Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

You're just not able to view things in a non-binary way. There's no simple binary that helmets are either effective or not effective. And I've never said that they were not effective. I've been saying they're not very effective. Certainly they're not effective enough for it to be worthwhile to make any effort to require their use -- which is the topic of this thread.

There is a real-world impact. Why did the CDC and NHTSA get busted for violating the Data Quality Act? Because the state of Maryland was advocating for mandatory helmet use, and they were pointing to bogus claims on the agencies' websites about the effectiveness of helmets. Clearly the public harm from a helmet law would have exceeded the benefit.

Your argument is that there is greater harm to the public good by the discouragement that cycling helmet laws would create? I understand it would impact some of the bike sharing programs that are ridiculously unpopular. However, your argument could be applied to modern safety features in automobiles. How much has modern safety equipment and design contributed to the cost of new cars? Increased cost forces people to drive older, less safe vehicles. For instance, the Fairfax County property tax encourages people to keep driving older cars. How much has this tax cost the public good? While public policy should attempt to serve the public good in general, absolute consideration of only the greater good is short-sighted when many of the things being valued are human lives which are difficult to reconcile on a balance sheet. Is there a certain number of tourists you are willing to sacrifice so that DC doesn't get a helmet law?

What they have is an argument, and a stupid one at that, but not facts.

It is self-evidently obviously and also backed by evidence that wearing helmets reduces head injuries and death.

There is ample evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling participation. There is also ample evidence that the health benefit of the exercise afforded by cycling outweighs the risk of injury.

There's still no particularly good reason not to wear a helmet when you're on a bike, though. Even if they reduce likelihood or severity of a head injury only slightly, I always feel like I'd rather have whatever protection they provide than not. That's a separate question from whether there ought to be helmet laws.

That's the difference between individual choice to wear a helmet (99.9% of the time for me) vs. a legal mandate that can have adverse impacts.

It's kind of like - alcohol is bad, right? Sure, we like it, but by all health measures it ought to be banned. However, the significant downsides of banning it (bootlegging, criminal underground) outweigh the health benefits of reduced drinking.

Anyway, there is a legal mandate in D.C. that kids wear bike helmets, so the whole premise of this thread is sort of off-base.

The premise is that a helmet law might deter children from riding bicycles, and by extension any form of exercise.

The original premise of this thread is that it's crazy that there are no bike safety laws for kids in D.C., which there are.

You are right. We just aren't enforcing them. "e-bikes" are nothing but electric mopeds. Mopeds have both helmet and license plate laws.

Only if the engine is over 50cc.

Not true in DC. A motorcycle is a motouzed 2 or 3 wheeled vehicle operated in excess of 30 mph.

[Anonymous]

There are laws here in Florida. And they are super strict about enforcement. Kids under 12 (I think it’s 12) must wear a helmet. They’ll stop kids on the way to school if they aren’t wearing a properly fitting helmet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

You're just not able to view things in a non-binary way. There's no simple binary that helmets are either effective or not effective. And I've never said that they were not effective. I've been saying they're not very effective. Certainly they're not effective enough for it to be worthwhile to make any effort to require their use -- which is the topic of this thread.

There is a real-world impact. Why did the CDC and NHTSA get busted for violating the Data Quality Act? Because the state of Maryland was advocating for mandatory helmet use, and they were pointing to bogus claims on the agencies' websites about the effectiveness of helmets. Clearly the public harm from a helmet law would have exceeded the benefit.

Your argument is that there is greater harm to the public good by the discouragement that cycling helmet laws would create? I understand it would impact some of the bike sharing programs that are ridiculously unpopular. However, your argument could be applied to modern safety features in automobiles. How much has modern safety equipment and design contributed to the cost of new cars? Increased cost forces people to drive older, less safe vehicles. For instance, the Fairfax County property tax encourages people to keep driving older cars. How much has this tax cost the public good? While public policy should attempt to serve the public good in general, absolute consideration of only the greater good is short-sighted when many of the things being valued are human lives which are difficult to reconcile on a balance sheet. Is there a certain number of tourists you are willing to sacrifice so that DC doesn't get a helmet law?

