Requiring helmets versus fixing infrastructure

I just bought a new bike helmet. Conventional wisdom and manufacturers' guidelines state one should get a new helmet every three to four years, even if you have not had an accident or dropped your helmet from a helicopter. My old one was 4 ½ years old, but to the best of my knowledge, it has never hit the ground, even during my accident last June. The new one has MIPS, EPP, EPS and is antimicrobial, Hi-Vis and eliminates odor. I don't even have those qualities. You five loyal readers will know I always wear a helmet on my bike and I want you to wear one, too. A new study by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says requiring helmets would save cyclists' lives. Few people dispute helmets save lives. It's the requiring part that many people don't like. Requiring helmets in lieu of fixes to the infrastructure places the responsibility on the victim/cyclist. This is not to say all bike riders are always careful and safe riders. They're not. But making bike riding safer is an issue of public safety and affects us all. Even if you are not a bike rider, you have loved ones who are. Kids on their way to school or football practice, your mom and dad who like to take their e-bikes for coffee in the morning. That crazy grandpa who, with his equally-crazy grandpa friends, ride 50 miles to get a donut. A helmet might not help you if, while in college in Santa Cruz, you have head-on contact with a 1962 Triumph TR3. But if the head-on impact with a TR3 sends you flying over the car, crumpling your bike so much that it fits in the sports car's trunk, that helmet might then save your life when you finally hit the pavement. There are those who see this renewed push for bike riders to wear helmets as little more than a distraction. The real reason for an apparent increase in cycling deaths is lousy infrastructure for bike riders. National Transportation Safety Board board members shared the concerns of many in the cycling community, that is, more emphasis on improving roads and vehicles to make cycling safer. Different ways to park cars to eliminate "dooring" cyclists, protected or at least brightly-painted bike lanes and designated areas for bike riders to stop on the streets are some of the ideas to make cycling safer. Slowing down car traffic where cyclists tend to ride would be a major step but members of our car culture (which includes most of us) tend to fight anything that might cost them a minute on their way to the store. Most of the riding I do (and write about) is on a road bike on rural and semi-rural roads. While it would be wonderful for all those former farm roads to be wide enough for formal bike lanes or even a bit of paved shoulder, we know that won't happen. New housing developments require bike lanes and paths, which is nice, but not everyone wants to do all bike riding in neighborhoods. The good news is that there is bi-partisan support in Washington to increase funding for innovative programs to increase safety for bike riders and pedestrians. Bicycle-safety programs shouldn't be optional. "Optional" too often means "we're not going to do it." Tom Frady is a Lincoln resident and avid cyclist and driver.