Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws

[Kennah]

I have come across a few studies that try to assess "overall societal health benefits" and conclude that mandatory bike helmet laws make us unhealthy and unsafe. So goes the argument, fewer people will ride so we save some brains but lose more hearts.

DU seems like a good place to have a rational discussion on this subject.

I think it cannot seriously be argued that a bike helmet protects the individual wearing it. It obviously won't help in some circumstances, like if one meets a truck head on at 75 MPH. But there are many scenarios when it would help to reduce injury or prevent death.

Bicyclist fatalities and injuries down in the U.S., bicycle ridership up in the U.S., and at least some helmet laws enacted. All in the last two decades. The argument against helmet laws, at least here in the U.S., would seem to be a fail.

I wear one, I require my kids to wear one, and now they don't even think twice about it. They instinctively wear a helmet when they ride a bike.

If one is opposed to mandatory bike helmet laws, would you support mandatory bike helmet laws for kids, under 18, under 16, under 14, something?

[Kolesar]

1. I don't know the argument against mandatory helmet wearing laws

Except that kids will leave their helmets somewhere and lose them. That is not much of an argument.

[FrodosPet]

33. Perhaps helmet laws should be extended

What's wrong with helmets in cars? Race car drivers use them.

I have bumped my head a few times when I was no where near a bike. Perhaps it is time to mandate helmets EVERYWHERE 24x7? That way, NO ONE will ever be hurt by head injury.

[SwissTony]

2. In Australia, helmets are compulsory.

I've never heard anyone complain about having to wear one. But the wiki page indicates that there was a drop-off after the laws were enforced.

Motor cycle helmets are also compulsory.

[soc7]

3. I disagree with any nanny laws for adults.

Helmet laws for kids are reasonable.

[taterguy]

4. What's your definition of nanny law?

Not wearing a helmet has an impact (no pun intended) on people other than the cyclist.

The ER folks have to scrape the cyclist's brains off the pavement and in case you hadn't noticed, if the cyclist lives his or her brain injury will cost society a bundle.

So seriously, do you have a working definition of nanny law, or do you just know it when you see it?

[Sans__Culottes]

6. In My Opinion...

The helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc, have a lot more to do with protecting insurance industry profits than they have to do with protecting adults from themselves.

I *do* agree with restraint laws for underage drivers, youngsters are not always capable of making rational decisions and do need to be protected from themselves at times.

As to protecting ER and emergency response crews from seeing massive trauma, I find the comment fatuous for several reasons:
1. It's their chosen occupation, they *expect* to be exposed to gore.
2. There's plenty of godawful carnage they witness that has nothing to do with bikes/cycles; the additional amount from cyclist injuries-to-the head is just a drop in the old brainbucket.
3. Helmets do not protect other body parts from injury and cycling accidents are frequently horrific from the spinal trauma, massive flesh-abrasion, et al. Should we just ban all two-wheeled vehicles to protect the sensibilities of aid-workers?

I don't ride motorcycles because they scare fuck out of me. That's *my* choice. Those that choose to ride, or choose to ride w/o headgear are making their own life-choices and I much prefer that they have the freedom to choose, even to make bad choices, than to project my fear onto them.


My definition of nanny-laws are those that appear to protect us from our own freedom to choose (but actually protect the profits of the 1%). Remember when the insurance companies in this country forced a ban on convertible cars in the 70s? *That* was nannyism-for-the-protection-of-insurance-profits at it's most ridiculous.

When do we legislate against bungee-jumping, base-jumping, rock-climbing, et al, because someone might get hurt?

Adrenaline junkies *are* going to devise means to achieve the rush and we can not protect adults from all self-endangerment, nor fools from folly.

[soc7]

11. The only reason that I'm reluctant to agree with you 100% is that

we both have low post counts. The way things work around here, agreeing with you will label us both as freeper trolls. We are not allowed to post against the "tide" of a thread until we hit somewhere around 1000 posts....

That said... yes, I'd appreciate no laws telling me:

- to wear a helmet
- to wear a seat belt
- what I can or cannot smoke
- what I can or cannot drink (or how much)
- what I can or cannot eat
- that I cannot run with pencils
- or, any other dumb ass law that is designed to protect me from myself....

[Sans__Culottes]

12. I think you're safe.

After all, this isn't a thread about teh PORN!!1!

[Xyzse]

26. Agreed except:

---That said... yes, I'd appreciate no laws telling me:

- to wear a helmet || I don't care, I appreciate people taking themselves out of the gene pool
- to wear a seat belt || Ditto Point 1
- what I can or cannot smoke || I don't care either, as long as it is well ventilated and that crap doesn't get on me.
- what I can or cannot drink (or how much) || Agreed again, you can drink moonshine to turpentine for all I care.
- what I can or cannot eat || Agreed again, people that go to the Heart Attack Grill or eat similar food is all good. Hell, I'd go one day, but only after I finish a marathon.(Wait, I do marathons, but not an Ultra, if I finish an Ultra, I'll celebrate by going there)
- that I cannot run with pencils || Is there a law about this? One can run with sharp objects, I routinely do!
- or, any other dumb ass law that is designed to protect me from myself.... || I can agree.

So here's the deal, I agree to most of that as long as reckless or dumb behavior does not physically affect me. You can smoke cigarettes or ciga-weed for all I care, but be downwind and/or at an open or very well ventilated area.

I know some people would say "But if you eat those fatty crap and become obese you affect me by raising insurance premiums for everybody", hell even if I can agree with that people need to look at it at another end where they should focus on making better food cheaper and adding more options.

Fast food is cheap, fast and easy, you can't say the same for nutritious foods.

So back to helmets, for bikes, I don't care much unless it is for a younger person but for motorcycles? They better have one. An accident on the road by a motorcyclists, particularly a fatal one would balloon my commute from an hour thirty to two plus hours, and a lot of helmets protect the eyes, I consider it as a windshield. Too much small debris running through the air can get in to a cyclist's eyes going above 30 mph and that is a hazard.

[GeorgeGist]

58. You seem to be excellent material ...

for Free Republic.

[soc7]

61. Ding Ding Ding.....

We have a winner.

Knew it was just a matter of time....

[dionysus]

63. so basically you're a libertarian.

[hfojvt]

46. I think there should be mandatory culottes laws

Welcome to DU.

Myself, I have bicycled all the way around the world, and then some, without a helmet and without any head injury at all, and many times even in the darkness of night.

[Sans__Culottes]

82. Ha!

I'd get arrested for sure, because I disdain any and all pants laws!

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. As a former EMS worker... no, it is not about protecting insurance companies

or do you consider public health around the world to be about protecting insurance companies? If this was the case why does Canada, England, France and a few other countries with a PUBLIC health care system have these same laws on the books?

