Mandatory Helmet Law

[fixedgeargirl]

Sorry if this is long, but I thought it important to include pertinent facts. Even so, I haven't quoted exact statistics.

Today the Austin City Council is scheduled to hear public comment on a recently introduced ordindance requiring all cyclists to wear a helmet. The main proponent is Bruce Todd, former mayor, who last spring was involved in a road bike crash of unknown cause, though it has been surmised that a stick caught in his spokes and caused him to go over the bars. He spent several days in a medically induced coma, and was in PT for a while. His doctors have said that his helmet saved his life. It is significant to note that during his tenure as mayor (1996, I believe) a similar ordidnance was passed. That ordinance was later reworded to include only cyclists age 17 or younger.

Interestingly, one of the groups that most strongly opposes the ordinance is the club which sponsored the ride Mr. Todd was on when he was injured. Opponents have stacks of statistics reflecting the relative mortality rates of different modes of transportation, which show that cycling is safer than driving or walking. They have statistics about injury rates that show similar results. They have statistics showing that head injuries represent a small percentage of bike-crash related injuries. They have statistics from other municiplities which show that when mandatory helmet laws are put in place and enforced, that ridership decreases dramatically. They have statistics that show that the existing helmet law has been rarely and sporadically enforced, primarily against minorities in economically challenged areas of the city. They argue that resources would be better used if focused on increasing cycling safety, including rider education, driver education and development of safe cycling routes. The sound bite argument is "Helmets don't prevent bike crashes."

So, I'm sticking this out there for debate. What do you think of everyone being required to wear a helmet all the time?

[Geonz]

Reckon I'll answer before the flames start.

In general, I think that we're legislating ourselves into stupidity. When I think of individuals and the cost of riding helmetless, I'll start leaning into "MAKE 'EM DO IT!" ... then I remember our bike club member who basically doesn't want to wear a helmet *because* it used to be a law where she was and she values her freedom. So, oddly, if it weren't required, she'd probably wear one. Then I think, "oh, really? she's prob'ly not gonna do it, *period.*

I think efforts would be better spent on education, not legislation. Getting "the lecture" from us is, I think, more effective than a law. Seeing all of us donned in helmets on the club ride... knowing "that's what the real cyclists do" ... let the cops chase down the folks *attacking* cyclists, and let the MOMS chase down the helmetless souls.

That ain't gonna fly in politics land... because it's too complicated.

[mimitabby]

I don't buy that line that people will ride less if helmets are required.
in my county helmets are required and in the last year bike ridership has
just grown like crazy!

Besides, those that "value their freedom" are still riding around without helmets. Police haven't time to enforce that particular law.

[Haudlady]

I'm from New Hampshire - that's right, folks... home of "Live Free or Die."

I doubt that something like this would pass in my state. Heck - we don't require helmets when riding motorcycles, and it's optional for adults to wear seat belts! We do have a bicycle helmet law for minors, though.

I always wear my helmet - but I'm don't feel that I can dictate to someone else (unless, of course, we are talking about my husband!) that he or she MUST wear one.

[Eden]

We have a mandatory helmet law here in Seattle. I personally have no problems with it. I don't view it as any different than the mandatory seatbelt law that we have here too. Of course I value my functioning brain and I wouldn't ride without a helmet on law or no law (nor would I ride in a car without putting on a seatbelt) so whether or not it is mandatory makes little difference to me.

The city makes an effort as well - there are several programs that provide free or low cost helmets - especially to low income children.

[Bikingmomof3]

I personally do not think a law will make a difference. When my boys started biking, I do not even know if there was or was not a law in place in the state we lived in. I bought helmets because I wanted their precious heads covered. When I began biking (not too long ago) I bought a helmet because I am rather fond of my head. Not once did I take into account whether or not it was a law, rather I am very fond of living and want to protect myself and my family. I see far too many people out riding without helmets and most of them kids. If their parents are not enforcing it, who is going to? I would *love* to see everyone wearing a helmet, for safety, yet I do not see that happening. I had a neighbour who commented that I looked as though I was trying to be a "racer" with my fancy helmet. I polietly informed her it was to protect my head. I have heard kids say it is "uncool" to wear helmets and women say it messes up their hair. I doubt a law will change those things. Education would be nice. I would like to see all bikers follow the laws when riding on the roads. It would make life much easier for all of us. Around here anyway, precious few bikers actually follow the rules of the road. :(

[mimitabby]

well Biker mom
that's just it; here in Seattle you will see that children are the ones who will usually be wearing their helmets; partially because moms care about their kids but also because it's the law.
The persons less apt to be wearing helmets are adult men and teenaged boys.
I agree with you all that there are way too many laws, but human beings tend to be their own worst enemies... and need a little coaxing sometimes.

[DDH]

First let me say, I believe people should wear helmets. That said, I am tired of politicians trying to tell everybody what is best for them, when they can't even balance a budget or take care of a city. I'm not perfect and I probably think I could do better but facts are I would probably fail in other areas. You just can't make everybody happy all the time. However I am really tired of government trying to get there hands into every aspect of peoples lives. There is too much government already as far as I am concerned.
First off, they come in and make these laws and then do not have the man power to enforce them, so what good are they? If an officer just happens to be driving down the road and see someone without one, while he is not already in route to another call, then he might stop and give them a ticket. Then what do you do, let them take the bike home while still not wearing a helmet, or do you confiscate their bike?
I think that bike organizations do a good job in promoting and letting folks know that they should, but I sitll think it should be an adults choice. I think organized rides require them, and that is a good thing, but it still gives the person riding a choice as to go or not go.
I will be honest, I hate them. They are hot, I can't get my hair up off my neck to keep my neck cooler and that drives me crazy, they aren't real comfortable but I wear mine. I have a 11 year old I want to see grow up and have my mental capacities to know who he is.
I used to ride without mine years ago, but as you get older you realize you are no longer invinceble and that things can happen to you and your family.
I think that they would do better to try and spend money creating bike lanes, or motorist education. I don't think most people know what the rules are on the road regarding bicycle's. I wasn't sure myself until I started riding again.
I mean I am always careful around one because lord knows I don't want to hit someone but I am more patient than most other drivers too. I'm not perfect mind you, but I am not always in such a dang hurry either.
Maybe we should picket for bike lanes in every town :D or at least some type of shoulder. I know in my town there is the traffic lane and then curb.
What little area there is between the road and the curb is always full of nails, dirt, trash and stuff I don't want to take my bike through.
Okay, off my soap box.

