View Full Version : Helmet ordinance.
TOPIC DELETED & CLOSED. I decided not to proceed with this any further. Hope that makes most of you happy, I'm done with this issue. You won. I lost. You were right, I was wrong. I am sorry I ever thought up this stupid idea. Guess I was the idiot here. Enjoy the victory.
AndrewP
08-11-05, 09:49 PM
The trouble with laws like this is that the police dont have time or the will to enforce them. Check how many people have been fined in the last 10 years for riding a bike on the sidewalk. I expect a helmet law would have a lower level of enforcement.
I think your efforts would be more effective if you pushed the education authority to include safe cycling in their phys ed program.
Best wishes & Good luck
TOPIC DELETED & CLOSED. I decided not to proceed with this any further. Hope that makes most of you happy, I'm done with this issue. You won. I lost. You were right, I was wrong. I am sorry I ever thought up this stupid idea. Guess I was the idiot here. Enjoy the victory.
chicharron
08-11-05, 09:58 PM
" << "For those of you who are anti-helmet, anti-helmet law, etc, please stay out of this one.">> Well,Mr.N.C. How very demecratic of you. You express your opinion on a talk board, but no one is allowed to post on your thread to disagree with you. By what I have read on your post, do I understand that this ordinance you propose is not in place yet? So, you will still have to deal with the demecratic form of government that you apparently disdain and have so much contempt for.
As far as being prepared to wear a helmet or being fined, it isn't law yet, so your's is an empty threat. Oh, by the way, "Sieg Heil"
chicharron
08-11-05, 10:03 PM
volunteer. What that means is if she is doing her volunteer duty & she sees someone illegally parked in a handi-cap parking spot she write a citation for it. In the state of Iowa it is a auto-matic $100.00 fine.">>Does Barney Fife help train the volunteer helmet police?
TOPIC DELETED & CLOSED. I decided not to proceed with this any further. Hope that makes most of you happy, I'm done with this issue. You won. I lost. You were right, I was wrong. I am sorry I ever thought up this stupid idea. Guess I was the idiot here. Enjoy the victory.
TOPIC DELETED & CLOSED. I decided not to proceed with this any further. Hope that makes most of you happy, I'm done with this issue. You won. I lost. You were right, I was wrong. I am sorry I ever thought up this stupid idea. Guess I was the idiot here. Enjoy the victory.
" Well,Mr.N.C. How very demecratic of you. "Demecratic" eh? :lol:
Does Barney Fife help train the volunteer helmet police?
Did Lil' Abner help teach you grammar and spelling?
It's also funny that you missed the clearly labeld link that would allow you to skip the whole <<>> thing.http://img203.exs.cx/img203/91/arrowtoreplywquote6it.jpg
primaryreality
08-11-05, 11:19 PM
I'm all in favor of helmets, and even enforcement, but I'm having trouble visualizing this volunteer thing working. Leaving citations on parked cars is one thing, but how are you going to ticket a moving cyclist who doesn't feel like stopping to cooperate while you write him up? What are you going to do--take down his license number?
TOPIC DELETED & CLOSED. I decided not to proceed with this any further. Hope that makes most of you happy, I'm done with this issue. You won. I lost. You were right, I was wrong. I am sorry I ever thought up this stupid idea. Guess I was the idiot here. Enjoy the victory.
I'm all in favor of helmets, and even enforcement, but I'm having trouble visualizing this volunteer thing working. Leaving citations on parked cars is one thing, but how are you going to ticket a moving cyclist who doesn't feel like stopping to cooperate while you write him up? What are you going to do--take down his license number?
<Sarcasm> There's much to be said for tasers. </sarcasm>
phinney
08-12-05, 01:03 AM
Helmets are just a band-aid for the real problem. How about a city wide ban on cycling?
crazybikerchick
08-12-05, 01:27 AM
I am thinking about doing what it takes to get the City of Sioux City to pass a bicycle helmet ordinance for everyone who rides bike in this community & have it be enforced. I have a pretty good idea of the pros & cons of doing so. But the "cons" are not going to keep me from trying. I think tomorrow I will contact my city hall to find out how to go about this. The consequences will be a fine. I will try to get the fine to be the average retail price of the cost of a helmet sold in my community doubled.