Once you figure that one out... come back to me.

[Sans__Culottes]

87. I politely decline.

Too confrontational for my tastes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I guess facts, and these are facts,

are confrontational.

By the way this is anecdotal, m nephew was not wearing his seat belt when he crashed. He flew out through the windshield. His parents are convinced it was that lack of seat belt that saved his life.

I saw photos of the totaled vehicle. He would probably have had a broken femur, maybe pelvis.

Painful, you betcha...his current language and cognitive disabilities are far worst.

[Sans__Culottes]

94. "Once you figure that one out... come back to me."

I find that to be confrontational, and I don't want to play. Please note that my 1st post in this thread was entitled "In My Opinion".

Not finding fault with your statement, just not in the mood to throw tonight.

I quit smoking today, I'm cranky, and I've been reading filth in Meta tonight & just don't feel like a tussle is all. I'll admit defeat, if you like...

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Again I asked a simple question

which you do need to figure out. If this was just about insurance companies why are England (NHS), Canada (Single Payer Health Care), France, (which also has a single payer system, the Netherlands, DITO, Germany, which has a mixture, that could work in the US... all have these laws in the books?

I will even give you the answer....PUBLIC HEALTH.

These are PUBLIC HEALTH measures. Any benefit that your insurance company would get is incidental. It is like vaccines... you do not hold international vaccination campaigns for things like Polio to benefit Blue Cross of California, though Blue Cross is a beneficiary, no iron lungs and all that jazz. I am willing to bet, you do not want to be in an iron lung either. I am also willing to bet, once you think about it, you do not want to have severe cognitive and language issues.

[Sans__Culottes]

100. Not much sleep,

and still cranky from withdrawal, but I'll try to address your post now since I've received responses much more contentious than yours.

I can't refute your facts. I won't pester you with a request for citations because you are a trusted poster and I'm sure that if you state a fact it is, indeed, a fact.

I'll repeat that all of my posts in this thread are solely my opinions. I'll add that I can only speak of the situation in the US because I have no knowledge of the laws or even the insurance practices in the countries of which you speak.

I still believe that these laws, that I consider to be draconian, are promoted by the insurance industry *in the US* because it protects their profits.

Thank you for your service to the community as an EMT. As a retired LEO, my experience of bicycle/motorcycle accidents on surface streets and Interstates is that these vehicles are scary as fuck. I rode when I was a kid but you couldn't convince me to get on one again with any argument.

As an EMT have you ever witnessed a terminal spinal injury suffered by a cyclist wearing a helmet?

I have. Also, lost limbs. Disfiguring scars.

I know of, but was not directly involved in reporting, lungs punctured by ribs and one incident of a lost eye. That victim was wearing a legal helmet, but eye-protection is not mandated within helmet laws.

By extrapolation, since riding these vehicles incurs the risk of maiming and crippling injuries DESPITE the mandate for helmets, shouldn't you advocate for legislation outlawing their use?



When does it stop?

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. This is a cost benefit analysis from a medical

standpoint...

Yes, some folks will get horrific injuries. Hell, seat belts are infamous for one particular set of clavicle fractures... they are like a classic.

As to kids who had a terrible spinal injury all and were wearing a helmet, yup, not on a bike, on the football field.And the number of injuries and TBI's and other issues emerging may actually lead to the end of the NFL... you could not pay me enough to have a child of mine play the game either.

[MightyOkie]

78. Yep.

I worked in an ER for several years and saw plenty of deceased children and adults who died from head injuries from bike accidents. In one case, which happened in 1994 I think, I took care of a little 8 year old boy with massive head injuries who was killed. It haunts me to this day.

[Iggo]

5. Seatbelts?

[obamanut2012]

17. What is a "nanny law"?

[Javaman]

18. according to some...

it's a law that "mandates" the government to tell people what to do.

Which I add...

because they are too stupid to realize they should be doing it anyway.

[obamanut2012]

21. hahaha

Your definition is mine, too!

[Kennah]

89. A law that demands Nannys have universal healthcare, and I support it.

Once the Nannys have universal healthcare, it will be easier for the rest of us to get it.

[a la izquierda]

7. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet when I crashed...

my bicycle, I'd be dead. I hit the pavement, head first near my temple, going about 20 miles an hour. The impact split my helmet from the temple to the area behind my ear. I saw black for a second and it scared the shit out of me.

I have memory issues to this day as a result of the one and only concussion I've ever had. It was a bad one. If one doesn't wear a helmet on a bike, he or she is an idiot.

[Sans__Culottes]

13. BUT

Did you wear the helmet because you were adult and personally-responsible or because you were mandated?

[Javaman]

19. I wore one in my bike accident because...

I wanted to wear one and was actively protesting to have the law enacted.

My helmet saved my life from a drunk driver that cut me off into a parked car.

My reason is: less injuries decreases overall health insurance premiums.

That's money in my pocket and in your pocket and in her pocket and in his pocket, etc.

However, if you are a trusting soul who believes in the good of people then go out riding and have a heck of a time without a helmet, but don't complain to me when you get a head injury when you get doored.

[Sans__Culottes]

79. Good on you!

If I were to cycle, I'd wear a helmet.

And gloves.

I just don't feel I should be mandated by law, nor do I believe for one second that the laws are intended for my benefit.

The few dimes that the insurance company may or may not let trickle into my pocket is not an issue for me. I resent the hypocrisy and the infringement behind the "it's for your own good" philosophy of government.

If you're a trusting soul and believe the insurance industry will share its profits with you.....

[Javaman]

98. I trust no one, especially on a bike that's why I wear a helmet.

if you want your brains all over the pavement, go crazy.

In the mean time, I will continue to support helmet laws to protect people such as yourself.

I just love people who complain about "nanny laws" yet put on their seat-belts when they are in a car.

the term "nanny law" is nothing more than a phrase by paranoid nuts who think that the government is forcing us to do something.

As I posted in another response in this thread:
"according to some...

it's a law that "mandates" the government to tell people what to do.

Which I add...

because they are too stupid to realize they should be doing it anyway."

[Sans__Culottes]

99. I believe I've already mentioned

that I won't ride a bike or motorcycle because of the danger inherent to those vehicles; hence, my brains are in little danger of ending up on the pavement.

So, support any intrusive laws you like to protect me from myself, I'll do you one better by keeping my ass off 2-wheeled vehicles.


I really don't understand your ire. You seem to think I've attacked you personally because you exhibit good common sense. On the contrary, I applaud you for it. I believe that you'd wear a helmet even if you did not need to obey a nanny-government. Because it makes sense.

