Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Mandatory helmet laws: Are they designed to limit transportation bicycling?

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Mandatory helmet laws: Are they designed to limit transportation bicycling?

Old 06-10-15, 06:45 AM
  #1  
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Mandatory helmet laws: Are they designed to limit transportation bicycling?

I was surprised--shocked really--to discover on another thread that some members of this forum actually support mandatory helmet laws. IMO. these laws do nothing to protect bicyclists, but they do much to discourage cycling. They are almost always passed by pro-car, anti-bike politicians who want to end bike facilities, bike share programs, or bikes being used for transportation generally.

I hope we can have an interesting discussion about this topic. A couple guidelines for this thread:
  1. Remember, this thread is about mandatory helmet laws and their effect on everyday cycling and bicycle programs.
  2. Please do not post about whether or not helmets "work". The forum has a sticky thread about this topic. It is discouraged to discuss the topic of helmet effectiveness outside of that sticky thread, as I understand it.
  3. Above all, be respectful toward others. It's OK to attack an opinion, but not OK to attack the person who has the opinion. Also, try to be a little open-minded if you can. This is a "hot" topic in bicycling circles--in more than one way. We can all stand to learn a little more about it.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"

Last edited by Roody; 06-10-15 at 06:50 AM.
Roody is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 08:57 AM
  #2  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I was surprised--shocked really--to discover on another thread that some members of this forum actually support mandatory helmet laws. IMO. these laws do nothing to protect bicyclists, but they do much to discourage cycling. They are almost always passed by pro-car, anti-bike politicians who want to end bike facilities, bike share programs, or bikes being used for transportation generally.
Why are you surprised that some cyclists support mandatory helmet laws? Try and find a bike club or group of organized cycling "enthusiasts" that doesn't insist on mandatory helmet wear to participate in any of their cycling activities. Helps to weed out the unworthy cyclists. Not much different in intent from anti-bike people who consider all cyclists as unworthy and wish to exclude them from their activities.

In addition, the BF forum has more than it's share of safety nannys; read A&S or commuting for more than a stomach full of braying and nagging on allegedly required safety clothing/equipment needed to ride down the street without meeting disaster.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 06-10-15 at 09:03 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 10:36 AM
  #3  
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Why are you surprised that some cyclists support mandatory helmet laws? Try and find a bike club or group of organized cycling "enthusiasts" that doesn't insist on mandatory helmet wear to participate in any of their cycling activities. Helps to weed out the unworthy cyclists. Not much different in intent from anti-bike people who consider all cyclists as unworthy and wish to exclude them from their activities.

In addition, the BF forum has more than it's share of safety nannys; read A&S or commuting for more than a stomach full of braying and nagging on allegedly required safety clothing/equipment needed to ride down the street without meeting disaster.
I'm surprised that transportation cyclists support helmet laws. Since they're not trying to do anything dangerous on their bikes, it surprises me that they want to require special safety equipment.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 10:44 AM
  #4  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I'm surprised that transportation cyclists support helmet laws. Since they're not trying to do anything dangerous on their bikes, it surprises me that they want to require special safety equipment.
How did you determine that any so-called transportation cyclists support helmet laws? Perhaps you should define "transportation cyclists" and why/how their cycling is any more, or less dangerous than any other cyclist.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 11:06 AM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
enigmaT120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Falls City, OR
Posts: 1,965

Bikes: 2012 Salsa Fargo 2, Rocky Mountain Fusion, circa '93

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
What thread are you talking about, Roody? I don't know why anybody supports mandatory helmet laws unless, as you said, it is to make bicycling even more inconvenient and annoying than it is already. I don't have a lot of empathy anyway, and I really can't get into the head of a person who wants to control other people for their own good.

I know you are trying to make this thread focus on the reasons behind the laws and not about the effectiveness of helmets, but I still think it will probably get lumped in with the helmet thread on A and S.
enigmaT120 is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 11:21 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,789

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4730 Post(s)
Liked 3,831 Times in 2,491 Posts
I don't take sides on helmet laws, just always wear one. Same thing with seatbelts. I started wearing them (when provided) before the laws went into effect. But I do find it funny that cyclists are as adamant about not passing helmet laws as anything I ever heard re: seatbelts. Maybe even more so.

