Mayor Villaraigosa Declares Helmet War on California
August 18th, 2010 
24 Comments
(Editor’s note: this post by rida and Blood-In organizer [one of many] Rach Stevenson. Hopefully she will write for Bikeside again!)
At the recent Los Angeles Bike Summit Mayor Villaraigosa unexpectedly announced that he would push for state-level legislation that would make it mandatory for all cyclists in California, regardless of age, to wear a helmet when riding. Currently the law in California requires only those aged 17 years and under to wear helmets. At first glance, it seems like this is a no-brainer. Adult or child, nobody wants a head-injury, right? If we all wear helmets then cycling will be safer. Right?
Actually, despite numerous studies the consequences of enforcing such a law remain unclear. A review of the effects of helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada showed that cyclist safety did not improve any more significantly than pedestrian safety over the same time period, despite an increase in helmet usage. A 2005 study in California found an 18% reduction in the number of traumatic brain injuries among youths following the change in the helmet law, while a 2006 study in San Diego found no statistically significant decrease in the proportion of head injuries post-legislation compared to pre-legislation. Over a 15 year period in the US, helmet usage increased from 18% to 50%, yet the rate of cyclists sustaining head injuries increased by 40%. There are many more studies out there, none has been able to reach a solid conclusion. Many factors compound the difficulty of assessing helmet law efficacy. Helmet laws are often announced in tandem with other campaigns (e.g. drink-drive awareness) that can increase cyclist safety, and any study conducted over a period of more than a year or two must account for changes in infra-structure, and cycling trends (e.g. popularity of mountain biking vs. road biking). The results from these studies can be swung to support both sides of the argument, so I’ll label them as, at best, inconclusive.
Futhermore, requiring cyclists to wear helmets sends the message that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity. A mandatory helmet law could potentially discourage cycling when Los Angeles, and the US as a whole, desperately needs sustainable transportation. Pedestrians are as likely to suffer a head injury after a fall as a cyclist yet it is cycling that is labeled as a risky way to travel. Surveys conducted to assess the impact of helmet laws on the popularity of cycling produce inconsistent results, with US surveys showing no difference between pre-law and post-law cycling rates, while Canadian and Australian surveys showed declines ranging from 5% to 30%. When the number of cyclists on the road doubles, the likelihood of a motorist hitting a cyclist drops by about 30%. This “safety in numbers” effect is thought to be responsible for the low rate of cyclist fatalities in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands despite a very small fraction of cyclists wearing helmets (see the chart below for a comparison to the US).
Safety in numbers: More cyclists on the road make cycling safer. The rate of fatalities appears to be independent of helmet usage.
Despite the muddling statistics there is one thing I am sure of: if you ever find your head hurtling towards the ground, something has gone horribly wrong. There are no such things as ‘accidents’ on our roads. No cyclist falls without a cause, be it a pothole, a driver passing too closely, or some other hazard.
Cyclists at the summit called for the city to focus on improving road safety, while the Mayor focused on injury prevention. Amongst other things, cyclists suggested pothole repair, adding a bicycle section to the drivers test, cycling programs for school children, and a 3-feet minimum passing distance law. Mayor Villaraigosa was not against these ideas, indeed he was in favor of the majority, but kept reiterating his support for a helmet law, effectively placing the burden of responsibility for injury prevention on cyclists, rather than focusing on preventing collisions and incidents in the first place. An additional concern is that a mandatory helmet law would likely make it difficult, if not impossible, for non-helmeted cyclists to seek damages for injuries that could have been prevented by a helmet, even if responsibility for the incident lies entirely with another party.
Of course, one has to appreciate that it is far easier for the Mayor to force thousands of cyclists to wear helmets than to convince millions of drivers to follow the laws of the road. The path of least resistance, however, often leads to a less preferable destination. That foam and plastic helmet Mayor Villaraigosa wants you to wear is not an collision prevention device. It is a last resort, the final line of defense between your skull and the ground. Despite the Mayor wearing a helmet on July 17th 2010 he still had to undergo surgery and has had multiple hospital visits for follow-up care since. Wouldn’t it be better if the taxi driver had been properly educated and the incident never happened in the first place?
Mayor Villaraigosa’s announcement at the summit was largely met with derision. Despite losing the room each time he stated his intent to push for the law several times. Boos and jeers followed. Los Angeles cyclists are not alone in their resistance. Nationally, 46% of cyclists oppose such a law, with a further 36% not having a strong opinion on the issue. Just 18% are in favor, suggesting Mayor Villaraigosa will have to work hard to get the level of support needed, all the while spending our tax dollars to do it.
