genec

No. I disagree with any mandatory law... from seatbelts to helmets. Not because such items don't save lives, but because I think we should not need silly nanny laws.

closetbiker

Is this a resurrection of a 10 year old thread?

closetbiker

After living and complying with a helmet law for 12 years, I'm now breaking it.

When the law was passed, it was said that lives would be saved and brain injury would be reduced. It hasn't worked. In fact despite early heavy enforcement that raised usage to almost 80%, deaths went up as ridership decreased by a third. Needles to say, those increased deaths were to cyclists who were wearing helmets.

I think the intention behind the law was genuine enough, people really did want to make things safer, but they just were hoodwinked by studies (in particular the TRT study from Seattle published in the NEJM) and lobbyists. What legislators didn't know at the time was cyclists are killed by cars and the participants in the study that showed reductions in head injuries were not involved in collisions with cars.

The last few years enforcement has ceased (except in our capital city) helmets are off, ridership is up and proportionatly deaths are down (same actual numbers but more than a third more riders).

SlimAgainSoon

No.

I always wear mine, but no.

tandemania2

No

degnaw

LOL 1999...was the internet really around back then?

I personally wear a helmet, but I say let whoever rides decide what they want to do.

Juggler2

Nothing but defiance for such a law here. I can understand mandatory use for children under 13, but that's as close to a general all encompassing law as I will go. Big brother already has his fingers into too much as it is.

Personal Choice.

StrangeWill

It's either nanny laws, or spending lots of money on medical costs when idiots injure themselves.

Suddenly you'll start supporting them when your taxes jump dramatically.

cudak888 

Not YOU again, you little spamming troll...

-Kurt

Alpha52

As a staunch Libertarian, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, my current personal medical insurance policy states in the fine print, no helmet, no medical or liability coverage.

closetbiker

Up here, at the polices discretion, people risk not only fines, but also confiscation of their bikes if they ride without helmets.

rule

Yep.

I-Like-To-Bike

What insurance company is that? Helmet required just for bicycling or 24/7 for any and all activities? And liability for what? Damage to people or property you strike with an unhelmeted head? Sounds bogus to me.

invisiblehand

Really? I find that surprising since not wearing a helmet is legal. Perhaps the reference is to motorcycling.

Can a life insurance policy mandate no motorcycling, hand gliding, or sky diving?

Basil Moss

I see this argument proposed a lot. But, forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm assuming you live in the US, so surely you have no national health service?

This is of course ignoring all evidence of the efficacy of helmets in reducing injury...

I-Like-To-Bike

or ignoring the evidence of the LACK of efficacy of helmets in reducing injury... or ignoring the LACK of evidence of the efficacy of helmets in reducing injury...

closetbiker

or ignoring the evidence that, even without a helmet, cycling improves health and prolongs life.

StrangeWill

Irrelevant, there are still medical bills if you get in an accident.

Nope, but victims that can't pay or die usually get absorbed by taxes, after all someone has to pay for it to keep the hospital in business, the original helmet came from motorcycle helmet injuries, which motorcycle helmets are designed extremely well.

I however do agree that cycling helmet design should be looked at, however I also think if you don't even attempt safety measures, maybe you should be left there on the ground until you fork out your credit card, since we're playing the "WAHHHHH nanny state!" game.

I'll give you a hint, we have nanny states because most adults act like children.

closetbiker

Oh? And you're saying cyclists get into more accidents than motorists?

How can you dismiss the obvious health benefits of cycling over motoring?

StrangeWill

It's a cost regardless, if like saying I'm only going to take $20 out of your wallet instead of $40, would you smile and hand me $20? No, it's still a loss that can be avoided.

Basically it's horrible financial planning, the exact kind of financial planning that runs up budgets and gets people in debt of comparing "deals", it is still a cost, even if it's a "deal".

RobertHurst

You seem to be assuming that, all other factors being equal, a society with a mandatory helmet law would have lower health care costs than a society without. There is plenty of evidence pointing the other direction. That is, mandatory helmet laws may cost society more money than they save because they keep people off bikes. Some places with MHLs even saw increases in head injury rates after enactment of the law for some reason or other.

This is all crusty old news.

StrangeWill

Care to post the data? I'm not saying current helmets are up to par, but using more current helmet technology into cycling helmets (aka: not $4 helmets), will greatly reduce head injuries, if they can do it at 60mph, they can do it at 30. I do acknowledge that my current helmet is just going to prevent road rash and falling velocity at high speeds, and that if I come in contact with anything stationary I'm ****ed. I support a somewhat hybrid between motorcycle and current cycling technology to come up with a lightweight high-speed applicable solution. (TBH though, most commuters do not hit 30mph... ever.)

My agenda is saving money, so obviously I'm out for facts on which WILL save money, you're agenda is not having to wear a helmet, you're heavily biased.

cudak888 

Only in A&S can a spam troll bring up a discussion from 1999 and re-ignite the same argument that was discussed before he brought it up - without the slightest hint of a forum backlash directed towards the spammer for cluttering the forum.

-Kurt

invisiblehand

Still not correct. You have to compare the expected values.

$X = cost of helmet
H = 1 if wearing a helmet

First you have to ask yourself is

P(collision|H=1)*f(severity|H=1) - $X

greater than, equal to, less than

P(collision|H=0)*f(severity|H=0)

I don't think that you can demonstrate that red is less than blue. You certainly can't do it without rigorous empirical measurements. If you then let cycling vary with mandatory helmet laws, then you just increase the ambiguity.

invisiblehand

True ... but everyone has been itching to argue the point all over again anyway.