Bicycle helmets?

[tomp221]

New article up on Urban Times about bike helmet campaigns and legislation. What do you think?

http://urbantimes.co/magazine/2013/0...be-compulsory/

[Random Traffic Guy]

Good article, I dislike very much mandatory helmet laws, both from a freedom point of view and for the reasons the article states. When expanding on how helmets depress bike ridership, I think I've seen studies where helmets cause more aggressive driving by motorists, since "hey, they're protected". So that driver behavior further reduces riding from the big "interested but concerned" cohort of potential riders.

On another forum my .sig is a quote from T.J. DeMarco in a report on helmet laws: "Ultimately, helmet laws save a few brains but destroy many hearts."
He is talking of the health advantages of biking, but I like to think it can also refer to the personal and social advantages that biking can bring.

[Suburb Repairman]

Count me as another disliking mandatory helmet laws of any kind. You've got a lot of states that don't even require them for motorcycles... why then require them for their lower speed human powered counterparts?

For what it is worth, I always wear a helmet on my motorcycle and wear one on my bike about 75% of the time.

[Random Traffic Guy]

I also need to mention that Dallas's now semi-defunct helmet law was allegedly installed as a pretense for initiating police contact with certain minority groups.

[wahday]

Interesting article and I am torn personally on the issue of requiring helmets. I ride a lot and I ALWAYS wear a helmet. Mountain biking is my real passion and even when I am out on an excursion far from traffic, the helmet is always there on my head. Because one accident and you could be laying there unconscious for a while. Or worse, bleeding out. But that is my personal choice and my reasons are mine.

The other factor for me is that I have two kids. To expect them to wear a helmet (which I do) and for me not to wear one seems more than a little hypocritical. So I do and now that I am in the habit, I don’t even think about it. Plus my son rides on the school bike team which of course requires them, as do all the races he attends (even adult races require them).

I should also add that I have a friend who, had he not been wearing his helmet when clobbered by a hit and run driver, probably would have died or at least had serious and permanent brain injuries (this from the doctor, not my personal opinion). Helmets really can save lives.

I think its important also to identify that there are many different kinds of bike riding, some of which may be less necessary to have a helmet for. Commuting is not the same as road bike training or mountain biking (within which there are many sub-genres) or bmx riding. Having spent time in Amsterdam, for example, many people ride 3-speeds that have you sitting upright, moving at a modest speed, on flat terrain and, most important of all, there is an infrastructure with dedicated pathways and lanes for bikes, further reducing the risk of conflict with cars. American cities are a far cry from developing this level of biking infrastructure.

Check out this video of Amsterdam biking rush hour. And nary a helmet in sight:


So, I am still torn, just as I am with the motorcycle helmet law. I live in a state that does not require them and I usually mutter to myself that folks, especially on the interstate, without them are nuts.

I do think the argument of being responsible for your own decisions fares better with bikes as (usually) you have no passengers and so your decisions only impact you. But when you add children into the equation, it gets a little more complicated.

[Vancity]

I am also against mandatory helmet laws. I live in one of the only provinces in Canada where helmets are mandatory for people of all ages. Vancouver is currently struggling with the provincial law because it is trying to get its first bike share program going(and become "the most cyclist-friendly city in Canada"). I believe the main promoters of the bike share program are in a bind, because last year they were promoting more separated bike lanes be built due to cycling being unsafe in our city, and now that they are trying to get this bike share going, they are unable to advocate the abolishment of the helmet laws without being hypocrites. They're toying with the idea of doing helmet vending machines as mentioned in the article.. but I don't see that working well, seeing as this bike share program is meant to integrate with the transit system here. (You won't see me carrying a helmet around on the bus everywhere I go.....)