It does seem pretty obvious to me that mandatory helmets would keep a few "outlaw" types off bikes (because looking dorky is so uncool). Like the guys I have seen using cell phones riding no-hands on brakeless fixies in the city.

Ben
79pmooney is online now  
Old 06-10-15, 11:25 AM
  #7  
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
rhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,852

Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...

Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1907 Post(s)
Liked 572 Times in 338 Posts
A mandatory helmet law just strikes me as the kind of thing laws shouldn't regulate. Whether or not to wear a helmet may be a question of personal responsibility, but it has no impact on other people.

As to the actual intent of these laws, I don't know.
__________________
www.rhmsaddles.com.
rhm is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 11:32 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,789

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 125 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4730 Post(s)
Liked 3,831 Times in 2,491 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
... Since they're not trying to do anything dangerous on their bikes, it surprises me that they want to require special safety equipment.
Transportation cyclists are often engaging with rush hour traffic. Crossing intersections. Dealing with pedestrians, sewer grates, wet leaves, oily roads, poor light conditions, etc. "(N)ot trying to do anything dangerous"? Huh?

I guess I should move to Michigan. That doesn't describe the places I have commuted: Bay area, Boston, Ann Arbor, Portland, and Seattle. I distinctly remember crashing three times in one block on an icy morning in Ann Arbor. Wait! Isn't Ann Arbor in Michigan?

Ben
79pmooney is online now  
Old 06-10-15, 11:34 AM
  #9  
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by enigmaT120
What thread are you talking about, Roody? I don't know why anybody supports mandatory helmet laws unless, as you said, it is to make bicycling even more inconvenient and annoying than it is already. I don't have a lot of empathy anyway, and I really can't get into the head of a person who wants to control other people for their own good.

I know you are trying to make this thread focus on the reasons behind the laws and not about the effectiveness of helmets, but I still think it will probably get lumped in with the helmet thread on A and S.
I notified the mods as soon as I opened the thread, so they can do what they feel is best. We really need some new topics on this LCF subforum, and I just want to provide that. Plus, I really don't think that all cyclists who support helmt laws are aware of the implications, and some probably don't know that these laws are usually introduced not by bicycling advocates, but by motoring advocates who want to make it harder for people to ride bikes on the public streets.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 11:38 AM
  #10  
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
Transportation cyclists are often engaging with rush hour traffic. Crossing intersections. Dealing with pedestrians, sewer grates, wet leaves, oily roads, poor light conditions, etc. "(N)ot trying to do anything dangerous"? Huh?

I guess I should move to Michigan. That doesn't describe the places I have commuted: Bay area, Boston, Ann Arbor, Portland, and Seattle. I distinctly remember crashing three times in one block on an icy morning in Ann Arbor. Wait! Isn't Ann Arbor in Michigan?
Ben
Motorists , bus riders, and pedestrians are also dealing with these same "dangers" but there is no pressure to force them to weaar helmets.

Are you really that scared when you ride your bike?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 12:04 PM
  #11  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I notified the mods as soon as I opened the thread, so they can do what they feel is best. We really need some new topics on this LCF subforum, and I just want to provide that. Plus, I really don't think that all cyclists who support helmt laws are aware of the implications, and some probably don't know that these laws are usually introduced not by bicycling advocates, but by motoring advocates who want to make it harder for people to ride bikes on the public streets.
You can add that some of the anti-bicyclist people who bray for mandatory helmet laws also write in on line comments, letters to the editor, and call to shock radio jocks with calls for mandatory insurance and licensing too; also for the same purpose - hoping to sock it to cyclists and get them outta the way! (all of whom are unworthy if they can be seen from a motorist's windshield, or in the case of NYC, seen from anywhere.)
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 12:07 PM
  #12  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Plus, I really don't think that all cyclists who support helmt laws are aware of the implications,
Helmet wear/helmet law proselytizers are not aware of many things. See the A&S sticky for more details.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 12:30 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Middelbury, Vermont
Posts: 1,105