You've certainly misread my posts since you seem to believe I'm one of those Hair-In-The-Wind daredevils.

I'll rephrase so you won't misconstrue my remarks again:

2WHEELS BAD, 4WHEELS GOOD!

That's just for me, BTW. You can risk your elbows/knees/spine all you want & I just don't give a rat's ass. (Not sure how your helmet protects you from spinal injuries, but as long as the government protects your noggin for you. Perhaps they should mandate gloves/knee & elbow pads/kevlar jackets/spine-armor, too?)

What are your views on bungee/base jumpers? Should those pursuits be outlawed because there's a possibility of head injury?

Rock-climbers. I know of no law requiring them to wear helmets, yet I've never seen one on the discovery channel Sans Chapeau. Apparently there's no need for such a law.


Do you think that there should be laws prohibiting Russian Roulette because otherwise folks might be putting guns to their heads all across this great nation?

There's all sorts of risky behavior out their that isn't being regulated; what's wrong with our government? They should give me a ticket if I decide to rest my forehead on the bore of a three-eight!

Cops should be allowed to look in my bedroom window to make sure I'm not smoking in bed!

Enough of this.

[Javaman]

101. "nanny laws" are put into effect because

"common sense" sadly isn't very common.

head injuries drive up my insurance.

if you are okay with paying a higher premium because of morons who choose not to wear a helmet and get their skull cracked and then have to spend endless hours in rehab, that's very big of you, I however, am not, so that yet another reason why I support helmet laws.

And as for my "ire" I'm not put off by any of this or your opinion in the least.

I just find it wrong.

[Sans__Culottes]

102. I'm often wrong.

So you may be right.


I don't believe that the insurance industry actually reduces premiums based on fewer injuries, but I certainly DO believe they'll use any excuse to increase premiums.

I also believe that insurance companies will tell you your premiums are lower due to fewer injuries, just to get your support for laws that increase their profits.

I could be wrong again, but I consider Insurers to be some of the most loathsome of the 1% and distrust their motives and especially their PR completely.

BTW, do you:

1. believe that spinal injuries are common in cycle accidents?
2. believe that spinal injuries drive up your premiums?
3. support mandated spinal-protection devices for all cyclists?

[Javaman]

103. We aren't going to agree

and I still believe you are wrong.

and I will continue to support helmet laws regardless of what you want to believe.

and one day, you will be required to do so.

That's the breaks.

hope you are enjoying that seatbelt in your car. LOL

[Sans__Culottes]

119. "and one day, you will be required to do so."

I have no idea what that means.

I don't enjoy my seatbelt, BTW. I wear it because it's mandated by laws I don't agree with.

Clearly we'll not agree on this issue, I can't even understand what you're saying sometimes.

Nice chatting with you, none the less.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. It's not just about insurance companies saving a few pennies. If an injury is a permanent disability

you become another cost for the social safety net. In that respect, mandating helmets may make sense from a public policy POV.

[a la izquierda]

54. Because I am an adult and not an idiot.

I'm a cyclist.

[Sans__Culottes]

80. Very good answer.

And a proper decision on your part. I absolutely believe in helmets, but not helmet laws.

[Mponti]

8. Always wear a helmet

i live in Chicago, one of the best biking cities. I have been doored twice,.tbrowing me to the pavement. I was riding in a bike lane both times and was lucky to be wearing a helmet.

I used to love riding without......freedom,.wind blowing in my hair, etc. Then i had long conversation with a cop who was on bike patrol on the lakefront. He told of a prominent lawyer wbo had bike collision and suffered disabling brain damage. No helmet. Another guy ridiing with no helmet suffered head injury. He was luckier. He didn't scramble his brains. However, he lost his ability to tasts food.

You may want to leave the helmet home when biking on dirt trails. If you biking on paved surfces, why take the risk?

[Dawgs]

10. There is NO situation where someone shouldn't be wearing a helmet.

Dirt trails can be just as dangerous; especially if there are trees, rocks, and high speeds.

[hfojvt]

49. I used to love the freedom of being able to decide how to spend my own money

Then I had a conversation with a control freak and realized that other people should always be able to tell me what to buy. Why don't we first just pass a law declaring everybody in this country to be non-compos mentis?

[jeff47]

65. I know the feeling

There's a bunch of morons who insist on not wearing bike helmets. I have to pay a ton of money for their life-long medical care when the inevitable accident happens and they scramble their brains.

[Dawgs]

9. Anyone that doesn't wear a helmet while biking is dumb.

I have no problems with laws that protect people from themselves, but they shouldn't be necessary because it's just stupid not to wear a helmet.

I see it all of the time. Older folks don't wear helmets in GA. I guess they think that since they didn't need it when they were kids that they don't need it now. Or maybe because they think it looks goofy.

I see them and think they look like idiots.

I had an experience when I was ten that put me in the hospital for two days. It could have been avoided if people wore helmets in the 70s/80s.

I have a friend that just visited a girl who was training for a triathlon. She crashed and ended up in intensive care because she wasn't wearing a helmet.

I bike daily and would never consider riding without a helmet.

Maybe the answer is to pass one law against stupidity.

[Javaman]

20. +1 nt

[hfojvt]

52. I am in favor of the stupidity law

but then that would, in my mind, make your post illegal.

I have spent, by a conservative estimate over 2,500 hours riding my bike - without a helmet and without incident or injury and you think that not wearing one makes me stupid? Like I am taking some kind of huge risk? If you knew some people who won the powerball would you think that people who don't buy powerball tickets are stupid too? Because the odds of a serious head injury seem to be about the same as the odds of a serious win in powerball.

[GeorgeGist]

59. I assume your friends and family ...

don't give a shit.

[GoneOffShore]

60. Here's the risk

Was talking to a friend about this thread today -
He told me a story about a guy he used to know who taught photography. Great photographer, great teacher, well loved by his wife, his students. Riding his bike across campus without a helmet at 5 mph, hit a bumpy patch of pavement and went down. Hit his head.

He no longer can teach. He lives with his parents. He no longer can take photos because he can't remember how to operate a camera. He can't hold a conversation. His memory is so short term he won't remember how he started a sentence.

2,500 hours riding a bike with no crashes? I do believe you, but just like with hard drives, it's not a matter of if but when.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

In 2009 the average age of bicyclists killed in crashes with motor vehicles was 41 years, up from 32 years in 1998, and 24 in 1988.
87 percent of those killed were male.
64 percent of those killed were between the ages of 25 and 64; 13 percent of those killed in 2008 were under age 16, down from 30 percent of those killed in 1998.
The average age of bicyclists injured in crashes with motor vehicles was 31 years, up from 24 years in 1998.
80 percent of those injured were male.
51 percent of those injured were between the ages of 25 and 64; 20 percent of those injured were under age 16.

