I was unaware that there were some states that actually had helmet laws for bicyclist. In a previous thread a person mentioned that some states require that children wear helmets. I believe everyone should wear seatbelts on their car, helmets while riding a motorcyle, and helmets when riding a bicylce. However, I am opposed to laws mandating these personal saftey equipment uses.

When I mow my grass, I always wear eye protection, and proper footwear. But if I don't, should the police come on to my property and cite me? A family with small children should never leave a bucket with water wear a toddler could fall into a drown. Should the saftey advocates enter that household and lecture the parents, and call Family Protective Services?

The other day, my daughters helmet adjuster failed to work when we were going out for a bicylce ride. So, I let her use my helmet, and I just rode without one. Now, if the militant safty advocate on the other thread may stop me and my daughter and lecture me. Should I be stopped by some safety nerd, and recieve a lecture. Would I recieve a ticket and a fine in some states?

I agree with you in some respects. Invasive legislation is just that. However, some restraints on behavior are manditory in a civil society. Should people be allowed to yell 'fire' in a theater when there is no fire?

In MD children under 16 must wear a helmet. Motorcyclist must also wear a helmet. My pet peave is that if society realy wants to limit head injuries, than motorist should also have to wear a helmet and seat belt. Motor vehicle head injuries outnumber bicycle and motorcyle head injuries many-fold. So, if elected officials wan't to save us all, they should start with the biggest numbers and work down... but that would piss off to many people...

You have my ah-men on this. I too believe it is a personal choice for anyone of a reconable age. Personally, I wear a seat-belt in my car, a helmet when cycling, and full leathers/helmet when on my hog. But, I do not belive it should be a law punishable by fines. If I decide to not wear my safety equipment, I'm just being idiotic by flirting with disaster.
I don't think a legislative body should attempt to mandate personal safety, but maybe a tax on stupidity would be nice ;)

Anyone who refuses to wear a helmet is a moron. However, it is not the purpose of gov't to protect us from our own idiotic behavior. I am fundamentally oppossed to such Nanny state legislation. Our country is about freedom and choice. This includes being "tolerant" of those who enagage in idiotic self-destructive behavior. Let the teenie boppers crash and bang their head--next time they'll wear a helmet. I always find it amusing that such Nanny State legislation is most often proposed by the so-called "tolerant" progressives. [Before I get any right wing hate mail, I happen to be a libertarian].

Let the morons weed themselves out of the gene pool--Darwin awards anyone?

Safety and freedom are inversely related.

We don't have accidents in this society anymore. Someone is always at fault, usually someone other than the person involved. As we continue to legislate and litigate safety, we will see ever more sharing of costs among all of us. These costs may be directly funded by taxpayers or funded by higher insurance rates or medical bills for those able to pay.

Sometimes safety rules are put in place to try to hold these costs down. Perhaps helmet rules fall in this category. Sometimes these rules benefit manufacturers of the safety equipment. Perhaps helmet rules fall in this category. Sometimes safety rules perpetuate government employment. Perhaps helmet rules fall in this category. Sometimes a safety rule is actually a good idea. Perhaps helmet rules fall into this category. Sometimes safety rules are put in place to establish liability in accidents, e.g DUI is automatically at fault for everything in an accident, even if the other car fell of a bridge on the DUI vehicle. Perhaps helmet rules fall into this category. Sometime safety rules fall into all of these categories and result in very expensive solutions. Perhaps helmet rules fall into this category.

I always wear the helmet. I always buckle the seatbelts. And yes, I am mildly irritated when I think about all the costs involved for everyone when others don't use a rational approach to safety. At some point I wonder if my share of those costs justify a rule modifying everyone's behavior. Maybe helmet rules fall into this category. Or, perhaps there is just too tenuous a relationahip between costs and which of us ultimately pays them and regulations and to which of us they apply.

Why should I have to pay for the cost of someone else's personal, moronic choice? Its called freedom and personal responsibility.

