Write on, but you accept that if people disobey the law, they will face a penalty, no matter whether the law concerns compulsory bike helmet wear or breaking and entering. Let's face it, if people had the right to disobey gun laws banning kalashnikovs, what do you think the point would be, not to mention the impact on a country which already has a high rate of gun violence?

Perhaps a simpler way to explain it: if people had the right to disobey a law, what would be the point of having the law in the first place?

I have an S-works Evade, and I would highly recommend it to everyone.

Some of them had a point in the first place but are obsolete. Some were jokes, others had no real point but were pushed by a politician for political purposes. Motor vehicle laws are sometimes modified according to how many people disobey them.

It boils down to this: the State has the right to enforce the State's interests, and every law arises from that right. We, individuals, have the right to enforce our own interests. Rights are pretty well delineated but sometimes, not often but sometimes, these interests come into conflict. At some point an individual's right to safeguard his interest may supersede the State's interest. It's the courts' job to decide where that is, when the situation arises.

Ah, so hypothetically, if it is my interest to murder my current wife and replace her with a new, more friendly model, I can go ahead as it is clearly in my interest to do so?

No wonder the US justice system isn't the envy of the rest of the world :)

Raised hand on the joke. Those that write laws don't always have your rights in mind. As far as the justice system, larger cities seem to get overwhelmed with more serious crimes, ie~people killing their wives, that heads are turned when smaller infractions occur. I've been known to ride my bike in a crosswalk...

Okay everyone, time to take a breather. I'm getting too many complaints about this long thread due to the arguing. This is a discussion forum, not one where people are supposed to one up each other, challenge each other or try to make fools of one another. That stuff is for elementary school.

Closed temporarily until people get a chance to cool down.

Reopened, let’s please try to maintain reasonable decorum.

Helmet Safety Standards
 

I understand there are basically three safety standards for bicycle helmets: USA, European, and Australian. From what I've read the European standards seem to be a bit less stringent than the the USA and Australian standards, while the Australian is the strictest.

If you lived in the USA, would you have reservations about using a non-CPSC (USA) safety compliant bicycle helmet if it was only CE (European) compliant, and not Australian? For recreational road riding, not racing, CX, or MTB.

Merged into the Helmet Thread.

One thing that surprised me, the claim in the opening paragraph that the head was the most vulnerable part of the body. I assume in the context of bike crashes. I wonder where that comes from, how it's justified that the head is the most vulnerable. I'd say skin is the most vulnerable, and if you had to pick a location perhaps the hands, or collarbone.

Most "valuable" I could see, given the brain and sense organs, or a pretty face perhaps. Most "vulnerable" though, I think needs to be justified, don't you?

This guy replied that he has never worn a helmet...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2v6W...outu.be#dialog

It's not a neutral piece of writing in any way. "In most countries it's still optional". No, not still, it's not heading in the direction of mandatory helmets, the suggestion that it would naturally progress like that is false. The helmet doesn't conflict with the feeling of freedom given by the bicycle, it conflicts with the freedom itself, the suggestion that it's a matter of perception is false. The suggestion it's just unnecessary for short distances is false too, distance has nothing to do with it. The statement that it offers good head protection needs justification to as it only protects a part of the head and only within limits.

I don't believe studies have indicated that bicycle helmets are very effective in decreasing the risk of head and brain injuries. The Netherlands is not stimulating cycling as a general health measure, the suggestion it's about the health risk and the health benefits is false. They falsely suggest there is scientific evidence that in case of a fall a helmet reduces head injury, that's only the case when the cyclists lands on his head. The anti helmet group they speak of is probably a anti mandatory bike helmet group, allthough there is case to be made to outlaw bicycle helmets.

Obviously, it's written by compulsive regulators, bureaucratic control freaks who desperately want to make cycling regulations and will take anything that looks like a justification.

Everything else being equal, you'd rather have the higher safety standard. If the CE standard helmet has a desirable benefit in style, comfort, price or some other quality then probably not.

Tangent:

There are different testing standards between the EU and USA for motorcycle helmets, too. In the USA, they have to be DOT certified for street use, and manufacturers also usually get SNELL certification for marketing purposes. EU has ECE standards. Sometimes, a helmet will meet all requirements, but if a smaller manufacturer doesn't want to be bothered with certification in a market in which they choose not to compete, why bother? So there are Euro-certified helmets which are not exported to the USA and which would technically not meet US helmet use requirements.

However, years ago, I bought a Roof helmet in England because it was so cool. EU/UK certified, but never DOT or SNELL tested. Full-face helmet and I have all faith in the protective capabilities of the helmet should it ever be crashed, but legally not up to snuff in the USA. Not, however, a target where cops are concerned -- there are too many yahoos wearing helmets which skirt the rules for them to go after than to bother with someone who for all intents and purposes appears to be following the law. I trust it. Good enough for me.

Can you make that case here for those of us who are new to this debate?

No problem. If you can't be trusted to ride a bike without hitting your head, you can't be trusted to bike wihtout hitting another cyclist or pedestrian.

And what does outlawing helmets have to do with this?

You don't have people risking other people's skulls while/by protecting their own (in a false sense of safety).

Just wondering. You've got no rabbits or squirrels in paradise?

https://i.imgur.com/CEkBDDk.jpg

**********

-mr. bill

So, this is the argument? :


1. The decision to wear a helmet indicates that someone doesn't trust him/herself.

2. This lack of trust in one's self means they cannot then be trusted to avoid other cyclists or pedestrians.

3. Helmet wearing thus protects the untrustworthy while exposing others to heightened risk.

4. No helmets should be used at all.


Please correct this because, as is, this suggests that a) everyone should wear helmets and b) taking your helmet off makes you trustworthy.

Edited numbering.