In a stunning announcement, Labor MK Shelly Yehimovitch introduced a new bill to repeal a law passed by the previous Knesset, which requires bicycle riders to wear helmets when traveling on public roads.According to the Israel National Center for Child Safety and Health, wearing a bicycle helmet reduces the risk of head and brain injuries by 88 percent.
The reasons given by Yehimovich and other supporters of the bill for the repeal include the following:
* Wearing a helmet is "uncomfortable"
* Wearing a helmet causes the rider to "not feel free"
* Wearing a helmet "requires dragging the helmet around"
* Wearing a helmet "interferes with hairdos"
[No, this is not taken from The Onion.]
The bill is supported by the Government and the Ministerial Committee on Legislation, and is expected to pass.
It's not just the Muqata staff which believe that MK Yehimovitch has truly lost her marbles -- safety experts have denounced the private member's bill to revoke the law requiring adults to wear helmets while biking in urban areas - just endorsed by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation - as "idiotic, amateurish and dangerous to public health." (JPost)
Actually, there's nothing to fear. MK Yehimovitch's hairdo is now safe from harm and we won't be forced to wear "uncomfortable" helmets.
The truly serious Knesset-passed safety laws remain in full force -- like those prohibiting cellphones from being used in gas stations.
hat-tip: Lurker
Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד
You left out our most important reason why we want to repeal this law:
ReplyDelete* Wearing a bicycle helmet "looks so gay"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually, from a libertarian perspective, this move actually sounds excellent. For the first time, someone on the Labor party is actually being liberal for a change!
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to endanger his own life, isn't that his right, in a democracy?
Of course, the public then shouldn't have to pay for his hospital bills. Liberty and freedom to go without a helmet, and access to universal taxpayer-funded medical care, are mutually exclusive.
Mikewind: LOL - access to universal taxpayer-funded medical care, are mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteNot to Israel's labor party!
Did you see the link about gas stations and cellphones? That's IMPORTANT legislation. Not.
Chelm!
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that kids all over the world grew up riding bicycles without helmets, yet a very small percentage actually banged their heads hard enough to do much damage.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if you check the numbers, you'll find that you still more likely to die in an automobile accident than on a bicycle (with or without said helmet).
But believe it or not, it's still legal to drive, even if you don't have to.
Maybe it's still legal to drive because the manufacturers of bicycle helmets haven't lobbied against it?
They still ride parts of the Tour De France without helmets. What's good enough for Lance....or not!
ReplyDeletePersonally I can't stand bike riders, they all have this attitude like they own the road. they're even worse then the Prius drivers (but that's a whole story in of itself).
ReplyDeleteif they really want to kill themselves -go ahead.
No, no, it's really a good thing. Classic "Darwin Effect" in action. What better way to get these Labor fools out of the gene pool! (And all the others who think it's "smart" not to wear bike helmets.)
ReplyDeleteAs if Shelly Yehimovitz actually has a hair style!
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of all sorts of cheap demagoguery against settlers (sacrificing their children to molech by living in dangerous areas, valuing land over life, being in love with war etc.) Whatever you think of the Labor party there is no reason to stoop to this level. The purpose of the law is to make bicycle riding more accessible, and there are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the law is to make bicycle riding more accessible, and there are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue
ReplyDeleteAvi - the excuses given for this law are:
Wearing a helmet is "uncomfortable"
* Wearing a helmet causes the rider to "not feel free"
* Wearing a helmet "requires dragging the helmet around"
* Wearing a helmet "interferes with hairdos"
Guess what -- there are a billion things on the planet that are "uncomfortable" -- like vaccinations...and seat belts are also a pain. Yet to use an official excuse that a helmet "interferes with hairdos" is truly the height of immaturity.
That's cheap demagoguery?
If anything -- the diatribes against settlers -- is a direct result of the Labor party's OSLO plan, which turned life into hell for the settlers. When we moved here, it was before the hell that the Labor party wrought on us. Before Oslo the ShinBet estimated there were NINE automatic rifles in the entire West Bank. Thanks to Olso - there are now well over 100,000.
Labor wants to do away with helmets because they are inconvenient.
Labor wants to do away with Yehuda v'Shomron for the same reason.
After all, we wouldnt want anything to happen to MK Yehimovitch's hairdo.
The question is not whether wearing a helmet is beneficial or not, but whether it should be the government's role to force people to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your sentiments towards the Labor party and Oslo, although Sheli Yehimovitch is one of the more reasonable Labor MKs. But claiming that this law reflects Labor's disregard for life is exactly like the kinds of dishonest demagoguery which is used against the settlers. Remember the "ובחרת בחיים" pro-expulsion stickers? There is no reason to adopt the modus operandi of the left.
Avi: I'm all for keeping the government out of people's lives.
ReplyDeleteYet of ALL the possible stupid, intrusive laws in this country, the one she decided to tackle is one that has a proven track record, and her excuse for removing it is that it bothers people's hair-dos.
Had she said, "Government needs to stay out of people's lives" -- now that's something different, and a position which can be understood.
Instead, she provided a bunch of silly excuses that sound like something a child would say.
The truth is, the Labor party adheres to liberal (not libertarian) principles that the government knows best whats best for you.
And as Labor Party Ehud Barak has stated before -- they will even use the army to enforce their principles on their own population...for the "sake of democracy"
We DO own the roads.
ReplyDeleteAnd, anyone who rides without a helmet is nuts, period.
Finally, I do not think that anyone in the Tour de France goes without a helmet on any stage anymore.
You absolutely, most certainly 100% do NOT own the road. The person in/on the larger vehicle owns the road.
ReplyDeleteMy truck VS your bike. Lets see who wins.