In conclusion, studies to date do not suggest that a helmet law will make cycling safer, and there is evidence that shows enforcing such a law may even be detrimental. Measures proven to increase road safety include driver education, a minimum safe passing distance law, improving road conditions, and better infrastructure. It is this cyclist’s hope that Mayor Villaraigosa will direct his time, energy, and political clout towards more effective methods to improve safety on our roads, rather than pursuing a counter-productive measure overwhelmingly opposed by the cyclists he represents.
Author Info
Nice out the gate, Rach! I would love a safety campaign and encouragement from the mayor for people to wear helmets, but totally against a law.
People compare this to a seatbelt law, but there’s a big difference. A seatbelt can keep you from being thrown from your car or thrown around your car as it’s rolling or as it crashes head on. A helmet is just a layer of foam between your head and the pavement. How many car accidents result in head injuries? Roller skating/roller blading? Hiking? Anytime your head hits anything there is the possibility of injury.
Here’s an anecdote for you: when I was six I was sitting on the ground watching TV while my brother was running around the house playing with the dog. He ran past me too close, his knee connected with my head, and I had to be hospitalized with a concussion.
Should I have been required to wear a helmet while watching TV because theoretically that would have prevented my injury?
You raise some interesting points. I completely agree with you that cycling safety has more to do with city infrastructure than helmets, and the numbers you provided reflect that, but at the same time I had an accident once where I landed on my head, and if I hadn’t been wearing a helmet at the time I would have at least landed myself in the hospital.
It happened when my friend and I didn’t communicate while riding together, and he turned while I went straight. His wheel slammed into mine while going 10 mph, and I flew off my bike and landed on my head. When walking, if I bump into a friend going 2 mph, my chances of landing on my head, or even falling, are much smaller.
Anyway, good editorial.
“sends the message that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity.”
It is. If the drivers don’t get you, the potholes will.
Great post, my thoughts exactly. I wear a helmet, but cycling helmet mandate is absolutely the wrong move and does not corrospond with successes in improving road safety elsewhere.
A bicycle is not a motorcycle and the same logic should not be applied. A bicyclist unless on a very steep decent is going to top out at a little over 20 mph, most people ride closer to 12-13 mph, and is not likely going to kill them self without a car involved. Cyclists going fast enough to pose a serious risk to them self, like hard core roadies, typically have extremely high rate of helmet usage without a mandate already.
So emphasis should be on reducing collisions with cars, not accepting high collision rates and hoping bubble wrap and a foam hat helps. Motorists with very high horse power on the other hand are a huge risk to them self. The number one type of road fatality is motorist, single vehicle collision with stationary object or running off the road.
In the wayback of the early ’90s when I dared ride a heavily motorized bicycle, California passed a mandatory helmet law for users of those contraptions and in protest I stenciled on the back of my brain bucket:
Helmets Are Smart.
Helmet Laws Aren’t.
I wore one then (and it saved my life) and I wear one now everywhere I go on my nonmotorized bikes — without being nannied by the state.
Jessica, why are the chances of hitting your head greater from a 10 mph crash anymore than a 2 mph walking fall? Just because there’s an increase in velocity doesn’t mean it’s going straight to your head. The reason I wear a helmet is not because I expect to fall, and not because I expect to land on my head, but because I use my bike to commute in Los Angeles and drivers here are notoriously aggressive to cyclists or not accustomed driving amongst them. Mandating that I wear a helmet, which I already do, does nothing to improve the motorists’ side of things. It was a motorist that hit the Mayor. Helmet or not, it still would’ve happened.
Yeah, the seat belt analogy doesn’t really work. Without seat belts you are almost certain to be thrown from the car or hit your head on glass in a collision. The vast majority of cycling crashes don’t even involve head contact.
I think helmets do make sense for high-speed or off-road recreational cycling, but requiring them for modestly paced trips to the coffeeshop on pavement doesn’t make much sense.
For the record I always wear and recommend a helmet. But I think helmets are a very minor part of the safety equation. We should focus on reducing collisions instead of requiring a protective device that’s rarely a factor.
I had an accident and my doctor told me that if I hadn’t been wearing a helmet, I wouldn’t be here. So I am 100% in favor of the proposed law making it illegal to ride without a helmet.
Also, my dentist told me that if I didn’t brush my teeth regularly, I wouldn’t have them any more. So I am also 100% in favor of a law making it illegal to skip brushing your teeth.
Mister Mayor, when will you launch your campaign for a statewide mandatory tooth-brushing law?
As someone who suffered a concussion and a minor brain hemorrhage in a bike accident years ago, I can vouch for a helmet law. But if it were a law, it would have to be a State law and not a City law, otherwise it would be ridiculous.
