Now I know the topic for my next poll/survey. (The one in the left column of this blog)
Should helmets be mandatory? Normally, I wouldn’t think much about this, because wearing a helmet, to me, seems as natural as wearing shoes. Most times, it almost a reflex action. But a couple recent incidents have made me wonder what the best policy is.
This morning, a friend sent me a link to an article out of Melbourne, Australia. The article was about the Melbourne bike scheme. (I hate that phrase!! More later.)
According to the article, the whole program of providing inexpensive bicycles to the populous was not overly successful. It was a bit expensive and had relatively low user-ship initially. Then, it got worse due to Victoria’s strict, compulsory helmet law. If a bicyclist is caught riding without a helmet, the fine is $146.
At first I thought, “So that’s Victoria’s secret?” Then I started thinking of all the reasons a person might not wear a helmet:
 |
Should helmets be man-
datory for bike riders? |
- helmet not available
- helmet hair
- helmets look dorky (to some people)
- helmets are uncomfortable if you’re not used to wearing them.
- sweaty head
- possible head lice w/ rented/borrowed helmet
Mind you, I’m trying to imagine how other people might view the compulsory helmet law, not necessarily how I think.
So they’re trying to encourage bicycle use, but then forcing people to wear helmets or get socked with an outrageous fine. Hmmmmm!! Doesn’t sound very encouraging to me.
So they came up with a partial solution. The government subsidized the purchase of helmets and made them readily accessible to people… and that helped… to the tune of $2 million. Ridership is now up… somewhat.
But the “bike scheme” itself cost a chunk of money, then the helmets cost more. It’s starting to add up. Of course, my question is, “Do they have good, safe places to ride all these bikes while under the umbrella of these safe, compulsory helmets?”
So this is an instance of: We want to encourage people to ride bikes as an alternative to dirty, stinking, polluting, congesting, impersonal… cars. But then, we make them wear helmets and sock them w/ big fines if they don’t wear the helmets.
So are compulsory helmets going too far? What about if I’m just riding my cruiser bike a couple blocks to get a cup of coffee? What if I’m riding a few blocks from the bus station to my office, and I don’t want helmet head all day at work? What if I temporarily misplaced my helmet and need to do a short ride without it? How am I going to feel about paying a $146 fine in those circumstances? And how encouraging is that if I’m already on the fence about whether this whole bike-riding thing is such a good idea?
And finally, “Why do they call it a ‘bike scheme’?” Isn’t that a poor choice of words. “Scheme” has negative connotations as in, “You no good, filthy, dirty, scheming thief.” Why not a “bike plan” or a “bike promotion” or …
Now’s your chance to tell me I’m full of crap or, worse yet, full of “schemes.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 comments
Skip to comment form
It's a British phrases, isn't it? I keep reading about the "London Bike Scheme". Sounds odd to our ears, like their use of "pavement" to refer to a "sidewalk".
I believe you're right Randy. Some words just don't translate well between British English & American English.
Whatever you do, don't say you're wearing your "fanny pack" while in England. You'll get some strange looks.
Come to think of it, Dirt "Bum" probably doesn't sound so great to English or Aussie ears, either…
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
To be safe, next time you're in England, you'd best not mention your blog name or you might get slapped. (-:
"Victoria's secret" ha ha!
"Fanny Pack" doesn't sound that great to my American ears, either 🙂
Regarding your list of reasons people might not wear helmets: Imagine if Denver passed a mandatory helmet law for roller coaster rides, and Elitch Gardens handed out helmets at the entrance. Would there really be a vocalized "reason" most patrons would decline the helmet?
I just couldn't resist the "Victoria's Secret" comment.
I have to admit, I'm a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to helmet laws. I've always been a fan of motorcycle helmet laws but understood the opposition.
I'm less of a fan of bicycle helmet laws because of:
a. the nature of bicycling
b. I don't want to see anything get in the way of people giving bicycling a try. And if helmets get in the way, I say make them optional.
I coached wrestling for over 30 years, and I'm positive I would have gotten at least twice as many participants if it wasn't for the requirement that wrestlers wear singlets in competition. Students thought they looked dumb.
To me, that's crazy. But I know that some people forego biking for an equally ridiculous reason. They don't want to wear a helmet; either because they think it looks dumb or they think it's uncomfortable.
I'm thinking that we get them on the bicycles, they'll love it, then we can work on the whole helmet thing later.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
To be safe, next time you're in England, you'd best not mention your blog name or you might get slapped. (-:
It's a British phrases, isn't it? I keep reading about the "London Bike Scheme". Sounds odd to our ears, like their use of "pavement" to refer to a "sidewalk".