[Eden]

First off, they come in and make these laws and then do not have the man power to enforce them, so what good are they? If an officer just happens to be driving down the road and see someone without one, while he is not already in route to another call, then he might stop and give them a ticket. Then what do you do, let them take the bike home while still not wearing a helmet, or do you confiscate their bike?

Perhaps a better solution would be like the one that Portland OR? (I think) has instituted for those who ride at night without lights. Instead of ticketing those folks the police carry bike lights that they hand out and ask that the people use. It might cost the city a little money, but it turns into much more of a win/win situation. Why not have a few helmets on hand to give out? Really its true that even if there are laws, for the most part the police have better things to do than enforce helmet laws. I mean sheesh they rarely hand out traffic/speeding tickets around the city here because they don't really have the time.

(oh worst to worst if you are required to not ride your bike without a helmet you could walk it home or put it on a bus around here so I see no need to confiscate the bike - on a similar note I've just heard that you can't get a ticket here for cycling drunk here now - but they can impound the bike :eek: )



I will be honest, I hate them. They are hot, I can't get my hair up off my neck to keep my neck cooler and that drives me crazy, they aren't real comfortable but I wear mine.

Sounds like you need a better helmet. I put my hair up in a pony tail and stick it out of the back of my helmet to keep it off of my neck. My helmet is very light and has plenty of vents. Unless I crank it down too tight I barely notice that I'm wearing it.

[mimitabby]

Perhaps a better solution would be like the one that Portland OR? (I think) has instituted for those who ride at night without lights. Instead of ticketing those folks the police carry bike lights that they hand out and ask that the people use. It might cost the city a little money, but it turns into much more of a win/win situation. Why not have a few helmets on hand to give out? Really its true that even if there are laws, for the most part the police have better things to do than enforce helmet laws.

wow, that's really cool!! I love Ptd, OR!!!


- on a similar note I've just heard that you can't get a ticket here for cycling drunk here now - but they can impound the bike :eek: )


hmm, not so sure that's true, you can get a ticket for riding a HORSE drunk.
They have no public drunkenness laws there?

[Eden]

hmm, not so sure that's true, you can get a ticket for riding a HORSE drunk.
They have no public drunkenness laws there?

I'm talking about here in Seattle - I'm not entirely sure of the source - my husband told me about seeing it last weekend, but he said that the article said in Seattle you won't get a ticket specifically for cycling drunk. I would guess that any public drunkeness charges would be entirely separate, but unlike getting a speeding ticket on your bike, which goes on your driving record, aquires points on your license, makes your insurance go up etc., you won't get a traffic ticket for cycling under the influence.

[DDH]

Wow Eden, what kind of helmet is it? I would love to find one that I can put my hair up in a higher pony tail off my neck and be able to poke it through.
Okay, sorry, off subject, just pm me if you will. Thanks.

[mimitabby]

I'm talking about here in Seattle - I'm not entirely sure of the source - my husband told me about seeing it last weekend, but he said that the article said in Seattle you won't get a ticket specifically for cycling drunk. I would guess that any public drunkeness charges would be entirely separate, but unlike getting a speeding ticket on your bike, which goes on your driving record, aquires points on your license, makes your insurance go up etc., you won't get a traffic ticket for cycling under the influence.

ah, that makes sense, because Driving while drunk implies that you are behind the wheel of a large dangerous vehicle...

[Veronica]

I guess parents in my town must not care about their kids. CA has a mandatory helmet law for minors. I see very few kids wearing their helmets as they bike to school or around town.

The students in my class wear their helmets - I bug them if they don't and bring it up at conferences.

I too am tired of the government legislating us to death. Why don't they do something important like stop Big Mac production?

I am the youngest of 7 children, born in the days before SUVs and mini vans. My parents piled all seven of us into the car, sitting on laps, no selt belts, no cars seats... In the summer we all piled into the bed of my dad's truck. We all survived into adult hood. Now it's special seats up to age 37...:p

What happened to personal responsibility?

BTW I nearly always wear my helmet. Thom often removes his on hot days when he is climbing. Maybe someday I'll regret letting him make decisions for himself...But gee I prefer to treat him like an adult and an equal.

V.

[SadieKate]

I don't care whether anyone wears a helmet or not. I just don't want to pay for their health care, rehab, skilled nursing facility and funeral costs due to head trauma that could have been prevented. Americans tend to believe that someone else should pay for their own stupidity.

[Crankin]

Sorry to disagree with most of you, but since I don't want to pay for the stupidity of others, I think this should be mandatory. Of course, I live in socialist Massachusetts and I really don't care that this is the government telling people what to do. Almost none of my students wear their helmets; they are 11-13 and our mandatory law goes up to age 12. I lecture them all of the time on this. A couple of years ago the town's police dept. gave out free helmets to anyone who wanted them. They still didn't wear them. Kids in more affluent towns do seem to wear their helmets, but not all of the adults do. i have seen many casual riders (adults) out riding with their kids. The kid wears a helmet, but the parent does not. I say something to each and every one of them, even my neighbors if I have to. The most prevalent thing I see is kids wearing those big space helmet looking things with the straps UNDONE! Yesterday, I passed one kid on a busy road and I told him "the helmet doesn't work if the straps aren't buckled."

