Advocacy & Safety - Fors those of you who do not wear helmets...

...do you own one for when you are required to wear one?

By required to wear one I mean for an event, such as an organized ride, race, etc.

This is not a troll post. I am just wondering what the ratio of those who own a helmet to those that do not. For now it has to do with those that do not wear them on a regular basis, but may at least own one.

Please explain your answer if you wish, especially if you do not own one but participate in events where one is required anyway.

This is not a troll post.

Yes, it is most certainly trolling.

I wear one when the riding conditions call for one and/or when events call for one, thats all I'll say and let the net savvy scholars figure the rest out

I'm not responding for myself, but for the interest of a data point: I have a friend who rides without a helmet. We're participating in a very short 8-mile winery tour ride that requires helmets next month. My boyfriend gave him his old helmet, which he will wear and keep.

Yes, it is most certainly trolling.

Well, this post is...

Yes, it is most certainly trolling.

Aren't all posts trolling? You wouldn't post if you didn't want an answer. I wear my helmet when it's required.

Joe

Yes, it is most certainly trolling.
Actually, he's asking a valid question and not inserting his own agenda in there! Remarkably restrained, actually!http://smileyonline.free.fr/images/gif/animsympa/1050848555.gif

I always wear a helmet.

The reason I ask this is this past year before the Tri-State Trails Tour III the Siouxland Trails Foundation President was handing out the registration forms to people along the MUP. He handed one to a gentleman & a week or so later STF received a letter in the mail with the unused form.

The letter basically thanked us for asking him to participate in our ride but declined because he does not like the statement HELEMTS ARE REQUIRED. Which is our right to require people to wear a helmet or they can be prevented from participating. This is more of our insurance policy then ours, but we have to abide by it.

This person was nice but belligerant about required helmet usage on organized rides. He even went as far as stating sometimes he participates in organized rides where a helmet is required but does not wear one out of protest & to see what the organizers will do. He stated he thinks when groups or individuals who require helmet usage on a ride goes against & violates what he calls his constituitionaly protected right to not wear one.

First of all I did not know that not wearing a helmet was a constituitionly protected right. Maybe it falls under one of the rights that are general & do not have any specifications as to what they are for. When one of the STF members, who is an attorney, heard this he rolled his eyes & said "good grief". Also even if that right was protected by the constitution, if there is an organization, such as STF that has an insurance policy that states you wear a helmet or you do not participate, the so called constitutionaly protected right is trumped & it is not a so called violation of the constitution. At least that is my impression of it anyway.

Am I correct or way off base here?

Why would you even ask if someone wears a helmet for a race? The organisers will not let you race unless you are wearing a helmet and can pass a tech inspection.

I feel naked without my helmet and without it my hat flies off and its really hard to attach my helmet-mounted headlamp to my bare head.

But I don't participate in any organized rides (I might try one this month--we'll see--since it involves wine!) I do participate in disorganized rides and when I've forgotten my helmet they put up with me.

I feel naked without my helmet and without it my hat flies off and its really hard to attach my helmet-mounted headlamp to my bare head.

But I don't participate in any organized rides (I might try one this month--we'll see--since it involves wine!) I do participate in disorganized rides and when I've forgotten my helmet they put up with me.

So do I.

The other day I went home for lunch & to get my bike so I could ride home, didn't have enough time to load it that morning & wife stayed home from work so I took the Jeep & she was going to take me & the bike back after. I took everything I needed to ride, including my helmet, except the bike that morning. When we went to leave home the Jeep would not start, broken ignition lock, had to call a lock smith to come & replace it.

I could have ridden back to work, not been as late as I was getting back, then ridden home after work. Only problem was my helmet was at my office on my desk. I choose to stay home, wait for the lock smith to fix the ignition lock, then my wife took me back with the bike. I could not bring myself to ride with out my helmet. I was actually too scared to do so. Fear kept me from riding so I was later then I wanted to be but the tardy was no big deal.

I just can not bring myself to ride with out my helmet.

Am I correct or way off base here?

