Competing public health goods, the nanny-state, and the mayor: Why michael bloomberg opposed a mandatory helmet law for cyclists

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - renowned for his willingness to use paternalistic methods to promote public health – recently opposed a City Council proposal mandating the use of bicycle helmets. I explain this apparent paradox by proposing that the Mayor's stance arose from his perception of a conflict between two public health goods. On one hand, mandating helmets protects cyclists. On the other hand, the Bloomberg administration has spent years seeking to increase the numbers of New Yorkers cycling, which it views as improving the public's health both by promoting physical activity and by decreasing the number of vehicles used within the city (thus reducing vehicular emissions, thereby ameliorating air quality and addressing some of the root causes of climate change). The Bloomberg administration feared that mandating helmets would stall or undo recent gains in the number of cyclists and therefore opposed the proposed helmet mandate. Critics of the Mayor's stance contrasted his opposition to helmets with his willingness to ban large sugary drinks; however, this criticism fails to understand that Bloomberg's opposition to the helmet mandate arose from his choice between competing public health goods. The decision to ban sugary drinks entailed no such conflict.