[hfojvt]

72. that's one guy who knows one guy

BTW, I never said I was never in an accident. What I said was that I never needed a helmet. Much like the 51,000 people who were injured in bicycle accidents but not killed in 2010. Not to mention the other people who go hundreds of miles without getting injured. I am thinking that my last wipeout was in 1997 or so though.

Some of those people who died were wearing helmets.

It's pretty tough to be completely risk free. Maybe we should all be required to buy Hummers and have the engines set to not exceed 25 mph just so nothing bad can ever happen.

[blue neen]

68. Most powerball players don't die or end up in the hospital on life support if they don't win.

Nice try at the false dichotomy, though.

The rest of the public also will not have to pay for the lottery players' tickets and lifetime healthcare if he/she chooses to play, win or lose.

Riding a bike without a helmet? Russian roulette. Playing the lottery? It's not even in the same hemisphere.


"Every year the estimated number of bicycling head injuries requiring hospitalization exceeds the total of all the head injury cases related to baseball, football, skateboards, kick scooters, horseback riding, snowboarding, ice hockey, in-line skating and lacrosse."

"Estimated indirect costs for injuries to unhelmeted cyclists are $2.3 billion yearly."

"In bicycle crashes, 2/3 of the dead and 1/8 of the injured suffered brain injuries."

"95% of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly were not wearing helmets."

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

[hfojvt]

75. I think that is a bogus estimate

after all what is the percentage of bicyclists that are unhelmeted? An injury is going to have some costs whether a person is helmeted or not. Also, the total costs of injuries is less than $15 per household in the US. You can barely get a helmet for that much money.

Point is that your chance of winning the powerball is similar to your chance of getting a severe head injury in a bicycle accident. For example, for most of the last 38 years, I have gone bicycling without a helmet and without a head injury. Wow, what a risk I took, with apparently less than a 1 in 14,000 chance of getting injured. If that is Russian roulette, then that is one hell of a big cylinder. With less than one bullet for every 14,000 chambers. I'll continue to take my chances as long as we remain the land of the free. And even after that, write me a ticket you motherfucking safety gestapo.

[blue neen]

84. Ask and ye shall receive more statistics, since you don't believe the valid ones already posted.

http://www.helmets.org/stats.html

"A summary of US statistics available from the US Department of Transportation: Traffic Safety Facts - 2010 Data (released in June, 2012, and still the most recent)

618 bicyclists died on US roads in 2010 (630 in 2009. 1,003 back in 1975)

Bicyclists 15 and under killed: 67. (11%) Injured: 12,000 (23%)

Bicyclist deaths represented 2 per cent of all 2010 traffic fatalities.

52,000 bicyclists were injured in traffic 1n 2010 (51,000 in 2009)

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 41

Average age of a bicyclist injured on US roads: 31

Alcohol involvement (car driver or bike rider) was reported in 34% of 2010 deaths.

More than one fifth (23%) of the cyclists killed were drunk. (Blood alcohol concentration over .08 g/dl)

Fatal crashes typically were urban (72%) and not at intersections (67%)."

Oh, just to let you know, since you mentioned my mother, she didn't ride bikes. She did believe in safety. She never met an SS officer. She did die a slow, cruel, and horrible death from Parkinson's Disease caused by a Traumatic Brain Injury. You see, the fatalities from TBI are not always immediate and are not always counted.

So, go on now! Enjoy that feeling of the wind flowing through from one ear to the other as you ride without your helmet! It won't be meeting much resistance.

[hfojvt]

106. the only thing I am disputing is the relevance

average of this, average of that. Number of this, number of that. What are you trying to prove with a bunch of random statistics? And why didn't you include the diamter of Triton and the atomic weight of molybdenum too? (It's 96)

As for your last line, oh yes, you have so won me over to your side by being an arrogant pus-bag. I totally agree with your position now. I should not be allowed to make my own choices, since I, of the 160 IQ, am clearly just too stupid to make my own choices.

What is the problem with the human race? That people cannot just decide they want to do something, or even to encourage others to do something, but will go right into disparaging anybody else who does not make the same choice, and wanting to force everybody to do the same things that they decide to do?

Is that just a liberal trait? Because I have noticed it before.

1. I believe X
2. Anybody who does not believe X is defective.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/48

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/37

I may think you are a conformist worry-wart control freak, but I fully support your right to live your life the way you see fit. Too bad you are apparently incapable of reciprocating.

Then again, I guess I am trying to stop you (control) from being such a control freak. I guess I am supporting a law that would force people to mind their own business in things that don't concern them. Do we really need a law for that?

Apparently, we do.

[blue neen]

107. I'm taking an antibiotic. It got rid of the pus.

Last edited Thu Jun 21, 2012, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

In post 52, you basically called someone "stupid." In post 75, you called me a "motherfucking safety gestapo." In post 106, you called me "an arrogant pusbag".

Everyone is supposed to sit here and take your nasty insults, Triumph, without making any kind of a response or objection at all. Hmm. The referrals to control freaks are really interesting and telling.

The statistics provided in this thread were not just random. They were backed up by links to very reputable sources. There were also examples given of actual diagnoses concerning TBI's.

Oh, I almost forgot. Most people I know with IQ's of 160 are very proficient at grammar and punctuation.

Enjoy yourself. Call me whatever hateful name you want. It truly does not matter. You have already given us a wide window into your character.

[hfojvt]

117. you leave out a lot of the gaps

you write:

"In post 52, you basically called someone "stupid." In post 75, you called me a "motherfucking safety gestapo." In post 106, you called me "an arrogant pusbag"."

In post #9, that poster called everybody who disagreed with him stupid and said there should be a law against stupidity. In post #52, I suggested that they would be in violation of their own law. In post 75, I did not call you "motherfucking safety gestapo" unless you are actually a cop who would write a bicyclist a ticket for not wearing a helmet. No, no, no, you are the control freak who would pass the law forcing the hardworking cop to become a safety gestapo as part of their job. I said "go ahead an write me a ticket ..." Unless the first part fits you (ticket writing) then the second doesn't either. I sorta apologize for that confusion, but, not really, since it would be people like you who would be empowering and encouraging the safety gestapo to harrass me and steal my money while I am on my way to work.

In post 106 I did call you an arrogant pus-bag. This, after you closed your own post with a jibe about how there is nothing in my head between my ears.

Or did you forget that part? You don't think it was arrogant of you to write something like that? And to try to be cute about it? Am I just supposed to sit here and take insults without making a response or objection?

