BIKE: New Texas helmet law

[Stuart Werbner]

I am strongly for the notion of wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle. 
[And, no, I don't plan to get into a big debate with anyone about why / why 
not.]

But, I see this as yet another essentially unenforceable law on the way.

I fear that its real purpose may be to give the police, via judicious 
selective enforcement, yet another tool at their disposal for harassing 
people -- especially "certain kinds of people" who
tend to live in "certain areas" of cities and towns, and who are the most 
culturally discouraged
from being seen wearing a helmet, BTW.

Thus, on this particular issue, I am much more for the carrot approach 
(subsidizing or freely distributing helmets) rather than the stick. Also, it 
is important to approach this issue from a cultural perspective -- i.e., 
looking "doofy" while riding a bike is ok; one can still get laid if one 
possesses and wears a bicycle helmet [I need to explicitly hear this 
message, myself, more often], etc...

   __o
_`\<,_
(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Werbner
Annuit Coeptis

"Any time of year it's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of 
life" -- the president



>From: Roger Baker <rcbaker>
>To: Austin Bikes <forum>
>Subject: Re: BIKE: New Texas helmet law
>Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:24:32 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
>Received: from frida.dreamhost.com ([66.33.206.23]) by mc2-f24.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:26:44 -0800
>Received: from che.dreamhost.com (che.dreamhost.com [66.33.216.23])by 
>frida.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid BBB1F16D2D7; Mon,  3 Jan 2005 
>10:26:43 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from che.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by 
>che.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid 169E0985A8; Mon,  3 Jan 2005 
>10:26:43 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from sack.dreamhost.com (sack.dreamhost.com [66.33.213.6])by 
>che.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF71985A8for 
><forum>;Mon,  3 Jan 2005 10:26:40 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from mx2.lsn.net (mx2.lsn.net [66.90.130.74])by 
>sack.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CE413DCEFfor 
><forum>; Mon,  3 Jan 2005 10:26:40 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from [192.168.1.100] 
>(66-90-165-132.dyn.grandenetworks.net[66.90.165.132])by mx2.lsn.net 
>(8.13.0.Beta3/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j03IQhfW017996for 
><forum>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:26:43 -0600
>X-Message-Info: U2wzkPk8/jbxQxupxua0NI+4KB7//S+iNhOuDoIqaLU=
>Delivered-To: forum-bicycleaustin.info
>References: <E7901AC0-5DB0-11D9-95F3-000D93B49BFC>
>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
>X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira Milter 1.0.6; VAE 6.29.0.5; VDF 6.29.0.45
>X-BeenThere: forum-bicycleaustin.info
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: forum-bicycleaustin.info.lists.bicycleaustin.info
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info>,<mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info-request?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: 
><http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info>
>List-Post: <mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info>
>List-Help: 
><mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info-request?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info>,<mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info-request?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: forum-bicycleaustin.info-bounces
>Return-Path: forum-bicycleaustin.info-bounces
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2005 18:26:44.0098 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[C6E33E20:01C4F1C1]
>
>Probably the theory that is largely driving this helmet issue is that frail 
>little bikes and their riders needed to be shielded from their foolish and 
>careless encounters with cars, which crashes I think are the real source of 
>the most serious bike injuries.
>
>I imagine helmets probably help some, but I don't know how much. But it may 
>well be that different street standards designed to protect bikes could 
>save far more bike rider lives. There must be cost-effectiveness 
>calculations on all these safety alternatives somewhere. Where are they?
>
>I imagine Texas state laws regarding bicycles are probably incurably crazy, 
>since I know that to be the case with anything TxDOT touches having to do 
>with roads, and frequently post that stuff here.
>
>However on the local city level, I think bike riders should demand 
>bike-safe streets, as one of the things they expect when they pay taxes, 
>and that young bike riders can haul those yard signs and leaflets around to 
>help to make sure old fashioned car-obsessive city council candidates do 
>not get elected.
>
>The time to discuss these issues (on this list?), and to extract SPECIFIC 
>pledges of better street design standards, more conducive to bike safety, 
>from the candidates  -- is well before the political campaigning gets under 
>way.  -- Roger
>
>
>
>
>On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Michael Bluejay wrote:
>
>>The reply from Robin Stallings of TBC, and my response.
>>
>>For the record, I'd consider supporting mandatory *training* for kids in 
>>bike safety, since that could actually prevent their getting hit, and also 
>>increase safety for other road users.  But helmets -- especially forced 
>>helmets -- do neither.  Of course, the training would have to be 
>>super-easy to get (such as at their regular school, during school hours).
>>
>>-MBJ-
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list