I guess i am just a cranky old lady, but we know too much now to not wear helmets. Yes, I rode in the back of a car with no seatbelt or carseat, but my parents did not know any better. They also smoked... But they stopped when all of the warnings came out. I started wearing my seatbelt in 1968, long before it was mandatory because i went through the windshield in an accident. Everyone made fun of me, but they eventually caught on.

[mimitabby]

I started wearing my seatbelt in 1968, long before it was mandatory because i went through the windshield in an accident. Everyone made fun of me, but they eventually caught on.

And a lot of people who are strapped in today; and wearing helmets today (on motorcycles too) would NOT be doing so if it hadn't been for the laws passed to enforce this behavior.

[Tater]

I'm with V. on this one; whatever happened to being responsible for one's own actions? Ride with it or ride without it, but don't expect me to help foot the bill when something happens that could have been prevented by a thirty dollar piece of plastic and foam if you don't.

As a kid, I would ride everywhere without a helmet, it was the thing to do. Now, I won't go out without it and wonder how I ever made it out of my pre-teen years without anymore damage to myself than I did. I guess I realized I am only immortal for a limited time.

[Bike Goddess]

I'm right with you on this one!!!!!

Why should I have to pay for someone else's indifference to their own well being?

Generally the people I see without helmets are the ones who have one speed bikes that they use to get around town or to pedal on bike paths. I don't think they realize the danger of riding on the road with automobile traffic.

I don't know if anyone saw the picture of Landis's mother on her bike during the Tour. NO helmet. :( :( :( :( Need I say more?!!!!!

[DDH]

Well, I think one of the reasons we survived back then is because, first of all there weren't near as many vehicles on the roads. Second, life and the world was not in nearly as much of a hurry up mode, people were a little more patient.
Now a days, it's become such a me, me, me world. I mean use to if the neighboor kid did something wrong, the other neighboors got onto them, and in turn they also watched out for each others kids.
Speeds are faster now, roads are more congested and it's not as safe to ride out on the rodes in a car or on a bike.
A lot of people don't want to or won't take responsiblity for their own actions, and I guess thats why the government has come in and tried to dictate everything. However I am not one of those people and don't want to be dictated to because of others. Last I knew we still live in America, land of the free and the more we let others dictate to us the closer we come to becoming a socialist society.

[Cassandra_Cain]

I do not agree with mandatory helmet laws. Whether it is for bikes, motorcycles, or seatbelts in cars. It is one thing for the government to legislate certain things, but to go so far as to say I have to wear a helmet when I ride? I think that violates a person's personal freedom.

People should have the basic right to choose for themselves amongst a number of things - whether it is to smoke a cigarette, ride without a helmet, or drive without wearing their seatbelt. If I am in a car w/o a seatbelt and have a crash, then I won't be blaming anyone if I get flung out the window 40 feet.

My feeling is that with personal choice comes responsibility. I am comfortable with both.

All that said, I always ride with a helmet, drive while wearing my seatbelt, don't smoke, and floss every day. :)

[KSH]

So, I'm sticking this out there for debate. What do you think of everyone being required to wear a helmet all the time?

Well, I think it's a good idea.

BUT... if you are doing to require helmets on a bicycle... then they need to do it for motorcycles too.

What's the difference really?

I'm all about wearing seatbelts and helmets... but is it really up to me to decide if someone should have to wear one or not? I don't think so. If they want to be organ donars... let them.

[mimitabby]

Well, I think it's a good idea.

BUT... if you are doing to require helmets on a bicycle... then they need to do it for motorcycles too.

What's the difference really?

I'm all about wearing seatbelts and helmets... but is it really up to me to decide if someone should have to wear one or not? I don't think so. If they want to be organ donars... let them.
You mean in Texas, they DON'T have a mandatory helmet law for motorcycles
but they want one for bikes???
sigh....

[DeniseGoldberg]

I agree with both Robyn and SadieKate.

I don't think there is any excuse for not wearing a helmet. If I hadn't wearing a helmet in my stellar crash two years ago I do not believe I would have survived (since I landed directly on my head). I've been wearing a helmet for many years without landing on my head prior to 2004 - but to me wearing that helmet for the one time that I needed it is well worth doing.

As SadieKate said, I also feel that if folks are hurt when they are not wearing a helmet that the rest of us should not be required to support their stupidity; when the non-helmet wearer doesn't have insurance I really wish they weren't covered by the free care pool (or whatever it's called in other states). It makes me positively ill when I see people out riding without helmets. And what about parents out riding with their kids where the kids are wearing helmets and the parents are not? I wonder what goes through their minds - protect the kids, but if the parents are hurt (or die), who is going to take care of their kids then?

So I'd vote FOR a mandatory helmet law. But it needs to be a law that is enforced.

Any comments from any BC gals out there? I think I remember that British Columbia has a helmet law. True? Does it seem to help, or are there still many helmetless riders out there?

--- Denise

[SadieKate]

So, all of you against mandatory helmet laws: would you sign a legal document waiving all rights to publicly funded money for any costs that are the result of injury due to lack of helmet or seatbelt? Just curious.

I think we have to look at the domino effect of pros and cons.

Con: the guv'mint is intruding on your life to insist on a helmet.
Pro: the same guv'mint will step in and pay disability, health care, etc, etc., etc.,
Con: somebody must give the guv'mint the money.
Pro: a law that hopes to reduce risk of injury reduces the need for tax dollars.

