Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Lawsuit, petition, it doesn’t matter. You don’t seem to bright.

If you read to dumb link you posted, WABA presented evidence that demonstrated that the study the 85% claim was based on was not replicable. They could not produce any evidence to substantiate their other claim that the statement regarding helmets reducing injuries was false and the reason for that is pretty obvious. Like duuuuh.

Once again, when faced with an argument you can't rebut, you resort to name-calling.

[Anonymous]

OMG DCUM is debating the Data Quality Act. I’ve died and gone to heaven.

[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:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."

I don’t even need to read to Data Quality Act to understand that it does not give Federal agencies an affirmative obligation to prove anything to anyone. It’s is quite something that you think that it is an appropriate use of the governments time to have to deal with nags demanding that the government prove and justify everything to you.

According to the account of the very organization you cite, the government determined that WABA could not substantiate their challenge. The government has no obligation to prove it. That would be the obligation of the petitioner and its how the law works.

If you are even remotely capable, try to fathom a world where the opposite is true. That someone could sue you and it would be your obligation to disprove their claim. Aside from the basic problem of not being able to prove a negative it also places the burden of proof and evidence on the defendant.

Get it?

NP. The Data Quality Act (and FOIA) absolutely required the government to provide the public with something. The Data Quality Act gives the public the right to request correction of official agency published information (note: does not include unofficial white papers and staff opinions and press releases.) The agency must respond in detail to the request for correction. You can’t sue the agency if you don’t like their response or decision about what to publish. FOIA of course gives the public a right (enforceable in court, unlike DQA) to disclosure of government information. There are many exceptions to FOIA, but it would almost certainly include the research that underlies the NHSTA claims about helmets.

[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?

Also, Person 2: Ok, then why are you always coming up with weird tendentious arguments about why you shouldnt have to wear a helmet?

[Anonymous]

Because legislation doesn’t protect people. Common sense is what protects people. Some people have more than others…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because legislation doesn’t protect people. Common sense is what protects people. Some people have more than others…

Common sense would tell you not to ride a bike on a busy street in a large city

[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:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."

I don’t even need to read to Data Quality Act to understand that it does not give Federal agencies an affirmative obligation to prove anything to anyone. It’s is quite something that you think that it is an appropriate use of the governments time to have to deal with nags demanding that the government prove and justify everything to you.

According to the account of the very organization you cite, the government determined that WABA could not substantiate their challenge. The government has no obligation to prove it. That would be the obligation of the petitioner and its how the law works.

If you are even remotely capable, try to fathom a world where the opposite is true. That someone could sue you and it would be your obligation to disprove their claim. Aside from the basic problem of not being able to prove a negative it also places the burden of proof and evidence on the defendant.

Get it?

NP. The Data Quality Act (and FOIA) absolutely required the government to provide the public with something. The Data Quality Act gives the public the right to request correction of official agency published information (note: does not include unofficial white papers and staff opinions and press releases.) The agency must respond in detail to the request for correction. You can’t sue the agency if you don’t like their response or decision about what to publish. FOIA of course gives the public a right (enforceable in court, unlike DQA) to disclosure of government information. There are many exceptions to FOIA, but it would almost certainly include the research that underlies the NHSTA claims about helmets.

Yeah, in retrospect what WABA should have done is filed a FOIA first to have the NHTSA provide all information supporting its claim that helmets are the "single most effective" way of preventing injuries. Then they could the response to that FOIA in their DQA complaint.

The problem is that agencies can drag their feet on FOIA, and there was a time element on this case as Maryland was debating a mandatory helmet law and was relying on the statements from the CDC and the NHTSA.

[Anonymous]

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/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

I am a cyclist, and I guess since I am also an active voice in vehicle related accidents and raths and cyclist infrastructure you anti bike people would call me a bike lobby person, even though I am just a person who bikes as their primary mode of commuting.

I personally always wear a helmet. I personally encourage others to wear a helmet. My helmet has absolutely protected my big dumb big lobbyist rain from certain death in traffic accidents in the past.

