On Feb. 10, state Senator Carol Liu proposed a law that would make California the first state in the nation to enforce the use of helmets while operating a bicycle, regardless of age.
Over the past few years, the fatality rate for cyclists has gone up, which has sparked a heated debate between regulators and the cycling community.
A report released last April by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that from 2011 to 2012, there was a 6 percent increase in the number of pedal-cyclists killed.
Although research has revealed an increase in the risk of cycling, there has yet to be substantial evidence for a cause or a solution to this problem. Most of the studies that have focused on pinpointing the problem to find a solution are contradictory and incomplete.
In 2014, a report was released by the Governors Highway Safety Association stating that more than two-thirds of fatally injured bicyclists in 2012 were not wearing helmets. However, The New York Times News Service reported that while helmet usage soared between 1991 and 2001, but so did the number of head injuries, by a staggering 51 percent.
A quick search on Google reveals this contradicting evidence, and one can’t help but feel both overwhelmed and unsatisfied. Despite the variation in reports of just how effective helmets are, I don’t think anyone would argue against the fact that wearing one is safer than not. However, that has yet to be identified and supported by significant evidence. All this is to say that Bill No. 192 has been based on the mantra that it is worthwhile if even a single life is saved.
While I see the good intention in Senator Liu’s proposal, I don’t think that we should be basing laws off mantras.
A study published in 2011 by Med Help, an American private health care corporation, ranked the public’s odds of dying by certain events. Death by a bicycle accident was No. 17 on the list, whereas death from being a pedestrian in a busy city was ranked No. 11.
According to this study, your odds of dying from walking the streets of Los Angeles are much higher than the odds of perishing from riding your bike, but that doesn’t mean the government should pass a law requiring all citizens to wear full-body gear before taking their dog for a walk.
“I think if a law is going to be made, there needs to be a substantial amount of evidence to prove that the law is necessary,” undeclared freshman Chandler Reagan said. “While Senator Liu has provided a pleasant mantra, I don’t exactly think it’s enough to get a law passed. I think if she were to pair the mantra with some real, factual information about the safety provided by helmets, her case would be much stronger.”
Instead of amending the law right away, Liu should be focusing on conducting the proper research in order to exert her power from a place of fact rather than good intentions.
This bill makes America, specifically California, look too lazy to prove an assumption. Instead, we just pass a bill and wait for the new fatality numbers to come in.
Following the principles of our Constitution, California should worry more about providing concrete information to the public, so that citizens have the opportunity to govern themselves to the best of their abilities and knowledge.
Freshman political science major Noah Jackson argues that the government was created largely to protect our freedom.
“I think that adults should be responsible for their own decisions,” Jackson said. “The people should have the responsibility of deciding what precautionary steps they take in dangerous or risky situations. This bill might save a few lives, but at the same time, the government was created to protect our liberties.”
Although the legislator may be overstepping, we must keep in mind how this bill is trying to prevent deaths from cycling accidents.
The consequences of getting hit for the cyclist and the one hitting him or her are so much greater than the inconvenience of wearing a helmet. This bill is not just the law taking away a citizen’s freedom in exchange for safety, it is about making other people aware of how their lives could affect the general welfare.
“Most people choose not to wear a helmet because they assume that they will not be injured and because it is inconvenient to wear one at times,” junior political science major Jamie Warren said. “However, that decision not only affects that specific biker but everyone around when a tragedy strikes.”
Warren explained how if a biker gets hit and dies because he is not wearing a helmet, the consequences extend beyond his death, as those who were involved or witnesses of the accident carry that memory with them for the rest of their lives.
“This law is not just about forcing you to wear a helmet for your own safety. This law is also about forcing you to be considerate of others,” said Warren, a biker for Ride for Water.
If this bill is passed, I could see many people becoming upset. Whether you experience restriction as a teenager from your parents or as an adult from your government, it always feels like a punishment. However, if this bill passes, it will be important for people to recognize that what they are getting is so much greater than what they are giving up.
With proper evidence provided, I believe this bill could be beneficial to the state of California. However, regardless of whether it passes, people should consider the ramifications of their actions not only for themselves but also others before making an irrational decision based on convenience.