Yes, I dislike too many laws and intrusion, but I dislike more paying out of my pocket to keep some moron on life support. If you end up on life support even if you have a helmet, you bet; I'm all about compassion for those that make such a tiny amount of effort to be responsible. All bets are off for those that value the feeling of the wind in their hair over their life. Unless we stop paying for such injuries, I don't see any other solution than a law. What other solutions do you have?

[Cassandra_Cain]

So, all of you against mandatory helmet laws: would you sign a legal document waiving all rights to publicly funded money for any costs that are the result of injury due to lack of helmet or seatbelt? Just curious.


Yes I would sign such a document. Like I said before, I do always ride with a helmet, wear a seatbelt - but if something compelled me to do otherwise, then I'd have no problem waiving those rights.

Back to public money's though - this government gives billions away to corporations in corporate welfare/handouts/kickbacks - just think halliburton, the oil companies, the auto makers, etc. That is also our money - your money. It also spends a great deal of that same money on things that are anti-bike/pedestrian. Finally, it creates loopholes for destruction of the environment - like classifying the hummer (not my green hummer :) ) in a different category as regular cars/trucks so some prat can drive around getting 5mpg. Why should I pay for that?

I think the focus should be on things like that, which make up an astronomical cost, rather than a few cases of people on life support.

[Bruno28]

I've said it before and I'll say it again (dear readers please see the thread -'wear your helmet stupid!') - it's stupid not to wear a helmet.

ANd I believe some people just have to be saved from themselves - like me. I still have a black eye and a sore head from falling off my bike on Saturday and I was just nipping out for 5 minutes. I was lucky! !!!

I would never dream of driving my car without a seatbelt but it took a law in the uk to make people do this. You only got one skull - its worth £25 (or whatever a helmet costs wherever you are) to protect it. And if it takes a law to make some folks do it, fair enough. I don't care about paying for medical care through my taxes (praise be to the UK Health Service ) but I don't want you lovely folks getting hurt.

I'm just off to write to my MP now you've got me all worked up!

[Nanci]

I don't believe it should be a low that an adult has to wear a bicycle helmet _or_ a motorcycle helmet.

In Florida, you are not required to wear a motorcycle helmet if you have proof of health insurance that does not exclude a motorcycle injury. If you are in compliance, you are not a "burden on society." If you are not in compliance, you're breaking the law. You can't _make_ people obey the law. You can only punish them if they don't.

(Quoted from ABATE of Florida)

"MOTORCYCLISTS AND THE PUBLIC BURDEN MYTH

First of all, motorcyclists as a group are great contributors to our society and communities, they are not a social burden in Florida, nor are they a burden across the nation. Motorcyclists are taxpayers, citizens, parents, grandparents, professionals, white collar, blue collar, and everything else. Motorcyclists are not a social burden because they pull their weight and more."

I believe you have less of a chance of an incapacitating injury or fatality if you are wearing a helmet and are involved in a motorcycle crash, but the 2004 statistics (latest available) do not bear this out. http://tinyurl.com/s3zh9

That surprises me. At any rate, I hope many of those who do _or_ do not wear helmets are signed up as organ donors and have informed their families of their wishes, so their organs can be used to save lives in the event of a fatality. Riding my bike, I am always wearing my Road ID, which identifies me as an organ donor.

I say, if the rider is an adult, let the rider decide.

No, I would not sign a waiver of government medical cost support in the event of a helmetless injury. I've paid taxes for 30 years- I'm entitled to some of it back if I need it!!

And don't you think the police have enough to do without having to chase down and ticket cyclists??? That would be a HUGE waste of resources.

Nanci

[Nanci]

PS, don't take this to mean I advocate riding either a bicycle or a motorcycle without a helmet. I take helmets seriously- I have a $180 bike helmet and a $300 MC helmet. I just don't want to be legislated into wearing them.

Nanci

[DDH]

Mimi, Tx requires a helmet for motorcycles, unless you have some kind of special insurance. I think it is some kind of medical insurance or something.


You know something, even if they pass the law, they won't be able to completely enforce it and we will still pay for those in hospitals or what have you who don't wear them, should they have an accident.
As far as the waiver goes, I'm like Nanci, I wouldnt' do it. I pay taxes, I pay a huge amount for medical insurance (or my husband does) and I would not be a burden. I do not want to be put on life support and my family knows this. I don't want to be kept alive by machines if I cannot truely live.

[Aggie_Ama]

Mimi- This is a city law Fixedgear brought up. They are not proposing it statewide.

DDH- My dad just got a Texas Motorcycle license and I am pretty sure there is no helmet requirement. I think Texas revoked the law a couple years ago.

[SadieKate]

Taxes or medical insurance - public pool of money vs private pool of money. It is still others paying for a risk that could be minimized.

I'd rather have those funds available for the "sh1t happens" part of life.

[DDH]

Your right Amanda. I looked it up. I still thought it was required.

This is what it said.
Effective September 1, 1997, persons at least 21 years old are exempt from wearing a motorcycle helmet if they:

have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course, or
are covered by a health insurance plan providing the person with at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating or riding upon a motorcycle.

[Veronica]

Taxes or medical insurance - public pool of money vs private pool of money. It is still others paying for a risk that could be minimized.

I'd rather have those funds available for the "sh1t happens" part of life.


What about smokers? Obese people? Drug addicts? Alchoholics? How much are they taking from the pool of money? What about people who choose to have babies, even though they know they will have a high risk pregnancy?

There are all kinds of things that suck money from the pool because of choices people have made.

V.