That being said, there are more immediate and pressing issues for cyclists that we should be working on, such as traffic laws regarding avoiding auto-bicycle collisions.
Tonight I witnessed a helmet save someone’s life. I still think helmet laws are a stupid idea. The helmet saved this guy’s life as a LAST RESORT. If the events that happened prior to his head connecting with pavement were prevented, it wouldn’t matter.
spending time and political energy to get the helmet law passed is a band aid strategy. spend time and political energy making the streets safer so we don’t need to wear armor to do something so innocent as ride a bicycle.
His idea for educating citizens about the rights of those who chose to travel by bike is a good one. More than any other road hazard, stupid drivers have gotten me closer to having to use my helmet as more than simply a fashion statement than anything else.
But the meeting, it seemed that his primary objective is to make a helmet law based on his experience. I know he had a bad crash, and I’ll be happy if it results in helping idiots in their SUVs not yell at me to get on the sidewalk, but I’d rather he stick to education than policing.
Car and bus drivers make this city difficult for cycling. Potholes I can see. Streets that suck are obvious. But there’s not much I can do about that silent Prius coming up behind me at 65mph, distracted driver checking out restaurants on a GPS while changing her kid’s diaper.
@Jessica: “His wheel slammed into mine while going 10 mph, and I flew off my bike and landed on my head. When walking, if I bump into a friend going 2 mph, my chances of landing on my head, or even falling, are much smaller.”
I’d be curious if there are any data to back up the claim. Too, how do we account for the large numbers of runners and skaters traveling at 10+ mph who don’t seem to suffer from the same pressures to wear helmets?
“His idea for educating citizens about the rights of those who chose to travel by bike is a good one. More than any other road hazard, stupid drivers have gotten me closer to having to use my helmet as more than simply a fashion statement than anything else.”
Exactly, and he can start by insisting that the cabbie that caused his crash be cited for failure to yield. On the one hand saying it’s OK because the cabbie didn’t mean to hit him and on the other hand mandating that cyclists wear bubble wrap to ward off dangerous cabbies is exactly the WRONG message.
No one (except for Dr. Thompson) intends to hit other vehicles. That doesn’t mean it’s not their fault if they do. Accountability among road users will improve safety far more than an extra layer of bubble wrap.
I’ve been having a lot of interesting conversations with fellow cyclists lately about helmet laws, and everyone here is right – a Helmet law is a bandaid agenda and not a solution.
Ask any Helmet manufacturer and they will tell you themselves that these things are not meant to protect you from being hit by a car. Let’s prevent the car from hitting you in the first place.
That being said, I wear a helmet everywhere, even for the smallest ride. It has saved my melon twice now, and I feel uncomfortable riding without it or near others without helmets even. I’ve contemplated a helmet law quite a bit, and even argued in its favor, but there is so much more logistical issues with a law than I even want to think of – and legal catch 22′s if you are involved in collisions w/o helmets.
People know what a helmet is, there are plenty out there, and if they want to wear one they will…BUT I see the other side of the argument and would much rather have Mayor V focus on legal support in court and fair justice.
To Mayor V: I get it, but if you really want to make a huge helmet effort – take a weeks worth of your salary and buy as many helmets as you can – then hold a press conference and announce that you are giving them all away for free to anyone who doesn’t have one and would like one. Hold an event where people can come down with their families and learn about safe cycling and get a helmet. Make people responsible for themselves and treat them with respect and fair justice. Then we will start to feel safe on the streets.
being all for as many cyclists wearing helmets a possible – transfering the focus of safer motor vehicle operation onto cyclists is bass-ackwards.
I’m willing to wager big that accident statistics will bear out there are MORE total head injuries (all types) for passengers and drivers in motor vehicles compared to total cyclist head injuries…
Hence, the proper law would be to require ALL operators and ALL passsengers of moving motor vehicles to wear helmuts.
That makes more sense.
And don;t forget the neck rolls for whiplash…
“As someone who suffered a concussion and a minor brain hemorrhage in a bike accident years ago, I can vouch for a helmet law.”
Uh, did you actually read the article?
One of your lines said it all:
“one has to appreciate that it is far easier for the Mayor to force thousands of cyclists to wear helmets than to convince millions of drivers to follow the laws of the road.”
The Mayor is a politician, and like any capable politician, he doesn’t care nearly as much for our safety as he does care about votes – and right now the votes, money and power politicians want comes from drivers who find bicyclists annoying.
The helmet law has nothing to do with safety, or even economics. It’s a matter of basic freedom. If I decide to take the risk to ride a bike w/o a helmet – that’s MY business … no one else’s!
One commenter here said it exactly right: helmets are smart, helmet laws aren’t
I wasn’t able to go to the Bike Summit but was told there was a lot more discussed than the issue of helmets. Reading this blog, I thought that was the only topic discussed.
