in Allston but you can keep yourself safe, it just all about being aware of your surround vehicles, making sure they know you are there and at night, stay bright.
I go both ways along Brighton Ave and rarely have to make turns at Harvard ave but I have friends who will run the reds when the 4 way crossing signal is going at Harvard and Brighton, coming from Brookline, because they cannot make the left turn with normal traffic. I personally wait for the green and advance through with the regular traffic but it can be a harrowing experience.
I know some states have whats called Idaho Stop laws, which work as your described. Come to a red, full stop, look for traffic, procede through if safe.
And if there are no pedestrians crossing in croswalk?
I hope you look for pedestrians too...
There are two locations in Brookline that I would describe as T-shaped intersections, where I ALWAYS press the button to cross and where I FREQUENTLY see cyclists blow through the light because they have nothing to fear from cars (due to the T-shape of the intersection) but don't seem to think about pedestrians:
I follow the rules here and I don't want to get plowed down by a cyclist blowing through the red when they are supposed to stop.
Pedestrian raises hand
I object to bicycles going through red lights. I object to cars doing it too, even when it's "safe" for them to do so. Bicycles continuing on through the red interferes with my ability to cross the street safely. I work near Copley Square and have to wait for all the bicycles to go by through the red light before I get to sprint across during my (dwindling) walk signal.
There are rules. If everyone followed them all the time, you wouldn't have to think about it. Traffic would move more smoothly, everyone would be safer, and probably less rage-y.
Of course if that happened, we'd probably have more people going into shock and falling right over. I swear if I ever see a police vehicle signal a turn, my brain would seize.
Bicyclist chiming in
Totally agree! I try to avoid running almost all red lights, but there are two on my commute that I will do an Idaho stop for - the crosswalk on Mass Ave. across from the Christian Science Center, and the T shaped intersection just before MIT.
For the former, because of the construction on the Berklee side, there is no bike lane, so I need to take the entire lane or get crushed by cars to my left as I ride past the scaffolding. On the CVS side, I need to ride on the very left edge of the bike lane or else I will get doored. Same reason goes for the MIT intersection. I'll always stop and make sure there are no pedestrians, but I have no problem going after I know it's safe. Doing so allows me to get a little bit ahead of traffic which makes all of the difference.
For most cases everyone should follow the rules of the road, but I'm definitely going to do what's safest for me even if it is technically illegal. Nothing is completely black and white.
Or maybe
just obey the rules of the road that apply to cars and bikes, and don't run the red lights.
Doesn't help when ...
Cars are parked - or even driving in - the cycling lanes.
Cars run red lights even when cyclists wait for the green.
Cars don't stop for red lights when making turns.
Drivers partially passing cyclists and then just turning because they "didn't see the bike" through their colons.
Drivers are on the phone and weaving into cyclists they should be able to safely pass.
I could go on ... and on ... and on ... considering that I do obey the laws, don't run red lights in any of my vehicles, and still seem to have a number of "near-hit" situations with drivers who can't drive screaming at me to get off the road when they were the ones who failed to obey the rules.
"Cars don't stop for red lights when making turns."
This one pisses me off the most.
Bike-pedestrian collisions
I suspecting there is serious underreporting of bike / pedestrian collisions. If pedestrian didn't get hurt, pedestrian won't call the cops - because Johnny Cyclist just rode away to blow through some more red lights. If a bike hits a car, it's getting reported, even if no one got hurt.
This goes for bike / car
This goes for bike / car collisions as well. The number of police reports my friends have filed for accidents are SLIM to none.
Hear hear on Cambridge St.
Hear hear on Cambridge St. It's like a raceway from Linden St all the way to the river. It's far and away the most cyclist-unfriendly stretch of road I've ever been on in the city.
A helmet impediment
is that many bike riders are transplants (college students, grad students, people affiliated with universities/medicine etc.) who may not be from areas of the country or world where bike helmets are strictly enforced, or where not wearing a helmet is lower-risk because there are fewer opportunities to get into accidents due to no traffic.
So every September, you're going to have a whole new crop of people from rural Nebraska and China who aren't helmet-savvy, no matter how much local enforcement you do.
IMHO, we should start licensing bicyclists, so we can catch the scofflaws.
Good
Lots of data and graphs from what I was able to glance at briefly, should make for an informative read.
As for the mandatory helmets, I dunno. I wear mine every time I hop on my bike but thats my personal choice. And that'll be fun for the BPD to enforce, maybe they can setup joint ticketing traps where they can nail both cyclists without helmets and drivers who are texting. Hell, while were updating the helmet laws to make them mandatory, lets also ban cell phone usage when driving all together! I mean its all about safety on the road right? Less distracted drivers with more cyclists riding with helmets should make things a lot safer right?