[laughlaugh18]

I'm in the make-it-mandatory camp. Partly it's cuz I work for hospitals that get stuck for the cost of caring for head-injured 23 year old helmetless/insuranceless idiots who thought they were invincible. But mostly it's cuz I love my friends' brains and I don't want them smushed. I can argue with them only so far; I want a law that makes them (and my friends' friends and families that I can't talk to directly) take safety seriously.

Even if it's not fully enforced, a mandatory helmet law will get more people to put one on. I remember when seatbelts became mandatory - lots of people grumbled, but now pretty much everyone wears one. Helmet wearing is one behaviour I'm willing to have legislated.

And, for anyone who wants to know the current law in their area:

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

[Susan Otcenas]

I'm ambivalent.

On the one hand, I think that people are nuts not to wear a helmet. I would NEVER ride without a helmet, especially since I've cracked a few in my time, in lieu of cracking my head.

On the other hand, I agree with those who say that we are already over-legislated and that the existence of such a law won't change a whole lot. All sorts of "minor" and not so minor laws are flaunted on a regular basis without any enforcement at all.

And the talking point that fixedgeargirl mentions is true - Helmets DON'T prevent accidents. Here's what drives me crazy - The news media in Oregon ALWAYS mentions in a story whether or not a cyclist was wearing her helmet when struck. Seems a moot point to me. When hit by a 3000 pound vehicle at any speed above 5mph, the cyclist is going to lose regardless of helmet usage. Soooooo, if you make a mandatory helmet law, and a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet and is struck, does that mean that any injuries will be blamed on the cyclist?? (probably) Even when the motorist is the one at fault? Seems like an easy out for the motorists.


And don't you think the police have enough to do without having to chase down and ticket cyclists??? That would be a HUGE waste of resources. Nanci

It does happen. As Eden mentioned, we do have two complimentary programs going on here in Portland. One is a volunteer-run program called Get Lit. Community members hand out free lights to folks seen not using them at night. The Police Department modeled their own program after Get Lit. Officers DO stop cyclists without lights, give them a warning, then install the lights on the bikes right then and there. Thousands of lights have been given out this way.

If there were a mandatory helmet law here, you can be sure the police would stop and ticket cyclists not using helmets. Despite the prevalence of cycling here, cyclists and the Portland Police Dept have a sometimes rancorous relationship. Cyclists are regularly ticketed in Portland for a variety of reasons. The most common is running stoplights and stopsigns. There are regular stings in town. It's typically an intersection-based sting, and all road users (bikes AND motorists) get the same ticket. I think it's about $250. You can also be ticketed for riding without a brake (This is a big deal to the bike messengers, many of who ride fixed gear track bikes). But I guess I don't really have a problem with ticketing cyclists, as long as enforcement effects all road users. Same road, same rights, same rules.

The seat belt comparison is an interesting one. It's my understanding that one can not be pulled over SOLELY for lack of seatbelt use. In other words, a police officer who observes the lack of seatbelt use must have some other reason to pull over a motorist, and can give the seatbelt ticket as a secondary offense. I wonder if the helmet law would/could be similarly enforced.

Susan

[DDH]

In TX you can get pulled over for no seat belt alone. Matter of fact they have stings once or twice a year targeting those not wearing their seatbelts.
I guess every state is different.

[tygab]

I always ride with a helmet, kayak with a PFD on (if you're in a situation to need it, it does no good on the deck my friends), wear my seat belt, try to eat sensibly, and generally do most other things that are aimed at giving myself better odds of staying alive and in good health.

My husband motorcycles (and bikes), and wears boots, helmet, riding pants and jacket now (the pants finally came, but thankfully he's got everything now). We both are amazed when we see motorcyclists without gear including helmets, motorcyclists with helmets but riding in tshirts and shorts, or worse yet, around here since there's no helmet law in NH but they are required in MA, and we're right at the border, a perfectly good helmet, attached to the side of the bike, not the rider's HEAD. Duh, they've already spent the money for the thing! So I guess, on that level, one could make the argument that legislating helmets on motorcycles has worked, but it's also enforced through tickets and insurance hikes, and easily identified. Maybe that's ultimately the difference - there's no wallet effect associated with getting a ticket for not wearing a PFD while kayaking (and BTW, it is legally required to be *worn* in MA between 15 Sept and 15 May), or a helmet while cycling, etc. I also am baffled by those who are obese and still eat supersized ice creams, or golfers who say they love to get out on the greens 'for the fresh air', but drive around in the little carts instead of walking. Ok, so I don't really get golf in the first place... oh well.

Anyway, neither of us support manditory laws around common sense. I don't wear a helmet because politicians or police officers, say I should. I don't think most of these laws do anything other than make a politician feel like they did something good (all the while ignoring bigger problems, such as a $14 billion roadway system that is already falling apart, ah but I digress).

I wear a helmet (and a PFD) because I value being alive, and if I can help myself to achieve that with reasonable precautions, I will. I don't know how to keep people from themselves, but as Veronica has pointed out, there's always something better waiting around the bend to be legislated. After all, the pols think that's what they're in office to do - make more laws!

[light_sabe_r]

I don't buy that line that people will ride less if helmets are required.
in my county helmets are required and in the last year bike ridership has
just grown like crazy!



In my Country wearing it is the law. and when we were kids wearing a "Stack Hat" was cool!

Then again, the $40 fine introduced when I was a kid is really not much these days... Which I guess is why I passed so many kids without helmets on today

[margo49]

The New Zealand compulsory helmet law was the result of one mother's crusade after her son (aged 12 at the time) got totally head-injured and vegetative. She just went and spoke and spoke more and wrote letters and wrote more letters to schools and pollies and councils till it got passed. Got so as she was known as The Helmet Lady!
Which is a different kind of compulsory from the US descriptions of passing laws in the objective or theoretical.

