Advocacy & Safety - Bill in Colorado to mandate helmets on kids passes. . .

After the Republicans supply a few good one liners, that is:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14495214?source=ARK_spot

At least some recognized that it is a bad bill.

Why is is a bad bill? I haven't read it so I don't know what part or parts might make you think it's bad. Certainly requiring children to wear helmets is a good thing.

Why is is a bad bill? I haven't read it so I don't know what part or parts might make you think it's bad. Certainly requiring children to wear helmets is a good thing.
Sure, its okay for the parents to require them. I don't think it should be up to the government though to require it.

There also seems to be a correlation between MHLs and a decrease in cycling.

Also, the bill is ridiculous. It creates a MHL with no penalty - cops simply hand you an information booklet that says why you really should wear a helmet.

Its only passed the house. Still has to go through the senate.

I wonder if the bills sponsor has done any research to see if any helmet laws that have already been in place have in fact, prevented life changing brain injuries in children.

I doubt he has because if he had, he would see that they haven't.

If the goal is preventing life changing brain injuries, he should be promoting cycling, because the vast majority of these injuries could be reduced by cycling. Everybody ignores the large number of brain injuries caused by things like strokes, heart attacks, seizure disorders, vascular disruptions and focus on the relatively few trauma related causes.

The couch, TV and chips have killed far more than cycling has. Cyclists live longer lives, not shorter lives.

If anyone has a link to the helmet law bill proposal Colorado Legislature is considering, please post it so people reading can see what's on the table. Oregon, the state where I live, has a helmet law that specifies the following:

"Oregon's Bicycle Helmet Law:

Effective on July 1, 1994, any youth under age 16 riding a bike or when a passenger on a bike in any public place (streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.) must wear bicycle helmets labeled ANSI and/or Snell approved.

Bike helmets save lives and have been shown to reduce serious head injuries by as much as 85%.

You could get a ticket and a $25 fine. If you are under age 12, your parent or guardian could get a ticket. If you are over 12, either you or your parent can get a ticket."

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/safekids/helmets.shtml

Granted, being legally required to wear a helmet may a special downer for some kids...specifically teenagers. The fact can't be escaped that people at that age are comparatively more conscious and protective of their appearance than people older are. It may be also arguable that teenagers are generally less likely to have developed a sense of their body's strengths and weakness than people with a more years experience have. It's a pain to have your hair messed with, but it can be worth it if the noggin takes a konk on the asphalt. This can and does occasionally happen whether people are doing serious riding, or just goofing around having fun.

Not every kid in every bike riding situation needs to wear a bike helmet. Good parents should be able to decide which situations call for them and which don't. Except, we all know many parents are less than stellar examples of good judgment and parenting. Are we supposed to blithely allow the kids of those parents to succumb to whatever fate befalls them for not wearing some simple head protection?

the problem with helmet laws is that they create a situation that is worse post-law than it was pre-law.

Most helmet laws are passed on the premise that serious head injury and death to cyclists can be reduced if a law is enacted, but it's never been the case that this has happened. What does happen is ridership drops and the corresponding drop in these injuries that occur is credited to the law, rather than fewer people riding bikes. In spite of people on bikes receiving injuries, cycling still results in net benefits in health, so any drop in ridership results in an overall drop in health and, not only is the root cause of cycling injury being ignored, a fictional scape goat for these injuries has been created which shifts focus away from the root causes of these injuries resulting in continuing (and sometimes increasing) injuries.

I don't think many people are going to dispute wearing a helmet can mitigate minor injury, but trying to get a law passed on this premise wouldn't work. So what people do to get these laws passed is exaggerate the level of risks for riding bikes and exaggerate the level of effectiveness of helmets. Helmet law proponents play up the emotional aspect of injured children to incite parents and loved ones to work for a law rather than promote a rational examination of a problem.

The helmet law issue is a big red herring that has been tried and tested throughout the world. Helmet laws have not reduced serious head injuries by 85% anywhere they have been enacted. To sell this argument is to be either ignorant or deceitful.

I bet the statehouse in Colo is going to get a stern letter from closetbiker. He also may threaten never to ride his bike in Colo.

Anytime anyone mentions helmets, he pounces on the thread and floods it with his anti-helmet diatribe. Me thinks he was traumatized by a helmet at an early age.

...his anti-helmet diatribe...

:rolleyes:

herein lies a tactic of helmet law proponents. Anyone who is anti-helmet law, is anti-helmet.

Miles from the truth, and destructive to civil discourse.

Massachusetts has had a mandatory helmet law for riders under 16 for years. But, there is no fine involved, and the law is rarely enforced, if at all. I frequently see kids riding helmet-less, or sometimes, with a helmet dangling from the handlebars.