Let the morons weed themselves out of the gene pool--Darwin awards anyone?


there is no 'moron' gene, genious.

because someone decides to not wear a helmet doesn't mean they won't have children and it doesn't mean that those children will be morons as well.

:rolleyes:

I was being facetious

Do you want the gov't mandating that you use a certain kind of brake on your bike because its safer?
How about setting mandatory minimum standards for tires to reduce the risk of blowouts and accidents?
I have an idea: lets mandate elbow pads and knee pads to reduce the risk of broken bones--after all if i have to go the hospital it will imposes "costs" on society.

Here is CA helmet law for reference.

21212.
(a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standard), the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447 standard). This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle.

There are more sub-paragraphs, but for brevity I left them off.

Helmets? You know, We never used one where we were kids (in the 60's and 70's)...because all you could get were those useless hairnets. In spite of this, we managed to survive.

I sometimes get the feeling that the politicians have to do something to justify their jobs. I see it with new managers at work too. They change something, anything.

In San Diego, it is illegal to wear a baseball cap under a bike helmet. ?!?!?!? Come on!

I lead bike rides for Scouts. One day a Scout forgot his helmet and no replacement was available so I loaned him mine. I rode helmetless, which is perfectly legal based on CA law, and I explained the circumstances to the riders in my group.

I couldn't believe how much flack I got from other riders we passed on the trail that day.

In closing, I am pro helmet. They reduce injuries in many crashes and can still be improved. But I also mind my own business.

Regulations are more about allowing the state to collect $ in fines. As more and more people take up commuting on bikes rather than driving, expect more and more stupid regulations--all which carry fines

Regulations are more about allowing the state to collect $ in fines. As more and more people take up commuting on bikes rather than driving, expect more and more stupid regulations--all which carry fines
The reulations also protect the governmnet from liabilty from lawsuits.


South Carolina's General Assembly left helmet regulations up to individual counties and municipalities. I don't know of any nearby. If we had one on Hilton Head Island, I'd close my rental busniess. There is no pratical way to store several hundred helmets without my overhead skyrocketing.

WTF? Why would the gov't be liable if I didn't wear a helmet and cracked my skull? I guess I should sue them for "allowing" me to smoke or drink for all of my hedonistic college years

We had a poll here on this subject

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=76344

and the majority (73%) believe the government should stay out of the issue.

we will always pay for other peoples actions. it's part of being in society.

Seattle has a helmet law but it's never enforced, I don't think....

WTF? Why would the gov't be liable if I didn't wear a helmet and cracked my skull? I guess I should sue them for "allowing" me to smoke or drink for all of my hedonistic college years
There is a lawsuit pending in Littleton, CO over the sheriff not warning people about the Columbine shooters. Yes, you can sue the government because they wouldn't warn you or regulate you about (x).

Sometimes laws like this exist to protect manufacturers, or other people you may have an accident with. Or circumstances.

Let's say a dog runs out in front of you causing you to crash. You land on your head. With a helmet, the liability may be much less because your injuries are less severe. So the law is in place to protect other people from your decision making. Just an example but I think you understand the idea.

there is no 'moron' gene, genious.



Ironic.

Ironic.

ROFLMAO

The real reson for helmet laws is the helmet manufacturers. They lobbied state assemblies to pass helmet laws to help increase sales. Former South Carolina Senator Ed Saleeby (D-16th District) called their lobby out back in the early 90s in the SC General Assembly.

Regulations are more about allowing the state to collect $ in fines. As more and more people take up commuting on bikes rather than driving, expect more and more stupid regulations--all which carry fines

well if your family was willing to sign a waiver stating that they knew, that your cycling was dangerous and therefore the stare shall be held free of liable.... I really understand what your saying, but we
live in an age that people are both stupid and willing to sue. I respect states, counties, cities , for
limiting their liability for the individual's stupidity.

