MarkS

I've taken flack for my pro-helmet opinions in these forums. I've fallen off a bike once or twice, and was pretty sure that the helmet prevented a minor incident from becoming a major one. And I've seen a motorcycle helmet almost certainly save a life. I definitely make sure my daughter is wearing a helmet as we pedal off to school.

But I don't think schools should be in the business of enforcing helmets for kids anymore than they should be in the business of enforcing seat belt or child booster seat laws for kids being dropped off. Schools have their own charter -- education -- which is what they should be zeroing in on. Schools don't have the authority, manpower, or fiscal resources to be enforcing a private policy. What is most likely to happen is that the school officials will decide its easier just to discourage biking.

If your area already has a child helmet law, then it should be up to law enforcement to enforce those laws as they see fit. If your area doesn't have a child helmet law, then maybe you should dedicate your energies to getting one passed. But leave the hapless schools alone.

markw

Completely different subject. Organized events usually have some stipulations to participation. If you don't want to wear your safety gear that the organizers require, then fine, you're not a participant. Pretty cut and dry there. Car racing comes to mind, your car must meet certain safety requirements before they allow it on track. If you don't meet those requirements, then you don't play.

I'm still waiting for them to start politicizing the recent crashes in DSM to push for helmet laws.

Oh, FWIW, I rode a bike in Des Moines until I was 19 and only wore a helmet on the track. I always wore one on the motorcycle.

randya

I have never had a head injury riding without a helmet and a helmet has never prevented me from having a head injury. I started using one when they became more commonly available, that is all. I still don't use a helmet all the time, I use one only if I feel I am exposing myself to greater risks, such as riding on busy arterial streets or ZooBombing. Riding in the neighborhood, I often do not use one; and this is what most schoolchildren are doing - riding in the neighborhood. I took helmets for my wife and I when we went to Europe last summer, and ended up hardly using them at all, my wife doesn't like wearing hers and I didn't want to look like an American tourist; wearing a bike helmet makes you stand out in Europe worse than a pair of loud Bermuda shorts and a stupid slogan T-shirt.

randya

This is crap, too. I've been on commercial organized bicycle tours through Paris and Barcelona city traffic. No helmet was provided or required, and no signed waiver was required, either. I know it's different in the US, and that's why I don't participate in organized rides here.

Daily Commute

I hate to admit it, but I agree with chipcom. I think you should raise your own kid and let other parents raise theirs. Some parents may have decided that maing their kids wear helmets would stop the kids from riding. Other parents may have just chosen to pick other battles.

And what would the penalty be? Removal of bike riding privileges? That's counter-productive.

Now, if you want to talk about a parental educational campaign, a helmet giveaway, or organizing a way for parents to buy inexpensive helmets, I'm with you.

As for the organized rides, sometimes you have to do something silly to keep insurance. If mandatory helmet use is one of those, so be it. If the school's insurance company or lawyer forced the helmet policy on the kids, it would be a different story. But I'd insist on seeing the policy or the legal opinion.

"Liability" and "insurance" are two reasons people often make up so that they have an excuse to say "no" when they don't to take responsibility for their own decisions.

Carusoswi

Re: group rides - those, generally are private affairs, organized by a private individual or group, privately funded, etc. If I ever organized a private ride, I'd probably be open to all sorts of litigation because I do things so spontaneously, that it probably would never dawn on me to insure the activity. But, for those who do choose (and probably wisely so, these days) insulate themselves against the prospect of litigation; I would probably support most any rule they put in place within reason.

It is for all those reasons that I have chosen not to participate in group rides. One of the aspects I most enjoy about my riding is its unstructured nature. The machine is very simple, requires relatively little maintenance or upkeep. I ride when I want, where I choose, at the pace I set. When finished, I place my bike back on its rack until next time.

We all have our own reasons for riding - and for those who are into group rides (and helmets) - it's all well and good to me. Let them have at it.

I would also say (and some may challenge me on this) that one might be more prone in a group to get tangled up. Certainly one would need to be vigilant about not bumping the rider in front or surprising the rider in back causing him/her to bump - so maybe there is a stronger case for helmets in a group. I don't really know because I haven't done any group rides.

As for having kids, if you really want them, have them. My guess is that you would find that the experience of being a parent to be quite different than observation of other parents, and like most parents, when it's your turn to suffer that privilege, you will improvise to do just as most other parents, the best you can.

Caruso

randya

Mandatory helmet requirements are a curiously American phenomenon (well, Aussie too, I guess). I think they are pushed primarily by motorists who don't want to take personal responsibility for the safety of those they might endanger with their vehicles and driving habits. See the helmet sticky, there's plenty of info to substantiate that a helmet does nothing to protect you in a high-speed crash. If you're a klutz who falls off your bike a lot at slow speeds, they might be more effective at injury prevention. If you ride downhill single track, you probably want one, plus some additional body armor. But the risks and incidents of head injury are remarkably low, and as many have pointed out, we don't require helmets for motorists or pedestrians, where the risks of head injury are comparable or higher than for bicycling. Personal protective gear should be selected by the user to be commensurate with the actual risk of injury, based on the activity, and not mandated. As I stated previously, there are times I use a helmet and times I don't, primarily based on risk.