I only started wearing one when I was 45.Out of responsibility to the children .(And not wanting to give the SO the chance at finding someone better! rofl !)

Now I think - ok,so you have a 0.000whatever % chance of it happening to you; but if it *does* it happens to you 100%. Now I wouldn't ride without. You get used to it. And feel nekkid without it.
And recently I did have a crash on my head and it would have been very bad (tho' not in the DeniseGoldberg league!) if I had not had a helmet.

[farrellcollie]

I would rather legislate who can and cannot have pets or children instead helmets. Of course I also believe that I am the best person to make the procreation/pet owning decisions - apply to me in triplicate.

Seriously I think that Americans have gone mad with trying to protect themselves and in particular children from life. I do usually wear a helmet - but would be no more or less inclined if it were another stupid law. I have been known to run with scissors.

[RoadRaven]

Well, as Margo has pointed out, and Light Saber - helmets are compulsorary in the Antipodes.

The health statisics in New Zealand tell the story - since the introduction of the helmet law whereby you HAVE to wear a helmet on a bicycle, the head injury and head trauma admissions related to bicycle crashes has dropped significantly.

The same applies since to motorcycles (compulsorary to wear a helmet).

The same applies to the change in injuries since the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsorary in cars. The serious head and torso injuries have been reduced. The children flying through the windscreen from the back seat have been reduced.

The simple fact is, if most people dont have to, they wont. And we are not just talking about personal injury - the health system and taxes and families are affected by a serious crash.

Now, New Zealand is one of the most over-regulated countries in the world - but I think the helmet law is a good one - particularly when children cannot advocate for themselves and go out and buy themselves a helmet. If it is cheaper for parents to buy a helmet than to pay a fine - then they will buy a helmet.

Road *stepping-off-her-soapbox* Raven

[oxforduniversit]

:D Well here is, California's helmet law is Unconstitutional again. Already helmet tickets are getting dismissed based from the August 16th, 2006 ruling. If you’re citied for not wearing a helmet, you can immediately get your ticket dismissed by going to the clerks office, depending on what county in California. A memo seems to have been sent out to other courts declaring a Unconstitutional ruling. CHP says they will continue citing motorcyclist regardless is the law is declared unconstitutional which this decision was based from the California Highway Patrol violating several Court decisions and this one has it off the books. CHP is already in hot water and Governor Schwarzenegger supports the ruling and the repeal.

The point has been argued and argued the helmet Laws are unconstitutional period, since California passed it law back in 1992, it has made loads of published cases used throughout the States and those challenges were used in different States that even had a unconstitutional rulings based from California and many modified their helmet law because of the mass interests of what came from California. If California never passed the helmet law, it would of had less impact on several areas through Congress and the courts, something the California legislature didn't realize when they passed the helmet law it would benefit in repealing helmet laws in other states but also impacted other countries due to the massive data collected from California and written opinions or sparked interests (protests).

Now we have a helmet law that has been declared unconstitutional, not once but a dozen times since 1992 in California as the court will now turn it over because the CHP violated it continuously and just continued violating the law when there would civil ruling placed. The FMVSS No. 218 is just a DOT pamphlet. These tests does use nothing for safety (Penetration, impact attenuation and retention; that’s all it is), so technical that you can submit to DOT a homemade 6-pack styrofoam cooler as the brain bucket with a strong string as a strap system for testing and as the matter of fact, it was tested and passed!! DOT has not perfected the FMVSS No. 218 at all and to think they have not provided a list of approved helmets from the 100,000 different helmets sold in the USA for any of our States that enacted helmet laws to comply back in 1967 from the Congress Highways Act and also in 1991 when it was repealed twice in 1996. Did you know that helmets sold today are 2 out of 10 of a partial recall because of the testing standards and they are being sold daily? However what good does it due, the FMVSS No. 218 stinks, it does use nothing for helmet safety. How do I know? Because I have seen the data and the actual accidents from people killed wearing DOT approved helmets which are sent to NTSHA. Nothing gets done to improve it; I have seen dead victims wearing full face helmets from reports collected from highway accidents, photos and all. It nothing to due with high speed and faster motorcycles of today, data has been seen from accidents at 15mph with DOT helmets, which is just a sticker any manufacture can put on, DOT sees nothing, they only make a random call which helmets they might be interested in testing (it is like picking a jury).

There is nothing dumb with riding without a helmet as there are many other dumb things you can be compared to what you could do as well so don't judge a lidless rider compared to something similar that is also dumb you do. Some people HOV lane, they are people who speed and drink at the sometime, free styling, race, ride in the rain, snow or ice wearing a helmet that is more dumber than an individual riding safely without a helmet doing nothing but riding. There are more countries in this world that do not require helmet use to state there is dangers in these countries because no helmet use as data is available to saying nothing more or less than a helmet requirement country as well. If you road your motorcycle, fell and your helmet saved your life, wonderful, there is also the same data that people which are dead today that cannot say this in a result of wearing a helmet as well too.