Yes, I am aware that many regulations are passed due to lobbying efforts to increase some major industry's profit margin. This reaffirms my earlier point that most regulations are designed to extract money from us and transfer it to bueracrats or other thrid parties.

My point however was that freedom encompasses an inherent degree of danger and insecurity. Nanny state laws take away our freedoms on the false promise of making us safe. What business is it of you or the government if I wear a helmet? If your dog runs in front of my bike and I crash cracking my head, your liability will be reduced because I was being negligent for not wearing a helmet. The legal system should and does hold people accountable for unreaosnable behavior that injures others. However, that is completely different than the legislative branch imposing an a priori restraint on my behavior.

Part of being free means being free to make mistakes, act irrationally, and enagage in conduct that may be harmful to oneself. While individuals should be responsible for the results of their conduct, the government should not punish and restrain that conduct in the first instance.

well if your family was willing to sign a waiver stating that they knew, that your cycling was dangerous and therefore the stare shall be held free of liable.... I really understand what your saying, but we
live in an age that people are both stupid and willing to sue. I respect states, counties, cities , for
limiting their liability for the individual's stupidity.


My point is that people shoudl bear personal responsibility for their stupid decisions and should not be able coerce others through government action [by statutes or the courts] to pay for their inadvisable conduct. Yes, people sue others for their own stupid behavior, but that doesnt mean they SHOULD be able to.

However, I still fail to see what legal theory would allow me to sue the state for not having a mandatory helmet law.

Under your argument, the gov't would be justified in taxing all cyclists to hand out free helmets to those too stupid or lazy to buy their own!

What business is it of you or the government if I wear a helmet? If your dog runs in front of my bike and I crash cracking my head, your liability will be reduced because I was being negligent for not wearing a helmet. The legal system should and does hold people accountable for unreaosnable behavior that injures others. However, that is completely different than the legislative branch imposing an a priori restraint on my behavior.


Unfortunately our society has become one of victim's rights, and everyone wants to be a victim. Got cancer? It's Phillip-Morris's fault, you'll get millions. We get a Surgeon General's warning. Burned your crotch on hot coffee? It's McDonald's fault, you'll get millions. We get a warning on the coffee cup saying that it's hot. Rolled your SUV? It's Ford's fault, you'll get millions. We get a warning on the visor telling us that an SUV handles differently than a Ferrari.

The legal system does not hold people accountable for their own stupidity, nor does it protect others from your stupidity because there are juries involved. Over time, the general populace has come to believe that if something bad happens, it must be somebody else's fault. Those people make up juries. Ridiculous law suits are won or settled to avoid publicity and increased legal fees. The only thing protecting us is a ridiculous law that borders on infringement of freedoms. I'm not one for increased government involvement in our lives, but in situations like this it's the only thing that protects us from the lawyers.

I understand that you wear a helmet, and that's a wise choice that I make as well. But when I come close to hitting some idiot because he's on the road, no reflectors, near midnight, in a black jacket...and riding AGAINST traffic, it's comforting to know that if I had plowed over his stupid ass, the law would find that he was in the wrong.

Twahl,

I agree with most of what you said. However, if we accept minor intrusions by the government on our freedoms, over time we will have none left. Today its bike helmets; soon bikes will be regulated to the same extent as automobiles. I agree that legally, wearing a hemlet is a good way to protect your right to recover when some assclown cager plows into you. I just think people are all too willing to give up that choice and have the goverment make it for them. Yes, people abuse our legal system. Yes, society is filled with a bunch of irresponsible sheople who want big brother to take care of them. But accepting Nanny state laws such as mandatory helmet requirements only furthers the culture of victimhood and encourages people to take less responsibility for their actions.

Twahl,
...accepting Nanny state laws such as mandatory helmet requirements only furthers the culture of victimhood and encourages people to take less responsibility for their actions.

