Re: Daytime running light popularity

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.
--
- Frank Krygowski