There is tons of data available to review from helmet accidents at your finger tips before you judge people are stupid about riding lidless. Sure helmets do provide some sort of protection and have saved lives but also the same result of this is on the other end as well. The National Department of Safety Highway Administration does not like to publish information containing to helmet related accidents, it simply is not passed along as the push is to promote helmet use. There are bi-annual reports from non-relevant parties who write reports on these matters which NHTSA does not like to comment about when anytime there is publish case findings to testify on. Have you read data of this sort or just from a safety pamphlet? If you have, you haven’t seen real available data from helmet accidents to comment about this unless you have friends and yourself who suffered from an accident to tell your story. If so, submit the evidence so others can be informed, we benefit from this than people trying to sell us dangerous products

The California helmet law has reduced DMV registrations by more the 68% since 1992, it has impacted State taxes and so forth due to the protest of disliked laws that forced people to stopped riding. It screwed up the state completely as this law is now being taken off the books as Governor Schwarzenegger supports the ruling and the repeal. There was nothing saved in hospital costs from headless injuries, there is no data, only data exist is less registrations, it killed the motorcycle population is what it did because of the hate of helmets. Sure the helmet law saved lives but less motorcyclists were on the road, that’s all there is to say that helmet laws save lives. If there is a registration population of the same number before and after the helmet law passed, then there would be some true statistics to verify the data but there is nothing. I have studied this years ago and learned this is a big hype of crooked facts by police agencies and NHTSA so they can lobby to dumb politicians who don’t read anything but vote.

Thank you Richard Quigley for fighting the CA helmet law for 14 years, now we have our freedoms back. God bless you

Scott M.
Ducati Paso (104 CA helmet tickets since 1992)
San Luis Obispo, California

[donnambr]

I'm with Susan on feeling conflicted. We have a helmet law for children 16 and under, and I have no problem with that. I think minors should be made to do certain things like protect their heads and wear seatbelts until they are old enough to make their own choices. I wear a helmet myself about 95% of the time. If I'm riding around slowly in my low speed, low traffic neighborhood on quiet streets with all the Portland bike facilities that it contains, I don't wear it. I'm an adult and after careful consideration, decided the risk in that situation was low enough for me, though not completely nonexistent. I am sure that there are plenty of other places throughout the state where other adults could make a similar well-considered decision to go bare-headed. So, all in all, I don't think I would support an mandatory law for adults.

I would be happy to sign a health insurance waiver excluding coverage for head injuries while not wearing a helmet when everyone in my plan who smokes, lives with someone who smokes, drinks alcohol to excess, eats poorly, and does not exercise chooses to sign one that excludes coverage for lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc.

[DeniseGoldberg]

I wear a helmet myself about 95% of the time. If I'm riding around slowly in my low speed, low traffic neighborhood on quiet streets with all the Portland bike facilities that it contains, I don't wear it.
I think there's a small problem with your logic having to do with low speed, low traffic neighborhoods and not needing to wear your helmet. Accidents happen when we least expect them. The fact that you are moving at a low speed on your bike does not protect your head when you fall. A helmet does.

And your willingness to sign a waiver so that your health insurance does not have to pay in the case you you having a head-injury type of accident on your bike while riding without a helmet - well, do you have any idea of what a head injury can cost from a hospitalization standpoint? Are you aware that the insurance companies have negotiated discounts with health care providers, but that as an uninsured consumer you will not be offered a discount. (Yes, that is incredibly stupid, but unfortunately that's the way the system currently works (or doesn't work)).

Helmet law or no helmet law, I feel very strongly that we should all be wearing our helmets whenever we ride our bikes - no excuses.

--- Denise

[uforgot]

Physics teacher "weighing in" here. I always thought that part of the danger was how high your head was off the ground, so after the last few posts I was curious. I did the math using acceleration due to gravity. If we are on road bikes, chances are our feet aren't flat, so I worked it for our heads being 6' above the ground. If we were to fall standing still with no interference, our heads would hit the ground at 13.4mph. Not sure how fast you guys can run, but I certainly can't reach that speed. If I ran as fast as I could and hit a low tree branch at my fastest, I'm sure there would be plenty of damage! Oh, better yet, reach that velocity on your bike and see if you'd want to hit the branch then! (For everyone who has a reasonable math system, I used 1.83 meters and it was 21.6km/hr. I actually used the metric and converted it to miles since metric is so much easier. But that's another debate...)

Since you would be more upright on a leisurely ride, seems the "slow" argument isn't a very good one.

Here are some velocities more for various heights.

5.5' = 12.8mph = 20.6 km/hr
5' = 12.1mph = 19.5km/h

Okay, school doesn't start until tomorrow...This is too much too early. I'm goin' ridin'!

[mimitabby]

well oxforduniversity, how nice of you to show up just to post a long dissertation by a famous scoff law who bends the facts to suit his own cause.
It isn't encouraging that you also talk about california, where they spent millions of taxpayer's dollars to get rid of a perfectly good governor and they replaced him with a lecherous actor.

I am one of the many people who started wearing a seatbelt because it was the law. I also used to ride bikes without helmets, but as soon as we heard it was going to be the law, we bought helmets for our whole family. Now we all wear them.

but since you are into quoting "facts" here are some for you.

How effective are helmets? Helmets decrease the severity of injury, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care. They are designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets cannot provide total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the incidence of both. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a crash fatality by 37 percent.1 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.2 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.1






* California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992. Helmet use jumped to 99 percent from about 50 percent before the law.10 During the same period, the number of motorcyclist fatalities in California decreased 37 percent to 327 in 1992 from 523 in 1991.11

7. How do helmet use laws impact health care costs? Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."18

Among the specific findings of several of the studies:

* NHTSA's Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System study released in February 1996 showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).19
* After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.20
* A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.12

[Kitsune06]

I'm with DeniseGoldburg. Law or not, everyone should wear helmets.

That said, I think America goes nuts trying to protect people from themselves. If one is intent on risking their health, who are we to judge? The little beanie helmets a lot of cruiser riders wear just to pass DOT are called 'Brain buckets' for a reason. Your face hits asphalt, and all the coroner's going to have to pick up is your brain... in that bucket.

My SO insisted I not wear my helmet when I ride with her, as she doesn't have one (yet). After a couple rides, I couldn't take it anymore and said "You're either getting a helmet, or you're not riding anymore. You're off the hook. No begging, no pleading. I'm not riding with you."

