Antone's Nightclub
Babich Weighs in on Helmet Law Controversy
RECEIVED Tue., Oct. 24, 2006
Dear Editor,
If I were conducting a study about the cost to the city of brain injuries, I wouldn't restrict my attention to bicyclists ["Bicycle Helmet Headbutting Resumes," News, Oct. 20]. Why not study all brain-injured patients, and note in each case the cause of the injury? That way, there would be some context for the data about bicyclists. I wonder why the folks pushing for a bicycle helmet law don't look more at context. Don't they want to know why people who supported a bicycle helmet law in 1996 are opposed to it now? Don't they care whether or not mandatory bicycle helmet laws really work to improve public health? Why do they think a safe passing law is more complicated than a bicycle helmet law? Is it because motorists must be persuaded to accept laws, but bicyclists are a small minority that can be bullied?
In 1998, the University of Adelaide in Australia conducted a study on the use of motorcycle and bicycle helmets by passenger-car occupants. Bicycle helmets were less effective than motorcycle helmets, but more effective than airbags, in preventing head injuries to seat-belted car riders. The conclusion was that bicycle helmets on car riders could cut Australia's brain injury costs by 25%. However, the researchers added, people riding in cars wouldn't want to wear helmets, unless helmets became fashion accessories. Australia passed a mandatory bicycle helmet law without asking whether bicyclists liked helmets.
Austin's bicycle-helmet-law pushers are oddly dogmatic. They lack the open mind and spirit of inquiry of legitimate researchers. They are not interested in viewpoints other than their own. They want obedience, not discussion. And they consider bicyclists a small, unimportant minority that can be bullied.
If I were conducting a study about the cost to the city of brain injuries, I wouldn't restrict my attention to bicyclists ["Bicycle Helmet Headbutting Resumes," News, Oct. 20]. Why not study all brain-injured patients, and note in each case the cause of the injury? That way, there would be some context for the data about bicyclists. I wonder why the folks pushing for a bicycle helmet law don't look more at context. Don't they want to know why people who supported a bicycle helmet law in 1996 are opposed to it now? Don't they care whether or not mandatory bicycle helmet laws really work to improve public health? Why do they think a safe passing law is more complicated than a bicycle helmet law? Is it because motorists must be persuaded to accept laws, but bicyclists are a small minority that can be bullied?
In 1998, the University of Adelaide in Australia conducted a study on the use of motorcycle and bicycle helmets by passenger-car occupants. Bicycle helmets were less effective than motorcycle helmets, but more effective than airbags, in preventing head injuries to seat-belted car riders. The conclusion was that bicycle helmets on car riders could cut Australia's brain injury costs by 25%. However, the researchers added, people riding in cars wouldn't want to wear helmets, unless helmets became fashion accessories. Australia passed a mandatory bicycle helmet law without asking whether bicyclists liked helmets.
Austin's bicycle-helmet-law pushers are oddly dogmatic. They lack the open mind and spirit of inquiry of legitimate researchers. They are not interested in viewpoints other than their own. They want obedience, not discussion. And they consider bicyclists a small, unimportant minority that can be bullied.
Yours truly,
Amy Babich
Amy Babich