Political? I just wanted to see if you thought that was a similar issue, that's all. Does your nanny state apply to this, too?
Anyway, erased my post. You do seem to have a political agenda on this, though - how many times have you used the word nanny?

In fact, Dupont, Lynwood, Spokane and Vancouver all decided to adopt all-ages helmet laws after Seattle. Those... ...nannys.

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

-mr. bill

Apparently, Seattle is loosening the enforcement of their helmet law to accommodate bike share users:
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/sea...ents/802330070

All I said was that they apparently are loosening the enforcement, based on info in the link I provided.
But, please, do carry on.

See if you can find the words "loose" "loosening" or "enforcement" in that article.

• They simply interpreted how to apply a regulation to dockless bike share vendors -- left unchanged from pilot rules to final rules is the rule that bike share vendors have to provide a list of places to buy helmets.
• Just as they interpreted how to apply a regulation to docked bike share vendor -- vendor had to provide a helmet vending machine at the docks.
• And how to apply a regulation to brick and mortar bike rental vendors -- for rental bikes, shall offer to rent a helmet, for bike sales, shall offer to sell a helmet.

BTW, in Seattle, Pronto (who provided helmet vending machines) failed.

Spin and Ofo (who provided a list of helmet vendors) failed. Ofo failed EVERYWHERE. Spin is scooting away.

Lime and Jump (who provide a list of helmet vendors) seem to be doing OK in Seattle so far.

Lyft has applied to join them in Seattle.


Elsewhere, the helmet law also did not change in Massachusetts *NOR* was it "loosened."

In Massachusetts, bike share vendors are considered to meet the requirement in M.G.L Chapter 85 section 11D where the vendor "shall make available a bicycle helmet" by simply offering a list of places where you can buy a helmet. Same rational decision that has been made in many other jurisdictions.

Bluebikes (formerly Hubway) has a list of helmet vendors but also offers a discounted helmet over this new fangled thing called "the internet". I've never seen that helmet in the wild though, even though many people riding Bluebikes wear helmets.

Lime has a list of helmet vendors in each city/town in Massachusetts where they operate. (They also gave away 25,000 free helmets to the first 25,000 thousand US users who took the "Repect the ride pledge" and promises to distribute 225,000 (not free) helmets worldwide, location and timetable unknown.)

-mr. bill

Thank you for clarifying.
(Someday I will learn not to question you. ---Not sarcasm.) You tend to have your facts straight before posting.

"Nanny State" is a phrase commonly used for government control of people's behavior "for their own good." There are an increasing number of such laws and regulations, and rarely are they of any value. Worse, they usually suck resources which could be more effective elsewhere. Even worse, from a law enforcement perspective, is that they usually are followed by demands from the lawmakers to "push" those new rules, making cops enforce them (and thus taking them away from enforcing legitimate laws and dealing with safety issues).

Gun laws and bicycling are rarely related, and definitely not similar except they are both areas in which those who do not participate attempt to exert control over those who do. Shooting while riding a bicycle is rarely effective, but attempts to do so have generally proven to be a source of amusement for observers.

The bottom line is that helmet laws for adults are not legitimate nor within the powers granted to government by the Constitution, and exist only because they are just a few more among many such laws, which protect each other by being so numerous that they will never reach judicial review.

All of the above said, I wear a helmet when I ride, I promote helmet wear, and I figure that if you have anything that a helmet would protect, you will protect it to the extent which you consider reasonable -- if you're wrong, you're wrong.

It's been ages, maybe years, since I've delved into Helmet Thread. And no, I'm not reading every post to catch myself up. But I just got an email from Trek saying that they will be introducing a New Helmet Technology which is may help mitigate concussions in the event of a crash which involves impact on the head in an area covered by a helmet incorporating their new technology. My words, not theirs, to clarify for the semantically inclined around here...

Trek had previously incorporated MIPS tech in their helmets, which was an answer to those who questioned the validity of helmets as injury mitigators in the case of crashes which impact in which a helmet was between the user and the immobile object, especially where concussion is concerned. The observation being that much injury which causes concussion was rotational in nature, rather that straight impact vector forces.

There's a information embargo until March 19, and a diagram I guess I'm not supposed to post actually looks like tech which was being explored by helmet companies even three to five years ago, but it is good to see a major bike company developing and supporting helmet safety tech.

According to all the internet research I did on the safest helmets there are only 5 that make the top grade of the few that were tested, so read: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamo...-earn-5-stars/

I would also like to point out if you are a wanted criminal on murder charges and decide to ride a bicycle.... please wear your helmet just in case the po po stops you.... Dudes I cannot make this stuff up. xD

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...aimo-1.5062737

* I hadn't noticed that Avole had been permanently banned when I finally got around to responding to him. So I have removed my response here. Wasted bandwidth, sorry.

If you regularly ride in such a fashion that 2 inches of clearance is the thing keeping you from hitting your head, your problem isn't a helmet.