To tell the truth, I think you are off-base here. Since helmet use is not mandatory or legally required for adults , at least where I live, I think it is elitist, arrogant and obnoxious to 'require' riders to wear helmets if they want to participate in an event. It's a personal decision if a cyclist wants to wear one or not and it is also their accepted risk should they sustain a head injury that might have been prevented had they worn a helmet. If an organization wants to claim their insurance requires participants wear a helmet, both the organizers and the insurance company are being unfair and imposing. What legal ground do they have to make such a demand? It's like insisting that all pedestrians use an umbrella when it's raining. It might be a good idea, but there's no law stating it is mandatory. Why don't they insist that all bicycles be bright yellow or that they must wear certain types of shoes, shirts and shorts? An argument might be made that they are more visible and will protect the rider from being hit by moron motorists.

To tell the truth, I think you are off-base here. Since helmet use is not mandatory or legally required for adults , at least where I live, I think it is elitist, arrogant and obnoxious to 'require' riders to wear helmets if they want to participate in an event. It's a personal decision if a cyclist wants to wear one or not and it is also their accepted risk should they sustain a head injury that might have been prevented had they worn a helmet. If an organization wants to claim their insurance requires participants wear a helmet, both the organizers and the insurance company are being unfair and imposing. What legal ground do they have to make such a demand? It's like insisting that all pedestrians use an umbrella when it's raining. It might be a good idea, but there's no law stating it is mandatory. Why don't they insist that all bicycles be bright yellow or that they must wear certain types of shoes, shirts and shorts? An argument might be made that they are more visible and will protect the rider from being hit by moron motorists.

Unfair or not our insurance policy requires 2 things, participants wear a helmet & they sign a waiver. I'm sure it is in compliance with the insurance laws, otherwise it could not be a part of the policy.

Maybe things are differant in Canada then they are here in the U.S. when it comes to organized bike rides. Maybe the insurance policies & laws are differant.

I own two helmets and I do not use either one because I don't like 'em... I do not participate in events that require them.

I cannot answer this poll because my answer is:

Yes, I own one, but NOT for when it is required to wear one at cycling events. I own one to wear whenever I'm cycling.

Unfair or not our insurance policy requires 2 things, participants wear a helmet & they sign a waiver. I'm sure it is in compliance with the insurance laws, otherwise it could not be a part of the policy.

Maybe things are differant in Canada then they are here in the U.S. when it comes to organized bike rides. Maybe the insurance policies & laws are differant.
If someone has signed a waiver, I see no need for the insurance company to demand helmet usage.

I dont wear a helmet when I BMX, unless I feel that I will use it (usually at a competition) but I do wear one mountian biking.

If someone has signed a waiver, I see no need for the insurance company to demand helmet usage.
Signing a waiver does not preclude a jury from finding in favor of an injured someone or his next of kin and against the insured organizers of the event.

Requiring everyone to wear helmets (and obey the traffic laws, etc.) helps them argue to such a potential jury that they took reasonable steps to ensure safety.

I haven't been wearing one, because I couldn't afford one. Until now. I ordered one last week (it wasn't in stock), and will pick it up Monday. :)

I even got a discount on it. :)

I voted yes, but none of the poll choices really fit my situation.
I own at least 8 bike helmets,(i just like buying stuff)
I wear one when required.
I wear one 60% of the time when not required.
I wear one 100% of the time when when my wife is helping me balance my checkbook.

Yes, it is most certainly trolling.
Looks like NC is looking for a fight.............























































AGAIN.

I had to vote yes and that I only wear it for cycling events, because that is the reason I bought it. But, I decided not to participate in the ones I've been invited to because of the irony of requiring one and signing a waiver. I was going to say in a land of lawsuits, the club is only protecting itself, but someone already mentioned that.

I have found that is is good for keep my head cool in the summer though.

I own like 3 helmets, only wear one when I am in some organized ride that requires it. I also wear one on many of my winter commutes if the footing is dicey...helps keep my head warm and it's a good place for a light. I used to wear one when racing. It's a matter of acceptable risk. Most of the time, the risk of going down is about the same as being hit by lightning...so I don't fret it. But when with a group of unknown and suspect competence, racing, sliding around on ice and snow, or bombing down a trail, the risk of going down makes a helmet a prudent step. It really does pain me that so many people see normal cycling as dangerous enough to warrant a helmet, but everyone has to follow their own measure of what is acceptable risk.