What they have is an argument, and a stupid one at that, but not facts.

It is self-evidently obviously and also backed by evidence that wearing helmets reduces head injuries and death.

There is ample evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling participation. There is also ample evidence that the health benefit of the exercise afforded by cycling outweighs the risk of injury.

There's still no particularly good reason not to wear a helmet when you're on a bike, though. Even if they reduce likelihood or severity of a head injury only slightly, I always feel like I'd rather have whatever protection they provide than not. That's a separate question from whether there ought to be helmet laws.

That's the difference between individual choice to wear a helmet (99.9% of the time for me) vs. a legal mandate that can have adverse impacts.

It's kind of like - alcohol is bad, right? Sure, we like it, but by all health measures it ought to be banned. However, the significant downsides of banning it (bootlegging, criminal underground) outweigh the health benefits of reduced drinking.

Anyway, there is a legal mandate in D.C. that kids wear bike helmets, so the whole premise of this thread is sort of off-base.

The premise is that a helmet law might deter children from riding bicycles, and by extension any form of exercise.

The original premise of this thread is that it's crazy that there are no bike safety laws for kids in D.C., which there are.

You are right. We just aren't enforcing them. "e-bikes" are nothing but electric mopeds. Mopeds have both helmet and license plate laws.

D.C. requires that kids under 16 wear helmets on regular bikes, too. This has nothing to do with e-bikes or mopeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

You're just not able to view things in a non-binary way. There's no simple binary that helmets are either effective or not effective. And I've never said that they were not effective. I've been saying they're not very effective. Certainly they're not effective enough for it to be worthwhile to make any effort to require their use -- which is the topic of this thread.

There is a real-world impact. Why did the CDC and NHTSA get busted for violating the Data Quality Act? Because the state of Maryland was advocating for mandatory helmet use, and they were pointing to bogus claims on the agencies' websites about the effectiveness of helmets. Clearly the public harm from a helmet law would have exceeded the benefit.

Your argument is that there is greater harm to the public good by the discouragement that cycling helmet laws would create? I understand it would impact some of the bike sharing programs that are ridiculously unpopular. However, your argument could be applied to modern safety features in automobiles. How much has modern safety equipment and design contributed to the cost of new cars? Increased cost forces people to drive older, less safe vehicles. For instance, the Fairfax County property tax encourages people to keep driving older cars. How much has this tax cost the public good? While public policy should attempt to serve the public good in general, absolute consideration of only the greater good is short-sighted when many of the things being valued are human lives which are difficult to reconcile on a balance sheet. Is there a certain number of tourists you are willing to sacrifice so that DC doesn't get a helmet law?

What they have is an argument, and a stupid one at that, but not facts.

It is self-evidently obviously and also backed by evidence that wearing helmets reduces head injuries and death.

There is ample evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling participation. There is also ample evidence that the health benefit of the exercise afforded by cycling outweighs the risk of injury.

There's still no particularly good reason not to wear a helmet when you're on a bike, though. Even if they reduce likelihood or severity of a head injury only slightly, I always feel like I'd rather have whatever protection they provide than not. That's a separate question from whether there ought to be helmet laws.

That's the difference between individual choice to wear a helmet (99.9% of the time for me) vs. a legal mandate that can have adverse impacts.

It's kind of like - alcohol is bad, right? Sure, we like it, but by all health measures it ought to be banned. However, the significant downsides of banning it (bootlegging, criminal underground) outweigh the health benefits of reduced drinking.

Anyway, there is a legal mandate in D.C. that kids wear bike helmets, so the whole premise of this thread is sort of off-base.

Exactly. And even if you entertain these cockamamie ideas, it takes no more than a second to realize that children are not capable of making informed risk-based decisions that could affect them for the rest of their lives. As a result, they should all wear helmets.

Kids get lots of concussions, and the vast majority of concussions suffered by kids don't happen on bicycles. By that logic, shouldn't they wear helmets all the time? Or at least every waking moment?

