The last time I was on a bike, I did not wear a helmet. Neither did anyone around me. I was in Seoul, Korea, visiting friends (3
public health masters on 1 trip). We
rented bikes and rode on an easy path along the river. There were families walking, skating, and
riding all around us. Afterward, we had
a fried chicken picnic delivered to us at the park (people of Korea, outdoor
chicken delivery is genius). Then wandered around a night market where I
bought Che Guevara socks. The day was so
perfect that I didn’t even realize my helmet oversight until I was looking at
pictures the next day. Whereupon I immediately
confessed my transgression to DHem via email*.
(Photo Credit: Esther Kim/Alex de Rubira via facebook) |
In this past Sunday’s Times opinion
pages, Elizabeth Rosenthal makes the case for repealing helmet laws to
encourage biking. Rosenthal uses the
example of European cities where biking is prevalent and helmet laws rare to
argue that helmet laws discourage people from riding bikes and the health
benefits of riding far outweigh those of helmet wearing. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is noted as rejecting
calls for a mandatory helmet law when New York’s bike share program rolls out
next year.
Despite my idyllic Seoul ride, Rosenthal’s piece misses the
point. As our bikers noted last month,
the type of safe, biker-only, slow-speed riding environment I encountered (and Rosenthal alludes to) is rare in the US. Bikers, especially commuters, ride at high
speeds among cars. The 20-to-1 cost-benefit
analysis Rosenthal touts depends on 2 assumptions that aren’t readily met in
much of the US: safe riding environments and the belief that people view biking
as a mode of commuting rather than exercise (and thus will not make up for not
biking with other exercise). Bike
accidents may be rare events, but riding with a helmet is always safer than
riding without one.
Rather than repeal helmet laws, there are better solutions
using principles this blog has covered (like looking for ways of reducing the ‘cost’
of helmets and barriers to use through helmet giveaways, making rentals
available, and creating biker-only lanes). Rosenthal also missed an opportunity to push for
changing the riding culture in the US the way we have with cigarette smoking. Though warning labels may be larger in Europe,
the US has been more successful at transforming perceptions of smoking and
lowering cigarette use. The US is raising
up generations of non-smokers (the recent college bans in the news being one indicator
of this success) who grow up in smoke-free environments and we can aim for the
same for bike safety.
Policy Implication: Making bikers safer begins with improving
the riding environment, not repealing helmet laws.
*One of these days, I will stop mentioning DHem and/or bike safety
in every post. Just not today.
Even Bobby Valentine can see the merits of wearing a helmet (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/sports/baseball/bobby-valentine-injured-after-reading-text-while-cycling.html?_r=0).
ReplyDelete