F_ing insurance companies - nuff said.

If someone has signed a waiver, I see no need for the insurance company to demand helmet usage.
I have doubts that "insurance companies" demand helmets on most (any?) organized rides where this demand is made. More likely it is self appointed nannies from the sponsoring organization using this ploy to keep out the "riff-raff" who don't fit the preferred profile or out of a misplaced sense of "duty".

Waivers don't generally accomplish a whole lot except making some people feel better. If the organizers are negligent, they're negligent, waiver or no waiver. There are some rights a person cannot sign away. On the other hand, a person assumes certain risks simply by participating in a cycling event, waiver or no waiver. Some risks are inherent in cycling.

I doubt that a "must wear a helmet" requirement accomplishes even as much as a waiver, which isn't much. There are some risks inherent in not wearing a helmet which would make it pretty tough for a helmetless rider to get a judgement against event organizers for a head injury. Maybe a mandatory helmet rule makes some worry-wort orgainzers feel better. And maybe an insurance company can pass it off as a requirement of insurance, although I have serious doubts about that.

If organizers really wanted to make a ride safer, they'd require particpants to pass a riding proficiency test rather than worrying about something superficial like a helmet. Do they check to see that the helmets fit properly? If not, could the orgainizers be found negligent for requiring a helmet but not checking for a proper fit?

When it comes right down to it, the purpose of a mandatory helmet requirement is the same as the purpose of a waiver: to protect the organizers, not the cyclists.

If it's a private event, they can pretty much make whatever requirement they want. And people can choose not to participate if they think the organizers are being overly nit-picky.

But, then, this is the 21st century - there's a lot of nit-picky-ness going around.

There are some risks inherent in not wearing a helmet which would make it pretty tough for a helmetless rider to get a judgement against event organizers for a head injury.
Probably no tougher than a helmeted rider; especially if there is no legal requirement for wearing a helmet.

Many state laws specify that the failure to wear a helmet can not be used to transfer liability to the cyclist.

Probably no tougher than a helmeted rider; especially if there is no legal requirement for wearing a helmet.
Well, yea, of course you're right. Because other circumstances of a crash are almost always more significant than whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet would probably come up in court in the case of a head injury but there's a good chance that it wouldn't be the deciding factor.

As I said before, if event organizers are negligent, they're negligent. If there is negligence, "waiver or no waiver" and/or "helmet or no helmet" probably isn't going to mean much more than diddly in court. The same is true if the organizers aren't negligent.

A mandatory helmet requirement, like a waiver, is little more than smoke and mirrors. It may seem impressive but it doesn't really mean squat.

there is the possibility that the people organizing the even truly want people wearing them for their own good. we can assume its only to cover their rears, but there is always the possibility that the people holding the event, actually care about others and what happens to them.

A mandatory helmet requirement, like a waiver, is little more than smoke and mirrors. It may seem impressive but it doesn't really mean squat.
Well its good for keeping away the riff-raff who don't share the PC belief in how a proper cyclist should dress.

there is the possibility that the people organizing the even truly want people wearing them for their own good. we can assume its only to cover their rears, but there is always the possibility that the people holding the event, actually care about others and what happens to them.
If that's so, their means of expressing/demonstrating that "care" is misplaced/misguided by bicycling brand PC.

I always wear a helmet.

+1

I care not about "requirements" ... I care about my brain. For the record, I am opposed to helmet laws for those of us over 18 years old.

Always do when I race or ride, if I didn't I probably would have died 3 years ago.

Whether or not it is to make the organizers feel better or not I think it is a good idea to have the requirment for organized rides. Does it make the ride dangerous or appear dangerous? No. Does it say the organizers are negligent or have caused a participant to get hurt through negligence on the route? No. Does it protect the organizers from being individually sued? Probably. Is the waiver worth more then the paper it is printed on? Probably not. But the waiver is from our insurance policy, verbatim. One of the reasons we have an insurance policy is all 3 the cities the ride goes through requires it. We could not host the ride with out the policy.