NP. Well, Im going to bet you’re the kind of person who is still making their kid wear a mask. Im guessing the Venn diagram between cargo bike riders and always maskers has a huge overlap. What kind of hypocrite are you?

When someone presents an argument you can't counter -- which happens a lot -- all you can do is attack them and call them names.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

You're just not able to view things in a non-binary way. There's no simple binary that helmets are either effective or not effective. And I've never said that they were not effective. I've been saying they're not very effective. Certainly they're not effective enough for it to be worthwhile to make any effort to require their use -- which is the topic of this thread.

There is a real-world impact. Why did the CDC and NHTSA get busted for violating the Data Quality Act? Because the state of Maryland was advocating for mandatory helmet use, and they were pointing to bogus claims on the agencies' websites about the effectiveness of helmets. Clearly the public harm from a helmet law would have exceeded the benefit.

Your argument is that there is greater harm to the public good by the discouragement that cycling helmet laws would create? I understand it would impact some of the bike sharing programs that are ridiculously unpopular. However, your argument could be applied to modern safety features in automobiles. How much has modern safety equipment and design contributed to the cost of new cars? Increased cost forces people to drive older, less safe vehicles. For instance, the Fairfax County property tax encourages people to keep driving older cars. How much has this tax cost the public good? While public policy should attempt to serve the public good in general, absolute consideration of only the greater good is short-sighted when many of the things being valued are human lives which are difficult to reconcile on a balance sheet. Is there a certain number of tourists you are willing to sacrifice so that DC doesn't get a helmet law?

What they have is an argument, and a stupid one at that, but not facts.

It is self-evidently obviously and also backed by evidence that wearing helmets reduces head injuries and death.

There is ample evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling participation. There is also ample evidence that the health benefit of the exercise afforded by cycling outweighs the risk of injury.

There's still no particularly good reason not to wear a helmet when you're on a bike, though. Even if they reduce likelihood or severity of a head injury only slightly, I always feel like I'd rather have whatever protection they provide than not. That's a separate question from whether there ought to be helmet laws.

That's the difference between individual choice to wear a helmet (99.9% of the time for me) vs. a legal mandate that can have adverse impacts.

It's kind of like - alcohol is bad, right? Sure, we like it, but by all health measures it ought to be banned. However, the significant downsides of banning it (bootlegging, criminal underground) outweigh the health benefits of reduced drinking.

Anyway, there is a legal mandate in D.C. that kids wear bike helmets, so the whole premise of this thread is sort of off-base.

The premise is that a helmet law might deter children from riding bicycles, and by extension any form of exercise.

The original premise of this thread is that it's crazy that there are no bike safety laws for kids in D.C., which there are.

You are right. We just aren't enforcing them. "e-bikes" are nothing but electric mopeds. Mopeds have both helmet and license plate laws.

D.C. requires that kids under 16 wear helmets on regular bikes, too. This has nothing to do with e-bikes or mopeds.

Ok. But just so we are clear. "E-bikes" ARE mopeds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw a small child in the lap of someone on an ebike going probably 20 mph. neither had helmets.

Call Child Services. Reckless endangerment

[Anonymous]

Why are there no safety rules playing tiddlywinks in your house. Has there ever been a rule you didn’t like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

You're just not able to view things in a non-binary way. There's no simple binary that helmets are either effective or not effective. And I've never said that they were not effective. I've been saying they're not very effective. Certainly they're not effective enough for it to be worthwhile to make any effort to require their use -- which is the topic of this thread.

There is a real-world impact. Why did the CDC and NHTSA get busted for violating the Data Quality Act? Because the state of Maryland was advocating for mandatory helmet use, and they were pointing to bogus claims on the agencies' websites about the effectiveness of helmets. Clearly the public harm from a helmet law would have exceeded the benefit.