I just think it's not so clear as to what encourages what. I believe that people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions is what has led to the victimhood mentality. I see some a helmet law as protecting me from those that won't protect themselves. I don't share solidarity as a cyclist with those that choose to not protect themselves. Helmet laws protect me from them, whether I am riding a bicycle or I am a "cager" at any given time.

There are laws out there that are supposed to be protective that are a whole lot more restrictive.
Like, "Let's enact something highly restrictive of civil liberties. We can get away with it by telling everyone it's for national security and their own safety. What will we call it?"
"I know. Let's call it "The Patriot Act". That will make everybody feel better."

Before that the piece of feel good legislation that did nothing of substance was the "Brady Act".

The real reson for helmet laws is the helmet manufacturers. They lobbied state assemblies to pass helmet laws to help increase sales. Former South Carolina Senator Ed Saleeby (D-16th District) called their lobby out back in the early 90s in the SC General Assembly.

and to cover themselves in any liability actions against them, the helmet manufacturers provide legal disclaimers in the packaging of all the helmets they sell.

Have you ever read those in detail? In laymans terms, it pretty much says, if your head is hurt wearing this helmet, it's not our fault.

The motovation for lobbying for laws is to make money. Just like the motovation to recommend replacement every 3 to 5 years. There is no need for replacement if there is no damage, but the manafacturers would make more money from more sales. Another reason the clips on the straps break easy now. They used to last 10 years. Now they last (at best) half that time and you can't get replacement parts, you have to buy a whole new helmet.

There are laws out there that are supposed to be protective that are a whole lot more restrictive.
Like, "Let's enact something highly restrictive of civil liberties. We can get away with it by telling everyone it's for national security and their own safety. What will we call it?"
"I know. Let's call it "The Patriot Act". That will make everybody feel better."

Before that the piece of feel good legislation that did nothing of substance was the "Brady Act".



here here! I agree these laws are way more restrictive, but its the principle of the matter, not the effect of the law that dicates my distate.

Here is CA helmet law for reference.

21212.
(a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standard), the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447 standard). This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle.

There are more sub-paragraphs, but for brevity I left them off.

Helmets? You know, We never used one where we were kids (in the 60's and 70's)...because all you could get were those useless hairnets. In spite of this, we managed to survive.

I sometimes get the feeling that the politicians have to do something to justify their jobs. I see it with new managers at work too. They change something, anything.

In San Diego, it is illegal to wear a baseball cap under a bike helmet. ?!?!?!? Come on!

I lead bike rides for Scouts. One day a Scout forgot his helmet and no replacement was available so I loaned him mine. I rode helmetless, which is perfectly legal based on CA law, and I explained the circumstances to the riders in my group.

I couldn't believe how much flack I got from other riders we passed on the trail that day.

In closing, I am pro helmet. They reduce injuries in many crashes and can still be improved. But I also mind my own business.
This is the point that I was attempting to make. The other day I had to ride without a helmet, because my daughters helmet malfuncioned. So, as her father, I would rather that my daughter was protected. And of course, the safety Nazis were on duty, and I recieved comments from perfect strangers on " not setting a good example for my daughter".

Can anyone tell me why there are lines going through all everything on this thread? The moderators don't wish to be contacted. I am unable to contact the people who are responsible for this website to ask them why there are lines going through everything on this thread. I don't believe that it is the computer that I am using, because I don't see it on the other sites that I go to using this computer.

I stand corrected. It is not just this thread. It is all the post on this site appears with lines through the text????????????????????????????????????????????????

April Fools!!!

Could it be that today it April 1st? Or is there a technical problem with this website. Methinks that it is a April Fools Joke, because there is that funny looking green animal/avatar on every post. Is there a moderator available that could respond? Or is it the practice of the moderators on this web site not to communicate with the public?

April Fools!!!
Are you responsible? How were you able to affect everything on this site. ( I am a not a computer professional)

Maybe I need appreciate your humor learn to lighten up a bit myself. But I wonder why the moderaters dont provide an access to contact them.