Advocacy & Safety - Would you support a mandatory helmet law?

The big question is, Why go after bicyclists when cars are the danger? There are so many other activities that are more dangerous than bicycling, what about all those activities?
To answer my own question, It makes drivers feel better because they believe they won't be killing a bicyclist when they hit them. That way car drivers can continue to drive badly like they own the road. It is a public space and in most places, the streets were platted before cars were invented, so get the cars off our roads!!!

I guess it's easier to point the finger of blame on someone else than pointing it at yourself. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, therefore his/her death is his/her fault. It's also easier forcing someone else to change the ways than changing your own ways. There are more motorists than cyclists, guess who gets picked on?

I wonder why, in areas that have instituted a MHL, that when the forecasted reduction in deaths doesn't happen, and now it is helmeted cyclists that are killed, aren't the first claims of lives being saved not re-examined?

I can understand that helmet manufacturers love helmet laws, it ensures sales. What I find horrible is that these manufacturers financially support helmet law lobby groups and no one bats an eye.

“Do gooders”, protecting us from ourselves, we are so far down that proverbial slippery slope, we can’t even tell were falling anymore.

This is more of a "mustache on the Mona Lisa". Maybe helmets will help in terms of cranial injuries, but education (i.e. what's under the helmet) will prevent cyclists from getting into accidents in the first place.

You should check out some pictures of cars that have struck cyclists. There will usually be an indentation in the windshield surrounded by a web of cracks. It speaks volumes, and anyone who's ever seen the results firsthand knows the bitter futility of depending upon a few ounces of Styrofoam in that scenario.

My biking friends have that picture in their cell phones. The car struck me. My helmet had the matching center dent with web of cracks indentation. I'm not as sure as the Sheriff at the scene that the helmet saved my life, but it certainly saved me from a nasty headache. And as the other guys said, the bumper doesn't hit your head, but it did an awesome job of breaking my leg.

(And to answer the original question, I do not support mandatory helmet laws.)

I know the guy falls off his bike a lot and thinks that's a good reason to force everyone else to wear a helmet. "I'm cold so everyone put on a sweater!".


Forcing people to change their lives because some people are careless or clueless is even less fair.




I disagree.

FORCING people to wear a helmet? That's not what I said or implied in this thread.

What I did say was that I RECOMMEND that people learn of the benefits of wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. After that, the decision of whether or not to wear one is theirs to make. I did so on a voluntary basis. That is not forcing people about anything.

Six Jours, cut the crap and the labeling

I kinda have mixed feelings on this one, i think everybody should wear a helmet, but i think if it was a law that you must wear a helmet, less people would ride bikes. whats your thoughts on this?
What percentage of bicyclists wear helmets? Would a law appreciably increase that percentage?

Is it something that can or would be enforced? (The "no cell phone use in cars" is a silly law because it's largely unenforcible or unenforced). What's the cost of enforcing the law? Would other, more-urgent things be enforced less?

No, I don't think there should be a law. We don't need laws for everything.

What I did say was that I RECOMMEND that people learn of the benefits of wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. After that, the decision of whether or not to wear one is theirs make.

I think that if people really do learn of the "benefits" of wearing a helmet, they will be less inclined to bother wearing one. That is assuming of course that they don't do all their "learning" from some helmet lobby group website spouting fallacious statistics and emotive sob stories to promote their agenda.

I know the guy falls off his bike a lot and thinks that's a good reason to force everyone else to wear a helmet. "I'm cold so everyone put on a sweater!".

I don't understand how he is "forcing" anyone to wear a helmet. Does he live near you? Is he actually holding you down and strapping it onto your head?


Forcing people to change their lives because some people are careless or clueless is even less fair.

Again, "forcing" isn't what I see here, or is it? Once again, please be careful not do judge others. You really don't know him personally, do you?

New here, eh?


I don't post here a lot but believe me, I come here enough. There are many reports I have to follow up and on this one your assumption of force is a bit out of synch here.

And by the way, I have two years over you.

Of course, what I meant was that, often, those who wear helmets have a curious habit of falling off their bikes, not watching where they're going and running into things.

Oh, come on! Now you're just taking silly in another direction.

Speedo

but is it any sillier than mandating a device which is meant to protect children from minor injuries while falling from their bicycles for everybody who crashes with cars in traffic all the while claiming that because helmets prevent those minor injuries for children they will prevent the deaths to those who collide with cars?

I didn't say it had to be sillier, I said it was silly, and it is silly.

