Helmet and Sea belt Law and my affinity for Libertarians

[scombrid]

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.

Because they're going really fast, often in tight bunches, often on windy roads, on really skinny tires.

Whether or not helmets increase safety is probably case specific. It is probably a small subset of riders that have an elevated risk of accident that would benefit from a helmet.

It seems fairly clear from the data that on average helmets do not increase safety. This is likely because among casual and commuter riders the risk of an accident that would result in head trauma is actually pretty low. Sure if they do happen to fall in a way that they smack their head on the curb then a helmet would have helped. But the actual rate of such injuries per number of riders must be pretty low.

There's a big difference between grinding out 50 miles on the back roads of Volusia and Lake Counties at 20+ mph on a skinny tire bike with roads filled with rednecks and blue hairs that think I shouldn't be on the roads in the first place and me riding my beach cruiser along Rockledge Drive where the speed limit for cars is 20 mph and there are gobs of riders and pedstrians such that cars expect you to be there and respect your non-motorized presence.

 

[doubtingt]

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.

Any reasonable person would argue against it on the grounds that its completely impractical and could never work in any remotely humane society. Here is what you are proposing:
A guy gets into an bad accident. He's mangled and really fucked up and bleeding from the head. The ambulance arrives and although his chances of survival decrease with each second, the EMTs first check his wallet to see if he has a "I choose not to wear a helmet card". If he has one, they say "Oh well, stop all treatment, just get the shovel so we can push his dying mass of bleed flesh out of the way of traffic, then let's go get lunch." IF he does not have such a card they say "Don't bother boys, in the time we spent deciding whether to treat him, he died."

 

[NobleSavage]

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.

Any reasonable person would argue against it on the grounds that its completely impractical and could never work in any remotely humane society. Here is what you are proposing:
A guy gets into an bad accident. He's mangled and really fucked up and bleeding from the head. The ambulance arrives and although his chances of survival decrease with each second, the EMTs first check his wallet to see if he has a "I choose not to wear a helmet card". If he has one, they say "Oh well, stop all treatment, just get the shovel so we can push his dying mass of bleed flesh out of the way of traffic, then let's go get lunch." IF he does not have such a card they say "Don't bother boys, in the time we spent deciding whether to treat him, he died."

We could handle that quickly with RFID tags

 

[dismal]

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.

Any reasonable person would argue against it on the grounds that its completely impractical and could never work in any remotely humane society. Here is what you are proposing:
A guy gets into an bad accident. He's mangled and really fucked up and bleeding from the head. The ambulance arrives and although his chances of survival decrease with each second, the EMTs first check his wallet to see if he has a "I choose not to wear a helmet card". If he has one, they say "Oh well, stop all treatment, just get the shovel so we can push his dying mass of bleed flesh out of the way of traffic, then let's go get lunch." IF he does not have such a card they say "Don't bother boys, in the time we spent deciding whether to treat him, he died."

Yeah, well I don't recall having argued for anything like that.

To the best of my recollection I suggested a higher (or lower) fee for those who checked a "no helmet" box when they applied for a motor cycle license.

If you were caught riding without a helmet without a "no helmet" license the cops could give you some sort of fine large enough to discourage this behavior. Or vice versa depending on how the math turned out.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Which government is bigger:

A) The one that decides to arbitrarily start fining people without helmets

B) The one with the 'Department of Bicycles' that forces all pedestrians to declare their helmet wearing preference, licenses all bicyclists and affixes everyone with an RFID tag to properly identify helmet wearing status, conducts annual studies into the cost differences between wearing helmets and not, and also polices and fines people without helmets.

The cost of sustaining the 'Department of Bicycles' alone would drive the fines up to astronomical levels. But hey, at least they aren't telling me what to do.

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Because they're going really fast, often in tight bunches, often on windy roads, on really skinny tires.

Triathlons require them too, even when drafting was illegal and cyclists were going all sorts of speed. All for insurance purposes. So clearly the insurance industry thinks it is a risk.

Whether or not helmets increase safety is probably case specific.

Helmets reduce head injuries in crashes that involve head impacts.