As for the statistics having a reputable source. Again, what difference does that make? So the average age of a deceased bicyclist is accurate. So the fuck what? How does that prove that I need to wear a helmet? Any more than the accurate atomic weight of molybdenum proves that I need to wear a helmet.

And so some people get traumatic brain injuries? Some people win the powerball too. Giving an example of one or two such random people from anecdotes do not prove either that I am an idiot for not buying a powerball ticket nor for making four trips on my bicycle this very night (oh the horror) without a helmet.

Oh, and I might call you a hateful name? Why on earth would I do that? It's not like you just got done insulting me - AGAIN. With "oh, I almost forgot, you are a liar" and "you have already given us a wide window into your character." Those were not meant to be insulting?

Again though, I consider control-freak to be a descriptor. How else would YOU describe somebody who wants to DICTATE the choices of others in regard to THEIR OWN safety?

But I noticed that I was caught in my own trap, since I am apparently trying to control the people who want to control me, as it were. I would DICTATE that they leave me the fuck alone, instead of just allowing them to get their control freak on.

[mythology]

96. That's not how odds work

And yes it is taking a huge risk. The cost to wearing a helmet is basically limited to the cost of the helmet. The potential cost to not wearing a helmet is that you greatly increase your risk of becoming a vegetable in the event of an accident. So you have a potential outlay of say $35 for the helmet versus functionally limitless cost for a potential traumatic brain injury.

[Ter]

14. I absolutely oppose all mandatory bicycle helmet laws

Even on 5 year olds. I didn't have to wear one as a kid.

[obamanut2012]

16. I didn't have to wear a seat belt as a kid

[Javaman]

22. Do you ride a bike now? nt

[Dawgs]

23. Then you're dumb, although I suspect you're joking.

I was put in the hospital for two days when I was ten because of not wearing a helmet. It was 1980, so even a week later my parents still let me ride without one.

Today you are stupid if you don't.

[obamanut2012]

15. I think they should be for adults and children

And, I'm a bike rider, for recreation and occasionally commuting.

[4th law of robotics]

24. Mandatory for children, optional for adults

you know the risks.

[bhikkhu]

25. I'd say mandatory up to 14, optional thereafter

...would be a good compromise. I think that protects the younger people while allowing options and expecting personal responsibility of the older ones.

I bicycled everywhere when I was a kid, before helmet laws. I still commute to work on a bike and its my main recreation on the weekends - getting out in the mountains and so forth. My commuting is mostly slow and safe, on bike paths, and I don't wear a helmet. In summer its hot and a helmet + street clothes is uncomfortable, while in winter its cold and difficult to fit warm hats under a helmet. Briefly, if a helmet makes cycling a pain and safety is a minor factor, then I don't wear one.

Out on the road bike I always wear a helmet, and of course if I'm on a ride with a group I wear a helmet. Speeds are faster, roads and traffic are more variable, and I can suit up for comfort regardless. On a group ride there is always the notion that the person organizing a ride is somewhat responsible for safety, and its just rude to show up without a helmet.

[cliffordu]

27. I've had to replace three helmets:

Fell over at a stop sign once - didn't get my shoe unclipped and went over, split the helmet on the curb. Broke my foot in the same fall....

Severely dented a helmet and tore the visor off striking a low hanging branch while riding fast in the woods

Forced into a ditch by a driver and went over the bars into the concrete at the bottom of the ditch.

I would have been dead or gravely injured in each of these wrecks.

I will NEVER ride a bike without a helmet.

I believe it should be mandated, but not for my own poor riding.

I met a young woman who had been a bicycle messenger in 1984 or so who had a zipper from just behind her temple to above the ear and then towards the nape of her neck. She could walk again by the time I met her with the help of a cane. She couldn't use her left arm at all. She had a speech impediment.

She wrecked her bike at 5 mph. Hit a curb with the right side of her head.

The messenger service mandated helmets after that, and not ONE messenger complained.

It isn't a matter of IF you fall or get hit. It's a matter of WHEN.

[kenny blankenship]

41. You make a very good argument for outlawing bicycles

those things are unsafe at any speed!

[cliffordu]

62. Noo........Just outlaw the expertise I have on the things.

I've ridden tens of thousands of miles without incident, by the way...I've ridden all of my life.

I'm 60 and don't plan on stopping until they pry the handlebars from my cold dead hands....

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. As a medic I learned the value of helmets.

I killed three in the line of duty, and those were far more expensive to replace.

I ride with a helmet period. I know mine will need replacing. (sun degrades them over time, so my rule is three years, they get replaced, a fall..they get replaced)

Those who argue against it are making a libertarian argument. Ths is a public Heath issue

[Fumesucker]

29. The helmets would save far more lives in cars than on bikes..

The number of people who ride bikes in the USA is minuscule next to the number of car drivers and passengers, plenty of car crashes result in deaths due to head injury, helmets would save some of those people.

In 2011 there were 618 bicycle related deaths from crashing and 32,000 car related deaths from crashing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

Mandate wearing helmets in cars and it will save far more lives and far more brain damaging injuries than mandating helmets on bikes.

[hahahareally]

30. I dont agree with mandatory helmet laws and I certainly dont agree with seat belt laws.

I am an adult and after the age of 21 I should be able to decide if I want to wear a helmet or a seat belt.

[GoneOffShore]

34. Welcome to DU - and try not to win a Darwin when you crash your bike.

[hahahareally]

35. who says I'm going to crash? you are assuming an awful lot.

[GoneOffShore]

37. It's like a hard drive crash - Not if, but when.

There's a crash just waiting to happen the more you ride or drive.

Be careful of Hubris. It is always there for you when you least expect it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Problem is... You will cost me

From all those injuries you did not ave to have. I assume you also are all free 'bout not having medical insurance.

I hate paying on free loaders you know, and I do.

[jeff47]

64. If we could leave you by the side of the road to die, I'd agree

You should be required to wear a helmet because we are required to scrape you off the pavement and provide medical care after your crash.

[Go Vols]

122. Why not 18?

[Comrade Grumpy]

31. Why stop at bicyclists? Mandatory helmets for pedestrians!

You might fall down.

[kenny blankenship]

43. Indeed. And why stop at the cranium?

Isn't the rest of your body also susceptible to injury? Isn't it much more squishy and unprotected than your skull? Shouldn't it be fully protected with a crash proof barrier, too? If only everyone on the road had to travel in a rigid safety enclosure...

CARS! They're like helmets... for your thorax.
The answer was in front of us the whole time, with its left turn blinker on.

[Spike89]

55. Cars! They are death traps, SUVs are safer (for the SUV occupants at least)

Ignore the fact that SUVs may be in more accidents than cars, the important point is that few of those SUV passengers get head injuries when they demolish those absolute idiots foolish and irresponsible enough to venture onto the road in an economy car!