What I, and I thought you, have stood for in this argument was addressing the issue on the basis of some sort of rational underlying truth. Arguing silliness with more silliness does us no good at all.

And , yes, I do love the new multi-quote facility.

Speedo

When cycling has been shown to reduce brain injury and mandating helmet use has been shown to reduce cycling, isn't requiring the use of a helmet a silly concept?

If we can assume the purpose of mandating helmet use (particularly for adults) is to prevent brain injury, and it hasn't been shown helmet use reduces brain injury isn't that adding silliness to silliness?

When cycling has been shown to reduce brain injury and mandating helmet use has been shown to reduce cycling, isn't requiring the use of a helmet a silly concept?

If we can assume the purpose of mandating helmet use (particularly for adults) is to prevent brain injury, and it hasn't been shown helmet use reduces brain injury isn't that adding silliness to silliness?

You know, of all people on this forum, I find myself shocked at having to suggest to you that you haven't bothered to read the thread.

Speedo

I've read it. What's the problem? Am I missing a point you're trying to make?

Seems to me, outside of the "silly" comment, your only other point was on the costs of accidental death and injuries which was addressed with 3 studies showing the costs of a helmet law.

Would you support a mandatory helmet law? No.

Would you support a mandatory A&S bullsh't prevention law? Yes.

-Kurt

...your assumption of force is a bit out of synch here.

You do know this is the "mandatory helmet use" thread, yes? IOW, "forcing" people to wear helmets?

You do know this is the "mandatory helmet use" thread, yes? IOW, "forcing" people to wear helmets?

Yes, I'm quite aware of where I am, thanks for the hint.

There is a mandatory law where I live and there are so many who don't adhere to it. Hardly is there ever a ticket or punishment given. People are not forced. There is no consequence. There is no "force".

That's the most tortured logic I have seen in quite some time. Laughable, at best.

There is a mandatory law where I live and there are so many who don't adhere to it. Hardly is there ever a ticket or punishment given. People are not forced. There is no consequence. There is no "force".

Though I am not siding with anyone who previously posted here, I must say that you do have it off easy there, Siu!

-Kurt

That's the most tortured logic I have seen in quite some time. Laughable, at best.

You are the only one that is able to see through your eyes, and I'm happy for you. :)


Though I am not siding with anyone who previously posted here, I must say that you do have it off easy there, Siu!

-Kurt

Yes, we do. Granted, I wear my helmet at all times, it's really weird to see kids riding around with the helmets dangling from the handlebars. I'm guessing the parents are trying and tell the kids to "TAKE YOUR HELMET!" The cops do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

You are the only one that is able to see through your eyes, and I'm happy for you. :)

He's not the only one to see things in such a way. To learn, one must see more than one point of view.

... it's really weird to see kids riding around with the helmets dangling from the handlebars. I'm guessing the parents are trying and tell the kids to "TAKE YOUR HELMET!" The cops do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

In Canada, children under 12 cannot be charged so that leaves only the teen-agers that are eligible for ticketing.

Enforcement is a low priority. Almost non-existent. When cops don't enforce speed limits or dangerous driving practices, what would you expect? One can only guess there are more pressing matters.

He's not the only one to see things in such a way. To learn, one must see more than one point of view.

Agreed. :thumb:

Edit: By the way, I was just teasin' six jours...:p he makes some valid points. :)

Yes, we do. Granted, I wear my helmet at all times, it's really weird to see kids riding around with the helmets dangling from the handlebars. I'm guessing the parents are trying and tell the kids to "TAKE YOUR HELMET!" The cops do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Are the kids supervised, or unsupervised when they are doing this?

Reminds me of one family in the neighborhood - they're daft enough to let their 5 year old ride five blocks to the local pack and back with their golden retriever, unsupervised. Kid is always helmeted too - guess they think that and the dog will prevent any accidents :rolleyes: . Mind you, though the neighborhood is nice, I wouldn't necessarily classify it as completely safe.

Both of them (the dog usually runs loose with or without her - doesn't seem to care about looking after the kid anyway) have nearly brought me down a few times. Nothing worse then a two-lane street occupied by a child and dog zooming from side to side.

-Kurt

My dog caused me to crash like that. My room mate saw me riding my bike past the house and he opened the door to call me. My dog ran out after me - I started to slow and right as he got to me he jumped up onto me. I'm lucky his leg didn't get caught in the wheel!

