Chris516

That is pathetic. I was speaking from personal experience. That I wouldn't want anyone INCLUDING YOU to ever have to go through.

howsteepisit

Its pathetic to want to make a law based on very rare personal experience.

spdntrxi

Chris's experience is personal... but by no means does this require a law... the law is already on the books for 18 and under and that's enough. I understand Chris POV... but it's a special case...so what you will but this law would suck and I use my helmet 100% of the time.

rydabent

Why not go all the way. The nanny state types could come up with a law that requires bikes to be equipted with huge orange tractor intertubes on both sides and the rear. Oh and maybe a light pole that has a 10,000 watt blinking light.

Curtis Odom 

Big deal, less than having to use seat belts and headlights in your car.

dpeters11

The way I'm reading it, there really is no teeth to this bill. A lot of bicyclists would just pay the $25 on the likely rare occasion of being caught.

I'm fine with ride organizers requiring them, but not legislators, at least for adults. But then I don't like that some states have seatbelt laws as a primary offense (though how often is that invoked?)

Chris516

While the first health issue I have. Is a (congenital)brain aneurysm. I think of aneurysms', like 'strange animals'. Because while the first cause can be a weak wall in the blood vessel. No reason has been found why the weak walls in the blood vessel occur. So, As far as mandating the use of a helmet and etc., at all times. Is a moot point. Because there is no connection between use of a bike helmet(or lack thereof) and aneurysms'(they sometimes happen near the aorta).

In my case, it caused (congenital)hydrocephalus. The surgeries for the aneurysm n' hydrocephalus, caused the epilepsy.

Now the hydrocephalus itself, can be a result of a car accident(a friend was diagnosed last year, shortly after a car accident, which he did not survive the needed brain surgery), a fall resulting a head injury. It can also happen as a result of an 'organic' problem within the brain, not even related to a head injury. There is no cure for it. Only a way to control it. In the 1960's when I was born, the survival rate was only 5%. The survival rate has greatly improved in the last 50yrs..

As for epilepsy, that can be caused by brain surgery. It can also be caused by exposure to certain chemicals that a person's brain may not like.

So, Before you still think of it, as pathetic. Think back to the 1970's. When there was a campaign against mandating the use of seatbelts in motorized four-wheel vehicles.

Yes, It is personal. I don't want it to end up being personal for anyone else. Apart from the brain aneurysm it isn't exactly a special case.

I don't want a 'nanny' state any more than you do. But I still think helmets should be mandated for all users. Suggesting tractor inner tubes, and a 10,000 watt blinking light is just plain over the top of absurd.

It probably doesn't. Law enforcement already says they have more important things to do.

I-Like-To-Bike

Especially pathetic when that very rare , very personal experience had absolutely zero association with either helmet wear or bicycling. Pathetic!

Chris516

There is a big connection to cycling. Just like with riding a motorcycle, skateboarding, rollerblading, and rollerskating.

KraneXL

That's good old California for ya. Just the extra parent you never knew you needed. And to think I'm moving back there to live. Maybe I need my head examined?They should be mandatory for minors. Adults can make there own decision, don't you think?

kickstart

But when those injuries do happen, they pay the bills, and are always pushing to minimize their exposure when they can. Minority groups like cyclists are mush easier targets than majorities like motorists. Keep in mind insurance basically gambling on odds.

kickstart

I'm one of those people too.

Ride your own ride, and do as you please as long as I don't have to carry your baggage.

B. Carfree

I suppose you have some data showing that mandatory seat belt use laws (generally not a primary enforcement law anyway, so you have to get caught doing something else to be cited) and headlight use laws have diminished the amount of driving where they exist relative to where/when they don't/didn't exist? Of course you don't.

However, I'm still happy to compare apples to apples and mandatory helmet laws for motorists would be an interesting situation.

KingCat

This law would be so welcomed by police. Every time they pull someone over for a helmet violation they could search for drugs, guns and warrants. This law would be enforced exactly like the helmet law for minors is being enforced.....if you are white in a good neighborhood you are fine. If you give the police any lip or attitude then you are getting handcuffed, searched, probably thrown to the ground, and detained for 40 minutes.

keyven

I don't wear a helmet normally, but threads like this by militant anti-helmeteers always make me smile.

Less (safety) rules for the vulnerable please.
More restrictions on everyone else please.

In an ideal world, cyclists do what they want, motorists are subjected to martial law.

dpeters11

This says that it's a primary offense in most states. 33 states have primary offense laws for front seats, 16 have primary for rear.

State Seat Belt Laws

dpeters11

We had a state rep that didn't want a 3 foot passing law for that same reason.

mr_bill

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Don't minors have adult parents who might make decisions about their welfare? If it's reasonable to tell adults how to care for their children, isn't it also reasonable to tell them how to care for themselves.

FBinNY 

So you have data showing a 2% decline in miles driven over 6 years During which seat belt use saw another 7% of continued growth that had been trending long term, and you claim a correlation.

Don't you think it's barely possible that a massive increase in the cost of fuel during the last 6 years might have contributed to the 2% decline in driving? Maybe looking back further might be more instructive, but IMO no conclusions can be drawn from this data set.

mr_bill

First, I clam no correlation.
Second, fuel cost plummeted at the same time driving rates plummeted.
Third, I present zero conclusions about this "data set."

(Unlike, well, in the other thread where a certain New Zealand data set is worshiped.)

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Fair enough. I thought you were claiming this set was a valid response to the challenge posted by B. Carfree.

mr_bill

It is a valid response to the helmets depress cycling rates claim.

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Actual laws like these aren't welcomed by police at all. Police don't like to be charged with enforcing minor infractions of unpopular laws. It's a distraction, and increases the strains between them and the general public.

In any case, a traffic infraction isn't valid cause for a search other than a name/warrant search. But I agree that this kind of law is a perfect candidate for selective enforcement, which IMO is one of the best reasons for not having it.

FBinNY 

I don't see how, especially since you all but disowned it.