However, mandating a helmet is problematic, as it isn't always available or necessary. If you are on a multi mile commute or are going fast on any length, or are riding in traffic then please I hope you wear a helmet. But if you are just leaving a restaurant on a nice afternoon and decide to take a ride on a bikeshare spontaneously down a couple blocks of PBL to get home, do you really need a helmet? Not really. Do you carry a helmet with you everywhere? Just in case you want to bike? What about the stand on scooter rentals?

As with many things, the intention of a bike helmet law is good (improve safety of rider in certain types of crashes), but the execution of it would be messy and bring about another measure that is ride with potential of biased enforcement and conflict with police that just isn't necessary. Cycling advocate groups like WABA absolutely do recommend that a cyclist wears a helmet. They just won't back laws on that for the fairly obvious reasons above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

Is the Maryland State Highway Administration not an organized group?

[Anonymous]

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/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

I am a cyclist, and I guess since I am also an active voice in vehicle related accidents and raths and cyclist infrastructure you anti bike people would call me a bike lobby person, even though I am just a person who bikes as their primary mode of commuting.

I personally always wear a helmet. I personally encourage others to wear a helmet. My helmet has absolutely protected my big dumb big lobbyist rain from certain death in traffic accidents in the past.

However, mandating a helmet is problematic, as it isn't always available or necessary. If you are on a multi mile commute or are going fast on any length, or are riding in traffic then please I hope you wear a helmet. But if you are just leaving a restaurant on a nice afternoon and decide to take a ride on a bikeshare spontaneously down a couple blocks of PBL to get home, do you really need a helmet? Not really. Do you carry a helmet with you everywhere? Just in case you want to bike? What about the stand on scooter rentals?

As with many things, the intention of a bike helmet law is good (improve safety of rider in certain types of crashes), but the execution of it would be messy and bring about another measure that is ride with potential of biased enforcement and conflict with police that just isn't necessary. Cycling advocate groups like WABA absolutely do recommend that a cyclist wears a helmet. They just won't back laws on that for the fairly obvious reasons above.

Yeah, if a driver made an argument like this -- that they don't want to wear a seat belt or strap a child into a car seat because they're not going very far or it's otherwise inconvenient -- people would think they are deeply irresponsible. And people are way safer in cars than on bikes.

[Anonymous]

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/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

I am a cyclist, and I guess since I am also an active voice in vehicle related accidents and raths and cyclist infrastructure you anti bike people would call me a bike lobby person, even though I am just a person who bikes as their primary mode of commuting.

I personally always wear a helmet. I personally encourage others to wear a helmet. My helmet has absolutely protected my big dumb big lobbyist rain from certain death in traffic accidents in the past.

However, mandating a helmet is problematic, as it isn't always available or necessary. If you are on a multi mile commute or are going fast on any length, or are riding in traffic then please I hope you wear a helmet. But if you are just leaving a restaurant on a nice afternoon and decide to take a ride on a bikeshare spontaneously down a couple blocks of PBL to get home, do you really need a helmet? Not really. Do you carry a helmet with you everywhere? Just in case you want to bike? What about the stand on scooter rentals?

As with many things, the intention of a bike helmet law is good (improve safety of rider in certain types of crashes), but the execution of it would be messy and bring about another measure that is ride with potential of biased enforcement and conflict with police that just isn't necessary. Cycling advocate groups like WABA absolutely do recommend that a cyclist wears a helmet. They just won't back laws on that for the fairly obvious reasons above.

Yeah, if a driver made an argument like this -- that they don't want to wear a seat belt or strap a child into a car seat because they're not going very far or it's otherwise inconvenient -- people would think they are deeply irresponsible. And people are way safer in cars than on bikes.

I'm old enough to remember when seat belt laws were enacted, and those were exactly the kinds of arguments the opponents made. "My clothes will get wrinkled" was a popular one.

[Anonymous]

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/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

I am a cyclist, and I guess since I am also an active voice in vehicle related accidents and raths and cyclist infrastructure you anti bike people would call me a bike lobby person, even though I am just a person who bikes as their primary mode of commuting.