Likely a microscopic fraction of collisions.

Mountain biking is one situation where the rider's head hitting something is somewhat more frequent. The helmet usage in mountain biking seems to be very high anyway.

That doesn't do much for your argument that "I can't use a helmet because I have difficulty riding without my head too close to things".

No, you would't expect that at all (other than a tiny fraction).

People don't seem to regularly hit their heads riding at all. It doesn't make any sense to expect they frequently ride with their heads closer than 2 inches to things.

It seems more than apparent that people overwhelmingly try not to ride close to things.

That is, one would expect that it would be a rare exception. Given that nothing is perfect and exceptions will always be found, the argument that helmets "increases the chance of banging your head" is kind of silly on its face.

It's another example of "if it's not perfect, one shouldn't use it" argument.

Why wouldn't you think that the extra two inches makes it more likely to bump on the ground? I'm pretty confident of it, based on 4-5 years of Aikido training which involves tumbling and roll practice, daily. And stunt fall training, about 10 years before that, but mainly the Aikido. In all of my bike falls, the execution of the fall was exactly the same. Over the course of thousands of forward rolls and flips, breakfalls and side falls, I am almost certain that many of them bring my head closer than 2" to the ground.

Falls are not that frequent either. But we're only talking about the the falls where people do hit their heads, so when comparing helmet vs no helmet in a fall your point is basically irrelevant.

And please note, we're talking about people hitting their heads on the ground, not "riding close to things". Let's stay on track here.

No no. I am talking about in a crash! Not every crash causes a head to contact the ground. In fact, MOST minor crashes do not involve head contact. I've crashed about once a year over the past 50 years on a bike and not once hit my head. I have crashed about 6x a year on skates and skateboards. That means roughly 350 crashes over my lifetime and not one head contact.

The width of my skull at the widest point (side to side) is 6.5" and all of my 4 helmets are about 1" thick. So wearing a helmet that I own will increase the size of my head by 16%. If you don't believe that a larger head has more chance of hitting the ground in the fall, I can't help you understand the concept of size or the math of probability.

And if you don't believe that a helmet MIGHT NOT be effective in a crash anyway, ask any aging NFL player. If they can remember how to speak.

Why does Joeybike crash once a year? I've only crashed 3 times in 30 years and all but one of those was my own stupidity, I think I've gotten better at riding since I haven't crashed in around 20 years. If I crash tomorrow I'm going to be really mad at you all!! The one crash that was not my fault I slammed the top of my head into the side of a car doing about 18 mph, I'm pretty sure if I wasn't wearing a helmet I would probably not be able to type and spell out the words in this post since the helmet liner was crushed flat and the outer skin of the helmet was split thus my skull would have had to had the same damage if the helmet wasn't on. In one of the my fault accidents I slammed the side of my head onto and edge of a curb, again crushing the liner and cracking the skin of the helmet. The third accident I didn't hit my head until after the accident which I did with my hand for being so stupid! Those impacts to the head did give me a mild headache that went away within a few minutes, doc said I didn't have a concussion in either, I went to be checked out to be safe. Of course even though I use to mountain bike ride I was not trying to be aggressive due to fear of crashing and hitting rocks that I'm not sure if a helmet would do much, plus hitting rocks tears up the body and I'm allergic to pain, deep cuts and broken bones, so I never crashed doing that, all my crashes have been on the street on the road bike.

??? What the heck does Aikido and tumbling have to do with bicycling?

??? "Aikido and tumbling" isn't "staying on track". It's going off into the weeds.

Sure, let's have cyclists practice "thousands of rolls" before they start riding.

No, helmets aren't increasing the frequency of bicyclists hitting their heads on the ground except as an odd rare event.

Bizarre.

???

Your carelessness skating or skateboarding doesn't have any magical relevance to cycling.

Dumb. Would they have been better-off doing the same thing without the helmets?
​​​​​​​

"For all we know his skills may be excellent, allowing him to ride like an idiot without actually being one." - FBinNY

Or for all we know, he just rides like an idiot....

-mr. bill

You see in football that they penalize the use of the helmet now. They were never intended to be used as a tackling aid. And if you ever got a knee to the head, you'd know why they have them. The ability to tuck and roll out of a fall should be on everyone's list. And the use of a helmet is a last resort aide in an accident.

Aikido- learning how to hit the ground without getting hurt. Without hitting your head. It is relevant to cycling for the same reason helmets are, and relevant to the discussion because the background qualifies someone's opinion about likely possibilities during falls and crashes. As opposed to someone who has just crshed a few times.

There's no substitute for going over the bars a few times, helps you to plan a successful landing during those milliseconds you have as your rear wheel leaves the ground and your face starts moving toward the pavement.

I also think it helps to practice it in your mind a few times how you're gonna tuck in your chin and go into a shoulder roll, and how you are absolutely NOT gonna try to fight it by throwing out your arms and sliding on your face. Or you can just strap on a helmet and not worry about any of this stuff (bad idea).