I have a Source
who worked in the State House, who informed me that the reason the texting/talking on the phone while driving laws are so weak is because there is a subset of state reps and state senators who very much enjoy talking and texting while driving, and they wanted to protect their ability to do so.
Not shocked one bit
Meanwhile, each time I've been right hooked, theres the cellphone, either up to the drivers face or in their hands.
helmets for everyone
Your brain is important! In some cases it could also be damaged in an auto accident- we need to protect people, it's just common sense! The same goes for the MBTA, and also pedestrians.
Look, why take unnecessary risks? Also, all clothing should be mandated to have at least an inch of bubble wrap. Safety first! No matter what trivial inconvenience you might have to live with, it's all worth it as long as you safe one life.
Maybe we just shouldn't allow adults to go outside.
They should also consider
that your fat ass should not be left unsupported by less than 65% of the bicycle seat. Studies show that bicyclists who are injured during riding, have bike seats that generally only cover their ass crack.
You want to listen to somebody to tell you to wear a helmet, move to France.
Source please
Source please
Thoughts
As a walker who only occasionally uses Hubway, I see bicycling safety measures also working for walking safety.
The report confirms that ped/bike incidents are negligible in number. Increased number of bicyclists should correspond to better conditions for walking as well.
Unfortunately the BPD section of the report has some flaws. On page 49 their description of the Safety in Numbers theory is incomplete. The numerator can decrease due to better acclimation to bicyclists.
Even worse it appears from their selection of case studies that they did not look outside the USA for data or examples.
I believe the evidence for Safety in Numbers is so compelling that it should not be summarily dismissed without strong arguments backed up solidly.
The weird thing about
The weird thing about measuring bicycle injury rates is that helmets can reduce the severity of injuries, but they can't really reduce the number of injuries. If you're in a position where your helmet does any good, you're going to have an injury of some sort.
Yes, as the report found, injured cyclists are less likely to be wearing a helmet than the average cyclist. But correlation is not causation. Helmet-wearing cyclists are more likely to be cautious in general, stopping at lights, not riding against the flow of traffic, being aware of door zones, riding in high visibility areas, using lights at night, not making unpredictable movements, etc.
Wearing a helmet is a good idea. But it doesn't suddenly turn you into a safe cyclist. And on occasion, it's a pain to have a helmet with you (e.g. I don't usually use a helmet when I'm picking up or dropping off my bike at the shop, since it's a short ride home, and I don't have a convenient place to leave my helmet). The city should encourage helmet use, but they shouldn't mandate it.
Once again
The unicycle menace remains unchecked.
If you're an adult and you
If you're an adult and you choose not to wear a helmet while biking through busy city streets filled with Massholes, then I suppose it's your right to be a dumbass.
Well, I Hope Mandatory Bike Helmets Never Comes...
As much flak to hold this opinion. My current stance is I hope to never see the arrival of the law comes. I could argue from a libertarian viewpoint of not wanting the government to play this role and/or its under the personal risk of the rider. I could also argue as a possible ineffectiveness of such a law per Australia example. But right now it is my just hope to not see it - I don't to wear one (most of the time) and don't want a law trying to be made by the government to wear one.
That said, one person above did mentioned enforcement for under-16 to make it a habit. That does a reveal a possible sense of dissonance for me to reflect that I kinda forgot for a long time. There was a time I always ride with a helmet. Back when I was a middle school kid, I was a hard rule-following and cautious type of kid. It won some praises from my teachers but teacher's praises elevate me in the eyes of anyone else - likely the opposite. I stopped biking by high school and only picked it up again as a college freshman though without a helmet; I only started owning helmet by late senior year at the behest of a friend, where I only wear it for long rides.
From that reflection, perhaps if I kept riding that my initial choice would continue on to college out of habit. Then again, my memory I have of being a rule-abiding, cautious kid is that it kinda sucked being that kid and thereby helmets.
BTW, if someone can really find a way to actually make helmets looks fashionable and widespread, that would really help and less disagreeable way than mandatory laws.
A modest proposal
Since Massholes NEVER wear their seatbelts, either ... how about this:
If they are going to have a helmet law, they have to show that they are proportionally enforcing the seat belt laws on motorists, too.
Otherwise, I would propose:
No helmet law
No seatbelt law
AND you either pay an additional premium to your health insurance and auto insurance company to cover the additional cost of the additional risk.
OR you aren't covered in an accident if you didn't fess up to not using basic safety devices.
THAT is taking adult responsibility for making an adult personal decision.