It wasn't long until she dropped it in a convo that she'd love to go for a ride, but that I 'wouldn't let her'. Needless to say, she got a helmet for her birthday.

This is the same girl who insisted I wear mine whenever I was out alone, just to 'make sure I was safe'...

Seeing my husband destroy his helmet getting hit by an SUV in Eugene made me a firm believer in them, and I'm not about to entrust my greymatter to Jimmy Redneck cruising down the country roads out here. It's my own a$$.

One thought also on seat belts:
PEFYC. It's an EMT "joke" I came across awhile ago while looking into certification. It means "Pre Extricated For Your Convenience (through the windshield)". I always wear my seat belt. You never know when (as someone here so aptly put it) the sh*t's going to hit the fan. If someone hits me and pre-extricates themselves, in Oregon, it's a no-fault state, so I'm not sure how much of their medical expenses my insurance (or I) might end up paying... just because regardless of who's really at fault, insurance companies can be real good at claiming no fault on the other guy, esp. if there are no witnesses.


What about smokers? Obese people? Drug addicts? Alchoholics? How much are they taking from the pool of money? What about people who choose to have babies, even though they know they will have a high risk pregnancy?
I'm living for the day when people have enough **** common sense to be able to protect themselves. Every day I see someone 17 or 18 (or younger) with a baby on their hip, it drives me nuts. How many have health insurance? How many are leaning on tax dollars? How about all of the folks who weigh more than myself, my gf, and both of our bikes put together, ordering big macs? Do they have health insurance? I HOPE so, because I don't want to pay for that. SadieKate is right on. Americans are always looking for someone else to pay for their **** stupidity. It's oddly the same people who are willing to say darwinism doesn't exist but... um... if you've ever checked out the Darwin awards, it surely does, and I'm not about to put laws in place to protect those who are simply too stupid to live.

[tomgrrrl]

I'm all for freedom of choice (for adults) BUT.....the problem with those who go helmet-free is that we have to pick up the tab for their medical costs. I think the same logic that applies to madatory seat-belt laws applies to helmet laws. When one is cycling, one is using public roads, theoretically obeying public laws. Here in CA. motorcyclists have to wear helmets, why not cyclists?

There is a law that currently requires minors to wear helmets BUT there's often one major problem with that. The kids don't know how to even wear them correctly. Most of the time when I see a kid wearing a helmet, the chin strap is loose or not even attached.

Perhaps a happy medium would be a public service ad campaign (print and tv) that encourages proper helmet use and also asks drivers to "share the road." Kill two birds with one stone.....

[Aggie_Ama]

I am for freedom of choice, but not picking up the bill for stupidity. I live in the suburbs of the town this mandatory law is being proposed in. Personally I don't mind it one bit. Of course I believe it won't be enforced because the Austin Police Department has a lot of problems internally and externally, I can't imagine they will care about citing a cyclist. I am also one who buckles up even in the backseat when the law only states the front and get a little unnerved if someone's backseat belts do not work. I also request passengers in my car buckle up. I believe motorcyclists in Texas should be fined for not wearing a helmet. This is just my opinion.

I think as adults we should all wear helmets to lead by example. Kids grow up seeing helmets and they just think it is part of riding a bike. Maybe my logic is quaint, but I will not ever let my future tots see me on a bike without a helmet. They will know the two go together.

The low speed argument doesn't sit well with me either. A friend of ours used to ride his bike to work. One day he got slammed into by a car in the parking lot of his work. The car was probably going 20-25 mph (about what one would drive SLOWLY in a neighborhood), yet our friend broke a wrist, leg, ankle and a few ribs. His face was badly bruised from flying onto the windshield but thanks to his helmet he avoided a concussion and serious head trauma.

[Quillfred]

how would you feel if you were driving and hit a person (kid or adult) who was without a helmet as there was no helmet law. You were determined to be at fault. Accident resulted in severe brain trauma = ICU>Rehab that would have been prevented had victim worn a helmet. Family sues you for the cost of care.

How would you feel about the mandatory helmet law, knowing that it could have left this person functioning and prevented a financial ruin for yourself.

I try not to get angry when I see an adult not wearing a helmet--although it is law here. I instead of it as Darwinian Law--survival of the smartest.

Quill

[Veronica]

I think this is one of those topics where you cannot convince those who feel differently to change their minds.

Nothing I have read has changed my opinion.

Is there anyone out there who has changed their mind about the law based on what they have read here?

V.

[Kitsune06]

I try not to get angry when I see an adult not wearing a helmet--although it is law here. I instead of it as Darwinian Law--survival of the smartest.

Quill

Exactly. I used to get far too worked up over too many things... (political, etc) so now that I accept it as 'survival of the smartest' I can go on... but it DOES aggrivate the S/Os in our lives who don't wish to wear helmets. "Well, honey... if you LOOK, the only people not wearing helmets are kids and people you'd generally recognize as dumb... Where would that place you?"
"They're hot and mess up my hair."
"Cars mess up your brain matter."
"Point."

[madisongrrl]

Yes, I dislike too many laws and intrusion, but I dislike more paying out of my pocket to keep some moron on life support.


I do somewhat agree with you, but there are a lot of things that we (Americans) have to pay for that we dislike or don't agree with. I'm all for helmets and don't want to pay for "some moron's life support". But what if I got in a serious mountain bike crash (with a helmet on) and needed some serious medical care. Would Americans that don't mountain bike or cycle want to pay for my medical care? Would they think that I should sign a liability release, taking my life into my own hands by taking up such a "dangerous" sport? It's all about how far you want to take it.