Oh, this is sarcasm.

[GoneOffShore]

32. Don't like helmets, wear one anyway.

I've had crashes, seen crashes.

Best comment I ever heard when I had my helmet on the handlebars and was riding on a bike trail: "So your brains are in the handlebars?"

And yes, I do think that there should be laws requiring bike helmets and seat belts. Arguments against these laws are based on faulty reasoning.

[hahahareally]

36. who am I hurting if I dont wear my seat belt?

[GoneOffShore]

38. Are you married?

Have parents?

[soc7]

39. Thank God that they passed laws

so that my wife and mommy won't be sad. What a fine use of our government.

[GoneOffShore]

57. Not worried about them being sad - but paying for you in a persistent vegetative state

Or the health system doing that.

You haven't thought this through. Do you believe in your own immortality?

Or have you bought into the "libertarian" bullshit? -Which has nothing to do with freedom btw - but has to do with license.

[pinboy3niner]

42. hahahareally has left the building

"Troll, previously banned multiple times."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=286148&sub=trans

Thanks, EarlG!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. A seat belt keeps you in your seat and at the wheel.

I'm a pilot and understand the value of belts. Never thought I would see it in a car until I clipped a retaining wall in my truck. The jolt sent me forward on the leather seats which caused me to jam the accelerator down. I shot across the alley and damned near went through the neighbors garage. It was morning rush hour and I was lucky there wasn't someone walking in the alley.

The driver needs to stay in the driver's seat to maintain control in the event of an accident (glancing blow, sideswipe, inadvertently exiting the road etc. etc.). He also doesn't need other people bouncing around either.

[jeff47]

66. Me.

And everyone else in the country.

When the inevitable happens and you get in a car accident, we pay for your medical care. Either through taxes or higher insurance premiums.

[kentauros]

40. I'd rather see mandatory training.

Not that cyclists should be "licensed" just better educated in safety, and traffic laws. I do recognize that not everyone would care, but do feel a better trained cyclist is a safer one, for self and surrounding people (vehicles, pedestrians.)

I do cycle a little (haven't lately due to health issues) but am constantly appalled by the fact that the majority of my "fellow" cyclists seem to have no respect for the "rules of the road" much less their own safety. Training would have the potential of making them at least regard their responsibilities on the road and to everyone around them.

Safety-conscious people will obey the laws and wear safety gear whether there's a law dictating it or not. The problems come more from those that are unaware, ill-prepared, or plain don't care. How do we get them to be more safety-conscious?

[bhikkhu]

86. I'd support that in a second

...having grown up riding and having ridden all my life, the laws and expectations are second nature. But what I do see is a whole generation that has grown up without much experience riding, and without much of a clue where or how they're supposed to ride. I see grown people all the time riding like idiots or like little kids, or riding like idiots with little kids along - on the sidewalks, against traffic, wherever. All I can think is that they just have no idea at all...if they taught some of the basics in school, maybe?

Ironically, one of the reasons my daughters won't ride is because of the helmet laws - they "look silly and mess up you're hair"...but we're working on that now.

[kentauros]

95. I suppose if you want to get gory,

you could counter that with "Blood messes up your hair, too." But I know most parents wouldn't want to scare their kids that way, much less cause themselves to worry even more

Read this site and show it to them for the possibilities of what can happen out there. I wish this kind of thing was also taught in Driver's Ed. It would help the more conscientious drivers to avoid the cycling idiots.

How to Not Get Hit by Cars

Good luck!

[Stuart G]

44. As stated before, this is a health and safety issue...not a libertarian arguement...

H and S affects all, libertarian affects few or some..So, I know two people dead cause no helmets..I am sure their families would have liked it if they had had a helmet on.

One was a motor cycle driver..I think he died in late 80s, maybe early 90s..He was showing off going fast in a parking lot..I was told
slipped or fell........no helmet...dead..

Now the other was very sad. Bike helmets did not exist in l968..I went to his funeral. he was 19/ Hit by a car and fell off the bike, smashed his head..ok for 6 hours then went into a coma..was brain dead in 24 hours.. family pulled the plug..

I know a driver who hated wearing them..but for gas miliage sake, he bought a small car and felt somewhat unsafe cause he always
drove larger cars. (this was during the last time gas spiked up above 4.00..So he is driving safely down a major road, someone
drives through a stop sign, and hits my friend. Guess what ...the seat belt that he wouldn't have been wearing in a larger cars..saved his life.. Low intelligence people do not wear seatbelts, as far as bike helmets, well I see so many motor cycilists and bicycilists without them that I know many will die for lack there of. Asi es la vida...........

[Motown_Johnny]

47. Michigan doesn't even have mandatory motorcycle helmets anymore

I will admit that some decades ago, when living in Colorado where there was no helmet law, I was known to ride my motorcycle without a helmet.

Now that I have more respect for my own mortality I would never do it again. In fact, I stopped riding my motorcycle altogether when someone hit my car and totaled it 5 or 6 years ago. If I was on my bike, DU would have one less donor.

I never wore a helmet on any bicycle even though I did buy one when I bought my first mountain bike. I cannot in good conscience try to dictate that others should do as I say and not as I have done. I think that helmets should be left up to the parents of those under 16 or 14 or whatever. I don't think legislating this is a good idea.




http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120413/POLITICS02/204130397

^snip^


April 13, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Motorcyclists praise 'freedom' helmet law repeal brings, others concerned


Lansing— Motorcyclists can let their hair blow in the wind in Michigan starting today after Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill into law repealing a helmet requirement for riders.

Riders celebrated the end of the law they've opposed for decades while others raised the prospect that the change will raise insurance costs and the number of injuries and fatalities.

Snyder's signature on the controversial bill ends weeks of speculation about whether he'd go along with the Republican-backed repeal, which last year he asked lawmakers not to deliver without a wholesale makeover of Michigan's no-fault auto insurance system.