Helmet is not the same as a
Helmet is not the same as a seatbelt! A seatbelt is designed to keep you behind the wheel and in control of the car in the case of a crash, it can also save you from being thrown through the windshield at a high speed. A bike helmet is designed for a low speed crash in very specific circumstances and does nothing to help you stay in control of the bike. The reasons for seatbelts are not the same as helmets, we need to stop making the correlation!
Nope
A seat-belt is designed to keep you from bouncing around the car interior and turning into pudding. Also to keep you from being ejected from the car altogether.
Everyone in the Netherlands rides a bike..
... and nobody wears a helmet. not even the kids.
the only way to improve bicycle safety is to have separate bike lanes everywhere. and motorists being aware, and accepting that bicyclists are on the road too.
wearing a helmet does not equal safety, suggesting that people who do not wear helmets are not responsible is ridiculous...
this is interesting too;
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
Guess what?
This isn't the Netherlands. Sorry. Biking culture that exists there will never exist in a country this size.
It doesn't have to be the
It doesn't have to be the whole country. And besides, as I said in way too long below, it's an example that a safe but still non-helment system does work. It may not even have to be Demark level of bike culture to work.
Maybe not a country this size, but a state this size might work.
The entire country doesn't have to have the same biking culture. Boston and Amsterdam are roughly similarly sized cities, so although Nebraska is probably doomed to be rather car-centric, there's no reason why Massachusetts can't become more like the Netherlands.
Everyone there
smokes pot and consumes magic mushrooms.
Titling and European Model
Titles with "A Modest Proposal" usually use to subtly indicate satire. Usually by advocating in a reasonable tone yet so outrageous that it passionately motivate the reader for the opposite direction of advocated idea in the article. Yet, the point that if bike injuries affect insurance so much that it should specially raise premiums sounds reasonable (this assumes insurance accurately and honestly measure the collective cost of helmetless bikers).
Since the above your vote is to enforce helmets on the young, I'm not sure your aim in that piece of rhetoric. If your goal is to point as the logical conclusion of what I said is absurd, well, Europe seems to doing just fine - partly expanded below. Since your brought up seatbelts versus helmets, it trigger a desire to analyze that a little below too.
----
The libertarian argument does imply that the seatbelt laws cannot be separate. And one can say we shouldn't base our thinking on that measure. I'm not sure my principals desires strongly enough to advocate government shouldn't tell people to wear seatbelts. I can see the idea "good for as many as possible" to mean that the good of lives saved for the slight inconvenience of wearing seatbelt as a worthwhile trade.
However, unlike a libertarian view, a societal utility viewpoint can separate seatbelts vs helmets from being equivalent as you made above. Seatbelt laws seems to dramatically decrease injuries and fatalities. As being argued back and forth above, helmets might not bring the same benefits as seatbelts. You disagree saying studies does find it effective, but it does seem to be true (from my Googling in the past and now recently) that there seems to be studies that argues against the ones you read.
---
As for my stance. I look to Europe, which most countries have no bike helmet laws and seem to be doing just fine. The Netherlands have one of the lowest helmet rate, view American's debate of helmets as perplexing (based from unscientific sample of a friend), and injury rates to be low. One thing I just read actually find the bikers who do wear helmets in the Netherlands have a higher rate of injury (Link to show where I'm looking).
Of course the Netherlands is arguably an extreme example to model to the US as a whole. But my point is we can choose to not having to require bike helmets and be fine rather than choose between your proposal or the opposite as the final logical conclusion for Massachusetts.
Mandate helmets and watch
Mandate helmets and watch Hubway use plummet. Nothing like crippling the program. In countries and cities with mandated helmet use bikeshare is suffering significantly. I use one myself while on the road but I take it off while on the esplanade (ironically that is possibly the opposite of what I should be doing since a helmet will help very little if hit by a moving vehicle but could help a lot if I hit a tree root or squirrel on the esplanade. I would honestly think twice about riding in Boston at all if they mandated helmets (being hyperbolic here). It would be a stupid move on a whole lot of fronts. (that said unlikely to happen and if they want to run out the vending machines and free helmet campaigns great, waste of money, but go for it. If you need a helmet it is already too late, we need to work to prevent the need of a helmet in the first place (better lighting, street+bike, mandatory training in schools, better separated infrastructure at intersections and on major corridors etc) Now if we are talking mandating lights sold on all new/used bikes, now that is something I could get behind (though it really needs to be done at the state level).
We use a helmet as a hubway keychain
We have yet to lose the durn thing in the laundry or my disaster of an office.
Really isn't hard to do that.
