Re: Daytime running light popularity

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 11/4/2024 6:23 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Am 03.11.2024 um 23:12 schrieb Roger Merriman:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 11/1/2024 12:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 11/1/2024 7:32 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 
Don't pretend that helmet mandates are impossible.
Don't pretend that
bicyclist rights to the road are never going to be
challenged.
 
 

Much like Wolfgangs mandatory cycle infrastructure
that is political, I get
the impression that passing states laws is somewhat
easier ie someone with
a “bright idea” can get it done, certainly in uk
nothing is a devolved as
that, so getting helmets legislation though or any
legislation requires
effort and time, hence it’s always failed in the uk, I
think might be
required in one of the Channel Islands or maybe only
below 16?

 
Of course mandatory infrastructure is political. So are
mandatory
helmets. And such restrictions probably always start
with someone with a
"bright idea" - often, I think, someone who stands to
make money from
the idea.
 
U.S. helmet laws are an example. Many states have them,
and most apply
only to children, up to a variety of ages. How did
those come about?
Well, Safe Kids, a nationwide organization devoted to
protecting kids
from tons of different hazards (e.g. climbing trees,
crossing streets
without an adult nearby, playgrounds that are on actual
ground instead
of rubber pads, etc.) received a "generous donation"
from Bell Sports
Inc., then the primary maker of bike helmets. Safe Kids
immediately
began portraying bicycling as a horrendous risk and
overwhelming source
of serious brain injuries. Safe Kids used its hundreds
of local chapters
to lobby for Mandatory Helmet Laws in state
legislatures. Was there a
connection to the "generous donation"? Hmm.
 
I can give details of how I got our bike club to vote
against supporting
a statewide MHL, and how I testified against a
statewide MHL in front of
a legislative committee; and I can note Ohio still has
no such MHL. But
of course, I'd be accused of either lying or bragging,
depending how
much documentation I provided.
 
But I'll note that Safe Kids has stopped its
monomaniacal push to get
helmets on all kids as well as all parents ("Be a good
example"). They
seem to now be concentrating on child car seats as the
world's most
critical issue. I suspect that Bell Sports now has too
much competition
in the market and can't afford more "generous donations."
 
Follow the money.
 

That’s quite frankly conspiracy theory have you been
chatting to Tom?

 
What part of it do you find hard to believe? Since I
seldom clean out my
files, I probably still have old Safe Kids brochures,
including with
"thanks to a generous donation..." footnotes. I didn't
invent that.
 

Rolling back somewhat politically you get what is
intended ie America is
very much car culture and so people think that way and
roads infrastructure
are designed that way.

 
Which is only peripherally connected with Safe Kids push
for MHLs. BTW,
I'll note that the organization used to distribute
suggested language
for MHLs. That's partly why there are close similarities
for the laws in
different states.
 

But politics are by nature changeable ie if the Germans
wanted to they
could change some of the car centric laws.

 
It's often much more difficult to get a law repealed than
to get it
enacted. The latter often depends on concentrated effort
by individuals
or organizations who will either profit monetarily, or by
seeing their
Holy Mission come to fruition. The latter usually
requires a large
portion of the population to get enraged, which can
happen only after
the pro-law propaganda is decisively proven false.
 
As an example, look at Australia's all-ages mandatory
bicycle helmet laws.
 

Inertia is definitely a thing, considering the high usage
of helmets and
the efforts involved, I can see why the political will to
change the law
and public opinion is likely to be low.
 
I’d be more concerned with Germany mandatory cycleways and
lighting
regulations personally which are definitely car centric
legislation!
 
Are ways to strike laws out occasionally but fundamentally
a law should be
tested fully before it’s allowed, which depends on the
political system.

 
The German Mandatory Sidepath law was working "perfectly":
The country at the 1936 Olympics was able to demonstrate
that cars were able to drive unimpeded through town in Germany.
 
How long have the US Jaywalking laws with the same purpose
taken to be repealed? Is it just NY City or the whole of New
York state where you can't be prosecuted for jaywalking any
more because Police were enforcing it in a racist way?

 
Los Angeles cites and fines jaywalkers and the fines are
steep.  This is local politics and policy more than a
cultural shift.
 

From a uk perspective the idea that bar a few special roads you can’t cross
the road at any point of choosing is frankly ridiculous!

In general is less channeling of pedestrians as time as gone on, such as
railings that where present as I grew up have generally been removed for
various good reasons.

Roger Merriman