As a former ride director/head coordinator for the first 2 Tri-State Trails Tour bike rides I can tell you there was not one single participant who did not have a helmet on, everyone did. They all had them prior to the start of the ride, not a single person had to be asked or reminded to wear one or advised there are helmets for sale if they did not have theirs. The bike shop that helps with mechanical support has yet to sell a helmet to anyone that did not have one. I credit that fact to the 3 words on the registration form: HELMETS ARE REQUIRED.

Not only was I the ride director, I was & still am the safety coordinator for the ride. The rider packets include bicycle safety information, most of it is the RIDE RIGHT materials from RAGBRAI. At the first ride participants did not know what was in the packets until they opened them, they are in a black plastic bag donated by one of the sporting good stores. Returning participants knew what was in the packets & gladly accepted another one. No one has ever had a problem with what is in the packets. If anything we have received tons of positive feedback about it.

If someone does not want a packet that is fine, they do not have to take one, most do because it makes a nice bag to put the ride t-shirt in until the end of the ride. People do not view it as the organizers trying to push our agenda of bicycle safety off on to them.

I have a feeling some here in the forums would view it that way, even though accepting the packets is purely voluntary.

The bottom line is if you want to participate in the Tri-State Trails Tour you will wear a helmet, it is required.

If someone has signed a waiver, I see no need for the insurance company to demand helmet usage.

Need or not I think it is more like a triple protection thing. The participants sign a waiver & wear a helmet & the event organizers has the insurance policy as required.

The helmets help protect the participants from potential head injury in the event of a crash. The waiver they sign protects the orgainizers from law suits from the participants & the insurance policy covers any potential damage to property & the organization responsible for the event as it is required by the communities the ride is in.

A mandatory helmet requirement, like a waiver, is little more than smoke and mirrors. It may seem impressive but it doesn't really mean squat.

Then how do you explain this. A couple of years ago a RAGBRAI participant died after sustaining major facial trauma caused when the front wheel of his bike got caught in a crack & he did an end over. He was wearing a helmet, but that did not protect his face or other exposed parts above his neck. His family could not sue RAGBRAI because he signed the waiver, it protected against that. How ever they are trying to sue the county agency responsible for the country highway this happened on. If it is found the waiver he signed does not cover the responsible parties in charge of the highway the family may have a legitimate case.

Smoke & mirrors? Don't think so, especially in a case like this.

Let's see, one for BMX racing.
One for the beach crusiers.
One for the MTB.
The missus and myself have matching ones for the tandem too.
Since Utah does not require us to wear helmets, we do ride without them when we take the beach cruisers out on Sundays. Of course, the rest of the state is in church, so it's a ghost town.

Then how do you explain this. A couple of years ago a RAGBRAI participant died after sustaining major facial trauma caused when the front wheel of his bike got caught in a crack & he did an end over. He was wearing a helmet, but that did not protect his face or other exposed parts above his neck. His family could not sue RAGBRAI because he signed the waiver, it protected against that. How ever they are trying to sue the county agency responsible for the country highway this happened on. If it is found the waiver he signed does not cover the responsible parties in charge of the highway the family may have a legitimate case.

Smoke & mirrors? Don't think so, especially in a case like this.
How do you explain this? As JRA already correctly pointed out, a negligent organization can't waiver away their responsibility to be prudent. In this case RAGBRAI has nothing to with the maintenance of the road. The suit is directed at the agency thought responsible for the crack in the road leading to the accident.

BTW, RABRAI does NOT require wearing a helmet to participate. If it did, the lawyer for some future plaintiff might try to make the case that the helmet aggravated an injury (especially a broken neck injury) and then act on RAGBRAI's responsibility for insisting on the wear of this piece of "dangerous" equipment. The "waiver" won't mean poo for the organizers in such a case.

I have doubts that "insurance companies" demand helmets on most (any?) organized rides where this demand is made. More likely it is self appointed nannies from the sponsoring organization using this ploy to keep out the "riff-raff" who don't fit the preferred profile or out of a misplaced sense of "duty".

...Or just the momentum of the mass helmet hysteria groupthink that has swept across N. America. Bingo. I doubt that NC is correct in his assumption that the insurance company is the force behind the helmet requirement, as insurance companies who cover events and bike clubs generally do not make that requirement, but I am ready to be proven wrong as usual.

