closetbiker

perhaps the most popular and often repeated comment in the feedback forms on the stories of the challange has been, if the people on bikes want to ride without helmets they should be allowed provided they sign a waiver for costs of the care they would need if they were to receive a head injury.

Actually, this suggestion is already partially true. A cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet and receives a head injury in a collision with a motor vehicle while not at fault in that collision, will not receive compensation for his/her head injury. Treatment yes, compensation, no.

Funny how very few comments make the point that people on bikes (even when they don't wear helmets) need less medical care than those who don't ride. Be as slovenly as you like, heart disease, stroke, diabetis, respritory disease; all is covered even if you actively contributed to your demise

Funny also how it's perfectly acceptable to drive 10 mph over the speed limit even when that extra speed can double the impact force if a crash were to happen. No calls for insurance to be invalidated in that scenario.

Many link helmets to seat belts too. Not only are the two completely different, the point is lost that cycling actively improves health while sitting in a car does not. Even if the two had an equal record of effectiveness, the contribution of the benefits of cycling would have to be factored into the risks of injury of riding without a helmet to come up with a realistic risk/benefit ratio.

I think the bottom line is, people think riding a bike doesn't save lives through improved health, people think riding a bike risks the life of anyone who rides it.

Under our law the police can seize the bicycle of anyone convicted of riding without a helmet. No helmet, no bike. It is better not to ride at all, than ride a bike without a helmet.