In other words, the law accomplishes nothing.

The only people I see with helmets in Massachusetts are adults and very young children (who are usually with a helmet-less parent or two). And most of the adults are roadies.

If anyone has a link to the helmet law bill proposal Colorado Legislature is considering, please post it so people reading can see what's on the table. Oregon, the state where I live, has a helmet law that specifies the following:

"Oregon's Bicycle Helmet Law:

Effective on July 1, 1994, any youth under age 16 riding a bike or when a passenger on a bike in any public place (streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.) must wear bicycle helmets labeled ANSI and/or Snell approved.

Bike helmets save lives and have been shown to reduce serious head injuries by as much as 85%.

You could get a ticket and a $25 fine. If you are under age 12, your parent or guardian could get a ticket. If you are over 12, either you or your parent can get a ticket."

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/safekids/helmets.shtml

Granted, being legally required to wear a helmet may a special downer for some kids...specifically teenagers. The fact can't be escaped that people at that age are comparatively more conscious and protective of their appearance than people older are. It may be also arguable that teenagers are generally less likely to have developed a sense of their body's strengths and weakness than people with a more years experience have. It's a pain to have your hair messed with, but it can be worth it if the noggin takes a konk on the asphalt. This can and does occasionally happen whether people are doing serious riding, or just goofing around having fun.

Not every kid in every bike riding situation needs to wear a bike helmet. Good parents should be able to decide which situations call for them and which don't. Except, we all know many parents are less than stellar examples of good judgment and parenting. Are we supposed to blithely allow the kids of those parents to succumb to whatever fate befalls them for not wearing some simple head protection?

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/260E8F2D148FBB6A872576AA00696508?Open&file=1147_ren.pdf

If anyone has a link to the helmet law bill proposal Colorado Legislature is considering, please post it so people reading can see what's on the table.
A .pdf file of the proposed bill can be found at:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/260E8F2D148FBB6A872576AA00696508?Open&file=1147_ren.pdf

[I see pueblonative beat me to it as I was typing.]

It provides for some education and distribution of literature in addition to the helmet provision. I don't see any value added by the helmet provision of this bill. The only enforcement is to hand out flyers to kids and their parents if they are seen riding without helmets and I doubt that many police departments will be very eager to spend any significant effort to do that. And presumably any town that wants to have their police force spend the time and effort to hand out flyers could already do so even without this bill.

OTOH, the publicity associated with trying to get the bill passed and signed is likely to overemphasize the dangers associated with bicycling. That's been shown elsewhere to lead to decreases in cycling by minors as parents become more concerned about the possibility of bicycling injuries and opt to drive their kids to school and other activities rather than letting them ride bikes. Since bicycling is actually pretty low risk and also has clear health benefits, such a decrease in cycling would be a net loss to society that is likely to be far more significant than any benefits that may result from an increase in helmet usage.

The only people I see with helmets in Massachusetts are adults and very young children (who are usually with a helmet-less parent or two). And most of the adults are roadies.

Excellent point / observation. Don't forget that one adult that everyone sees at least once per season, who has the helmet on backwards. Bonus points if you see a mom or dad, riding along with a helmet dangling from the bars.

Hey, we could make a score card, or "bicyclist bingo" card out of this. :innocent:

and don't even get started on proper adjustment.

For a helmet to work to spec, it has to fit and be adjusted right.

Ever hear of a person getting a ticket because their helmet was too big/too small or that the straps were too loose or not drawn right?

In our helmet legislation, there are requirements that specify which standard the helmet must adhere to, but that's never checked either.

Police said before the legislation passed that they couldn't give enforcement of this law any priority and after the initial period after it passed, for which the police were allotted extra funding for enforcement of this law, police rarely enforce it. In fact, estimates of usage rates now, are on par with usage rates pre-law.

What's the point of passing the law if it won't be enforced anyway?

Not much. I may not have been that opposed to the legislation if they had drawn the age range a bit more narrowly (say, 6-12 on the roads) and included more legislation regarding safety for bicyclists directed at both bicyclists and car drivers.

and therein lies yet another problem, (AFAIK) police just can't hand an 6, 8, or 10 year old a ticket. At least they can't in Canada.

Some legislation allows parents to be liable for the ticket, but then the police have to go to the effort of confronting the child and finding the parent to issue the ticket.

It's not a quick, simple process like holding up a radar gun and handing out fines for speeding (which seems to be a perfectly alright thing to do).

NY's MHL is one of the few things I miss about that state. It is enforced there, sufficiently that I was shocked for my first few months here when I saw the number of people on bicycles or motorcycles without helmets.

Anyone know what the status on this is? Is it still sitting in the Senate?

