Helmet and Sea belt Law and my affinity for Libertarians

[Earl IV]

reality check : a BTI or Brain Trauma injury does not equate "a quick death". BTI patients will need to undergo months if not years of physical therapy, occupational therapy if not respiratory therapy.Let alone a prognosis of permanent disability removing them from the ability to work, earn an income and be financially independent.

I'm reasonably sure some percentage of helmetless people die quickly. Anyway, if you've got the math for what this costs society please share it so we all can see.

Please also include the cost of injuries from wearing a helmet (broken necks)

And a link showing how helmets are (laughably) tested for DOT approval

Show

hint, they drop them on the floor from a height of six feet, the same height identified in the (questionable) Hurt report of 1981 which concluded 90% of accidents result in the rider falling on his/her head from a height of 6ft. Which oddly is the same height my head is before I fall down drunk. Perhaps I should wear a helmet all the time, or just when I'm drinking...

 

[NobleSavage]

A little off topic, but I read an article (pleas don't ask me to find it) that said football has gotten more dangerous since they started wearing pads, protective gear, and helmets. The problem with helmets is they protect your scull from cracking, but your brain bashes around inside your head. In football they are learning this is a big problem.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

A little off topic, but I read an article (pleas don't ask me to find it) that said football has gotten more dangerous since they started wearing pads, protective gear, and helmets. The problem with helmets is they protect your scull from cracking, but your brain bashes around inside your head. In football they are learning this is a big problem.

Right. Better to let the skull crack. Lets out the evil spirits in the body anyway.

aa

 

[Earl IV]

A little off topic, but I read an article (pleas don't ask me to find it) that said football has gotten more dangerous since they started wearing pads, protective gear, and helmets. The problem with helmets is they protect your scull from cracking, but your brain bashes around inside your head. In football they are learning this is a big problem.

Right. Better to let the skull crack. Lets out the evil spirits in the body anyway.

aa

The increased injuries are from much more violent impacts from players wearing "protective gear".

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Right. Better to let the skull crack. Lets out the evil spirits in the body anyway.

aa

The increased injuries are from much more violent impacts from players wearing "protective gear".

Agreed wrt Football. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much of an analogue to bicycle/motorcycle helmets. The ground isn't going to hit you less hard because you aren't wearing protective gear.

aa

 

[Earl IV]

The increased injuries are from much more violent impacts from players wearing "protective gear".

Agreed wrt Football. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much of an analogue to bicycle/motorcycle helmets. The ground isn't going to hit you less hard because you aren't wearing protective gear.

aa

Agreed, although the ground is much more likely to hit you harder than a 13mph drop of 6ft while riding a motorcycle.

Which makes bicycle helmets an even bigger joke.

 

[bilby]

My husband and I are recumbent trike riders. Being trikes, it means that the risk of fall is greatly reduced. However, my husband is a strong adept of wearing a protective head gear. Being a nurse who has had ample experience working in ERs and ICUs, he knows better than dismissing protective head gears as unnecessary or non effective.

So, we both wear protective head gears while riding our recumbent "tadpoles". We are both fully aware that if hit by a vehicle, wearing protective head gears will reduce the potential for head traumas and BTI's (since the fall risk alone is eliminated when riding trikes).

Then of course, those of us who are parents have to consider how it sounds like to a child when mom or dad mandates they wear a protective head gear on their bicycle, but mom or dad refuses to wear one on their bicycle. I think the parents among us know what happens when we "do not walk our talk".


No matter the temperatures which can reach the high 90's in the summer months in Central Florida adding 100% humidity. No matter that being outdoors and while in sun exposed areas, we are talking of temperatures reaching the low 100's.

I understand that you believe that it is a good idea to wear a helmet; but the research says that it isn't in reality any safer than not wearing one. So if you want to do it, go for your life - but don't impose your belief on others.

 

[Earl IV]

Of note:

The premiums on my health insurance and medical coverage on my bike reflect my decision to continue to smoke and ride without a helmet.

The law states I must wear a seatbelt so I do, even though the irony of "added safety" being belted inside a 3-5,000 lb steel cage is made obvious atop of a motorcycle (regardless of helmet use)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I love this argument.

"I demand the right to scramble my brain because this seat belt/helmet law is a threat to my freedom"

#firstworldproblems

 

[Earl IV]

I love this argument.

"I demand the right to scramble my brain because this seat belt/helmet law is a threat to my freedom"

#firstworldproblems

Meh

More like the, "I'd rather be dead than a quadriplegic" argument.

 

[TV and credit cards]

My husband and I are recumbent trike riders. Being trikes, it means that the risk of fall is greatly reduced. However, my husband is a strong adept of wearing a protective head gear. Being a nurse who has had ample experience working in ERs and ICUs, he knows better than dismissing protective head gears as unnecessary or non effective.

So, we both wear protective head gears while riding our recumbent "tadpoles". We are both fully aware that if hit by a vehicle, wearing protective head gears will reduce the potential for head traumas and BTI's (since the fall risk alone is eliminated when riding trikes).

