Mandatory Helmet Law

[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 )

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 )

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.

[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...

[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.

[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?!!!!!

[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.

[oxforduniversit]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.