The NYT reports the following:
Businesses will have to give bicycle delivery workers helmets, require that they wear them and use bikes with safety equipment required by state law, including brakes and reflectors. (That means that messengers can't use track bikes with no brakes.) The new laws take effect on July 26.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/nyregion/29mayor.html?ref=nyregion
I think this is good news.
"...now to keep them off the sidewalks.
I had suggested to my council member stencils on the sidewalks much like the ""No bike riding"" stencils on the Central Park paths. Probably fell on deaf ears. But then I don't see riders following the ""No bike riding"" on paths rules in Central Park either."
...to pass a bill which states, in part, that you will have to obey a law that already exists (the part about brakes and reflectors).
How about getting them to go in the same direction as traffic.
"af wrote: ""Businesses will have to give bicycle delivery workers helmets, require that they wear them and use bikes with safety equipment required by state law, including brakes and reflectors. (That means that messengers can't use track bikes with no brakes.)""
The onus of this law is on the employer, not the messenger or delivery workers. If a messenger is confronted for riding without hand-brakes or a helmet, he can say that he's riding on his own and deny that he's a messenger.
The NYT article states: ""Under one law, businesses must provide helmets, at the business owners' expense, to employees who use bicycles as part of their work, and require that workers wear them.""
So as long as business owners claim to require their employees to wear helmets, it doesn't matter if the employee decides not to wear one?"
This law is no good for biking and only good for lawmakers thinking they are doing the right thing.
Can anybody tell me how many brakeless/helmetless messengers actualy hurt so many people (or themselves) to warrant more laws for bikes?
It just gives the police more ammo to hassle you with.
Stupid
Between 1996 and 2005, in New York City:
- there were 225 bicycling fatalities.
- 97% of these fatalities, where helmet use/no use was specifically documented (122, in total), the cyclist was not wearing helmet at the time of the crash.
- 74% cyclists injured resulted in head injury
This stat is consistent with other cycling safety studies I have read that span several decades. In other words, there's not much variance in that number from one study to the next.
And when that messenger does crash and checks in to the hospital E.R., who do you think ultimately picks up the tab for his medical bills? You and I.
I agree helmets are safe(i wear one) but if there is a law it should apply to eveyone. This is a witch hunt.
I would bet most of the stats are probably commuters and weekend warriors who aren't so good on the bike to begin with. Maybe we should outlaw everyone but messengers from riding in the city just to keep things safe?
You asked who do they hurt. I provided you one example. I do not see anywhere in your reply where you acknowledge that answer.
Are you a bike messenger?
From someone who knows the answer, let me tell you, I would not take up that bet if I were you.
Most messengers do not have medical insurance and most, and all will crash, like 99% of other cyclists, even experienced ones. So why should you or I have to pay for someone's poor judgement?
Maybe the lawmakers should make medical insurance compulsory for such professionals cyclists, who earn their living in that way, much like done for cabbies with liability insurance. Or they could just simply wear a helmet and spare themselves, their family and the public allot less grief and expense.
You're on a very slippery slope here. If I didn't ride a bike at all, would it be legitimate for me to suggest that you not ride at all unless you had proof of insurance. Clearly it's dangerous?
Are we to ban anything we perceive as risky unless the participant can prove they can pay for the risks.
And on the issue of risk -- how many people die cycling each year in the city or state. How many die while walking after being hit by cars? Or in cars? How about more helmets for those people. You are certainly paying more money as a citizen dealing with the aftermath of car crashes on people in cars and on pedestrian than for cyclists.
(Are you a bike messenger?)
Yes 12 years 6 world championships zero accidents.
I'm the professional and becuase of this law I have to wear a helmet and you don't. Thats bull. You should have to wear the helmet by law not me.
Lack of health insurance for messengers is what the lawmakers should be working on providing(oh Canada)not harassing helmet laws.
What's the argument against not wearing a helmet and using breaks and reflectors? Or is it more an agrument against being forced to? Just curious. I am not a bike messenger so I didn't know they didn't wear helmets and use breaks.
As far as NYS state law (I am not familiar with it).. is it already mandatory to wear a helmet on a bike.
Thanks!
What's the argument for not wearing a helmet when walking? I've never had a serious head injury when walking but am curious why you don't wear one.
Wow. You're a clever one sg not ka or bmk.
The reason I wear a helmet when I ride is that I know the statsitics for injuries when falling off your bike and that the chance of avoiding death is lessened when wearing a helmet. And I think the likelihood that I will fall off my bike one day is pretty good.
The argumet for not wearing a helmet when walking is that I think the chances of me falling when walking are slim and I think the chances of a helmet saving my life when walking are slim. But if I saw facts to the contrary I would wear a helmet when walking or driving (or riding a bus or flying in a plane).
The other argumet is, probably like most people, I've had close friends be hit by cars on their bikes and be saved more serious injury from their helmet. I haven't heard any stories like this from friends who run.
Lastly, it seems that knowledagble authories (NYCC, Tour de France) require riders to wear helmets. I haven't seen similar rules in the NY Road Runners' club nor the NYC Marathon.