I have always ignored the helmet law (I never ride on the street, only on bike routes with no cars and pedestrian discouragement.. and my bike is one of those lovely upright 3-speeds wahday mentioned...). It is not enforced very well here, as far as I know, however a ticket can run you $100. Police do not stop random people who are not wearing helmets in my experience, rather they set up roadblocks, on high-volume cycling routes, and ticket hoards of cyclists at a time, on routes that generally are for cyclists only (no traffic/pedestrians). This seems like a waste of resources to me... especially ticketing slow-moving-leisure cyclists, rather than those who are commuting on roads at racing-speeds.

The argument that helmets purchases are bad for the environment is one that I haven't heard before. That's a very good point.

The other factor for me is that I have two kids. To expect them to wear a helmet (which I do) and for me not to wear one seems more than a little hypocritical. So I do and now that I am in the habit, I don’t even think about it. Plus my son rides on the school bike team which of course requires them, as do all the races he attends (even adult races require them).

Some provinces here require kids under the age of 16 wear a helmet.

[ColoGI]

I'm all about th' FRAYDUM. Especially the freedom for me to say you can't use your health insurance to cover your head trauma if you exercised your FREEDOM and chose to not wear a helmet when riding.

That is: I have an old GF who cracked her head and still has side effects. You can be FREEDOM but you can't expect me to cover your FREEDOM if you crack your head. No insurance. No public hospital subsides. YOYO.

[Raf]

I hate to say this, but I am all for bicycle helmets. Maybe because there have been mandatory helmet requirements growing up in California since i was about 10 (when 18 you can choose to wear one or not). In the end, I wear one. Why? Because i don't want to be in the hospital as a vegetable by some douche bag in a car that just hit me. enough said.

[Folk Hood]

- - - FREEDOM if you crack your head. No insurance. No public hospital subsides.

The insurance companies will LOVE this. Also, if you smoke, no cancer treatments. Forgot your seat belt? forget the insurance coverage for a resulting injury, or just skip the ER visit.* Picked up an STD? Well, you should've used a Jimmy hat, No coverage. Next.

Yea, you are smarter to wear a helmet. So would motorcyclists be. Often, a bike helmet is not practical. We could probably save way more lives with breathalyzers in bars. Blow before you get served: Like "Over 08 --have to wait." And we could save all kinds of lives by lowering the automobile speed limits to 30 m.p.h. It's a fact.

For mandatory helmets, what standard must they follow anyway?

I like the picture above from Holland posted by wahday. Isn't that high-town?

* If you are not K.O.'ed -- If you are, they will haul you in, and you will be billed whether or not you asked for treatment.

[Masswich]

The image from Amsterdam is interesting. Yes, there are no helmets but there are also no cars on that bike-only road they are on, and a light to protect them from crossing cars.

I don't think we should refuse to help pay for the ER when an un-insured person cracks their non-helmeted head on the pavement, but neither should we encourage it. I feel the same way about smoking and STD's - shouldn't we do what we can to encourage the right behavior.

I don't believe the idea that drivers are more aggressive when bikers wear helmets, either.

So I think I fall just short of requiring helmets for bikers, but I don't mind if there is a law. As for motocyclists, that should be a nobrainer, They really are riding in traffic, and I don't think the public should have to pick up the bills when they become road smears. There isn't even the heart-healthy argument there, just the Easy Rider freedom argument that a blue stater like me doesn't buy into.

[Gedunker]

Some of you need to spend some time reading Copenhagenize before you start spouting about having to help pay health care costs of helmet-less bicycle riders. Walking and driving/riding in cars is statistically more dangerous than biking, vis-a-vis head injuries. Do we refuse to pay the medical bills of folks injured walking or those injured in cars? Should we not make them wear helmets, too? There are probably as many peer-reviewed articles pointing to the fact that helmets in urban bicycle commutes do not provide any benefit in event of an accident. You can find links at Copenhagenize on that too.

I agree with wahday that off-road and mountain biking is a different beast altogether. Urban bicycle commuting is a different matter. And yes, while Amsterdam and Copenhagen have miles of dedicated bike lanes and bike tracks, they do still have to intersect with automobiles. The difference there is drivers know how to accommodate bicyclists and they do accommodate them.