Daily Commute

Then please do so in the helmet sticky. From what I can see, mandatory helmet law advocates have yet to show that helmets or helmet laws actually make cyclists safer. I'm willing to follow the evidence, and so far, the evidence I've seen has been against your position.

Because I have seen no evidence that helmet use makes cyclists safer, I fall down squarely on the side of allowing other parents to parent their children as they see fit.

And yes, I wear a helmet. It saves cyclists from pain, and that's good enough reason for me to wear one.

Daily Commute

I understand that, and I'm not trying to be critical or to make a point with the question. I just wanted to know if there were any studies that showed that bicycle helmets really were effective in decreasing injuries.

ZachS

the op still hasn't answered the question about how many sioux city students have died or injured their heads while riding to school. wouldn't 'natural selection' have been working this whole time?

ZachS

That sounds like a great plan. Will you also find out how many have been injured/killed in automobile collisions, and while walking to school?

ZachS

my goodness, it really is people like you who cause most of the problems in the world. you make me ashamed to be an American and a human being.

chipcom 

I give away helmets to folks that need em all the time. Just cuz I don't wear one myself very much don't mean that I don't buy and check them out, in case I like something better than my old Bell Citi. Instead of letting them collect dust, I give them to folks that are just getting into riding and express a wish to wear one - kids in the neighborhood who ride with our 15yr old mostly.

chipcom 

This is typical horsepucky from elitists who don't get their way. I gotta a hint for you pal, I been riding on the roadways for over 40 years, and guess what - this bull is still running at the HEAD of the herd. The way I figure it, your obsession for mandatory helmets is an attempt to compensate for your own lack of ability to lead the herd, so you want to slow them all down to your pace. Pitiful, really.

Bottom line, nobody is calling you a snivelling wimp for wearing a helmet, so quit trying to somehow demean those who choose not to wear a helmet and stick your laws, rules and regulations where the sun don't shine.

Sometimes I think we need mandatory muzzle laws for them busy-bodies who constantly attempt to lecture folks about what is 'best for them'.

_dhan_

Recently there's been talk (again) about implementing a helmet law here in Austin. There are other people who've thought the topic through in much greater depth than I have, so I'm going to "borrow" some of their talking points for now as I educate myself on the topic (the following points have been paraphrased from rudeboy on the forum@bicycleaustin.info).

1. Helmet laws are a diversion from the bicycle safety issues that are truly important, like enforcement (both cars and cyclists), and bicycle facility design.

2. Helmet laws drive an unresolvable wedge issue firmly into the heart of the cycling community. (see this venom spewed in this thread as an example)

3. Helmet laws are viewed by people who know next to nothing about cycling as an easy solution and then they think they've done something useful to improve safety when, in fact, they have not. BECAUSE most bike riders are already wearing helmets voluntariarly. (kids tend to do what their parents do. if their parents wear helmets, they are likely to wear helmets)

4. Helmet laws discourage bike riding when we should be encouraging bike use. What is the proposed punishement for not wearing a helmet to school? Loss of cycling priviledges? Harrasment by authorities? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation The results from this study show that "a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation." I suggest reading the whole abstract. There are a bunch of relevant points made.

5. If they're so great, why not require helmets in the home, for pedestrians, and in automobiles too? Studies have shown that the risk of head injuries in car accidents and bicycle accidents is equivalent. This is also addressed in the abstract above (man... I really want to get the full paper to read...).

Ok, so studies have shown that if you are in a crash and hit your head, then helmets provide some protection. If you get hit by a car, you're going to be pretty messed up anyways, so more importantly is how should be prevent crashes? The issue isn't whether kids who bike should or should not wear helmets. The problem with helmet laws is that they present a barrier to entry into the wonderful world of cycling. The issue is how to encourage kids to bike while increasing safety at the same time. +1 kid cycling = -1 car picking up a kid. I'm all for programs that would help provide helmets to kids who want them.

oh, and I think the seatbelt remarks are a red herring. whether or not seatbelts work, it is questionable whether the government should be the one mandating it. Enforcing traffic laws is a matter of public safety. Seatbelts (and similarly helmets) are a matter of personal safety. In practice, the seatbelt laws are more of a public service announcement/education type of thing. I don't know how it works up in Iowa, but I'm pretty sure you can't be pulled over for failure to wear a seatbelt. If you do get pulled over for something else, it's an extra charge they can tack onto the citation.