Then of course, those of us who are parents have to consider how it sounds like to a child when mom or dad mandates they wear a protective head gear on their bicycle, but mom or dad refuses to wear one on their bicycle. I think the parents among us know what happens when we "do not walk our talk".


No matter the temperatures which can reach the high 90's in the summer months in Central Florida adding 100% humidity. No matter that being outdoors and while in sun exposed areas, we are talking of temperatures reaching the low 100's.

I understand that you believe that it is a good idea to wear a helmet; but the research says that it isn't in reality any safer than not wearing one. So if you want to do it, go for your life - but don't impose your belief on others.

I believe this is largely due to infrastructure; consider the Netherlands versus the United States. Attitudes of motor vehicle drivers; in the US we are largely considered as not having a right to the road. How the bicycle is used; as transportation, accidents are much more rare than in road or mountain bike sports and I would venture to guess, childplay. I think it's really a matter of where you live and how/where you ride.
If the NTHSA would commit to studying the matter with regards to bicycle helmets, perhaps some of what they find would also be useful for other sports such as hockey and football.
My understanding is that rotational injuries are more of a concern than linear ones and helmets do nothing to prevent rotational injuries. Further, between the multiple vents, visor, aero design, and strap, I wonder if neck injuries from snagging should be more of a concern riding in wooded areas.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're tellin' me... The roads here suck big time.

BTW, is that your bobber in your avatar photo?

Yup, but it's a Fatboy

And no, I don't wear a stupid lid.

 

[Cobalt]

I love this argument.

"I demand the right to scramble my brain because this seat belt/helmet law is a threat to my freedom"

#firstworldproblems

Meh

More like the, "I'd rather be dead than a quadriplegic" argument.

I'm a little glad you feel that way. If you are going to ride without a suplimental brain case, I hope you don't get in a wreck. But if you must wreck, please do so where and when your body is likely to be quickly recovered so that your organs can hopefully go to benefit others. Seriously. Mostly.

Just two weeks ago I lifted a V-twin off the busted-up body of a guy who was lane splitting in Oregon (where it is not legal, unlike in California). He had weaved between two lanes of cars going the same direction, then tried the same thing between lanes going the opposite direction. Center line curbs apparently were not expected...

He was wearing a helmet and I expect he survived based on how he was responding by the time the EMTs arrived. I hope he had private insurance.

 

[Sabine Grant]

My husband and I are recumbent trike riders. Being trikes, it means that the risk of fall is greatly reduced. However, my husband is a strong adept of wearing a protective head gear. Being a nurse who has had ample experience working in ERs and ICUs, he knows better than dismissing protective head gears as unnecessary or non effective.

So, we both wear protective head gears while riding our recumbent "tadpoles". We are both fully aware that if hit by a vehicle, wearing protective head gears will reduce the potential for head traumas and BTI's (since the fall risk alone is eliminated when riding trikes).

Then of course, those of us who are parents have to consider how it sounds like to a child when mom or dad mandates they wear a protective head gear on their bicycle, but mom or dad refuses to wear one on their bicycle. I think the parents among us know what happens when we "do not walk our talk".


No matter the temperatures which can reach the high 90's in the summer months in Central Florida adding 100% humidity. No matter that being outdoors and while in sun exposed areas, we are talking of temperatures reaching the low 100's.

I understand that you believe that it is a good idea to wear a helmet;

Actually what was to be understood from my comments is : I trust my husband's risk assessment regarding wearing a protective head gear versus none based on his reality grounded experience in ERs and ICUs where he had ample time to observe the type of injuries sustained by individuals who did not wear a protective head gear.

but the research says that it isn't in reality any safer than not wearing one.

It depends on how the trauma comes about. If you get hit by a truck, it probably will not make a difference.(considering the type on internal injuries it would cause regardless of any head trauma) However, if you take a spill and hit your head, yes it does make a difference to wear a head protective gear. If "it isn't in reality any safer than not wearing one" one has to wonder why professional bicyclists engaged in a race like the Tour De France always wear protective head gear. Considering that the wearing of a head protective gear in France or "casque" is mandated only for drivers of a 2 wheel motorized vehicle. Meaning not bicycles. Consistently within the professional bicycling milieu, riders will wear a protective head gear.

Would all those folks be somehow unaware that wearing a head protective gear will not make any difference and does not make their athletic activities safer when it comes to injuries resulting from a trauma to the head?

So if you want to do it, go for your life - but don't impose your belief on others.

I will take it that the "you" was a general "you" and not one assuming that I am imposing my "beliefs" on others.

 

[bilby]

I understand that you believe that it is a good idea to wear a helmet;

Actually what was to be understood from my comments is : I trust my husband's risk assessment regarding wearing a protective head gear versus none based on his reality grounded experience in ERs and ICUs where he had ample time to observe the type of injuries sustained by individuals who did not wear a protective head gear.

but the research says that it isn't in reality any safer than not wearing one.