Of course the statistics could be wrong, my friends could have been mislead by the EMTs/doctors, and the NYCC and Tour de France could be in conspircy with the major helmet manufactures, but barring that I don't wear a helmet when walking because I haven't seen any need to.
Anway, I am sure you've anticipated these answers and have a witty comeback, so I am waiting, but my main question was a genuine one. Most cyclists I know think wearing a helmet is a smart thing, so I was just wondering, with all of the evidence saying a helmet could save your life, what is the reason not to?
"To equate participating in a hyper-competitive sporting event like the Tour of France to riding around is idiotic. Does the fact that every car racer in the Daytona 500 use helmets mean we should use helmets when driving around NYC? Do you?
Second, ""with all of the evidence saying a helmet could save your life, what is the reason not to?""
What evidence is there? Real hard evidence, that compares similar populations and circumstances using a helmet and not using a helmet?
EMTs and doctors cannot possibly provide that sort of evidence because they only see people who are seriously injured -- they don't see the people who are not injured.
Real hard evidence requires looking at statistics of large numbers of people. And the statistics don't back up your assertions. See some example of studies here:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmet...
I'm still chuckling about your Tour de France comment."
professional race car drivers all wear helmets, head injury is one of the leading causes of death in vehicle collisions.
professional race car drivers will agree that driving on city streets and highways is much more dangerous then races on the track. Why dont car drivers wear helmets?
"from todays newspapers
http://www.nysun.com/article/51639
in accidents, yellow cab passengers WEARING seatbelts are twice as likely to sustain serious or fatal injuries as seatbelt-wearing riders of other vehicles, according to a 2006 city-commissioned study by Brooklyn-based Schaller Consulting. This gap, which is even wider among non-restrained passengers, could be ""linked to the presence of partitions in most medallion cabs, which introduce a very hard surface in an otherwise cushioned environment,"" the study said.
Though crash rates for taxicabs are one-third less than those for other vehicles, 3,349 medallion taxi accidents involved injuries or fatalities in 2004, the most recent year for which data are available.
Among those seriously injured in an accident, 68% of yellow cab passengers experienced head or face trauma, compared to 49% of those riding in liveries and 35% in other vehicles, another Schaller Consulting study released last year showed."
why would anyone not wear a helmet in a taxi?
I imagine people don't wear helmets when they drive, walk, or ride in a cab because they don't think they are doing to get in an accident and need a helmet, or they think that the inconvenience of wearing a helmet outweighs the chance they will get in a accident.
When I asked what the argument was for not wearing a helmet I actually wasn't trying to make a point or prove anything. I was genuniely asking as a newbie to cycling. I appreciate the Socratic method here, but is the argument that wearing a helmet doesn't increase your safety that much or just that it isn't the gov't business to tell someone if they have to wear one?
"""The argument"" should be that the people suggesting wearing a helmets should make a cogent argument about why it is important to wear one while cycling and provide evidence for it. I'd assume that such an argument would include evidence that the risks of cycling are high relative to other activities in which the person participates and that they can more easily/cheaply/effectively/etc be prevented by using helmets than by other means.
I think that in life, and logically, it's best to look for arguments on why you should do something, rather than asking people to justify why they are not doing something.
That said, I will entertain you with some reasons to not wear a helmet, or view using one as especially important to cycling safety.
Most importantly, there is little and weak evidence that cycling helmets prevent serious injuries. They surely prevent scrapes and cuts on the head, but we can get scrapes and cuts in lots of places.
Second, cycling isn't that dangerous. We are exposed to similar levels of risk of serious injuries in other activities we do. It's anti-cycling to single out cycling as more dangerous than those activities.
Third, a helmet is another thing that has to be cleaned.
"
if you don't wear a helmet, you're an idiot
"Cycling-related injuries are a drop in the proverbial health care ocean. If the gummint BANNED it altogether, I doubt you see any difference in your taxes or insurance premiums.
Since you're so intent on reducing the ""social costs"", wouldn't it make more sense to fry the big fish first? That is, banning any use of tobbacco or alcohol, and prohibiting the consumption of fat-laden food? And mandatory morning exercise for all too, eh, Comrade?
Then you'd see some REAL savings. Maybe even enough for a nice new set of hi-powered binoculars, to make sure your neighbors aren't sneaking in any beer or cheeseburgers.
As Ann Landers used to say: Mind Your Own Beeswax!
"
"Here's the baloney:
""74% cyclists injured resulted in head injury""
-- no, this is 74% of reported injuries being head injuries. And head injuries includes cuts and scrapes. We know helmets prevent cuts and scrapes. So what? What is so important about preventing cuts and scrapes?
Here's the flawed analysis:
""- 97% of these fatalities, where helmet use/no use was specifically documented (122, in total), the cyclist was not wearing helmet at the time of the crash.""
So what? We know that almost 100% of deaths of travelers in cars were not wearing helmets. Do you say that not wearing a helmet in a car is stupid? We know that 100% of pedestrians killed by cars, or with head injuries due to being hit by cars were not wearing helmets.
I'm assuming you don't wear a helmet in car -- if you do I salute you.
Get real and get thoughtful about risk in general. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument"