Bikes: Giant Escape 1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
A few thoughts:
1. One commenter made the point that virtually all bike club or bike events require helmets. Why do they do that? The commentator suggests helmet rules are a way of weeding out "unworthy" riders. I assumed that it was a way of enforcing and promoting bike safety. The club and/or event knows its image is on public display.
2. Most states have laws requiring helmets for motorcycles (which I support) and probably all have laws requiring seat belt use (which I also support). Why do they do that? I assumed that when it comes to public highways and roads, everybody's safety is everybody's responsibility.
3. It's my opinion that many cyclists would support a mandatory helmet law. To me it's a tangible symbol that I take my safety (and the safety of others) seriously.
4. A common complaint I hear from non-bikers is that people who ride bikes act as if they don't have to obey laws. They see bikers fly through stop signs, not signal turns, etc. At the same time they hear bike advocates ask that everyone share the road. To them, this sounds like hypocrisy. It sounds like people who ride bikes want special privileges. I don't want any biker earning this stigma because I have to wear it too.

So because of those reasons, I would support mandatory bike helmet laws. I want anyone who rides a bike on a public road to always ride with safety (for themselves and others) as their primary concern. That helmet is a sign of that commitment. I have no problem at all if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet while riding wooded trails or mountain biking.
practical is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 12:35 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Middelbury, Vermont
Posts: 1,105

Bikes: Giant Escape 1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Motorists , bus riders, and pedestrians are also dealing with these same "dangers" but there is no pressure to force them to weaar helmets.
?
But they ARE required to wear safety belts (not bus riders). And if they ride a motorcycle, they're probably also required to wear a helmet.
practical is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 12:41 PM
  #15  
Custom User Title
 
RPK79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239

Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Motorists , bus riders, and pedestrians are also dealing with these same "dangers" but there is no pressure to force them to weaar helmets.

Are you really that scared when you ride your bike?
Hyperbole.
RPK79 is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 01:08 PM
  #16  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,506

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10873 Post(s)
Liked 7,354 Times in 4,125 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I was surprised--shocked really--to discover on another thread that some members of this forum actually support mandatory helmet laws. IMO. these laws do nothing to protect bicyclists, but they do much to discourage cycling. They are almost always passed by pro-car, anti-bike politicians who want to end bike facilities, bike share programs, or bikes being used for transportation generally.

They are almost always passed by pro-car and anti-bike politicians? What study would back that claim up?
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 01:43 PM
  #17  
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
They are almost always passed by pro-car and anti-bike politicians? What study would back that claim up?
No study. Things like that are not "studied." They fall under current events. I have followed the issue for several years on the internet and in my own community.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 01:48 PM
  #18  
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by practical
A few thoughts:
1. One commenter made the point that virtually all bike club or bike events require helmets. Why do they do that? The commentator suggests helmet rules are a way of weeding out "unworthy" riders. I assumed that it was a way of enforcing and promoting bike safety. The club and/or event knows its image is on public display.
2. Most states have laws requiring helmets for motorcycles (which I support) and probably all have laws requiring seat belt use (which I also support). Why do they do that? I assumed that when it comes to public highways and roads, everybody's safety is everybody's responsibility.
3. It's my opinion that many cyclists would support a mandatory helmet law. To me it's a tangible symbol that I take my safety (and the safety of others) seriously.
4. A common complaint I hear from non-bikers is that people who ride bikes act as if they don't have to obey laws. They see bikers fly through stop signs, not signal turns, etc. At the same time they hear bike advocates ask that everyone share the road. To them, this sounds like hypocrisy. It sounds like people who ride bikes want special privileges. I don't want any biker earning this stigma because I have to wear it too.

So because of those reasons, I would support mandatory bike helmet laws. I want anyone who rides a bike on a public road to always ride with safety (for themselves and others) as their primary concern. That helmet is a sign of that commitment. I have no problem at all if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet while riding wooded trails or mountain biking.
A. No evidence that helmets actually make you safer. Helmets are designed to withstand a simple fall--not to protect against falls at speed or collisions with automobiles.
B. Helmet use might be a wise idea for individuals to consider, especially if they are prone to falling off their bike. But singling out bicycling as the only activity (along with motorcycling) that is so awfully dangerous that everybody must wear a helmet very much gives the message that it should be avoided by sane people. There are no figures to back up claims that bicycling is more dangerous than being a car passenger or a pedestrian.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 02:13 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Cyclosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago Western 'burbs
Posts: 1,065

