randya

Ten Reasons you should consider wearing a helmet when you drive

https://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/

High Roller

What's good for the goose . . . . . I'm on board with the idea.

mikeybikes

Let's create an all ages mandatory helmet law for driving or riding in a car.

dougmc

"In almost every accident involving a drunk driver, the drunk never dies" <- um, no. Yes, if an accident is severe enough that somebody dies, the drunk is more likely to live (I've heard it's because they tend to be more relaxed) -- but it's not that strong of a correlation.

I'm amused at the premise, but his "10 reasons" are crap. Really, he should stick with #6.

mconlonx

Adding mandatory helmet use for all road users would only make sense... it would also be a great way to shoot down any kind of cycling or motorcycling mandatory helmet law as well. Ask for an amendment during the bill process to include all road users and I bet it gets shot down in committee before even reaching the legislature...

BSB

In almost every accident involving a drunk driver, the drunk is not wearing a helmet. Even if helmetless drunks did almost always survive, that wouldn't support helmet use in cars. It might support impaired driving if the increased probability of survival outweighed the increased probability of being in an accident. Don't forget to get your kids drunk too - you want them to survive the car ride, don't you?

ghettocruiser

I bet if I wore my full-face while driving, I'd get pulled over.

The Human Car

I love this!

ItsJustMe

I think the reason that the drunk driver is less likely to die is that they're more likely to have hit the other vehicle with their vehicle head on but hit the other vehicle from the side. There's a lot more protection on the front of a vehicle than on the side.

ItsJustMe

You should wear all white.

Seattle Forrest

This is pretty ridiculous. If the goal is to make cyclists into a laughing stock, it's a step in the right direction. But the very best that anyone can hope for from this is some gentle laughter, along the lines of "Look at what these lunatic bike people want now!" Even if this was a good idea, we simply do not have the clout to pull it off. And that's if it was a good idea.

Seat belts are already required by laws that are routinely enforced. It's getting harder as time goes by to find a car without airbags. There are ~40,000 car fatalities a year in the US, out of untold billions of miles and hours of driving. Being in a car is much less likely to get a person killed or injured than being on a bike, like it or not. The truth is, while safety could be improved for cars, it's already pretty well covered, and far ahead of our situation.

If we're going to demand that cars be brought into full equality with bikes ( "We have to wear helmets, so you should, too" ) we should be ready for the other shoe to drop, meaning registration with taxes, brake lights, and all that jazz. This would be as absurd to require of cyclists as helmets are for cars.

Really, this is pure spite. We need to choose our battles.

Two of the people I graduated high school with ( in a class of about 90 ) died in a car wreck, both plastered, when the car smashed into a tree. Never say never.

chipcom 

The second leading cause of Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) are motor vehicle accidents...and they are the leading cause of death from TBI. Yet many of the same people who would never think of riding a bike (only like 3% of TBI) without a helmet, would never even consider wearing a helmet while driving. The freakin CDC (whose stats I am using) recommends helmets for cyclists...but only seatbelts and not driving drunk for motor vehicles.

We truly live in a bizzaro world.

noisebeam

Another option is to mandate that cyclists wear helmets designed for or equivalent for motorcycling or auto racing.

randya

Uh, the guy promoting this is not a cyclist

Asi

I wear a helmet in a car (on the race track)
I don't wear a helmet on the bike, it's not mandatory and for city use it's not so much of use (it can be, no question about it, but if you walk at 10km/h trough the park, what's the use of a helmet?, at this point, on an empty road through city, i can go with 20-30-40km/h with no danger - only my opinion)

ItsJustMe

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with cycling.

Seattle Forrest

No, but we all are, and I seem to be the only one in this thread ( 16 replies so far ) who doesn't think it's a good idea. So, to my limited knowledge, there are 14 cyclists here who support the idea, plus the guy promoting it. Which comes to 93 % of support ( shown in this thread - I'm sure there's plenty more I'm not aware of ) coming from cyclists. I'm suggesting that we cyclists "sleep on" this one, and not take it up as one of our causes.

I'm just concerned that relations aren't peachy as it is between cyclists and drivers. We're making slow progress with things like physically separated bike paths, and an Idaho law allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yields, and red lights as stop signs. On the other hand, we're sliding backwards in Florida where bikes are actually required by law now to ride in bike lanes, if these exist. I enjoy being able to control the full lane; it keeps drivers from passing me dangerously and risking my life. I really, really do not want to provoke drivers into wanting to pass more punitive ordinances to make our riding lives more difficult.

I think the best thing we can do for advocacy, is to choose our battles, and I think this one isn't worth taking up. We'll do better taking up causes that will help us, and that are achievable. I don't think advocating for cager helmets will do either of those things. That's all.

Speedo

I think you need to re-read the posts, and keep the word irony in mind as you do. Then do a re-count.

Speedo

noisebeam

Me thinks you are getting a bit worked up about a bit of fun.

Keep in mind most of these so called supportive cyclist are motorist or passengers in a motor vehicle as well.

chipcom 

Whoa, slow down, hoss.
You seem to be the only one in this thread taking this bit of fun way too seriously.
The chill pills are on the top shelf, behind the irony.

jefferee

I'm about 90% sure the site is tongue-in-cheek. Pretty brilliant satire, though.

randya

who is saying they are supporting this? I just put it out there for discussion.

But I do think it should be part of the discussion, in as much as helmets might benefit motorists more than they benefit cyclists, and yet there are quite a few people campaigning for MHLs for cyclists, not the least among them non-cyclists, and virtually no one campaigning for MHLs for motorists.