Why do you feel the need to have a bike helmet ordinance in your community (just curious)?
If you wear your helmet and encourage your friends to wear helmets, and even encourage every cyclist you see to wear a helmet, why does it matter to you if some of them choose not to do it?
It can discourage cycling to have it mandatory, would you feel safer with less cyclists on the road? Not just because some cyclists don't want to wear helmets, or can't afford a helmet, or whatever - but also for the perception of the safety of cycling. Hmm cycling is not as safe as walking or driving because I have to wear a helmet but don't have to wear a helmet doing those activities (which incidentally have higher rates of head injury), and I really don't want to do something unsafe, so I won't cycle.
Sorry I'm not anti-helmet, but definitely anti-helmet law though I guess you told both to stay out of the thread :)
Placid Casual
08-12-05, 01:30 AM
For those of you who are anti-helmet, anti-helmet law, etc, please stay out of this one.
You first.
Did Lil' Abner help teach you grammar and spelling?
It's also funny that you missed the clearly labed link that would allow you to skip the whole <<>> thing.
Clearly labed? What sort of lips does it have?
Clearly labed? What sort of lips does it have?
Your second post and already biting off more than you can chew. Bravo
Do I care what you think? Not at all, I'm doing this anyway. If you come to my community be prepared to either wear a helmet or be fined for it.
How charming. Is your community full of busybodies, or is it just you?
Daily Commute
08-12-05, 03:40 AM
By pushing for a helmet law, you are "entic[ing] a fight over this subject" and you are "starting one." It's funny, you don't want your critics to participate in a discussion, but you want to force your critics to ride the way you want them to under threat of arrest.
MichaelW
08-12-05, 03:46 AM
How do these local ordinances work with regard to cyclists riding through your town from out of your jurisdiction?
I-Like-To-Bike
08-12-05, 04:20 AM
I'm sure you feel that I am a pro-helmet "nazi". You know what? You're right I probably am. Do I care what you think? Not at all, I'm doing this anyway. If you come to my community be prepared to either wear a helmet or be fined for it.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to entice a fight over this subject nor do I intend on starting one.).
Your "disclaimer" doesn't alter the obvious strident beligerency of your post on this subject.
Of course you are looking for a fight. Any other Iowans join you in your campaign? Maybe you can plot strategy down at the beer hall.
filtersweep
08-12-05, 04:52 AM
Why not just ban bikes from the streets if safety is the concern? Ban bikes after dark? Legislated absurdly high safety standards of lighting at night? Legislate full-face helmets? Body armor?
Sorry to be crass, but legislation is the lazy way out....
I always wear my helmet-- BTW.
Placid Casual
08-12-05, 04:56 AM
Your second post and already biting off more than you can chew.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
dwightonabike
08-12-05, 06:21 AM
Does it upset you that much to see someone riding without a helmet?
I'd love to see some bozo without a badge and gun try to stop me and write me a citation!
"Demecratic" eh? :lol:
Did Lil' Abner help teach you grammar and spelling?
It's also funny that you missed the clearly labeld link that would allow you to skip the whole <<>> thing.http://img203.exs.cx/img203/91/arrowtoreplywquote6it.jpg
You really need to learn how to spell "labeled" before playing spelling police.
Little Darwin
08-12-05, 06:30 AM
I am in favor of helmet laws, so the following is not to back up a hidden agenda, but I think this is a bad idea.
First, a couple of points that I think are relevant concerning volunteer enforcement in general.
First, it is just silly to have volunteers enforce the law. It puts a person trying to do what is right at risk of assault for daring to ticket a sociopath's car.
Second, unless it applies to all laws, then it is proclaiming that certain laws are worthy of extra resources... If laws aren't worth spending the resources, I favor eliminating them.
If the above is off base, I would caution against the ordinance in the case of bicycle helmets for two reasons.
The first is simply related to some motorists' attitudes about bicyclists. I could just see the morons you read about in the other threads here if you gave them the power to give cyclists tickets. After all if you have a helmet ordinance, it must specify to wear the helmet properly on the head (either explicit or implicit) or it does no good... So it would take several cyclists fighting a particular issuer of tickets before a vendetta would be obvious... How would the court easily know the difference between a diligent enforcer and an idiot with an agenda.