Your argument is that there is greater harm to the public good by the discouragement that cycling helmet laws would create? I understand it would impact some of the bike sharing programs that are ridiculously unpopular. However, your argument could be applied to modern safety features in automobiles. How much has modern safety equipment and design contributed to the cost of new cars? Increased cost forces people to drive older, less safe vehicles. For instance, the Fairfax County property tax encourages people to keep driving older cars. How much has this tax cost the public good? While public policy should attempt to serve the public good in general, absolute consideration of only the greater good is short-sighted when many of the things being valued are human lives which are difficult to reconcile on a balance sheet. Is there a certain number of tourists you are willing to sacrifice so that DC doesn't get a helmet law?

What they have is an argument, and a stupid one at that, but not facts.

It is self-evidently obviously and also backed by evidence that wearing helmets reduces head injuries and death.

There is ample evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling participation. There is also ample evidence that the health benefit of the exercise afforded by cycling outweighs the risk of injury.

There's still no particularly good reason not to wear a helmet when you're on a bike, though. Even if they reduce likelihood or severity of a head injury only slightly, I always feel like I'd rather have whatever protection they provide than not. That's a separate question from whether there ought to be helmet laws.

That's the difference between individual choice to wear a helmet (99.9% of the time for me) vs. a legal mandate that can have adverse impacts.

It's kind of like - alcohol is bad, right? Sure, we like it, but by all health measures it ought to be banned. However, the significant downsides of banning it (bootlegging, criminal underground) outweigh the health benefits of reduced drinking.

Anyway, there is a legal mandate in D.C. that kids wear bike helmets, so the whole premise of this thread is sort of off-base.

The premise is that a helmet law might deter children from riding bicycles, and by extension any form of exercise.

The original premise of this thread is that it's crazy that there are no bike safety laws for kids in D.C., which there are.

You are right. We just aren't enforcing them. "e-bikes" are nothing but electric mopeds. Mopeds have both helmet and license plate laws.

Ebikes are different from mopeds and motorcycles because they have a different name. If you give something a new name, then entirely different rules apply, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

Key words: "among children and adolescents." Yes, helmets have been shown to be effective in mitigating low-speed falls from bicycles, as is typical of beginning cyclists.

I'll throw this back at you:

Feds will stop hyping effectiveness of bike helmets

Two federal government agencies will withdraw their longstanding claims that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries. The decision comes in response to a petition the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) filed under the federal Data Quality Act.

https://www.thecre.com/oira/?p=1843

If you read the story, you'll see, "Last February, I sent emails to both CDC and NHTSA, pointing out that the 85% estimate is incorrect and providing citations to newer research. A few weeks later, Laurie Beck, an epidemiologist from CDC promised to remove the error."

Nothing in that story contradicts and in actual fact that story supports the conclusion of all studies that have been conducted on this subject that have concluded that helmets reduce the head injuries and death. Your continued insistence to knowingly claim otherwise is sick, wrong and amoral. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I would say that "all" is overly broad. There's also a question of benefit vs. cost. What is clear is that the benefit of wearing a helmet is limited -- and there has been a long history of people in the public health and traffic safety business grossly over-stating that benefit.

Google "bullet stopped by bible." There are thousands of stories of people believing that their lives were saved when a bullet became embedded in a bible they were carrying. Should we encourage people to carry bibles as a public health measure? Strapping a bible to your head is probably marginally less effective than wearing a bike helmet.

If bike helmets were designed like motorcycle helmets they would probably provide measurable benefit. The government is already in the business of mandating standards for bike helmets, why don't they use the same standards as motorcycle helmets? Because no one would wear them, because they would be too uncomfortable.

You are the equivalent of an anti-vaccine nut job.

Except the difference is that vaccines are effective and bike helmets aren't.

It would be okay to be this stupid if you were not making knowingly false statements that have the outcome of hurting people. That makes you a sociopath and yeah, you are no better than the anti-vax nut jobs.

If you can't debate the message, attack the messenger.

You have proven to be intransigent when confronted with evidence of helmets working


https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets-a9629801958/

Consumer Reports? Really?

Are you suggesting they are in the pocket of big helmet? They don't use big words, so I figured you would be able to follow it.