04/28/2010 House Considered Senate Amendments - Result was to Concur - Repass

In other words, my guess is that it's going on to the governor.

Why is is a bad bill? I haven't read it so I don't know what part or parts might make you think it's bad. Certainly requiring children to wear helmets is a good thing.

With just only one catch. Helmets don't prevent serious brain injuries.

I think this law is an excellent way to discourage children from riding.

With just only one catch. Helmets don't prevent serious brain injuries.

Not to mention the fact that the age range is way too big and this is the typical "throw a bike helmet on it and it will fix everything".

A similar bill passed in California resulting in a law requiring riders under the age of 18 to wear a securely fastened helmet beginning January 1, 1994. It is universally ignored and is not enforced. It would be nice if local and state police agencies provided citizens with a list of which laws will be enforced and which will be ignored.

Ever hear of a person getting a ticket because their helmet was too big/too small or that the straps were too loose or not drawn right?

I know you aren't suggesting that police should have the power/responsibility to pull cyclists with helmets over, so as to check the fit? :eek:

I really don't have a problem with mandatory helmet laws for minors, especially if there's data showing these people are most likely to be in an accident, and most likely to have brain damage as a result. When this happens, it will be the tax payers who fund most of the hospital stays. A 16 year old who's transformed into a vegetable is going to cost the state quite a bit of money. Given that, it seems fair enough to assume the state has an interest in keeping down the number of hospital beds it's paying for.

Now if there's actual data that shows helmets ( as opposed to helmet laws ) don't help at all in preventing brain injuries among cyclists, I'll change my mind.

Murder laws don't prevent murder, as some of these still happen. But murder laws definitely mean there's less murder than there would be if the laws didn't exist. And laws that don't exist can't be enforced.

[...]I really don't have a problem with mandatory helmet laws for minors, especially if there's data showing these people are most likely to be in an accident, and most likely to have brain damage as a result.[...]
Except... there isn't any data that show children are most likely to have brain damage.

I ordinarily hate to see this but for all the people here claiming that helmets don't do anything for head injuries: [Citation Needed].

If you're going to make a claim of that significance you're going to have to start citing legitimate sources that prove a helmet's worthless for safety.

I ordinarily hate to see this but for all the people here claiming that helmets don't do anything for head injuries: [Citation Needed].

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png (http://xkcd.com/285/)

^ Argh, beat me to it!

I ordinarily hate to see this but for all the people here claiming that helmets don't do anything for head injuries: [Citation Needed].

If you're going to make a claim of that significance you're going to have to start citing legitimate sources that prove a helmet's worthless for safety.

Believe me. There are plenty of legitimate sources. MHLs have been around a while and there's ample proof. It isn't hard to find it, you just have to have a will to look. Many who are convinced MHLs are beneficial, don't want to look.

Mr. Kefalas needs to re-think things -- in the state that was unfortunate enough to have Columbine, his biggest concern is an MHL? 'Nothing is more important'...? How about making sure THAT never happens again?

I always ride with my melon protector. And 99% of those I rode with in Colorado did same. I simply don't like the logic of GOOD IDEA = LET'S MAKE IT A LAW
Now, please excuse me, as I'm going to ruin a small amount of my brain cells with las cervezas del PACIFICO.

I ordinarily hate to see this but for all the people here claiming that helmets don't do anything for head injuries: [Citation Needed].

If you're going to make a claim of that significance you're going to have to start citing legitimate sources that prove a helmet's worthless for safety.

Shadowex3, I'll try my best!

It's actually a complex issue. There are actually two reasons for this, which I won't go into great detail unless you want me to. The first is that "safety" is not well-defined. This has to do with things like risk preference, choice under uncertainty, and Arrow's impossibility theorem. The second reason is that the mechanisms of brain injury are complex -- they are difficult to model and exhibit bizarre non-monotonicites with respect to situational variables. In total, these two issues make it very difficult to use statistics to "prove" anything about the effectiveness of bicycle helmets.

Here's the short story. There are two kinds of head trauma. Linear and rotational. Rotational is responsible for permanent injuries. Linear is more likely to cause temporary, local damage to the brain and skull.

Bicycle helmets are designed to and tested on how they mitigate linear impacts, but not rotational impacts. There is no logical argument for why such helmets would mitigate rotational impacts.

Therefore, there proposition that helmets help prevent serious brain damage is simply at odds with logic.

What about the data? It's hard to wade through the literature because statistics is hard. Needless to say, the strong spurious correlation between helmet wearing and injury rates is telling.

One literature review that I think is particularly well written, and you can read to find more sources is Bicycle Helmets: A Scientific Evaluation by W.J. Curnow, published in 2008. You can read parts of it through Google Books.