FiftySix

Same in Texas if 21 or older for motorcycles. Then there are under 18 bicycle helmet laws in some of the cities here.

I wonder if this info posted by Joe R. in the comments section of the article is true?

Risk of head injury per million hours traveled:

Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66

scott967

I've been helping out my Dad across from New Orleans on the westbank for a couple months. In this time I have seen exactly 1 recreational cyclist. All I see is transportation cyclists and exactly zero are wearing a helmet. Back home in HI the recreational and commuter cyclists wear helmets. The urban cyclists (including Biki bike share) do not.

In HI there aren't many bike fatalities, and I don't recall helmet making any difference. But then I guess there's a thread for that.

scott s.
.

livedarklions

Are you trying to be a bothersome bore or....

mr_bill

No, I’m trying not to call you a.....

-mr. bill

I-Like-To-Bike

Frankly?
Care to point out where I ever said anything about not seeing Specialized bikes in Iowa or anywhere else? Perhaps you should respond to what has actually been posted, rather than your own snarky "interpretations" and fabrications.

79pmooney

I've lived in a half dozen cities over the years. One thing I've observed in every one - working class types who ride bikes because they cannot afford cars (or cannot obtain a license) almost never wear helmets.

Ben

BengalCat

It's too late for the panelists since they obviously have in one way or another already suffered brain damaged as evident by their arrested thinking. A helmet would not help them. Oh well, they have to do something to justify their phony baloney jobs.

livedarklions

The too much Trek thread. First, you basically called someone a liar because they said they saw a lot of S-Works in Japan and then went on an absurd rant about how small Trek and Specialized market share of adult's bikes is. I believe you claimed that most adults ride sub-$100 bikes. So, ok, you didn't actually say "no Specialized" , but you certainly implied they're rare on the street.

This is a side issue on this thread, so I won't be responding on it further, but generally you and the person I was responding to are demonstrating classic confirmation bias.

livedarklions

Yes, please don't call me a mr. bill. That guy's an....

mr_bill

People who can't afford to buy a helmet often don't buy a helmet.
People who can't afford to buy a bike bell often don't buy a bike bell.
People who can't afford to buy bike lights often don't buy bike lights.
People who can't afford to buy button batteries often don't buy button batteries.

Around here bicycle advocacy groups will often give out bike lights this time of year. (See #lightbrigade .) And while they are at it bells, reflective bands, etc....

But some of these groups shy away from giving away bike helmets because a few vocal "advocates" object to giving away bike helmets.

So that task falls to community safety groups, often police, which brings another whole set of issues. (See the completely hamhanded, and I'm being kind, bike helmet giveaway by Salem Police.)


Other people who often don't buy a bike helmet are people who very rarely ride bikes.

-mr. bill

mr_bill

Well, in fact, about 75-80% of adults on bikes in Boston wear bike helmets, which are not required by law.
Completely coincidentally, about 75-80% of adults in cars in Boston wear seatbelts, which are required by law.

The rate of wearing a helmet rises to 100% for adults riding in a charity ride like Pan Mass or Bike MS. Because they are required - period.

And 100% for group/club rides. Both because they are required by the group/club, and because if they weren't the INCESSANT WHINGING about helmets - both by those who REFUSE to use a helmet and by the those who ALWAYS wear a helmet, makes for a very unpleasant ride.

Around here about 95% of people commuting to work wear bike helmets, even if they are riding a Blue Bike.
And about 20% of people who ride a Blue Bike "occassionaly."

And the lowest rates of wearing a helmet are by adults who can't afford to buy a helmet.

-mr. bill

Stadjer

Sounds a bit like 'if you only have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail'.

The 'safety in numbers' argument might not be viable because the numbers are too far of, but if you want to move towards more cycling people just jumping on a bike for short errands and use of rental bikes might be important. The comparison with seat belts doesn't seem fair to me as seatbelts are actually a substantial contribution to safety.

It also sends the wrong messages. Like the helmet is the difference between safe and unsafe cycling. And the message that you need other equipment than a bike for cycling is a wrong one too.

livedarklions

Thanks for the data and the perspective, both are actually interesting, as opposed to your pointless bickering.

About 20-25% of adults unhelmeted sounds about right to me, it's definitely a minority, which is not inconsistent with anything I've said. It's also a lot more than "none", which was the statement I was pushing back on. Having ridden for several years in California, I found that claim completely implausible for California as well as for Boston.