NC, since participants are signing waivers anyway, why don't you suggest to your club leaders that the helmet requirement be scrapped, in the interest of freedom of choice, apple pie, you know, all that stuff that is supposed to make America great.

Robert

...Or just the momentum of the mass helmet hysteria groupthink that has swept across N. America. Bingo. I doubt that NC is correct in his assumption that the insurance company is the force behind the helmet requirement, as insurance companies who cover events and bike clubs generally do not make that requirement, but I am ready to be proven wrong as usual.

NC, since participants are signing waivers anyway, why don't you suggest to your club leaders that the helmet requirement be scrapped, in the interest of freedom of choice, apple pie, you know, all that stuff that is supposed to make America great.

Robert

The Hancock Horizontal Hundred never had a helmet requirement - until this year. It sucks to live in a country where fear seems to be replacing our once proud spirit of independence and rugged individualism. Fear of insurance companies, fear of lawyers and lawsuits, fear of politicians and laws, fear of anybody you don't know, fear of terrorists in your breakfast cereal, fear of falling off a bike...etc. etc. etc.

Then how do you explain this. A couple of years ago a RAGBRAI participant died after sustaining major facial trauma caused when the front wheel of his bike got caught in a crack & he did an end over. He was wearing a helmet, but that did not protect his face or other exposed parts above his neck. His family could not sue RAGBRAI because he signed the waiver, it protected against that. How ever they are trying to sue the county agency responsible for the country highway this happened on. If it is found the waiver he signed does not cover the responsible parties in charge of the highway the family may have a legitimate case.

Smoke & mirrors? Don't think so, especially in a case like this.
That's actually pretty easy to explain. From your description, the rider's family had no case. You're dreamining if you think the rider's family couldn't sue because of a waiver. They probably didn't sue because they had no case and they would have had no case even without a waiver. RAGBRAI is not responsible for highway maintenance. Unless RAGBRAI had been warned about the crack or it was so obvious that they should have known and kept the event away from it, there's no negligence and therefore no case. Zilch. Nada. Having no case is a much more likely reason the family didn't sue than a waiver in which the rider presumably signed away a right that can't be signed away.

Legally Speaking - with Bob Mionske: To sign or not to sign (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9702.0.html)

One for the beach crusiers.

I can speak for beach crusiers, as I rent them for a living.

Working for a LARGE hospitality company, we have a legal department to make sure we do everything right. Since there is not a helmet law of any kind for anyone in South Carolina, Beaufort County, or the Town of Hilton Head regarding bicycles, requiring helmets would hurt our busniess. Your customer would just call the company(ies) that don't make such requirment. I do have a line in our rental agreement stating, "HELMETS ARE RECOMMENDED, and provided free of charge with any bike rental"

The only time there has been a problem with this was an 8 year old that was hit by a car and sustained a brain injury. I did rent him a helmet at his mother's request, however he had the helmet in his basket, not on his head. Again, that large legal department is taking care of this and I'm doing my job as before and have been cleared of any impropriety.

That's actually pretty easy to explain. From your description, the rider's family had no case. You're dreamining if you think the rider's family couldn't sue because of a waiver. They probably didn't sue because they had no case and they would have had no case even without a waiver. RAGBRAI is not responsible for highway maintenance. Unless RAGBRAI had been warned about the crack or it was so obvious that they should have known and kept the event away from it, there's no negligence and therefore no case. Zilch. Nada. Having no case is a much more likely reason the family didn't sue than a waiver in which the rider presumably signed away a right that can't be signed away.

While RAGBRAI has no responsibility for highway maintenance the route is ridden by RAGBRAI officials & volunteers at least 3 times prior to the ride & a report is submitted to the depts. responsible for the highway to take care of any problems.

I can speak for beach crusiers, as I rent them for a living.


Hey, just because I spelled it wrong, doesn't mean you should too. :D

While RAGBRAI has no responsibility for highway maintenance the route is ridden by RAGBRAI officials & volunteers at least 3 times prior to the ride & a report is submitted to the depts. responsible for the highway to take care of any problems.

The problem with the roadway that caused the cyclist to crash might not have been a problem for the riders that pre-rode the course. As noted in other threads where bike lane debris is brought up, many of my club members will leave a bike lane that I frequently ride right through.