To Helmet or not to Helmet

The year was 2011. Jerry Brown had just vetoed a bill on his desk from San Francisco's (now former) Senator Leland Yee. "I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state," he said. "Not every human problem deserves a law." 
His goal, he explained, was to ensure that California laws weren't perceived as creating a "nanny government." He was referring to a bill that would require those 17 and younger to wear a helmet while skiing.

Ah, how history repeats itself. It's 2015 and we're again tackling the age-old question: "Where do we draw the line between government regulation and individual freedom?" The issue at hand now is whether adult bike riders should be required to wear helmets at all times and reflective gear after dark.

The bill's author is Senator Carol Liu, (D-L.A. County). Her reasoning comes from a National Conference of State Legislatures report saying that 91 percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets. It also seems to me that they're taking a page out of the state of Wyoming's book, where a similar bill would require reflective gear and ID.

I understand that there is inherent danger in riding at night without a helmet, and I do know the extent to which helmets reduce head injury, and thus ER visits. I personally would never ride without one here in the Bay Area, simply because it isn't safe for me right now.

Here's the problem I have with this bill though. Actually, I have 3 issues with this bill:

1. It places the blame on the victim. It's the bicycle equivalent of the "she didn't cover herself up and that's why she was assaulted" argument. When we live in a society where bikes and cars are on equal footing, then maybe we can revisit this discussion. I've spoken to a number of individuals in government and advocacy organizations about increasing the number of bikes on the road. Surprisingly, I have received the "bicyclists are all overly aggressive law-breaking hooligans" response more times than I wish to admit. Similarly, the next comment I hear is "but s/he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument. Again, this has nothing to do with biking. It's like saying a person who doesn't wear a seat belt is an aggressive driver--is there really a causal relationship? This bike-shaming pervasiveness, I believe, stems from fears that we as a society have about challenges to the status quo.
2. This bill may affect ridership and place a burden on certain communities. The CA Bike Coalition claims that this bill may discourage ridership. The same study that Liu references even acknowledges the lack of research surrounding these claims. It's certainly an area that warrants further study, especially as the state tries to meet their ambitious emissions reduction goals (ahem, state legislature---bikes are zero emission). Additionally, bicycles, as a cost-effective mode of transportation, are an attractive option for low income communities and communities of color. What implications does this have for policing in these communities? I doubt low-income residents are looking for another rule they need to follow to avoid interactions with law enforcement.
3. We see fewer accidents in countries that have fewer people who wear helmets. That said, the causal link between these variables is that these countries also have better biking infrastructure and more people biking on the streets (meaning reduced speed), thus creating a safer environment. A good question legislators can ask themselves is "what are we doing to make bikers feel safer and encourage ridership?". You may protect someone's head with a helmet requirement, but does it matter if they're still getting sideswiped on an overcrowded street with a skinny bike lane and traffic traveling at 40 mph? We know that we are more likely to attract female and young bikers when we provide infrastructure too (i.e. dedicated and separated lanes, trails, traffic calming).

What is California doing to promote bicycling alongside this regulation? I'd be so happy to see an appropriations section in their next budget designating hundreds of millions towards bike paths, bike racks, and proper signage. But this isn't the case. As it turns out, the US and state budgets decreased their active transportation allocations for the FY15/16. To me, Liu's bill suggests an apathetic approach from the legislature and poor understanding of the issue at hand--either that or it's a prevarication.

As J.S. Mill said in On Liberty, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."