But, the biggest reason is safety, since cyclists aren't usually sitting still. I could just see it now, a well intentioned soccer mom in a minivan chasing down a kid on a bike to give him a ticket "for his own good"... or the hypothetical idiot from the preceding paragraph exercising his right to cite the cyclist by "getting his attention."
Then another thought just came to mind, we would also have to modify our training of kids to stay away from strangers. The rule applies unless they are going to give you a ticket... This will work until the child abusers figure out that if they pretend to give a ticket, they have leverage to get close to the child.
Although I applaud the thought of helmets being encouraged at all levels, including helmet laws, I think this attempt has serious issues because of the "volunteer" element.
NC - why are you offended by freedom? Me, I wear a helmet, my wife wears a helmet, and my daughter wears a helmet. So will my son when he's old enough to ride. I think people riding without helmets are idiots. However, they also have the right to control their own bodies, and the chances they take with them. Helmet laws are an invasive attempt by the state to play nanny.
chicharron
08-12-05, 07:22 AM
Did Lil' Abner help teach you grammar and spelling?
It's also funny that you missed the clearly labeld link that would allow you to skip the "
<<LABELD??>> I guess you and me sat next to each other in school with Lil Abner, Rayin.
Little Darwin
08-12-05, 08:56 AM
NC - why are you offended by freedom? Me, I wear a helmet, my wife wears a helmet, and my daughter wears a helmet. So will my son when he's old enough to ride. I think people riding without helmets are idiots. However, they also have the right to control their own bodies, and the chances they take with them. Helmet laws are an invasive attempt by the state to play nanny.
Aahzz,
I'm not NC, but just thought I would jump in. ;)
My purpose with this message is to promote thought, not necessarily propose or eliminate any possible solutions.
I don't strongly support helmet laws, although I am mildly in favor, and always encourage people to wear them, as it seems you do (by your family's usage). However, if you apply the freedom argument to other safety issues... Let's look at a potentially similar scenario (I am not addressing all relevant points, and presenting an overly simplistic view :D ):
Pennsylvania state law mandates that a bicycle shall have brakes that can stop the bike in 15 feet from an initial speed of 15 mph. Only an idiot would ride a bike that didn't have brakes, and the only significant damage of not using brakes is to any individual who chooses to not do the intelligent thing. Therefore, for the sake of freedom, brakes should not be required by law.
While I believe that it is true that we would find that more people supported brakes than helmets, the freedom argument if applied should work equally on both of these laws. In either case the bulk of the risk is to the cyclist. Any damage done to others would be relatively insignificant.
I walk a thin line. I am opposed to laws that are ineffective and/or not enforced, and I do think our best approach for bicycle safety is education. However, I see no problem with laws to underscore the education.
I just thought of something else, a cyclist is just as free to ride without a helmet regardless of the law... they just face the risk of a fine in addition to the risk of damage to their skull... If they are willing to pay the price of a cracked skull, why do they worry about a little monetary fine? They must be something besides idiots as you described them, they must be cheap idiots. :)
chicharron
08-12-05, 09:18 AM
<< "If they are willing to pay the price of a cracked skull, why do they worry about a little monetary fine?" >>. Why, because then it becomes my choice to assume the price of a cracked skull. When you speak of a thin line, where do we draw the line? How far do federal, local, state, city,govt. or insurence company regulations /laws go to regulate our lives and our safety?
My real question to N.C. and others of his ilk, is why? It never has been explained fully as to why he is so adament that we protect our own skulls? Is it "really" because of the cost to society and the effect on all of our insurence premiums and taxes? Or is there another reason some persons are so focused on regulating the lives of others.
Of course I wear a helmet when I ride. I wear eye protection when I mow my lawn. Should we pass legislation requiring the use of eye protection, foot protection, and ear protection, when operating a lawn mower?
I really would like N.C. to adress my questions that I have raised.
Trevor98
08-12-05, 09:29 AM
"I am thinking about doing what it takes to get the City of Sioux City to pass a bicycle helmet ordinance for everyone who rides bike in this community & have it be enforced."
