Should helmet laws be relaxed?

[MarkvW]

Agreed, also, smokers should be shot to reduce medical expenses.

Of course car drivers should also wear a helmet as the medical cost savings would be considerably larger than that just incurred from cyclists ( same goes for skiers, rollerbladers, fast joggers, people going down stairways).

It goes without saying that skydiving, paragliding, rafting, canyioning, swimming without lifesaver - among other activities - should be prohibited.

Overweight people should be jailed until they return to a normal weight.

It's the cell phone drivers who bother me . . . or the cell phone drivers who are also eating a sandwich . . .. But I'd sure hate to intrude on their freedom.

 

[pedaling squares]

I gave up trying to tell people how to live their lives long ago.

as a group that gives back to the community with modest sponsors, some feel we have a responsibility to represent safety etc.

Two good points. I take it there is no law in Cali requiring helmet use?

 

[RedheadDane]

In my opinion if a person is old enough to make the descision not to wear helmet, then they are also old enough to face the consequences.
Though there are two things which makes me roll my eyes slightly:

The first thing is when you see someone with a child in one of those chairs, the child is wearing a helmet but the adult isn't! Can't help but thinking that "Yeah... it's cool you give your child a helmet but, you not wearing one; not exactly teaching them that it's a good idea..."

The second is when you see someone (maaainly a teenager, for some reason...) with their helmet on the handlebars. Kinda gives the impression of a scene somewhat like this:
Parent: Remember you helmet.
Teen: Yes... *puts on helmet, leaves, as soon as they're out of sight they stop and take the helmet off*

 

[usedtobefast]

Two good points. I take it there is no law in Cali requiring helmet use?

only for under 18,and that seems to be very loosely enforced.

 

[Boeing]

Two good points. I take it there is no law in Cali requiring helmet use?

under 18 years of age only I think

 

[Boeing]

only for under 18,and that seems to be very loosely enforced.

didnt see your post,

loose indeed. the worst is kids riding fixies with helmet strap not fastened

 

[Boeing]

In my opinion if a person is old enough to make the descision not to wear helmet, then they are also old enough to face the consequences.
Though there are two things which makes me roll my eyes slightly:

The first thing is when you see someone with a child in one of those chairs, the child is wearing a helmet but the adult isn't! Can't help but thinking that "Yeah... it's cool you give your child a helmet but, you not wearing one; not exactly teaching them that it's a good idea..."

The second is when you see someone (maaainly a teenager, for some reason...) with their helmet on the handlebars. Kinda gives the impression of a scene somewhat like this:
Parent: Remember you helmet.
Teen: Yes... *puts on helmet, leaves, as soon as they're out of sight they stop and take the helmet off*

I saw a parent today with a bike chair for a little girl about 2 she had no helmet and neither did he they were riding in traffic. sometimes you just want to say something

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I wear a helmet all the time, you should too. But I see the point of the OP and agree.

Not sure the law in my state. I think it should be mandatory under 18. After that, you are an adult and can make your own decision. There are so many other safety laws we need to enforce already, let alone all the new ones we could create to protect people when we go down such a path.

 

[Martin318is]

...After that, you are an adult and can make your own decision. There are so many other safety laws we need to enforce already, let alone all the new ones we could create to protect people when we go down such a path.

I agree with this for certain countries. In my limited understanding of medicine/insurance in the US, I believe that a rider that a rider with a brain injury is fully liable for their treatment expenses?

Whereas (as discussed above) in some other countries - such as Australia - a large percentage of the general costs will be covered by the taxpayer (from various types of taxes).

In cases where an individual does a highly risky activity but where the only person at risk is themselves and the liability is solely with them, I am always happy to support people making that choice (see Alex Honnold for example). But where some burden comes back to the wider community, I would be happier if there were a clause that said, "You made your bed, Lie in it"

 

[Parera]

I agree with this for certain countries. In my limited understanding of medicine/insurance in the US, I believe that a rider that a rider with a brain injury is fully liable for their treatment expenses?

Whereas (as discussed above) in some other countries - such as Australia - a large percentage of the general costs will be covered by the taxpayer (from various types of taxes).

In cases where an individual does a highly risky activity but where the only person at risk is themselves and the liability is solely with them, I am always happy to support people making that choice (see Alex Honnold for example). But where some burden comes back to the wider community, I would be happier if there were a clause that said, "You made your bed, Lie in it"

Not really, this is where people misunderstand our healthcare system. A hospital can't refuse treatment for sick/injured person by law, regardless of insurance. A cyclist will be covered in most states by sections under their auto policy's PIP (personal injury protection). And of course, in the event someone else was at fault for an injury their insurance will pay the bills, so to speak. But there is carrying limits and someone can easily blow through a $15,000 PIP with a week's stay in the hospital.

In the case of the uninsured, the hospital will often "write-off" care for someone that doesn't have insurance. In other words, they basically eat the loss. That's part of the reason why it costs $30 for Ibuprofen in the ER; the US system is essentially subsidized/socialized by proxy through insurance companies. Those premiums employers and private individuals pay are determined by what hospitals bill patients, which is ultimately a "summary cost" of all the patients they treat; in other words, both those that can pay and those who can't. Americans pay insurance premiums to cover everyone.

Without opening a can of worms, this system is woeful in its ability to restrain healthcare costs. Furthermore, people injured DO invariably become burdens for taxpayers through Social Security disability payments. So even in the US, where we don't have a single payer system, the government does have an interest in encouraging people to wear helmets.

