- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Giro Air Attack helmet with signsCalifornia mandatory helmet law set back following intensive lobbying from pro-cycling campaigners
Plans to force all cyclists in California to wear helmets have been set back following intensive lobbying from pro-cycling campaign groups.
The proposed bill, SB-192, sought make helmets, which are currently mandatory for cyclists under 18, a requirement for anyone on a bike, the penalty being the existing $25 fine.
But cycling groups including California Bicycle Coalition and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition protested, saying that the rule would discourage people from cycling at all.
Tamika Butler, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, expressed relief that the regulation was being reconsidered.
She told Glendale News Press: “We look forward to working with Senator Liu [the bill writer] and the rest of the legislature on increasing funding for better infrastructure — like protected bike lanes — and more education for both people who drive and bike.
“These are measures that will truly help make our communities healthy, safe, and fun places for everyone that rides and everyone that wants to.”
The revised bill language is now asking the state’s Office of Traffic Study to work with the California Highway Patrol to investigate helmet use and report back the findings in early 2017.
As we reported earlier this year, Liu, chair of the senate education committee, said in a statement: “Any responsible bicycle rider should wear a helmet.
“This law will help protect more people and make sure all riders benefit from the head protection that a helmet provides.”
Liu’s statement claimed: “Bicyclists who don’t wear helmets are far more likely to be hurt or killed in accidents.
“Ninety-one percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported.”
She did not say what proportion of those fatalities were due to head injuries.
Opponents of compulsory helmet laws point out that in countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where helmets are mandatory for riders of all ages, cycling levels dropped when the legislation was introduced.
They maintain that the wider health benefits of cycling for the population as a whole outweigh any claimed reduction in casualties among bike riders as a result of helmet compulsion.
Cycling campaigners also say that focusing on helmets or high visibility clothing also detracts from focusing on other measures that would reduce casualties, such as 20 mile an hour speed limits or segregated infrastructure.
According to the Sacramento Bee, Liu’s nephew was killed while riding a bike in 2004 by a drunk driver. He had been wearing a helmet.
Dave Snyder of the California Bike Coalition said: “We think she has good intentions.”
But he added: “We know that the most important thing to protect people who ride bikes is to get more people out there riding bikes.
“Forcing people to wear crash helmets when they ride is counter-productive to that goal.”
Latest Comments
- alexuk 5 min 23 sec ago
Behold. This is why crime is rampant in our society. Everyone makes excuses for the criminals. Surley the social experient we've endured over the...
- I love my bike 8 min 24 sec ago
Within towns & cities, where most people live, separating cyclists from through motor traffic is the obvious goal/solution, and where new...
- OnYerBike 37 min 42 sec ago
The Sora groupset seems very expensive for what it is. Even without going down the AliExpress route, you can get 11spd 105 for £360 (https://www...
- Bigfoz 39 min 38 sec ago
UAE Tour of Britain maybe?
- bikes 46 min 9 sec ago
Driving culture in a nutshell. Dangerous and with tiny/nonexistent penalties. ...
- hawkinspeter 51 min 25 sec ago
I like the way that it can collect water in the wrong places and so putting it through a car wash invalidates the warranty.
- mdavidford 54 min 35 sec ago
You're overlooking the 'lifting it out of the shed' factor, though.
- hawkinspeter 52 min 33 sec ago
I'd say that Mogg Street is more likely used by cyclists who opt for the bridge over the M32 rather than the underpasses as opposed to trying to...
- open_roads 2 hours 18 min ago
And we can be sure that Police Scotland would be similarly disinterested if larger versions were scattered across roads and motorways to sabotage...
- fixit 5 hours 25 min ago
No shit! really? you need a research to come to this conlusion?
Add new comment
14 comments
everyone should wear a helmet in case they get knocked down by a car, but carrying a gun is absolutely fine...
perhaps they should make wearing a bullet proof vest mandatory in case someone goes nuts with an automatic pistol?
Not much use unless you also wear a bullet proof helmet.