This simple statement scares me. What if the City of Sioux City (that is, the people as represented by their elected officials) does not want said law- are you willing to back down or are you talking about forcing a law upon people in a non-democratic way, a coup perhaps? We have read you lack of respect for other's opinions in this area, how far are you willing to take your agenda?
If you are going to use the democratic process to attain your goal then I ask you to not use the typical pro-helmet rhetoric when pushing this agenda to the law makers and the public. Most arguments for mandatory helmet use rely on horrific stories of tragedy and loss. This is not helpful to your cause of protecting people (unless your cause is only to protect people from cycling head injuries) as such arguments tend to scare people away from bike use in general. Cars and lethargy are a whole lot more dangerous to people than bikes. Please find and use logical/sound arguments for the benefit of those you wish to protect. I caution you to refrain from turning the law-making process into a scare fest.
Everyone has the right to try to change the laws but everyone should accept that there is a good chance that they will fail (unless they are a dictator). You are not an absolute authority and should not propose absolutes.
You statement, "In the state of Iowa it is a auto-matic $100.00 fine." is absurd. Such a law would violate Due Process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and a little research on my end proved the statement wrong. Since it is a not a moving violation the state must prove that the owner violated the law. Parking tickets are issued to the owner of the car (a car cannot break the law as it is inanimate). The owner is therefore presumed responsible for the violation unless s/he can provide an alternate suspect. Most people would simply plead guilty/no contest, pay the fine, and move on. However, every ticket can be fought in court because there is a chance that the issuing officer (I use the term loosely) lied. A jury or a judge must rule on the matter if the alleged violator pleads not guilty. A ticket is, therefore, not paramount to conviction (automatic in other words) as you indicated. Additionally, "auto-matic" is spelled "automatic" without a hyphen.
This lack of a basic understanding of our legal system indicates that you should research on its general concepts before fiddling with the law. The ends of protecting people does not justify the means of violating the principles of our country. Think long and hard about forcing your will upon others. The taunts of some of these poster are not terribly out of line however pointless.
I am not particularly anti-helmet, or anti-helmet law. I am against dumb laws and helmet laws are mostly written poorly. Helmet law campaigns are almost always harmful to the cycling community.
Sawtooth
08-12-05, 09:30 AM
I smell a troll. :eek:
Urban Shooter
08-12-05, 09:32 AM
NC has been bitten by the vigilante bug. I agree it makes sense to wear a helmet but as others have stated, it should be an individual's choice. Things always start out small but what kind of country will we be living in when everyone becomes required to follow rules forced upon them by others who are possibly a few cards short of a full deck.
chicharron
08-12-05, 09:35 AM
I smell a troll. :eek:
Could you be more specific? Who is the troll, and why? The reason that I ask, is that I used to post on another news group on another newspaper. And, I was labeled a "troll', because I happened to differ with the popular opinion on the thread. And I was the one who started the discussion thread!
Trevor98
08-12-05, 09:42 AM
according to the thread display he [Sawtooth] was replying to the original post not to mine. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I hope that this thread is a troll because the tone and attitude of the original post scare me.
chicharron
08-12-05, 09:44 AM
I live in a larger urban community than N.C. does. I live in Kansas City. And probably in other major urban centers, I serioulsly doubt if the police are going to have the time to patrol and ticket bicyclist for failure to wear a helmet. I see motorist run red lights, stop sighns,ect everday, without fear. Small personal use and possesion of marijuana is rarely enforced, even when smoked in public on a street corner. Ask your local city cop if he feels like writing tickets for bicylce helmets.
chicharron
08-12-05, 09:46 AM
according to the thread display he [Sawtooth] was replying to the original post not to mine. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I hope that this thread is a troll because the tone and attitude of the original post scare me.
Thanks, Trevor. That's a good thought. Now that you have said that, I wonder if this thread is a joke,by a troll with an sense of irony. Hmmmm.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-12-05, 09:54 AM
My real question to N.C. and others of his ilk, is why? It never has been explained fully as to why he is so adament that we ...
