Mandatory Helmet Law

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'!

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veronica

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.

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.....

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillfred

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadieKate

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.