Why you chose to jump on me with your dopey "tons" comment, I have no idea. You're absolutely an infuriating poster because I want to read your stuff because I learn a lot, but the level of obnoxious put-downs and insinuations always has me with one finger on the /ignore trigger.

So I'm trying to get your perspective on this, and am asking as politely as I can--are you saying that you're in favor of moving towards universal helmet use by giving people free helmets but not mandating them? I think that's what I'm getting from reading between the lines on this post. TBH, I don't have a strong opinion on mandating, but I tend to stray away from things that empower cops to get you off your bike "for your own good". I'm asking for your opinion on mandating their use because a) you know TONS more about it than I do and b) because you've given a lot of thought to it.

I will say that I'm finding the "riding a helmet makes you less safe" arguments just about as credible as anti-vaxx and flat earth.

I-Like-To-Bike

Again, what "you believe" I posted is wrong, someone else incorrectly posted that I claimed that most adults ride sub-$100 bikes. You again are responding to strawman arguments created by you, or another poster, substituting words/or incorrect paraphrasing in order to change the meaning of what has actually been posted to better fit your own response.

You previously responded to your incorrect claims that I posted not seeing any bike from Specialized where I live "in the Land of RAGBRAI", rather than what I actually posted which was a question to another poster about the location where he claimed to observe that a specific, very pricey $10,000+ Specialized model, The S-Works, was everywhere.

Your decision not to respond again to what you "believe" I posted is welcome.

work4bike

It'd be kind of funny to have a helmet law for cyclists here in Florida where motorcyclists don't require a helmet...

rydabent

It remains they are self centered B'crats that want to control everyones lives. As I posted I never leave the house without a helmet. Stop with all the unnecessary laws and regulations.

livedarklions

How the hell do you know whether they're self-centered or not, and why does it matter? It's either good policy or it's not. "Unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder--you can argue for your point of view on why it's not necessary without automatically assuming someone is a villain here. In the big scheme of things, I think the NTSB's work has saved a hell of a lot of lives, I just think they're out of their depth on this one.

mr_bill

This topic is still destined for the everlasting gobstopper thread, but....

The only change to Massachusetts bicycle helmet law that I support is this: STRIKE: "A bicycle operated by a person under the age of eighteen in violation of this section may be impounded by the police department, or in a town which has no police department, by the selectmen, for a period not to exceed fifteen days." Springfield, Lowell, and Salem all had high profiles abuses of this section this summer, but this is abused constantly and it has to stop. (A nice side effect of striking that sentence? There would be no penalty for not wearing a bicycle helmet in Massachusetts. If that bothers someone too much, I suggest the fine be set at $1.00 for a first offence, $2.00 for subsequent offences, with a coupon that can be redemed for a helmet.)

Bicycle helmets are a medical question, not a legal question. The usual suspects here can argue with their own doctors all they want.

Bicycle helmet giveways are a proven intervention by the way. Surprisingly high percentage of people continue to wear a helmet once they start wearing a helmet.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

To tell you the truth, I waded into that thread exactly once, saw it was the same conversation over and again for umpteen million pages, and sort of forgot it existed.

If I understood the gist of that thread, there are two countries in the entire world, and one of them is Holland.

mr_bill

True story. Friends moved from Amsterdam to Boston. Brought their Dutch bikes.

Bought bicycle helmets.

Riding a bicycle is not dangerous.
Driving a motor vehicle is dangerous.

-mr. bill

wphamilton

Allegedly the NTSB leaders disregarded the NTSB's own research and conclusions to come up with this objectively flawed and superficial recommendation. I haven't seen anything yet that legitimately speaks to their motivations, but it's human nature to speculate.

mr_bill

The allegations are false.

Mitigating Head Injuries Particularly slides 39 and 41.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

It's also human nature to engage in pointless ad hominem, and it makes the person doing it sound like an uninformed buffoon. I don't buy this "objectively flawed and superficial" nonsense--it's just not a clear and easy call either way.

wphamilton

Be that as it may, the measure was basically an ambush in the meeting. Brought up by surprise, against the staff recommendations.

Objectively superficial because it looked at only one data point, flawed because it generalized from the one data point without consideration of the actual, documented effects of similar measures (the same mistake someone else just made in this thread).

mr_bill

Agree or disagree, listen to or ignore the evidence. But "basically an ambush" it wasn't.

-mr. bill