I'm sure you feel that I am a pro-helmet "nazi". You know what? You're right I probably am. Do I care what you think? Not at all, I'm doing this anyway. If you come to my community be prepared to either wear a helmet or be fined for it.
Does that answer your question? He is proud of being considered "Nazi" like in enforcing/inflicting his beliefs on others whether they like it or not; whether they agree or not. And don't raise no stinkin' objections because his ilk ain't listening.
chicharron
08-12-05, 10:05 AM
Does that answer your question? He is proud of being considered "Nazi" like in enforcing/inflicting his beliefs on others whether they like it or not; whether they agree or not. And don't raise no stinkin' objections because his ilk ain't listening.
!!!!read post#34 by Trevor. !!!!!
Aahzz,
I'm not NC, but just thought I would jump in. ;)
My purpose with this message is to promote thought, not necessarily propose or eliminate any possible solutions.
I don't strongly support helmet laws, although I am mildly in favor, and always encourage people to wear them, as it seems you do (by your family's usage). However, if you apply the freedom argument to other safety issues... Let's look at a potentially similar scenario (I am not addressing all relevant points, and presenting an overly simplistic view :D ):
Pennsylvania state law mandates that a bicycle shall have brakes that can stop the bike in 15 feet from an initial speed of 15 mph. Only an idiot would ride a bike that didn't have brakes, and the only significant damage of not using brakes is to any individual who chooses to not do the intelligent thing. Therefore, for the sake of freedom, brakes should not be required by law.
While I believe that it is true that we would find that more people supported brakes than helmets, the freedom argument if applied should work equally on both of these laws. In either case the bulk of the risk is to the cyclist. Any damage done to others would be relatively insignificant.
I walk a thin line. I am opposed to laws that are ineffective and/or not enforced, and I do think our best approach for bicycle safety is education. However, I see no problem with laws to underscore the education.
I just thought of something else, a cyclist is just as free to ride without a helmet regardless of the law... they just face the risk of a fine in addition to the risk of damage to their skull... If they are willing to pay the price of a cracked skull, why do they worry about a little monetary fine? They must be something besides idiots as you described them, they must be cheap idiots. :)
I'm not in favor of brakes being mandated by law either. I'm a supporter of minimal government intervention...now, I would support the right of an insurance company to deny coverage because the rider was helmetless. Their choice.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-12-05, 11:56 AM
I'm not in favor of brakes being mandated by law either. I'm a supporter of minimal government intervention...now, I would support the right of an insurance company to deny coverage because the rider was helmetless. Their choice.
How 'bout if insurance companies refuse to pay bicyclists for ANY reason? Their choice also?
I thought actuarial tables based on accident data and not dreamy gibberish had something to do with determining insurance rates. State insurance regulators, not to mention trial lawyers may have something to say about aribitrary refusals to pay damages IAW policy.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-12-05, 11:59 AM
Does that answer your question? He is proud of being considered "Nazi" like in enforcing/inflicting his beliefs on others whether they like it or not; whether they agree or not. And don't raise no stinkin' objections because his ilk ain't listening.
!!!!read post#34 by Trevor. !!!!!
HuH??????? Why?????????? What is the relevance?????????
richardmasoner
08-12-05, 12:15 PM
It's also funny that you missed the clearly labeld link that would allow you to skip the whole
A spelling flame; how lame. It even has the obligatory misspelled word. Come back after you've read Ms. Shea's book on Netiquette. Spelling flames are mentioned on page 75. (http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p75.html)
Back on Topic: I encourage you to go to your city hall to promote a mandatory helmet law. Since there's a much greater risk of head injury per hour of activity to those inside of an automobile, it's ridiculous that cycling -- which rarely results in head injury -- must often wear helmets while motorists -- with their much higher risk of head injury -- get away without any helmets at all. This is outrageous and unfair! We need mandatory helmets for all Sioux City motorists, even for those who are just driving through!
I'll never, ever wear a helmet. I refuse such a useless tool. BTW, I know it's useless from my experience.
richardmasoner
08-12-05, 12:20 PM
It can discourage cycling to have it mandatory...