[Spike89]

48. Overall societal health benefit discussions always devolve

These discussions always come down to absurd extreme positions, basically, "no one should ever die" and "it is no one's business". Of course, most of us fall into the middle somewhere. I tend to be more on the personal responsibility side of the argument. I'm all for mandatory bicycle helmet laws for children. I can believe that adults should wear them, but not that they be forced to.
I ride a motorcycle and always wear a helmet (it's the law here). If they repealed the helmet laws, I might occassionally ride without one, but probably not. I ride all year long and have a very good full-face helmet I wear in cold/wet weather, and a 1/2 helmet (skid lid style) that I wear in late Spring and Summer. The full-face helmet offers much more protection, but isn't as safe in other ways--it muffles sound considerably, limits vision somewhat, and is hot and heavy.
I've had people tell me it should be illegal to wear shorts when riding a motorcycle. I am acutely aware that at speeds where road rash is a serious danger (25+ MPH), denim may as well be tissue paper. Leather will slide and abraid, but even heavy cotton jeans just rip. I do own full leather riding gear, but getting fully geared and armored up for a ride isn't always practical, and in my opinion isn't always safer.
We are all going to die at some point. We all also make decisions every day about the risks we're willing to take. There needs to be a very good reason to take those decisions away from people--"saving lives" is not a good reason because it isn't true. Encourage, educate, even reward safe behavior--great, I'm all for it. Bundle me in bubble wrap so I can die of old age without living a life--no thanks.

[FarCenter]

51. +1

[jeff47]

67. Your argument is missing one key feature

We're paying for your medical care. Either through taxes or higher insurance premiums. Why should I have to pay United Healthcare more money because someone else doesn't want to bother with a helmet?

If we could leave you to die after the inevitable accident, then sure, go for it. Enjoy the wind in your hair.

But we don't do that.

[Spike89]

69. Do you have figures on that?

Is the cost to society worth the loss of freedom? What does it cost us when someone eats a cheeseburger? You can't legitimately attribute the cost of all bicycle accidents because many involve helmets, and of those that don't, there is virtually no way of knowing what percentage of them would have been saved by a bike helmet. Getting steamrolled by a semi truck (or even a SUV) pretty much makes your styrofoam helmet a frisbee. It might even be true that although helmets save lives, they cost society more. A dead no-helmet cyclist doesn't raise medical insurance much, but a surviving helmeted cyclist with severe neck injuries (or even a broken arm!) actually will collect from health insurance.
Furthermore, society is going to pay for my care at sometime (that is actually inevitable--being involved in a bike accident is not). So, assuming my doppleganger eats lots of cheeseburgers and develops diabetes and ends up hospitalized on the same day my "other" me gets in a helmet-free accident--how is that different?
How about I live a blameless life (no cheseburgers, wear my helmet, etc.) and despite all that, I die (old age deaths can be even more expensive medically than the bike wreck).
There was a study a few years back, quite controversial, that suggested cigarette smoking might actually be a cost SAVING behavior to society because smokers tended to die early in their retirement and their terminal illnesses (mostly lung cancer/heart attack) were quick and relatively cheap to treat compared to many other terminal illnesses their peers face.
Even though the insurance cost angle is weak, the true point is that there are tons of choices we make every day that have a bearing on our safety and not every one should be legislated.

[jeff47]

70. Well, first you'd have to provide a figure for "loss of freedom".

there is virtually no way of knowing what percentage of them would have been saved by a bike helmet

No, actually it's quite easy.

Extensive head injuries? No helmet.

Getting steamrolled by a semi truck (or even a SUV) pretty much makes your styrofoam helmet a frisbee.

Except said accidents don't happen with statistically significant frequency. Virtually all vehicle+bike accidents involve glancing blows.

A dead no-helmet cyclist doesn't raise medical insurance much, but a surviving helmeted cyclist with severe neck injuries (or even a broken arm!) actually will collect from health insurance.

And statistically the no-helmet cyclist will survive with crippling injuries, while the helmeted cyclist will have less severe injuries. So you're arguing on the basis of an outlier of an outlier.

So, assuming my doppleganger eats lots of cheeseburgers and develops diabetes and ends up hospitalized on the same day my "other" me gets in a helmet-free accident--how is that different?

Treatment for diabetes is much cheaper than treatment for severe brain injury. Worst case with diabetes is you lose feet and are in a wheelchair. Severe brain injury means not only are you in a wheelchair, but you require 24/7 care.

So, assuming my doppleganger eats lots of cheeseburgers and develops diabetes and ends up hospitalized on the same day my "other" me gets in a helmet-free accident--how is that different?

Because one cost is avoidable. The other is not.

Even though the insurance cost angle is weak, the true point is that there are tons of choices we make every day that have a bearing on our safety and not every one should be legislated.

Except there are very few where the difference in treatment cost is so clear-cut. For example, you might not get diabetes despite your cheeseburger-consuming lifestyle. In fact, with the lack of sugar in cheeseburgers you're actually not all that likely to get diabetes from them. Even if you do, the treatment is cheap and the condition is reversible. A smooshed brain isn't.

But there's two kinds of cyclists: Those who have fallen, and those who will fall.

The demand that you have "freedom" to not wear a helmet requires taking away my "freedom" because you are making me pay to care for your disabled ass.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. Because you live in a community, and attempting to force your will on others

tend to make those others resent you, which leads to confrontation, which leads to ill will, which leads to escalation which leads to division into camps, which leads to the balkanization of the community, which leads to the dissolution of community.

[jeff47]

74. Non-helmet wearers are also forcing their will on me.

So why is it OK for them to demand I clean up their mess, but not OK for me to demand they not create a mess in the first place?

[Egalitarian Thug]

81. They're not forcing anything on you. Any activity carries some element of risk. Some people that are

riding bicycles will be involved in accidents and, even wearing a helmet, some of them will be horribly injured and killed. In a society we share the cost of those risks. Wearing a helmet will reduce the number of those incidents, but some will always happen. In a few instances the added weight of the helmet will actually increase the severity of the injury. All which is irrelevant to the basic argument.

You live in a society, you pay for that privilege. Pretending that you have some right to not pay for another member of society's choices is one of the most fundamental mistakes of the conservative mindset. No such right exists.

The damage done to the society as a whole by attempting to force other's conformity far exceeds any monetary cost that that conformity might save. Do you think that the schisms we endure today do not cost us?

[jeff47]

83. Being part of a society means things besides paying.

For example, you can't go rob the liquor store. That's a horrible restriction on your freedom with a massive cost......oh wait, it's something utterly ignored by libertarians when they complain about restrictions like mandatory helmets.

Being part of a society means paying for that society, but also means restrictions on your actions.

[Egalitarian Thug]

109. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose". And you're the only one talking about

libertarianism.

But that's OK, I understand this how you guys work and frankly, if I was working to justify your paternalistic philosophy I'd have to use these disingenuous tactics as well. The very idea of having to build cooperation instead of coercion is inconceivable to people with the authoritarian mindset you demonstrate daily. The fact that when people are free to say no they often do, is indeed a difficult problem to solve. It requires constant negotiation and usually ends with one side having to either walk away or to give more than they want.

Are you the kind of person that, should the threat of punishment be removed, would go out and rob and kill to get stuff? If not, how do you justify the belief that everyone else would?