I remember hitting a car so hard that I put a top of my skull shaped dent in it, a '70's American station wagon, it must have had heavy construction. Teach me for looking down for so long, especially as I hit hard enough that both the top and downtubes on my Centurion Ironman were both buckled. All I got was suspected concussion, and a new bike. Stories like this I'm sure abound, which neither proves or disproves the Legislators intentions, but does show that head trauma doesn't equal death (maybe to a few brain cells or it did to my bike frame). Where I think there is benefit is in highlighting the issues of dangerous driving and its effects on others, a bicycle being a vehicle means cyclists can be just as at fault, although more likely to be worst off. So there is some good from her position by keeping the issue of road safety for cyclists in the public eye.
I ride with a helmet, that's my choice. There's enough people willing to comment if I didn't, even though I grew up without one at a time when it wasn't required even for riding to school. My girls will all wear helmets, and be taught the rules of the road. That's being a good parent, when they are adults they can make their own choice on helmet use. I'll have done my part as a Parent.
Here's a statistic, 100% of children get hurt or die because of a lack of wise parental supervision or accident that probably could have been avoided, yet parenting classes aren't required. How about we do something about that.
30% of all cyclists killed were left handed*, maybe we should ban that. The death/helmet argument can only be used in cases where a helmet MIGHT have saved you. Being run over by a drunk driver doing 80mph is unlikely to be one of those.
*As with most statistics, I made this up...
I'm guessing she also didn't say what percent of bicyclists not killed in 2009 were not wearing helmets. I suppose that statistic is less likely to have been collected, but I would guess it's somewhere around ninety-one percent.
yes and even more detailed: How many of the cyclists not wearing a helmet that suffered a head injury would have been protected by a helmet. That's relevant because you may have your head crushed or smashed to bits by a truck but the helemt wouldn't have helped.
When you get down to it I doubt that a single person has survived what woyld have been a fatal head injury by wearing a helmet. I say that because that margin is around 50 - 100 joules of impact energy. ie that the injury was in the tiny range that between what would have been survivable without a helmet and what wouldn't be survivable without one. That tiny range is so small that I seriously doubt anyone's ever really been saved by a helmet.
There is theoretically a range of survivability between being shot with or without a leather jacket on and that's about the same level of chance. The tiny liittle window wher the leather jacket does just enough to save you. Likewise I don't think anyone's been saved from death by being shot simply by wearing a leather jacket.
I think we can all agree that any form of protective equipment is not going to protect you when you are hit by a motor vehicle. The risk of being hit by a motor vehicle must be low depending on where you live in the country, I would have thought if ther was a high risk of being hit by a car then we would not ride a bike.
The other types of cycling accidents like hitting stationary objects, riding to fast for the conditions can cause serious injuries and some of these injuries would be prevented if you were using a helmet.
I have an example of someone riding to work hit a pedestrian and fell of his bike hitting his head on the ground , he felt ok after the accident and carried on with his day. Later the day he started to feel unwell and was rushed to A&E , a brain scan and a operation later he is back at home. Would a helmet of prevented this injury ...... YES do I think helmets are a good thing .......YES
I think we can all agree that any form of protective equipment is not going to protect you when you are hit by a motor vehicle. The risk of being hit by a motor vehicle must be low depending on where you live in the country, I would have thought if ther was a high risk of being hit by a car then we would not ride a bike.
The other types of cycling accidents like hitting stationary objects, riding to fast for the conditions can cause serious injuries and some of these injuries would be prevented if you were using a helmet.
I have an example of someone riding to work hit a pedestrian and fell of his bike hitting his head on the ground , he felt ok after the accident and carried on with his day. Later the day he started to feel unwell and was rushed to A&E , a brain scan and a operation later he is back at home. Would a helmet of prevented this injury ...... YES do I think helmets are a good thin. YES
Why is it at work I am told PPE is the last line of defence and it shouldn't be relied upon to keep me safe, yet on a bike...
At work a Government thinks someone else is paying and on the road a Government thinks they might have to pay.
Oh how original - another helmet-nanny trying for their 15 minutes of fame.
I bet Chairwoman Liu drives everywhere still.
Oh good let's have some more helmet debate - I can't get enough.
Oh good let's have some more helmet debate - I can't get enough.