So essentially, you are wrong about the US system: an individual really isn't solely financially responsible for their own high risk behaviors.

 

[Martin318is]

Fair enough, I guess the US gets lumped in with the rest of us then.

 

[Parera]

Fair enough, I guess the US gets lumped in with the rest of us then.

Well, it's like short-bus single payer. While everyone has their pros/cons to their respective systems, we are extremely flawed with the way we disperse medical care. It's maddening.

 

[danjo007]

helmet should be worn no matter what - no exceptions.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Ignorance is bliss.

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicycle helmet laws could do more harm than good

Bicycle helmets should not be compulsory, say doctors

Do Bicycle Helmet Laws Do More Harm Than Good?

Risk taking is influenced by people's perception of safety and danger

Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets

 

[Parera]

Ignorance is bliss.

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicycle helmet laws could do more harm than good

Bicycle helmets should not be compulsory, say doctors

Do Bicycle Helmet Laws Do More Harm Than Good?

Risk taking is influenced by people's perception of safety and danger

Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets

……………………..__
……………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
……,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
…,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\
.;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,.
….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
…..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
…...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
…../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\
….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,.
….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,.
…/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\…….
….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..\……
…….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………\….
............f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,……….\…

 

[frenchfry]

Ignorance is bliss.

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicycle helmet laws could do more harm than good

Bicycle helmets should not be compulsory, say doctors

Do Bicycle Helmet Laws Do More Harm Than Good?
Risk taking is influenced by people's perception of safety and danger

Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets

In the first link the person conducting the study was hit twice while wearing a helmet. He is still around to tell us this fact, therefore one possible conclusion is that helmets work.

In the second link, it is shown that helmet laws increase the total cost to society, but it is those who don't wear helmets who are indirectly responsible for these costs - including those who didn't cycle before the helmet law. Those cyclists who wear helmets and continue to do so are safer with helmets than without, and also contribute to lower costs to society. Therefore one could conclude that wearing a helmet is a good thing for society.

 

[Archibald]

What part of London? Most of the places I rode when I lived there the streets were so small that two cars approaching each other head on took turns moving through the gaps in parked cars.

My comments are related to Melbourne which is marginally better than Sydney in terms of cycling safety.

I rode all over London and lived in various areas. I was referring to the 'roads' and not the lanes or back streets. The lane width on roads in both the uk and europe are far wider than australia...

On a side note, I'd love to see something like the congestion tax in sydney, although that would mean a far better public transport system being put in place...

 

[Martin318is]

On a side note, I'd love to see something like the congestion tax in sydney, although that would mean a far better public transport system being put in place...

..so yeah, that'll never happen....

 

[Major Taylor]

In the first link the person conducting the study was hit twice while wearing a helmet. He is still around to tell us this fact, therefore one possible conclusion is that helmets work.

In the second link, it is shown that helmet laws increase the total cost to society, but it is those who don't wear helmets who are indirectly responsible for these costs - including those who didn't cycle before the helmet law. Those cyclists who wear helmets and continue to do so are safer with helmets than without, and also contribute to lower costs to society. Therefore one could conclude that wearing a helmet is a good thing for society.

That is some pretty tortured logic. This first instance is silly and the second beyond a stretch.

 

[BroDeal]

Ignorance is bliss.

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicycle helmet laws could do more harm than good

Bicycle helmets should not be compulsory, say doctors

Do Bicycle Helmet Laws Do More Harm Than Good?

Risk taking is influenced by people's perception of safety and danger

Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets

How dare you bring facts into a discussion about helmets. We should rely on anecdotes and the terrors of softcocks who live in fear of falling while walking down a flight of stairs or taking a shower.

 

[Parera]

How dare you bring facts into a discussion about helmets. We should rely on anecdotes and the terrors of softcocks who live in fear of falling while walking down a flight of stairs or taking a shower.

Are those facts, though? Most of the research I've read on PubMed and my uni database seems to be in agreement: helmets result in the reduction of head injuries while bicycling. The epidemiological studies about net health benefits always seemed flawed to me, but whatever, seems like this is a discussion where everyone who is opposed to helmets won't give an inch.

 

[Boeing]

Are those facts, though? Most of the research I've read on PubMed and my uni database seems to be in agreement: helmets result in the reduction of head injuries while bicycling. The epidemiological studies about net health benefits always seemed flawed to me, but whatever, seems like this is a discussion where everyone who is opposed to helmets won't give an inch.

At some point something always gives without a helmet

 

[frenchfry]

That is some pretty tortured logic. This first instance is silly and the second beyond a stretch.

But not nearly as convoluted as some of the arguements against helmet legislation, or helmets in general.

For the record, I am solidly for the use of helmets at all times, but in general against helmet legislation.

 

[k_gibbo]

Are those facts, though? Most of the research I've read on PubMed and my uni database seems to be in agreement: helmets result in the reduction of head injuries while bicycling. The epidemiological studies about net health benefits always seemed flawed to me, but whatever, seems like this is a discussion where everyone who is opposed to helmets won't give an inch.

I am quite sure it would be very easy to prove there would be "net health benefits" to not eating sugar, but I don't think we need a law to take away our freedom of choice. As a free society we need to allow people to make their own decisions regarding how they want to live their lives. Legislation is not the answer, education is.

 

[catmiles]

The idea of not wearing a helmet and not having this as law is ridiculous.

These are life saving devices and the stats in the article make it clear these should always be worn.

You may think its just a short trip to the shop but anything could happen and you would be the first to complain/sue for injury compensation!