LOL. This person is so stupid that I believe they have already suffered multiple head injuries from bicycle crashes. He’s like an advertisement for the importance of helmet wearing.

When you run out of arguments, attack the messenger.

When the message is the lie that helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries then I will both attack the message and the stupid messenger spreading anti-vax type misinformation.

You're just not able to view things in a non-binary way. There's no simple binary that helmets are either effective or not effective. And I've never said that they were not effective. I've been saying they're not very effective. Certainly they're not effective enough for it to be worthwhile to make any effort to require their use -- which is the topic of this thread.

There is a real-world impact. Why did the CDC and NHTSA get busted for violating the Data Quality Act? Because the state of Maryland was advocating for mandatory helmet use, and they were pointing to bogus claims on the agencies' websites about the effectiveness of helmets. Clearly the public harm from a helmet law would have exceeded the benefit.

Your argument is that there is greater harm to the public good by the discouragement that cycling helmet laws would create? I understand it would impact some of the bike sharing programs that are ridiculously unpopular. However, your argument could be applied to modern safety features in automobiles. How much has modern safety equipment and design contributed to the cost of new cars? Increased cost forces people to drive older, less safe vehicles. For instance, the Fairfax County property tax encourages people to keep driving older cars. How much has this tax cost the public good? While public policy should attempt to serve the public good in general, absolute consideration of only the greater good is short-sighted when many of the things being valued are human lives which are difficult to reconcile on a balance sheet. Is there a certain number of tourists you are willing to sacrifice so that DC doesn't get a helmet law?

What they have is an argument, and a stupid one at that, but not facts.

It is self-evidently obviously and also backed by evidence that wearing helmets reduces head injuries and death.

There is ample evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling participation. There is also ample evidence that the health benefit of the exercise afforded by cycling outweighs the risk of injury.

There's still no particularly good reason not to wear a helmet when you're on a bike, though. Even if they reduce likelihood or severity of a head injury only slightly, I always feel like I'd rather have whatever protection they provide than not. That's a separate question from whether there ought to be helmet laws.

That's the difference between individual choice to wear a helmet (99.9% of the time for me) vs. a legal mandate that can have adverse impacts.

It's kind of like - alcohol is bad, right? Sure, we like it, but by all health measures it ought to be banned. However, the significant downsides of banning it (bootlegging, criminal underground) outweigh the health benefits of reduced drinking.

It's illegal to drink and drive. Feel free to walk around as much as you want without a helmet or drink as much as you want when you aren't driving.

The point went past you pretty hard, huh.

No, you didn't have one. "Alcohol is bad" is a juvenile argument. One day, you will graduate public school and can have a conversation with adults.

Individual choices vs. public policy? You really missed that?

It's not binary. You have an individual choice to drink. It's public policy to not drink and drive. If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't. Don't expect to be able to ignore helmet laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

I don't let my child ride a bike here. I'd like safer street improvements including separate bike lanes, WAY MORE enforcement of traffic violations for bad drivers, road adjustments to slow down cars and more.

So you support that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

I don't let my child ride a bike here. I'd like safer street improvements including separate bike lanes, WAY MORE enforcement of traffic violations for bad drivers, road adjustments to slow down cars and more.

So you support that, right?

Yes, we should enforce the rules regarding mopeds and speeding. I'm tired of all this enforce the rules against those other people but not my people mentality. All ebikes are required by law to be registered and titled under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

I don't let my child ride a bike here. I'd like safer street improvements including separate bike lanes, WAY MORE enforcement of traffic violations for bad drivers, road adjustments to slow down cars and more.

So you support that, right?

Yes, we should enforce the rules regarding mopeds and speeding. I'm tired of all this enforce the rules against those other people but not my people mentality. All ebikes are required by law to be registered and titled under the law.

Sure, and cars speeding and that most DC residents apparently don't know how to legally stop at a stop sign.... you know, behind the line, complete stop for minimum of 3 seconds, ensuring the intersection is clear before proceeding.... not this stop in the middle of the crosswalk for 0.2 seconds nonsense?

[Anonymous]

funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.