Sorry if this is long, but I thought it important to include pertinent facts. Even so, I haven't quoted exact statistics.

Today the Austin City Council is scheduled to hear public comment on a recently introduced ordindance requiring all cyclists to wear a helmet. The main proponent is Bruce Todd, former mayor, who last spring was involved in a road bike crash of unknown cause, though it has been surmised that a stick caught in his spokes and caused him to go over the bars. He spent several days in a medically induced coma, and was in PT for a while. His doctors have said that his helmet saved his life. It is significant to note that during his tenure as mayor (1996, I believe) a similar ordidnance was passed. That ordinance was later reworded to include only cyclists age 17 or younger.

Interestingly, one of the groups that most strongly opposes the ordinance is the club which sponsored the ride Mr. Todd was on when he was injured. Opponents have stacks of statistics reflecting the relative mortality rates of different modes of transportation, which show that cycling is safer than driving or walking. They have statistics about injury rates that show similar results. They have statistics showing that head injuries represent a small percentage of bike-crash related injuries. They have statistics from other municiplities which show that when mandatory helmet laws are put in place and enforced, that ridership decreases dramatically. They have statistics that show that the existing helmet law has been rarely and sporadically enforced, primarily against minorities in economically challenged areas of the city. They argue that resources would be better used if focused on increasing cycling safety, including rider education, driver education and development of safe cycling routes. The sound bite argument is "Helmets don't prevent bike crashes."

So, I'm sticking this out there for debate. What do you think of everyone being required to wear a helmet all the time?