It depends on how the trauma comes about. If you get hit by a truck, it probably will not make a difference.(considering the type on internal injuries it would cause regardless of any head trauma) However, if you take a spill and hit your head, yes it does make a difference to wear a head protective gear. If "it isn't in reality any safer than not wearing one" one has to wonder why professional bicyclists engaged in a race like the Tour De France always wear protective head gear. Considering that the wearing of a head protective gear in France or "casque" is mandated only for drivers of a 2 wheel motorized vehicle. Meaning not bicycles. Consistently within the professional bicycling milieu, riders will wear a protective head gear.

Would all those folks be somehow unaware that wearing a head protective gear will not make any difference and does not make their athletic activities safer when it comes to injuries resulting from a trauma to the head?

So if you want to do it, go for your life - but don't impose your belief on others.

I will take it that the "you" was a general "you" and not one assuming that I am imposing my "beliefs" on others.

Indeed. I am not arguing that people who want to wear helmets while riding a bicycle should be discouraged from doing so; rather that they should recognise that their risk assessment is not universal, and so laws mandating the wearing of such helmets area poor idea, and should not be supported.

The competitors in the Tour de France are at far higher risk than most casual cyclists; they ride as fast as they can, in close formation, and falls and crashes are common. I would choose to wear a helmet in such circumstances; but I would not choose to wear a helmet in order to casually cycle to the shop for a loaf of bread. Indeed, the research I posted earlier indicates that the risks of wearing a helmet in most circumstances outweigh the benefits. This is counter-intuitive, but that just goes to show that common sense is not always a good guide to reality.

All the evidence suggests that the best policy is to keep helmets optional, and let people decide for themselves whether or not to wear one.

 

[James Brown]

What if you signed a document that states, "I assume the risk of not wearing a helmet (or seat belts, or whatever)"?

Then, when the situation calls for it, you can't be issued a ticket for not wearing one. You just show the document to the police officer and he waves you on.

But if you're injured you can't receive public assistance for your medical care, because you've assumed the risk.

 

[Earl IV]

What if you signed a document that states, "I assume the risk of not wearing a helmet (or seat belts, or whatever)"?

Then, when the situation calls for it, you can't be issued a ticket for not wearing one. You just show the document to the police officer and he waves you on.

But if you're injured you can't receive public assistance for your medical care, because you've assumed the risk.

Michigan requires riders to have supplemental medical coverage to ride without a helmet.

I'm good with that

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I love this argument.

"I demand the right to scramble my brain because this seat belt/helmet law is a threat to my freedom"

#firstworldproblems

Meh

More like the, "I'd rather be dead than a quadriplegic" argument.

and yet that isn't the way it's put in a legal brief. Probably due to the fact if it was, the petitioner would run the risk of having the courts outlaw bikes in general, given only those two possible outcomes.

#firstworldproblems
#falsedichotomy

- - - Updated - - -

I love this argument.

"I demand the right to scramble my brain because this seat belt/helmet law is a threat to my freedom"

#firstworldproblems

Meh

More like the, "I'd rather be dead than a quadriplegic" argument.

and yet that isn't the way it's put in a legal brief. Probably due to the fact if it was, the petitioner would run the risk of having the courts outlaw bikes in general, given only those two possible outcomes.

#firstworldproblems
#falsedichotomy

- - - Updated - - -

I love this argument.

"I demand the right to scramble my brain because this seat belt/helmet law is a threat to my freedom"

#firstworldproblems

Meh

More like the, "I'd rather be dead than a quadriplegic" argument.

and yet that isn't the way it's put in a legal brief. Probably due to the fact if it was, the petitioner would run the risk of having the courts outlaw bikes in general, given only those two possible outcomes.

#firstworldproblems
#falsedichotomy

 

[dismal]

What if you signed a document that states, "I assume the risk of not wearing a helmet (or seat belts, or whatever)"?

Then, when the situation calls for it, you can't be issued a ticket for not wearing one. You just show the document to the police officer and he waves you on.

But if you're injured you can't receive public assistance for your medical care, because you've assumed the risk.

This is what I suggested earlier, although I imagined it as a licensing fee of sorts (a box that one can check when one applies for a license) -- prefaced with the requirement that an actual analysis of the additional cost imposed on society be done to establish the fee (or credit, as the case may be).

I don't see how anyone could argue against that if their true motive is protecting society from the cost of this action.

 

[NobleSavage]

What if you signed a document that states, "I assume the risk of not wearing a helmet (or seat belts, or whatever)"?

Then, when the situation calls for it, you can't be issued a ticket for not wearing one. You just show the document to the police officer and he waves you on.

But if you're injured you can't receive public assistance for your medical care, because you've assumed the risk.

This is what I suggested earlier, although I imagined it as a licensing fee of sorts (a box that one can check when one applies for a license) -- prefaced with the requirement that an actual analysis of the additional cost imposed on society be done to establish the fee (or credit, as the case may be).

I don't see how anyone could argue against that if their true motive is protecting society from the cost of this action.

This is good.