Mandatory Helmet Law

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.