[jeff47]

111. If you want freedom, you have to have to take on the responsibility that comes with it.

You are free to say whatever you want. You also shoulder the responsibility if what you say causes harm to yourself or others.

We, as a society, took on the responsibility for paying for your medical care after a bike accident. Thus you can not take on the responsibility that comes with the freedom of not wearing a helmet.

If you want that freedom back, you need to lobby for the return of the responsibility. Be that not covering your injuries after the accident, or requiring a safer bicycling environment.

[Egalitarian Thug]

112. And once again you ignore the questions and continually re-state your opinion.

OK. Have a good day.

[jeff47]

118. As if you aren't doing the same. (nt)

[Egalitarian Thug]

120. You should re-read the exchange. I tried to engage in a conversation and you replied with

snark & innuendo.

[MatthewStLouis]

50. Willfully ignorant people who take a stand against helmet laws, need to grow up.

To those who proudly ride without a helmet:

If you decide not to wear a helmet and become a vegetable, are the other non-helmet wearing morons gonna chip in to pay your medical bills and take care of you for the rest of your life? No, because they don't care. But don't worry, you will be taken care of, because we live in a nation made up of people who do care and I will end up paying for your stupidity. So you can either wear your damned helmet or move to Somalia and have your accident there in perfect freedom!

People are so stupid, stupid, stupid!

[ileus]

53. Take it to the BF then it'll get moved to P&R

[Egalitarian Thug]

71. What is our obsession with mandatory? I think helmets are a good idea, I wear one when I ride, but

why must it be mandated? Why must everything in Amercia be either mandated or prohibited?

Is our population predominately made up of children in old bodies?

[Kennah]

93. On your question of "Is our population predominately made up of children in old bodies?"

... I have to say at times, yes.

Health care cost is one factor to argue on behalf of a mandate. Protect people from themselves to protect the rest of us from the costs of their decisions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Given similar laws exists in nations with single payer health care

it has to do with PUBLIC HEALTH. It is like vaccines... we mandate them as a society because quite frankly Polio is the shits.

Then we have people who have herd immunity arguing against all types of vaccines because they "want to be free."

Boggles the mind actually.

And no, it is not because we have a bunch of kids running around... but about reducing social costs of taking care of charlie, who had a serious head injury and now needs care 24\7, or my cousin, who went flying through the windshield in a car crash. Yup, a femur or hip fracture, given the forces involved, would have been the pits. Trust me, his cognitive and language issues ARE the pits.

[Egalitarian Thug]

115. Which is relevant to the question how? This the same argument that leads to a War on Drugs and a

trillion dollar "defense" budget, and it all boils down to "we know better than you". Well sometimes we do, but often we don't, and in erring on the side of letting people make up their own minds (which they are going to do anyway) is a self correcting problem, even when it is a solution looking for a problem.

It is the essence of egalitarian vs. authoritarian. If you are an authoritarian, the least you can do is simply accept it and we can proceed from there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. You are seriously confusing public health with the war on drugs?

WOW.

Actually I told you where these silly shitty laws come from... the same place you also had a global vaccination campaign against measles... .it wasn't freedom, it was public health.

Many of these measures come after a slew of statistics, peer review and all that jazz that show the benefit for the society.

OTOH, the war on drugs has been declared a failure by many, even the UN, because it costs far more than it helps prevent. From a PUBLIC HEALTH perspective it has been an utter failure.

But go ahead, prattle about FREE=DOOOM!

[flvegan]

76. "Do your mother a favor and buy a helmet."

Quoted by another mountainbiker to me when I was very, very new to it, as he passed me on a fairly simple trail.

I wear one to this day. He was right.

[Incitatus]

77. Too many laws interfere with natural selection.

I have seen many bikers without helmets. They were all young. Maybe the older ones found common sense and maybe some were weeded out. Driving around in my truck with my seatbelt I have to be mindful of all the stupid asshole drivers around me. It's hard to imagine why anyone would take such a risk for what seems like little reward.

[Kennah]

90. A Recent Dutch Study

I happened upon this.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064

Reading through one of the sources cited, there are demonstrably false statements--the 2002 DeMarco paper. Cycling is on the rise in the U.S. and both injuries and fatalities in the U.S. are falling. More people riding bikes, fewer injuries, fewer fatalities, at least a few mandatory helmet laws enacted over the last two decades, and argument that helmets make us unsafe and unhealthy appear to be a failed argument, at least for the U.S.

One completely absurd assertion is that some people who now ride bikes, either for fun or commuting, would give us cycling if a mandatory helmet law were passed. I suppose in a third world country, where the price of a bike helmet were 4 months pay, and the punishment was Death by Mumbah if one biked without a helmet, yeah those folks might give up cycling under a mandatory helmet law. But in the U.S., U.K., Sweden, or the Netherlands? I suppose there are a couple of wingnuts out there, but c'mon. Rational folks? Even center right to very conservative folks? I smell bullshit in that statement. And yet I talked to a guy in the UK who claims to be a daily cyclist who would give it up if a mandatory helmet law were passed.

[loyalsister]

91. I avoided a serious head injury by wearing one and know of someone who died because they didn't

I think it's a good idea.

[Kennah]

92. Opinions on the subject from the UK

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/england_helmets.html

[Prometheus Bound]

97. I just won't wear a helmet.

I biked halfway across Canada in a summer including over the Rockies one week, and back and forth across the city to university and in the summers to work, I guess tens of thousands of miles and never had a single accident or even fell of a bike. I've been chased by drunks in a cars, intentionally cut off by cars that I guess don't like cyclists, had people open car doors in my path, and lost my brakes on the way downhill in the Rockies. Never fell.

Other people I know, including family members, have ridden a tiny fraction of what I have, and hit bumps or train tracks and fallen, get cut off by cars and fall, get sideswiped and fall, brake incorrectly or whatever and fall. So they wear helmets, and that's a good thing.

I'll make my daughter wear a helmet when she's old enough, but I guess I'll never wear one myself. But I ride extreeeeemely carefully.

And calling me names won't change anything.

[taterguy]

110. Nice post, Evil Kenevil

[blue neen]

108. K & R.

This one's for you, Mom.

[Romulox]

121. Is the OP a parody of something? nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

123. What accidents are we protecting against?

Tried to quickly check some statistics and it appears the common factor is Car vs Cyclist that results in potential head injuries. That raises the question that should a rider on trails where cars are prohibited be required to where a helmet? Is the helmet requirement the best and/or only method that should be employed to reduce cyclist/vehicle collisions?

Should it also be illegal to Text and Cycle?

[blueamy66]

124. I oppose all mandatory bike helmet laws.

nt