It seems fairly clear from the data that on average helmets do not increase safety. This is likely because among casual and commuter riders the risk of an accident that would result in head trauma is actually pretty low. Sure if they do happen to fall in a way that they smack their head on the curb then a helmet would have helped. But the actual rate of such injuries per number of riders must be pretty low.

From a quick search, it seems safe biking initiatives, better cycling infrastructure has more impact than helmets in reducing head trauma. IE, prevent the accident. I do ponder, if you do get in an accident that involves your head and neck, regardless if you have a helmet on, you probably would do to the hospital any way.

There's a big difference between grinding out 50 miles on the back roads of Volusia and Lake Counties at 20+ mph on a skinny tire bike with roads filled with rednecks and blue hairs that think I shouldn't be on the roads in the first place and me riding my beach cruiser along Rockledge Drive where the speed limit for cars is 20 mph and there are gobs of riders and pedstrians such that cars expect you to be there and respect your non-motorized presence.

Funny. In the later case, the problem isn't the cars, it is the children jumping out in front of you to get across the street.

 

[doubtingt]

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)

Meta-analyses of many studies show that motorcycle accident where the injuries require a hospital stay are more than twice as expensive when the person had no helmet. Those already include any costs of injuries caused by wearing the helmet. In addition, it is certain that not wearing a helmet greatly increases the odds that an accident will require hospitalization, which means the cost of helmet wearing accidents is much lower than reported in these studies that only include hospitalizations. IOW, the cost is likely closer to 3-5 times higher for non-helmet accidents, when even non-hospitalization accidents are included.

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

If you think your argument is at all reasonable, then perhaps you are correct about wearing a helmet all the time. They do not just drop the helmets and look for damage. First, they drop the helmets with weighted headforms in them onto anvils that are harder than any plausible surface the head would strike, and they drop it onto multiple shapes including rounded or edged corners of the anvil that increase the focal impact. The impact simulates the head striking the corner of a curb made out of anvil like (much harder than concrete) material at 13 mph. This is the speed at which the head itself strikes the ground or other surface in more than 90% of crashes. Note, the speed of travel can by 60-80 mph, and yet by the time the head hits something many other factors have absorbed most of the acceleration and the head only hits at the equivalent of the force used in these tests. Despite this, every study shows that head injuries and total cost are several times higher without a helmet, because a direct blow to the head from an immovable object at 13 mph is still skull splitting, brain scramblingly severe. When you fall down drunk, your head isn't hitting the ground at 13 mph. By the time the rest of your body breaks your fall, its probably closer to 1-3 mhp, not to mention its a single strike rather than the numerous head blows at 13 mph that a motorcycle accident typically entails due to the overall high speed momentum of the body and the bike that the rider is often still being pushed along the ground by during a crash.
In addition, they do not merely look at the helmet for damage. They measure the g-forces that reach the headform inside the helmet and those forces must be below a certain level, showing how much force the helmet absorbs and how much it allows to pass to the person's head, which is relevant to crashes with more than the typical force of 13 mph directly to the head.

The empirical fact that helmets reduce head injuries by 1/2 to 2/3 shows your argument that helmets wouldn't protect you from anything more than falling down when drunk is what is laughable, and not the standards. Although, sure let's make the standards much higher and harder to pass.

 

[TacticalLoco]

That's subjective. Society doesn't have to take care of people that get fucked up because of their own stupidity.

View attachment 677

So you think these people are stupid because they can't afford a Volvo? Is that about right?

 

[TacticalLoco]

Based on what I've read about smoking and cancer, it breaks even between shorter life span and increased medical expenses.

I wouldn't be surprised if people not wearing helmets actually are a cost benefit to society because a quick death at 22 saves society a lot of money. But either way, we do the math and we live with it. Maybe we end up paying people not to wear helmets. Maybe we charge them for it.

A great example of what is wrong with the whole Liberation way of looking at things! Well done!

 

[Togo]

Motorcycle helmets =/ bicycle helmets

 

[doubtingt]

Any reasonable person would argue against it on the grounds that its completely impractical and could never work in any remotely humane society. Here is what you are proposing:
A guy gets into an bad accident. He's mangled and really fucked up and bleeding from the head. The ambulance arrives and although his chances of survival decrease with each second, the EMTs first check his wallet to see if he has a "I choose not to wear a helmet card". If he has one, they say "Oh well, stop all treatment, just get the shovel so we can push his dying mass of bleed flesh out of the way of traffic, then let's go get lunch." IF he does not have such a card they say "Don't bother boys, in the time we spent deciding whether to treat him, he died."