I just saw this from LACBC and noticed that the follow up really doesn’t include anything about helmets.
Yesterday, LACBC met with Jaime de la Vega and Heidi Sickler from the Mayor’s office to follow up on some of the key requests we brought to the Mayor’s attention at the Bike Summit.
1) Bike Plan Implementation Strategy:
LACBC submitted a call for the Mayor to immediately implement high profile bike facilities.
Please click here to view the document and priority list we submitted.
2) Bicycle Boulevards:
The implementation of the 4th Street Bicycle Boulevard is a LACBC priority. As 4th Street has support for Councilmember LaBonge, community members, and local stakeholders, we feel this Bicycle Boulevard, equip with the necessary traffic calming devices such as bulb-outs, traffic circles, bicycle activated signals etc, would create a precedent and establish some best practices for future Bicycle Boulevards. We are working with some of the instrumental volunteers, integral to this campaign, to put together a list of suggested treatments appropriate for each intersection. We will continue to work with LADOT, the Mayors Office and Councilmember LaBonge’s office to see this project implemented as soon as possible.
3) Complete Streets and Training:
We issued a request to the Mayor to issue a directive to all roadway engineers and department heads to abide by the Complete Street Standards outlined in the Complete Streets Law, which goes into effect in January of 2011. For years our road engineers have only been asked to keep vehicle traffic moving, we’re asking the Mayor to give them a new directive – a directive to design streets for the safety of all users and to safely move bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and vehicle traffic on the same streets. To accomplish this the Mayor’s directive would also require engineers, planners, and related staff within the departments of Bureau of Street Services, Bureau of Engineers and DOT to attend bicycle and pedestrian safety design training seminars.
4) Bicycle Safety and Awareness:
In continuation of the Bicycle Safety Awareness Campaign, LACBC requested that the City create a “one stop” city bicycle safety and information website. Links to this site or page need to be easily viewable from the homepage of city websites. Using the LADOT bicyclela website as a central location, we will be working with these offices to update and incorporate more information and resources to this site.
5) 3 Foot Passing Law:
The Mayor confirmed his commitment to seeing a 3 Foot Passing Law enacted in the State of California in 2011. LACBC will be working with his office and the California Bicycle Coalition (CBC) to draft language and find a sponsor for the law. The CBC previously worked to enact a 3 Foot Passing Law in 2006 and more recently to on a Vulnerable User Law – we’re hoping with the support of the Mayor the 3 Foot Passing Law and a Vulnerable User Law will both become law in the next year. We will be keeping you posted on our progress over the next few months and will need your support in Sacramento in 2011.
6) Updating Metro’s TOD Guidelines to Include Bicycle Parking Facilities:
The Mayor will be submitting a motion for the September MTA board meeting to incorporate better bike facilities with all MTA projects and improve bicycle access to transit. This would include triple racks on buses as well as bikes on rail.
Thanks for the LACBC advertisement mk4524. I don’t think that Rach indicated the helmet law was the only thing that was discussed at the summit. However, she was there, and I was there, and so were many others. As someone who was there, I can tell you that it was the thing that stood out like a sore thumb. The mayor brought it up and was booed and jeered, then reiterated his commitment to it, noting that “I’m not here to be popular.” He then reiterated it several times throughout the meeting, to the vocal displeasure of the crowd. It’s notable, it’s relevant, and it’s worth blogging.
Glad to see that LACBC will be supporting Box’s work on MTA and TOD.
well, the only thing that a helmet law will do is it will stop me riding a bicycle to work. I will drive. Isn’t that the _real_ Mayor’s plan?
I have a feeling the mayor’s enthusiasm helmet law is/ will be short lived.
We would do well to quietly approach his office with the facts, about why pursuing this law would be a counter productive failure. If the media get riled up about this, and keep quizzing him on it, he will have to dig in one way or another.
A more recent example of where the mayor is on this subject, is the talk that he gave at the unveiling of the “Give Me 3″ campaign (8 days ago).
When he started talking about his famous accident, he paused for a second when it came to the part about his helmet. As if he wasn’t even going to mention that a helmet saved his life. Let alone talk about his aspirations to pass a law, for fear of getting booed by the small crowd.
We need the mayor to understand that: most of us want and need and support his helmet advocacy 1000%. We also need him to understand: it a waste of time, money, and political capital to push for a helmet law.
The mayor made an unfortunate comment at the “bike summit” that i don’t think was thought about long, or heavily researched. With only a few kooks to push him on pursuing a helmet law and lots more pressing things on his plate, I think he will be happy to let his misstatements about pushing a helmet law fade into the the ether … that is, if we let him.