Sacramento’s bike death toll is one of nation’s worst. Here’s why cyclists still resist helmet laws
Sacramento had the nation’s second-highest cyclist fatality rate in 2017, when three bike riders died in motor vehicle crashes.
Last year, the number climbed to eight.
A detailed new federal study says head injuries are the big reason for bike-related deaths, but no states require adult bike riders to wear helmets.
The National Transportation Safety Board looked at this and other data and recommended that all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico require everyone to wear a helmet when riding a bike.
That’s going to be a tough sell.
Many bicycle advocates oppose such mandates. “It’s a distraction,” Deb Banks, acting executive director of the Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, said of such requirements “The larger issues are streets that need to be safer and the crumbling infrastructure.”
She commutes about five miles a day to downtown Sacramento on her bike, and does not wear a helmet. She will wear one on long distance trips.
She takes what she calls “low stress roads that are known bike commuting roads with bike lanes, so I feel safer, and cars that travel those same roads are more likely to be aware of the cyclists around them.” In less populated areas, that’s not necessarily so, she said.
Sacramento in 2017 had a cyclist fatality rate, which includes mostly bicycles but also includes tricycles, unicycles and other two-wheeled non-motorized vehicles, of 5.98 per million population, second among the nation’s 50 largest cities. Phoenix, with a rate of 8.61, was first. Fresno’s rate was 5.69.
A renewed push for helmet requirements began last week, when the safety board released its first comprehensive analysis of bicycle safety issues in 47 years. It reported that wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of head injuries by 48 percent.
“Head injury is the leading cause of bicycle-related deaths,” it said.
To NTSB member Jennifer Homendy, page after page of similar findings in the report were clear evidence that the board should put its considerable weight behind a push to require that everyone should wear an age appropriate bike helmet when riding a bike.
Her fellow board members agreed but had concerns, concerns shared by many in the cycling community. Advocates often say they want more emphasis on improving roads and vehicles as a way of making cycling safer, and are concerned such laws gives law enforcement a reason to stop certain people and then find other reasons to detain them.
“We are against mandatory helmet laws. We teach and encourage helmet use, but believe mandatory helmet laws discourage bicycling and we’ve seen the enforcement be uneven and target people of color,” said Caron Whitaker, vice president, government relations at the League of American Bicyclists in Washington.
Added Corinne Kisner, executive director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials: “While requiring helmets may seem like an intuitive way to protect riders, the evidence doesn’t bear this out. Experience has shown that while bike helmets can be protective, bike helmet laws are not.”
When the board discussed its report last week NTSB Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg noted that “There’s complete agreement that helmets do work. They’re absolutely effective.”
But a recommendation about required use? “I was struggling with this one a little bit,” he said. “First off, there’s a perception of the nanny state. We’re Americans, we’re independent and we don’t like folks telling us what to do particularly from Washington.”
Chairman Robert Sumwalt had similar thoughts. “I kind of struggle with this,” he said. “Do we require helmets on skateboarders? Or helmets on people riding scooters? I guess to ride horses? About 100 people a year die falling off horses. Do we require people riding horses to wear helmets?”
He wondered how far should the requirements should go. “Why don’t we, when we get through with this one, maybe I’ll propose a recommendation that requires people to wear reflective clothing? Where does it stop?” he asked.
Sacramento’s Banks said she “could see” mandatory helmets for children. But she also noted that the push for mandated helmets could easily go too far. “We don’t mandate helmets for skiers or skateboarders or rock climbers,” she said.
Homendy, in an interview with McClatchy, said the “nanny state” argument often comes up “every time we take a significant stand on a core safety issue. We’re the safety agency. We have to set the bar for safety.”
She noted that requirements that once seemed far-fetched have become a norm, and have saved lives.
Homendy recalled how, as a child in the 1970s, she would stand up in her family’s station wagon. Today, few would think of sitting in any vehicle without a seat belt.
Sumwalt understood. “I grew up jumping on a bicycle and riding it and never thought about wearing a helmet. On the other hand I grew up getting into an automobile never with the notion of not buckling a seat belt,” he said.
The helmet debate has been raging for years. What’s different now is the increasing use of bicycles, particularly in urban areas, as well as increasing concern about safety. Last year, 857 people died in cycle-related crashes, the highest number since 1990.
The new NTSB research offers fresh evidence about the extent of head injuries in bicycle crashes. It found “the underutilization of helmets continues to contribute to the incidence of deaths and serious injuries among crash-involved bicyclists.”
It urged a “national strategy” to increase helmet use among all riders, and perhaps educational campaigns and helmet distribution programs. The next step, Homendy said, is to bring the bike safety community together to talk about how to proceed and perhaps have the government offer model helmet use legislation
“Our job is not a popularity contest. We’re not here to take a straw poll to see who wants it and who doesn’t,” said Sumwalt. “Our job is to speak the truth, which we already have done in our finding.”
This story was originally published November 18, 2019 at 5:00 AM.
.jpg)