Ahem
I'm not entirely sure you're contesting his point that mandatory bike helmets will hurt Hubway and should instead focus on lighting and etc. It seems almost non-sequitur but I think you're trying to say it is not that hard to keep a helmet around and thus mandatory bike helmets is not that big of a deal for Hubway.
If so, then http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to...
Also, a number of posters have responded to your points that helmets been helpings. So far the closest to respond to one saying helmets are reducing safety by cutting numbers of bikers is a comment response to any anon and all you said is asking about his last visit to Canada. I am genuinely wondering your response to the counterpoints of your point of studying finding increase safety for Canada.
This report is idiotic -
This report is idiotic - helmets don't reduce number of accidents - only the severity of head injuries. plus NOWHERE in the report does give any data on head injuries - just injuries. in all injury-related accidents, roughly half were wearing helmets and it was mostly clueless cyclists riding blithely out into traffic like a toddler. report also fails to mention that in every single death last year each cyclist was wearing a helmet. clearly someone from the helmet lobby was involved.
if they want to reduce number of severe accidents they need better infrastructure, better education, and enforcement/refining of traffic laws. trying to increase helmet usage in hopes that you can prevent people from acting like idiots is stupid.
Bad Comment
The comment at the top, labeled "No Subject" from anon, with a little graphic of someone reading a book sends the reader to a bad URL.
Wow!
I didn't know books were filled with popcorn these days. What will they think of next?!
Disclaimer: at first glance, I too thought the emoticon was someone reading a book.
bike specific signals
you know - maybe in places where cyclists run red lights - they should install bike-specific signals so it's absolutely clear when they're supposed to go. It seems like these accidents are caused largely by people who are confused as to what they're supposed to do, so it's pretty clear that we need a third kind of signalling specifically designed for cyclists in high-traffic areas. I'm amazed that this (and addressing poor infrastructure design in general) was completely missed in this report.
There is no bike specific
There is no bike specific signalling because bikes are supposed to stop and go at exactly the same signals that are used for motor vehicles. I learned this at an early age even though I grew up in a town without a single traffic light. If anyone is confused about it maybe they shouldn't be riding or driving until they get educated, and clearly we need better education on the topic because I have heard this sentiment expressed quite often.
as a daily motorcycle
as a daily motorcycle commuter 9 months a year from jp into cambridge i love these bicycle threads. we went thru this years ago with the helmet laws and no one cared for us. cell phones? constantly, cut off by cars? daily. rearended? twice.
So, if I wear a helmet and
So, if I wear a helmet and stop at red lights, I have maxed out my safety allotment? That's not the greatest position for the city to take.
Soooo...I was in NYC all weekend working the
network upfronts and lo and behold what do I see taking up the whole block in front of the NY Public Library? A whole shitload of empty bike share spaces.
Anyone want to bet how long it takes Bloomberg to make helmets mandatory in NYC?
It would never be enforced.
Just like every other traffic law. Until some teeth are put behind ANY type of traffic enforcement in the city, all new laws are moot. If traffic violations were enforced like parking violations are, then I'd be on board. Otherwise, it's just pointless.
Imagine the revenue Boston could bring in from actually ticketing drivers and cyclists for breaking laws! Thousands of people could be employed, all over the city...just stand at an intersection, and rake in the dough!
Us vs. Them
How come whenever a discussion about driving/riding safety comes on, it always devolves into an argument about drivers vs. bike riders, each side demonizing the other?
It would be more productive, and more realistic, to admit that there are excellent drivers and riders who obey traffic laws, have good reflexes, respect and watch out for each other, and would probably never even get in an accident regardless of whether they wore seatbelts/helmets or not (and doing so is their choice anyway)... but there are also terrible drivers and riders who plow through traffic without a care for anyone else on the road, run red lights on a whim, get into accidents (or cause others to have one while they don't even notice,) and whose lives wouldn't really be that protected by however many laws the government enforces for their own safety.
All drivers have horror stories about riders, and vice versa. But that's because only the bad experiences are memorable. If you're riding a bike on your lane, and a car slows down to let you pass before it makes a right turn, you probably never noticed it because you were concentrating on being a good rider yourself. If you're driving and come to a red light, do you ever really notice the rider that stopped alongside you and patiently waited for the green? But when you, rider or driver, have the right of way and someone else makes a mistake and careens into you, that's what you remember, and that's what colors your perspective on all other drivers/riders.
We need more laws for bikes and cars
Based on the dangerous activity of drivers that I have observed, I believe we should have the following laws for automobile drivers. If we only had these laws, then we would all be safer:
Now there are probably more laws we need, but let's pass these first and when all the behavior above stops, we can move on to more.
Update: mistake in report
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/05/15...