Tanya is absolutely correct. Australia's mandatory helmet laws have had a disasterous effect on the level of cycling in that country. Because there are fewer cyclists on the road, the accident rate has gone up for Aussie cyclists.
I usually wear a helmet, but I never chide others for not wearing one and I absolutely oppose any attempt to create mandatory helmet rules. Helmet laws are anti-cyclist and anti-cycling.
RFM
chicharron
08-12-05, 02:54 PM
HuH??????? Why?????????? What is the relevance?????????
The relevance is... that the original thread is hoax, posted by a troll. I Like to Bike, I am on your side, however it is useless to get worked up over this. It's a gag. The party that started this is putting you on.
Placid Casual
08-12-05, 03:57 PM
clearly labeld
Here's what I don't understand. You flame somebody for his grammar and spelling, while misspelling a simple and common word yourself. When called on it, you take the time to go back and edit your post to correct your mistake, but you don't bother to check to see whether the correction is correct!
It's "labeled." Not "labed," not "labeld." "Labeled."
skanking biker
08-12-05, 03:59 PM
I am thinking about doing what it takes to get the City of Sioux City to pass a bicycle helmet ordinance for everyone who rides bike in this community & have it be enforced. I have a pretty good idea of the pros & cons of doing so. But the "cons" are not going to keep me from trying. I think tomorrow I will contact my city hall to find out how to go about this. The consequences will be a fine. I will try to get the fine to be the average retail price of the cost of a helmet sold in my community doubled.
For those of you who are anti-helmet, anti-helmet law, etc, please stay out of this one. I for one think you are anti-helmet "nazi's". I'm sure you feel that I am a pro-helmet "nazi". You know what? You're right I probably am. Do I care what you think? Not at all, I'm doing this anyway. If you come to my community be prepared to either wear a helmet or be fined for it.
why is it the government's or your business whether i wear a hemlet??? Who am i harming other than myself by not wearing one?
Dchiefransom
08-12-05, 04:10 PM
I'm not in favor of brakes being mandated by law either. I'm a supporter of minimal government intervention...now, I would support the right of an insurance company to deny coverage because the rider was helmetless. Their choice.
Aaaaah, but would you support the right of the insurance company to deny coverage for doing something so obviously dangerous as riding a bicycle on the road? Riding bicycles in the rain without disc brakes? Riding a bicycle without wearing some type of glasses?
I-Like-To-Bike
08-12-05, 04:26 PM
The relevance is... that the original thread is hoax, posted by a troll. I Like to Bike, I am on your side, however it is useless to get worked up over this. It's a gag. The party that started this is putting you on.
I would like to believe you are right, but I believe the OP is as serious as he is obtuse. This is not the first time he posted gibberish for others edification and compliance. Unfortunately people cast the term "troll" at all sorts of posters, including at those who offer contrary but seriously held opinions. I believe NC doesn't give a S* what others think; HE KNOWS he is right and is likely to try to scourge (through harassment) Sioux City of the non-believers.
Even if NC is a troll, it brought to the surface an even more bizarre concept of so-called bicycling advocacy- i.e. giving insurance companies a free pass from responsibility for any damages their paying clients cause to cyclists not wearing styrofoam hats. Of course this does not remove the financial responsibility and liability for the damages to cyclists caused by their clients - the motorists.
I wish all the self righteous posters of bicycling correctness were just joking, rather than making me gag from their dopiness as well as the potential effects of their counterproductive activities.
Trevor98
08-12-05, 05:23 PM
If we want to debate the point that helmet use, or rather lack there of, impacts the broader society and if society should concern itself with these impacts we can steal this thread.
The normal argument is that medical costs associated with avoidable trauma are spread throughout a whole community and are thus the business of that community. The community as a whole should therefore protect itself against this drain. This is the same argument used for anti-smoking laws and for seatbelt laws. It is a difficult argument to counter because it assigns the wrong side the burden of proof.
Logical arguments must convince you to change the status quo rather than temping you to find a reason not to change. This is the idea that the current state of affairs is acceptable unless you can prove something else is better. In this case we don't have helmet laws and so advocates must argue why such a law would be better than no law at all. They would have to argue that the societal benefit of mandating helmet use outweighs the harm from infringing on individual rights.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.