We could handle that quickly with RFID tags

So, you're advocating that all voluntary non-helmet wearing riders be forcibly implanted with a chip? Because putting it on the bike does not help given that others could ride the bike, bikes get sold, etc.. Not to mention, that doesn't save any time, you'd still need EMTs to not treat the patient until they get out their RFID reading equipment and verify that the person paid the fee, and if the RFID in anywhere but implanted on the person, you'd have to cross check it against a picture ID to verify the injured person is the one who paid the fee. Besides all of that, it doesn't deal at all with the fact that anyone who didn't pay the fee would be left to die in the street. Oh and all of that tech and related costs should be covered 100% by those who don't wear helmets.

 

[doubtingt]

Any reasonable person would argue against it on the grounds that its completely impractical and could never work in any remotely humane society. Here is what you are proposing:
A guy gets into an bad accident. He's mangled and really fucked up and bleeding from the head. The ambulance arrives and although his chances of survival decrease with each second, the EMTs first check his wallet to see if he has a "I choose not to wear a helmet card". If he has one, they say "Oh well, stop all treatment, just get the shovel so we can push his dying mass of bleed flesh out of the way of traffic, then let's go get lunch." IF he does not have such a card they say "Don't bother boys, in the time we spent deciding whether to treat him, he died."

Yeah, well I don't recall having argued for anything like that.

To the best of my recollection I suggested a higher (or lower) fee for those who checked a "no helmet" box when they applied for a motor cycle license.

You were echoing James Brown's comment that if you didn't wear a helmet and didn't pay the opt-out fee that "you can't receive public assistance for your medical care, because you've assumed the risk." Paying a fee ahead of time only works if everyone without a helmet pays the fee. Unless we can be sure every person without a helmet has paid the fee, then the scenario I described would apply and all non-helmet riders would need to be verified as having paid the fee prior to administering any emergency care.

If you were caught riding without a helmet without a "no helmet" license the cops could give you some sort of fine large enough to discourage this behavior.

It would have to more than "discourage" it, it would have to be a fine so massive as to make the behavior virtually non-existent and/or cover the costs of injuries to non-helmet wearing riders without a "no helmet" license. IOW, about $20,000 for a first offense or several hundred times whatever the license fee is. Unlike most a priori fee versus fine situations, this would need to be set up to essentially eliminate any need for enforcement and verification checks by making the penalty so extreme that even a person with no money, opposed to government fees, and an irrational belief they won't get caught would still not risk getting caught because of the penalty.




Or vice versa depending on how the math turned out.

 

[dismal]

You were echoing James Brown's comment that if you didn't wear a helmet and didn't pay the opt-out fee that "you can't receive public assistance for your medical care, because you've assumed the risk."

You have failed to convince me I said something I never said. But maybe if you really dig in and argue some more you will convince me I said it.

It would have to more than "discourage" it, it would have to be a fine so massive as to make the behavior virtually non-existent and/or cover the costs of injuries to non-helmet wearing riders without a "no helmet" license. IOW, about $20,000 for a first offense or several hundred times whatever the license fee is.

In principle I agree with you. The fine should be set large enough to a) encourage the desired behavior b) be large enough to offset the cost the scofflaws impose. However, I have no idea at this point exactly how much wearing not wearing a helmet costs society (if indeed it costs society at all...) , let alone what sort of fine it would take to get people to comply with wearing a helmet, etc etc. I'm surprised you are capable of spitting this number out off the top of your head. Are you some sort of mathematical savant, or do you have some study you can point us to that has already done all this math?

 

[doubtingt]

You have failed to convince me I said something I never said. But maybe if you really dig in and argue some more you will convince me I said it.

Your inability to understand the direct logical implications necessitated by your words, doesn't erase that these realities were inherently entailed by what you said. Allowing opt-outs means having to enforce and verify who paid the opt-out fees on the scene of the accident. The only way in which this is not true is if the fines are so extreme that essentially zero people ever risk not paying the fee.

I'm surprised you are capable of spitting this number out off the top of your head.

