dynodonn 

Going through Georgia with Texas or Florida plates ain't nothing, try and go through with California plates.

CB HI

And what happens with anitque cars that are not required to have seat belts?

You guys do know that more motorist die from head injuries than cyclist, right?

SuncoastChad

In most states cars manufactured prior to about 1965 are not required to have seat belts as they were not offered.
I used to go through this discussion in TX with the base security police when driving my '55 Ford pickup. Sure enough, if they look, they see the exclusion!

CB HI

Only after the Federal Government started giving cities and states money for doing so (Federal Click-it-or Ticket).

CB HI

And no cops demanded you walk your car home, right!

SuncoastChad

Well, military cops will make you park it and walk if in violation and can't fix it. Good example is no helmet or missing safety gear for motorcycle riders. You will NOT enter the base.

CB HI

The military "safety gear" for motorcycles had less to do with safety and more to do with discouraging service members from riding motorcycles. And many here do not believe that MHL for cyclist discourage cyclist from riding.

For car drivers, military regulations only require compliance with the local state laws. Only for cyclist and motorcyclist are additional requirements added to operate your vehicle on base. Motorcyclist are also reuired to take extra training that car motorist are not required to take.

PS - not sure about other services, but Navy also exempts the helmet requirement if you are riding a military owned bicycle. I guess military paid for helmets for military and shipyard workers are too expensive for the very little protection they provide.

Delmarva

Agreed. And I think there is more to the story regarding his behaviour. Police don't just mace or shoot without very good reason. The police could have just let him go under the assumption he would crack his skull at some point and the pool of bike riders would have been improved. As one who has personal experience with a non bike related skull fracture I fully support helmet laws.

Commodus

The deaths of people who choose not to wear helmets will improve the rider pool?

Delmarva

I can see a cop thinking that the pool of bike riders would be better without self centered clowns like that.
I would imagine the cop might also think someone like that will likely be involved in other illegal activity down the road. One less headache to deal with if the guy cracks his skull while riding without a helmet.

Commodus

So you think that not wearing a helmet implies you are a criminal as well as better off dead?

Or are you implying the cop was insane?

CB HI

Don't all helmet nannies?

Six jours

On behalf of the human race, I'm a little annoyed with people like Delmarva trying to cheat natural selection. If you can't survive a bicycle ride without protective gear, we don't want you reproducing.

Delmarva

Hmmm...heading off on a tangent I see. The point to be made is that helmets do reduce the chance of doing serious damage to ones head when colliding with solid objects. As with seat belts and motorcycle helmets some of us feel their rights are being trampled if they have to wear a helmet. That argument would work if we all lived completely self-sufficient lives with no dependence on one another. The world in which we live requires that the rest of us bear the costs of hospitlization, brain damage, etc., in situations where the injuries could have been reduced or eliminated by the use of somehting as simple as a helmet. Are there other types of self-centered behaviour that sometimes results in huge social costs that aren't regulated? Sure, but we can't solve all problems at once.

A $50.00 helmet is pretty cheap protection.

wphamilton

This argument doesn't work either for bike helmets ... neither "that the rest of us bear the costs" nor the "injuries could have been reduced or eliminated" ...

edit. I suppose this requires at least something more than my saying it. An example:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317.full

Abstract
Objectives: This paper examines the cost effectiveness of the compulsory bicycle helmet wearing law (HWL) introduced in New Zealand on 1 January 1994. The societal perspective of costs is used for the purchase of helmets and the value of injuries averted. This is augmented with healthcare costs averted from reduced head injuries.

RESULTS
The net benefits of the HWL were positive for the youngest age group only; for the 13–18 age group and adults, the costs of the HWL exceeded the benefits. The total net cost to society of the HWL for adults was more than $1.5 million over five years.

Commodus

I'm not heading off on anything, just asking you to clarify...because what you seemed to be saying was bat-**** crazy. I was just curious to know if you were implying that on the part of the cop or, uh, the other possible explanation.

Neither am I going to get into a helmet argument with you on this thread. I think you've made your position pretty clear.

CB HI

And someone said 'no one here was supporting MHLs'.

trek2.3bike

NZ, like Australia and the UK, are much more "police states" than even New Jersey. There is no Constitution, there are no individual rights, and the police regulate themselves. 21st century remnants of feudalism.