Bikes: 1993 NOS Mt Shasta Tempest, Motobecane Fantom Cross CX, Dahon Speed D7, Dahon Vector P8, Bullitt Superfly

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
It does seem pretty obvious to me that mandatory helmets would keep a few "outlaw" types off bikes (because looking dorky is so uncool). Like the guys I have seen using cell phones riding no-hands on brakeless fixies in the city.
So these "outlaw" types would stop riding altogether because they are so law-abiding? Just because a law is passed doesn't mean anything. A helmet law would be so poorly enforced that it's not credible it would change much behavior.
Cyclosaurus is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 02:39 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Middelbury, Vermont
Posts: 1,105

Bikes: Giant Escape 1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
You said in your original post:
  1. Remember, this thread is about mandatory helmet laws and their effect on everyday cycling and bicycle programs.
  2. Please do not post about whether or not helmets "work".

But then you responded to my comment by changing the subject to whether or not helmets "work."

I understand your position. I also understand that your position is widely held in Europe. I can be very sympathetic to it. But I think the biking culture here is different and a mandatory helmet law would improve the cycling culture. I think non-cyclists respect cyclists with helmets more than cyclists without helmets. I don't have any data at all to support this belief, it's just based on how I think others perceive cyclists. I could be wrong but I believe I'm right. And I think you believe I'm right too, because you "blame" helmets on "anti-bike" politicians. Maybe that's true, but if a helmet law will get me better bike lanes, I'll sign the petition now.
practical is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 02:42 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
bikemig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Middle Earth (aka IA)
Posts: 20,505

Bikes: A bunch of old bikes and a few new ones

Mentioned: 178 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5876 Post(s)
Liked 3,445 Times in 2,066 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
snip . . . Try and find a bike club or group of organized cycling "enthusiasts" that doesn't insist on mandatory helmet wear to participate in any of their cycling activities. Helps to weed out the unworthy cyclists. Not much different in intent from anti-bike people who consider all cyclists as unworthy and wish to exclude them from their activities.

. . . snip .
Not quite. Fear of litigation has a lot to do with why clubs and organized events tend to require helmets.
bikemig is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 02:48 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Ekdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403

Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
The same politicians who back mandatory helmet laws here in Spain recently floated a new plan (which they've now given up on, fortunately) that would have required all cyclists to license and insure their bikes and wear reflective vests. They claim they're looking out for our safety and that of pedestrians, but it's quite obvious that their goal is more people driving and fewer people cycling.
Ekdog is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 04:12 PM
  #23  
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,870

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3939 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times in 87 Posts
Personally I doubt that helmet advocates or helmet law advocates have any devious agenda to exclude or limit or weed out anybody. They are just promoting what they believe to be good or necessary policy.
cooker is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 04:45 PM
  #24  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by bikemig
Not quite. Fear of litigation has a lot to do with why clubs and organized events tend to require helmets.
So some might say, or some might falsely claim that "their insurance requires it"; nothing but unfounded baloney. If the clubs and organized events event leaders think helmet requirements will magically protect them from "litigation" they are living in a dream world. If their fear of litigation is that powerful the solution is to cancel the ride or event.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 06-10-15, 05:19 PM
  #25  
"Florida Man"
 
chewybrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Florida
Posts: 1,673

Bikes: '16 Bob Jackson rando, '66 Raleigh Superbe, 80 Nishiki Maxima, 07 Gary Fisher Utopia, 09 Surly LHT

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1564 Post(s)
Liked 1,691 Times in 847 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I'm surprised that transportation cyclists support helmet laws. Since they're not trying to do anything dangerous on their bikes, it surprises me that they want to require special safety equipment.
You don't have to look for danger; it can find you. I was just waiting at a red light on my motorcycle and got clobbered. My helmet may well have saved my life or helped me avoid a serious injury. The same thing could happen on my bicycle.

Originally Posted by rhm
Whether or not to wear a helmet may be a question of personal responsibility, but it has no impact on other people.
If I did not have my helmet when I got popped, what might the impact have been on the kid that hit me, financially and emotionally? What might the impact have been on my family, if I was killed, or society, if I went on disability, etc.?

I have mixed feelings about requiring a helmet, but I would not say the decision will not impact others.

Also, can we see a photo of the Fothergill?
__________________
Campione Del Mondo Immaginario
chewybrian is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.