The kids that I see are often on their way to school in groups. How can one make sure the kid keeps it on after he leaves the front door? There is no way to guarantee that.

so after 175 posts, only 7 have responded as being in favor of a helmet law.

I wonder how it is that these laws are passed.

I think it's a combination of the fact that the "Better living through more law" crowd is noisy all out of proportion to its size, and the fact that lawmakers exist to make laws whether we need them or not. Not making laws apparently doesn't impress the average voter when re-election time rolls around.

... lawmakers exist to make laws whether we need them or not. Not making laws apparently doesn't impress the average voter when re-election time rolls around.

I think it's just politics. The ones wanting to be elected are more interested in looking like they're doing something than if they are. Even if they're making things worse.

I wonder how it is that these laws are passed.

Easy. They are passed by people who have either never been on a bicycle in their life, or ride no more then once or twice a year in police-escorted, guided tours of historical neighborhoods.

-Kurt

Last year there was a thread about the city of Vancouver, Washington passing a mandatory helmet law

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=383499&highlight=helmet+wa+vancouver

In the thread the was a link to a video of a council meeting that was a sad thing to watch

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/cvtv/cvtvarchive2/Vancouver_City_Council/2008_Events/January_2008/01-28-08/05_Proposed_Helmet_Ordinance.wmv

it's a long video but worth it if you want to listen to how these people address the issue.

All kinds of anecdotal and emotional stories, equating bicycle helmets to seat belts and a part where a bike club member says helmets wear out after 5 years.

Even with lots of examples where helmet laws have been enacted, no one shows what the end results of those laws had been.

No one seems to understand that it's motor vehicles that end cyclists lives and that helmeted cyclists meet similar fates in those collisions.

No one seems to get the context of brain injury and the scope of acquiring it through trauma or lack of exercise.

No one seems to get that passing these laws usually only succeed in lowering the amount of cyclists and increasing the incidence of brain injury.

I wish I had been present in the discussion when they passed the law up here in BC. I didn't really concern myself with the law much because I already wore a helmet, didn't think whether others were forced to wear them made any difference and was convinced a helmet would offer significant protection from significant injury.

I do have a couple of newspaper clippings from the time. Both are from columnists who wrote on commuting issues. One a cyclist and one a motorist. The cyclist suggested it was cycling not being treated seriously enough as a legitimate means of transportation and poor riding behavior that killed cyclists while the motoring guy said that helmets would save lives and lower costs of those suffering serious brain injuries. Guess who ended up being right?

so after 175 posts, only 7 have responded as being in favor of a helmet law.

I wonder how it is that these laws are passed.

By non-bicyclists, primarily, of which there are many.

By non-bicyclists, primarily, of which there are many.

...who believe it is their sworn duty to protect everyone else from their own person, whether "everyone else" likes it or not.

I propose a law that will protect "everyone else" from misguided do-gooders. Now there is an effective law.

-Kurt

...who believe it is their sworn duty to protect everyone else from their own person, whether "everyone else" likes it or not.

I propose a law that will protect "everyone else" from misguided do-gooders. Now there is an effective law.

-Kurt

I do hope you see the irony in your proposal... :innocent:

I do hope you see the irony in your proposal... :innocent:

Of course. Do you honestly think that I'd post something here at A&S and not work some kind of subliminal gag into it? There isn't anything close to seriousness within 5,000 miles of this discussion.

It would have been funny if the entire thread had fallen for it - most folks would have easily missed it; subsequently, you'd have a list of followers mindlessly upholding it :roflmao:

-Kurt

Here's another reason to stand up and let your concerns be known if a helmet law affects your area. What will the police do if they come across someone without a lid?

I believe I've mentioned in my area children under 12 cannot be charged with a violation (Canadian youth laws). I see that as a good thing that 5, 8, 10 year olds aren't being intimidated by people who they shouldn't have bad feeling about and I'm not sure what is the best way to get teen-agers to follow the law when rebellion is in their nature.

It's not just teen-agers that are rebellious to something they have little belief in either. A little dissent in anything is natural in all age groups. There will be those who do not want to comply with the law, so what are the police to do with someone who doesn't want to wear a helmet but still wants (or needs to) ride a bike?

A fine seems reasonable but what if someone is willing to pay the fine but still wants to continue riding their bike? What will (and can) a cop do?

Up here, if you get back on your bike after the cops talk to you, the cops can seize your bike and if you are back up on your bike riding away to what extent will the police give chase?