The number isn't based upon recouping the cost to society, but as I explained, upon the need to eliminate any attempt by anyone to risk ever having to pay it even once, an thereby eliminate any need for verification of compliance on the scene of any accident, which is what is required for your proposal to have any plausibility. The fine isn't about recouping loses but eliminating the behavior to the point it is so extremely rare that its pointless to spend time verifying compliance.
Unless the fine is big enough to basically financially ruin many people, then many will still risk it. We know that many/most people will risk several hundred dollars in fines for many traffic violations, so we know the fine for this must be many times those fines. $20,000k is just an estimate of the minimum that would be needed to reduce the behavior to near zero.

 

[dismal]

Your inability to understand the direct logical implications necessitated by your words, doesn't erase that these realities were inherently entailed by what you said. Allowing opt-outs means having to enforce and verify who paid the opt-out fees on the scene of the accident. The only way in which this is not true is if the fines are so extreme that essentially zero people ever risk not paying the fee.

Wow, your energy and commitment to relentlessly dig in to the position I said something I didn't say is really starting to convince me. If only there were some record of me saying it I might come over to your side.

The number isn't based upon recouping the cost to society, but as I explained, upon the need to eliminate any attempt by anyone to risk ever having to pay it even once, an thereby eliminate any need for verification of compliance on the scene of any accident, which is what is required for your proposal to have any plausibility. The fine isn't about recouping loses but eliminating the behavior to the point it is so extremely rare that its pointless to spend time verifying compliance.
Unless the fine is big enough to basically financially ruin many people, then many will still risk it. We know that many/most people will risk several hundred dollars in fines for many traffic violations, so we know the fine for this must be many times those fines. $20,000k is just an estimate of the minimum that would be needed to reduce the behavior to near zero.

Well, I'd like to see your math before signing on.

 

[TacticalLoco]

I know you live in a world where the cost/benefit analysis is your holy mantra, but there are a few people, those with empathy that look a little beyond that.

Actually it was the premise of others in this thread that the "cost to society" justifies these laws. Feel free to go back and correct each of them because you must have missed it when they first posted.

And of course, there is no way to measure cost except in dollar amounts, right? Keep fiddlin'...

 

[Earl IV]

Actually, an even safer alternative to helmets would be to wrap the motorcycle in a protective cage, made of steel, and add two tires for stability.

Then add seatbelts for good measure.


There was an accident Monday about 5mi from my house involving a motorcycle and car, rider was killed.

He was weaving through traffic at speeds exceeding 100mph trying to outrun a cop (in pursuit) and failed to negotiate a turn, ran head on into a young lady in a car. FUBAR.

Had a helmet on though

Still wasn't a fix for stupid.

 

[doubtingt]

Wow, your energy and commitment to relentlessly dig in to the position I said something I didn't say is really starting to convince me. If only there were some record of me saying it I might come over to your side.

I have provided clear-cut evidence that you said things that logically entail the scenario I described. The fact that you continue to deny this only shows your claim of being willing to agree if I provide evidence, predictably, false. Either you are incapable or more plausibly unwilling to engage in the reasoned thought required to see the logical connection between what you said and the scenario I laid out.

The number isn't based upon recouping the cost to society, but as I explained, upon the need to eliminate any attempt by anyone to risk ever having to pay it even once, an thereby eliminate any need for verification of compliance on the scene of any accident, which is what is required for your proposal to have any plausibility. The fine isn't about recouping loses but eliminating the behavior to the point it is so extremely rare that its pointless to spend time verifying compliance.
Unless the fine is big enough to basically financially ruin many people, then many will still risk it. We know that many/most people will risk several hundred dollars in fines for many traffic violations, so we know the fine for this must be many times those fines. $20,000k is just an estimate of the minimum that would be needed to reduce the behavior to near zero.

Well, I'd like to see your math before signing on.

