Seattle helmet law repealed

[mattheus]

https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/10/19/ ... elmet-law/
The vote was a few days, and the law has been repealed (readers can find their own report).

Now, this repeal was not on the grounds that helmets aren't good for safety- it was mainly due to racial discrimination.

But I think it's indicative of a trend (glboally): less people blindly assume helmets are always good => helmet laws must also be good.

(if anyone has other recent examples, please share!)

[Jdsk]

Very interesting.

Thanks for posting.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-nort ... orced.html

But I think it's indicative of a trend (glboally): less people blindly assume helmets are always good => helmet laws must also be good.

I don't know about any trends but that does seem to connect to the decision that the authorities made: repeal the law because of a clear adverse effect AND promote helmet wearing.

Two different questions. (In this case about policy rather than evidence.)

Jonathan

[mattheus]

Two different questions.

What are your questions (specifically)?

[Jdsk]

Two different questions.

What are your questions (specifically)?

The health authority seems to have been asking:

Should there be a law mandating the wearing of helmets?

Should we encourage and support the wearing of helmets?

Jonathan

[mattheus]

Two different questions.

What are your questions (specifically)?

The health authority seems to have been asking:

Should there be a law mandating the wearing of helmets?

Should we encourage and support the wearing of helmets?

Jonathan

Ah OK, yes broadly they probably are.

What interests me is that they introduced the law because they answered "YES!!" to both question.
Then they found Unintended Consequences to the law, and have rowed back on the first question.

[drossall]

Forgetting the merits, I'm glad I don't have to cope with this kind of complexity:

The repeal affects most of King County, including Seattle. However, 17 cities in the county, making up roughly one-third of the county’s population, have their own laws mandating helmet use that won’t be affected by Thursday’s vote.

I guess you'd just default to wearing one, unless you normally rode somewhere that no longer had legislation, and one day strayed out of area and forgot

[Stevek76]

Ah OK, yes broadly they probably are.

What interests me is that they introduced the law because they answered "YES!!" to both question.
Then they found Unintended Consequences to the law, and have rowed back on the first question.

Whereas if they actually cared about public health they'd row back on both for the same reason as CUK's position: it only takes a tiny suppressive effective from helmet promotion to result in the lost health benefits outweighing any possible live saving that they could achieve.

Still, baby steps.

[Slowtwitch]

Ah OK, yes broadly they probably are.

What interests me is that they introduced the law because they answered "YES!!" to both question.
Then they found Unintended Consequences to the law, and have rowed back on the first question.

Whereas if they actually cared about public health they'd row back on both for the same reason as CUK's position: it only takes a tiny suppressive effective from helmet promotion to result in the lost health benefits outweighing any possible live saving that they could achieve.

Still, baby steps.

+1 good point

[tatanab]

Forgetting the merits, I'm glad I don't have to cope with this kind of complexity:

The repeal affects most of King County, including Seattle. However, 17 cities in the county, making up roughly one-third of the county’s population, have their own laws mandating helmet use that won’t be affected by Thursday’s vote.

I guess you'd just default to wearing one, unless you normally rode somewhere that no longer had legislation, and one day strayed out of area and forgot

There is nothing much united in the United States. There is national law, state law, county law and city law which I suppose may be like our by-laws. It can be hard to work out which applies since what we might consider a suburb of Seattle actually has city status itself. 1997/8 I lived in one such suburb.

Then of course you cannot ride with clubs without a helmet, probably for their insurance purposes.

[Jdsk]

The proceedings haven't been published yet. There is a report from the meeting:
https://www.realchangenews.org/news/202 ... helmet-law

Jonathan

PS: I wouldn't accuse a health authority of "not actually caring" simply because they came to a different conclusion from me.

[Stevek76]

I guess that depends on how much you define caring as results vs good intentions. I prefer the former.

Is an alternative medicine practitioner who results in unnecessary cancer patient deaths because they've tempted people away with various detox etc caring? (assuming for the purposes of this that they genuine believe in it and not just after the money)