In New Zealand, a cyclist was told to get off the bike and walk it after he was spotted without a helmet. The cyclist complied but when the police left, the cyclist (who was riding to work) jumped back on. Bad luck, the police came by again, pepper sprayed him and rammed him while chasing the him down.

I guess the cops couldn't see the irony in exposing the cyclist to possible injury by engaging in excessive force to prevent the cyclist from possible injury.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/91551/cat/84/Default.aspx

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/4846810a6510.html

...And so this thread goes merrily on.

In the state of Maine, there's a law in which bicyclists of age 16 or under to wear a helmet while riding. It was passed by the Maine State Legistature two years ago. Bicyclists of ages 17 and older have the choice of continuing to wear a helmet or not wearing one any longer. How the law is backed up with (e.g. warnings, fines, bicycle impoundment, etc.) depending upon the case.

I don't necessarily support helmet laws or in forcing people to change their lives. In the state I live in, people 17 and over have the choice of wearing a helmet if they want to or not. I've worn a helmet while riding long before such laws came into existence and will continue to choose to do so for safety and to obey laws outside Maine.

Hopefully, I'll stay off the Walll Of Rememberence that much longer.

Sure, but only if for for drivers and passengers of every type of vehicle.

I'd support this version only for the pleasure of observing the public response to such a proposed law.

Al

"Notice of Dangerous Condition"
Safety equipment to accompany a Bicycle Helmet (a cell phone? a camera phone?)
:trainwreck:
A very over looked and efficient safety device is "Notice of Dangerous Condition". With the proliferation of camera phones, capturing a picture and location of a dangerous condition, noting the address and location and sending a dated letter titled “Notice of Dangerous Condition”, email or phone call to notify the responsible parties of Dangerous Condition, that could lead to possible injury and Tort law suites by personal injury victims, has the possibility of being a great protector and improve conditions for all, including those whom could potentially be the brunt of a Tort Law suite, and those whom would be inconvenienced, suffer vehicle damage or personal injury. It is not suggested that everyone go out and complain about every little nit picky thing, but for example if the rite authorities telephone numbers are known, most pot holes can be called in verbally and serviced with in a couple of days. Some potholes are of a magnitude that knock off hubcaps & wreck a car wheel rim, the suspension under carriage, wheel alignment and more, drop a scooter or motorcycle or cause damage to a bicycle and rider. The same could be done with STORMFALL or FOLIAGE impinging on roadways or pathways and sidewalks that have potential for personal injury, or bridge joints or storm drainage grates having openings parallel the direction of travel sufficiently wide to allow a thin bicycle tire & wheel rim to drop into them and cause entrapment, damage and accident. Extreme conditions of raised or dropped sidewalk joints might be considered a Dangerous Condition. Dangerous conditions for strollers and for wheel chairs may be of a different magnitude than those for pedestrians, and bicyclist and may not be considered as valid. When snapping pictures for NOTICE of DANGEROUS CONDITION for a bicycle you might want to put a bicycle or a portion of the bicycle in the picture for scale and to further illustrate the problem, for example if you can fit a full bicycle wheel in a pothole and take a picture, it makes a definite statement of magnitude.

A dangerous condition is a condition of property that creates a risk of injury when the property or adjacent property is used as intended. Once a public enity has received a notice of dangerous condition, failure to protect pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists from that dangerous condition is a liability to the public entity. The Town Hall or City Hall of the local of a Dangerous Condition might be a good place to send a Notice of Dangerous Condition, as they can serve as witness to the filing and problem and they can notify the rite persons or concerns to care for the issue, and may be able to provide insite into the validity of the claim. The responsible party for a dangerous condition is usually the property owner, but it may be a municipal or state or government department.

Roads and sidewalks should be safe and passable. Typically but not always by law a bicycle rider is considered a driver, unless ridding on the road shoulder or walking a bicycle, and considered a pedestrian in some cases when ridding on the sidewalk. Since some laws allow only for reimbursement for personal injury due to a defect in a road, the use of Notice of Dangerous Condition brings everyone out ahead. A good portion of successful bicycle commuting is remembering where all the hazards are along the way a head of time, and that does not always work.

For bicycle frame Safety Issues
concerning C shaped forwardly open bicycle frame rear dropouts
& POSSIBILITIES OF REAR WHEEL BICYCLE FRAME SEPERATION during use,

Please see Public Comment Petition "DROPS"
aimed at The US Consumer Product Safety Comission
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/DROPS/ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/DROPS/)

NOT YOU AGAIN!

-Kurt