More unwillingness to reason, I see. It is not really about "the math" but mostly about well established facts of human behavior, namely that people will break traffic laws and refuse to pay fees even if it cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines and even time in jail, the fact that most people believe that they will not be the one's caught for violating a law (which is actually a rational belief in most cases), and the fact that many people (e.g., yourself and Earl IV) are so emotionally and ideologically against helmet laws that it makes them ignore objective facts and disregard reasoned thought. All of these facts (most not math related), predict that helmet/fee compliance would be far from total unless the fine is far more extreme than any other traffic laws(including DUI fines that can be in the thousands), potentially life ruining, and high enough that people who view breaking the law as part of their political identity and a noble act of defiance still would not risk the fine. That puts any reasonable estimate not much below $20K, although it could easily be higher. The only math required is the understanding that $20K meets the required "many times higher" than the $2K - $5k fines that many people are willing to risk for things like DUI. OTOH, the other thread on fines and wealth point out that no fine will be enough for some wealthier people, so the better strategy might be community service or prison, but the issue of needing some penalty more extreme than any other traffic penalties in order to eliminate the need for on-site accident verification still remains. To make it higher than DUI penalties would require hundreds of hours of service and multi-year loss of license. To anticipate your likely strawman distortion, my argument in no way presumes that DUI is worse than riding without a helmet. The extreme fees are not a punishment but rather to prevent any attempts to skirt the law that would require on-accident verification of fee payment prior to medical services, in order to achieve the goal you claim for the "opt-out" policy of recouping costs to society for helmetless riding.
You are trying to turn this into a debate about an exact number, when you know that the number is just an approximation of the more general concept of something much more extreme that the thousands in fines we know people are regularly willing to risk. You're trying to detract from the fact that your "opt-out" plan is incapable of doing what you claim unless the fine is so extreme that, unlike all other traffic laws, virtually no one would be willing to risk not paying the fee upfront and thus all accident victims can be assumed to be in compliance.

 

[dismal]

I have provided clear-cut evidence that you said things that logically entail the scenario I described. The fact that you continue to deny this only shows your claim of being willing to agree if I provide evidence, predictably, false. Either you are incapable or more plausibly unwilling to engage in the reasoned thought required to see the logical connection between what you said and the scenario I laid out.

Well, I'm still convinced the fact I never said it is pretty strong evidence I didn't say it. But keep trying.

The number isn't based upon recouping the cost to society, but as I explained, upon the need to eliminate any attempt by anyone to risk ever having to pay it even once, an thereby eliminate any need for verification of compliance on the scene of any accident, which is what is required for your proposal to have any plausibility. The fine isn't about recouping loses but eliminating the behavior to the point it is so extremely rare that its pointless to spend time verifying compliance.
Unless the fine is big enough to basically financially ruin many people, then many will still risk it. We know that many/most people will risk several hundred dollars in fines for many traffic violations, so we know the fine for this must be many times those fines. $20,000k is just an estimate of the minimum that would be needed to reduce the behavior to near zero.

The premise (not mine, but I have been operating under it for the sake of argument) was that the cost to society justifies these laws. If you are operating on a different premise, let us know.

So, unless you can tell us

1) The cost to society of people riding without helmets
2) The cost to society of people skirt the law under the proposal I have made I see no basis to start throwing $ figures about.

Indeed, I prefaced my original comment in the thread with a requirement that this math be done.

that many people (e.g., yourself and Earl IV) are so emotionally and ideologically against helmet laws

I don't recall having taken any position that would suggest this. You seem to have a habit of imagining people are saying things they aren't. Maybe you should go by what they actually say instead of what you imagine?

 

[Bronzeage]

* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

Now I understand that if I go flying through the windshield or crack my head on the side walk there is a chance that I'll end up costing society a bunch of money i.e. disability payments because I'm in a wheel chair sucking food through a straw. If I get fat, smoke, or do drugs I'm more likely to be a burden on the medical system. I know sin taxes work, but I don't like them.

I favor single payer insurance conceptually. However, I'm afraid it will lead to a bigger nanny state.

Yet, I was born in Europe, have traveled in Europe, and spent time an extended time in Southern France. I have no stats to back this up but my general impression is that Europeans smoke more, drink more, and fuck more. In France there wasn't the cultural expectation that you need to wear a helmet -- things may have changed; its been a while since I have been there.

Thoughts?

A single payer health insurance is a good thing to have if you don't want to wear a helmet while you ride your bike. It could lead to a nanny state, since it means every productive person now has a financial stake in keeping you healthy. It's not really nanny state, it's market forces at work.