Daily Commute

You're the one trying to put a government restriction on how other parents parent their kids, so I think you're the one who should come up with facts to support your position. And yes, it hasn't been tried at your kid's school, but why would you think the results at your kid's school would be different than any other school? My position on the helmet law debate could change if someone could show that helmet laws made kids safer. But it sounds like you are just so offended that some parents let their kids enjoy cycling without a helmet that you are going to push for this rule without any evidence that it would be helpful.

I know the comment you were responded to was a little too pointed, but he has a point. You don't have any evidence that helmet laws work anywhere.

What's ironic is that someone comes to A&S with a "safety" plan that doesn't actually improve safety, and they think it's somehow ironic that people point out that the "safety" plan might not actually make cycling safer.



As far as I can tell, helmet laws have two main effects: 1) They make the people who back them feel better about themselves. 2) They decrease cycling. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means share it.

I was a fence sitter on helmet issues. But time and time again, helmet advocates make empty claims that helmets make cycling safer without any evidence to back up those assertions. It makes intuitive sense that helmets would make cycling safer, and helmets clearly make cyclists feel safer, but I have yet to see evidence that shows that helmets decrease brain injuries. If you have any such evidence, here's you chance to change someone's mind.

chipcom 

So much for thinning the herd. I'm thinking we should make it illegal for all busy-bodies to use safety equipment and thin the herd where it will do the most good for the rest of us.

ignominious

N_C

Given the recent evidence on the head injuries sustained by pedestrians and the fact that the risk per person per mile travelled is higher then for a cyclist, will you also be pushing for the school board to mandate walking helmets for school children as well? Or do you not care if this herd gets thinned.

Actually, if you think about it logically, not only should cycling helmets be mandatory, but so should cycling to school. And for their own protection, the kids would have to keep their helmets on all of the time.

SirMike1983 

I think the State Governments and the School Boards should concentrate their time and resources on educational policy and improving the schools' quality, rather than on making and enforcing a bicycle helmet law. Are you going to enforce this law using tax payers' money for law enforcement time and effort? The existing tax money should go to improving the schools, and I don't think this law would justify an increase in taxation of any sort. The big problems need be solved before the small ones.

markw

You know, for the most part the kids around my neighborhood wear helmets. My daughter has a nice scar on her forehead that she got when she was a kid for not having a helmet on and crashing. Not that she didn't have a helmet, but she hopped on her bike and rode it because she couldn't find it. Dad wasn't around to yell at her, and mom was busy. she was 4 or 5 at the time and was just riding in front of the house. She's probably the best of my 3 kids at wearing a helmet now, go figure. We have always had a standing rule, loose your helmet, loose your ride. Yes, there's a state law in CA that mandates helmets on 14 and younger, but there's only selective enforcement. The kids that are out riding on stuff with their bmx bike wear the helmets, as that's one less thing they can get a ticket for when they get caught.

If you want to get your message out about safety and helmets, it is better to just wear a helmet, and have your kids wear a helmet. If you push for new rules/laws your just going to piss people off. I ride bikes and motorcycles, I always wear a helmet. I've broken 2 helmets, one on a motorcycle and one on a bicycle, and where I live has a mandatory helmet law. (California). As a private citizen, doing a safety fair, or something like that at the schools would/could go quite a ways towards promoting helmet usage. We've got a helmet in our classroom that we teach the MSF course out of which has a nice dent and spidered crackes from the center of the top out. I was following the guy when the accident occured. He lived, and when students look at that helmet, they're like wow, that must've been some impact.

ignominious

Don't forget to ask them about the walking hemets. Remember, they would save more lives than cycling helmets.

I-Like-To-Bike

Don't ask; tell them! All responsible adults assure that children wear helmets at all times; Safety First!

chipcom 

Oh, that's lovely. You can't get them to obey your wishes, so let's pass some laws to MAKE them comply. Genius, herr Adolph, sheer genius.

supcom

This whole issue is little more than an attempt by an individual to create a local law without going through the normal process. If the OP wants kids to be required to wear helmets, then he should work with his local city council or petition the state government to enact a proper law to that effect that would cover the general case of kids riding bikes, not just kids riding bikes to/from school.

Instead, the OP is trying to circumvent the process by simply trying to convince the school board to make a rule to a similar effect, presumably because he thinks it will be easier to get his way than by going through the normal lawmaking process.

Whether or not this idea has merit, who is going to enforce it? Teachers and administrators at schools already have their hands full when kids are coming and going from school just trying to maintain order, control traffic, and make sure kids get on the right busses. The last thing these folks are going to want to do is make sure every kid has his helmet fastened correctly just because some childless busybody went to the school board to tell everyone how to take care of kids.

chipcom 

Just like in the military or in the workplace, when you have a person you want to get rid of, yet they have not broken any rules or laws, you take 'administrative action', which is just another word for circumventing due process. It's chickensh_t and the method of choice of elitest busy-body do-gooders when they can't make the rest of us mere mortals see the light of their divine wisdom.