For a long time, I resisted wearing a helmet. Then again, when I was becoming a serious cyclist, helmet-wearing hadn't become the norm.
These days, if I leave my apartment with my bike and without my helmet, I quickly realize that something is off. I feel as if I were in one of those dreams where I'm naked and everyone else is clothed.
Just as what you wear can be a life-and-death matter (especially in extreme weather), protecting your head can protect a lot of other things. The doctor at the hospital told me as much: As much of a mess as I was after my recent accident, I at least don't seem to have brain or spine injuries.
I have had two occasions when, if wearing a helmet didn't save my life, it at least spared me worse injuries. The first time, a truck driver flung his door open into my side, sending me on the one and only somersault I've ever done on a bicycle. I came out of it with a sprained wrist. A few years later, I rode up the wrong side of a BMX mound and did an unintentional "flip." My helmet literally broke in two, but I--and my bike--remained intact.
After such experiences, you might (understandably) expect me to wonder what members of the Tacoma city council were thinking.
Last week, they voted for an ordinance that, among other things, repeals the city's law--on the books since 1994--requiring for helmets for cyclists.
Lisa Kaster, a senior planner and active transportation planner for the city, cited "outdated, inconsistent code language" that "doesn't align with best practices or city and state policy" as a motive for the the Council's action.
As in many other cities, bicycling has become a bona fide means of transportation as well as recreation in Tacoma. Also, other forms of non-motorized mobility, such as scooters and skates, have gained popularity. It seems that Council members faced the same dilemma that vexes their counterparts in other cities: How can a law be written to be fair and relevant to current practices yet flexible enough to accommodate change?
Interestingly, Washington--like most other US states--requires helmets for motorcycle riders.
While I encourage people to wear helmets, I am still not certain that such a practice should be mandated. At least, I don't think requiring helmets will prevent all, or even most, serious head injuries, not to mention other maladies. Wearing a helmet while engaging in unsafe practices, such as wearing headphones or riding against traffic will not protect the helmet's wearer--or anyone else.
I commend you for dipping onto the helmet discussion. Such volatile and opposing opinions on the subject. Vermont does not mandate helmet usuage. I wear one because I've had accidents and I can be clutzy, but others may not be. Certainly would love to see more regular riders, helmet or not. Our son went over the handle bars mountain biking last week, broke his wrist, damaged his helmet, that saved his head. But he currently can't replace it locally as LBS is out of stock. So maybe helmet sales are on the uptick?
ReplyDeleteAnnie--Shops in this area also seem to be out of, or low on, helmet stock. They also don't have many bikes, so I guess helmets are selling because bikes are. I'm glad that dealers are doing such good business--and (I assume) that people who are buying bikes are also buying helmets.
ReplyDeleteWhile I recommend helmet-wearing, I am still not sure that it should be mandated.