I personally always wear a helmet. I personally encourage others to wear a helmet. My helmet has absolutely protected my big dumb big lobbyist rain from certain death in traffic accidents in the past.

However, mandating a helmet is problematic, as it isn't always available or necessary. If you are on a multi mile commute or are going fast on any length, or are riding in traffic then please I hope you wear a helmet. But if you are just leaving a restaurant on a nice afternoon and decide to take a ride on a bikeshare spontaneously down a couple blocks of PBL to get home, do you really need a helmet? Not really. Do you carry a helmet with you everywhere? Just in case you want to bike? What about the stand on scooter rentals?

As with many things, the intention of a bike helmet law is good (improve safety of rider in certain types of crashes), but the execution of it would be messy and bring about another measure that is ride with potential of biased enforcement and conflict with police that just isn't necessary. Cycling advocate groups like WABA absolutely do recommend that a cyclist wears a helmet. They just won't back laws on that for the fairly obvious reasons above.

Yeah, if a driver made an argument like this -- that they don't want to wear a seat belt or strap a child into a car seat because they're not going very far or it's otherwise inconvenient -- people would think they are deeply irresponsible. And people are way safer in cars than on bikes.

A seat belt comes standard on a car, even a rental one. A helmet must be carried by the owner and I gave an example of where that is infeasible. People don't know they are going to bikeshare at all times and are unlikely to carry a helmet just in case. It's not the same thing at all.

I would say that a cyclist who takes their child on a bike without a helmet is being reckless. And they should be admonished by people around them for that. But a universal helmet mandate is infeasible to enforce or require.

[Anonymous]

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/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

I am a cyclist, and I guess since I am also an active voice in vehicle related accidents and raths and cyclist infrastructure you anti bike people would call me a bike lobby person, even though I am just a person who bikes as their primary mode of commuting.

I personally always wear a helmet. I personally encourage others to wear a helmet. My helmet has absolutely protected my big dumb big lobbyist rain from certain death in traffic accidents in the past.

However, mandating a helmet is problematic, as it isn't always available or necessary. If you are on a multi mile commute or are going fast on any length, or are riding in traffic then please I hope you wear a helmet. But if you are just leaving a restaurant on a nice afternoon and decide to take a ride on a bikeshare spontaneously down a couple blocks of PBL to get home, do you really need a helmet? Not really. Do you carry a helmet with you everywhere? Just in case you want to bike? What about the stand on scooter rentals?

As with many things, the intention of a bike helmet law is good (improve safety of rider in certain types of crashes), but the execution of it would be messy and bring about another measure that is ride with potential of biased enforcement and conflict with police that just isn't necessary. Cycling advocate groups like WABA absolutely do recommend that a cyclist wears a helmet. They just won't back laws on that for the fairly obvious reasons above.

Yeah, if a driver made an argument like this -- that they don't want to wear a seat belt or strap a child into a car seat because they're not going very far or it's otherwise inconvenient -- people would think they are deeply irresponsible. And people are way safer in cars than on bikes.

A seat belt comes standard on a car, even a rental one. A helmet must be carried by the owner and I gave an example of where that is infeasible. People don't know they are going to bikeshare at all times and are unlikely to carry a helmet just in case. It's not the same thing at all.

I would say that a cyclist who takes their child on a bike without a helmet is being reckless. And they should be admonished by people around them for that. But a universal helmet mandate is infeasible to enforce or require.

It’s not infeasible, it’s just that it would lead to people being cited or ticketed in situations that many reasonable observers would say don’t merit a penalty. But sometimes that’s just how the law is. My bigger concern with helmet laws is that invariably, white cyclists would ride without a helmet whenever they want, but the laws would become a pretext to stop Black or Latino cyclists, or would be a charge that gets tacked on if they’re involved in some other entanglement with the law.

I’d still support helmet laws, though. Would it mean effectively that I no longer ever consider using the rental e-bikes? Probably, since I don’t routinely carry a helmet with me if I don’t have my own bike with me. But… so what?

[Anonymous]

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/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

I am a cyclist, and I guess since I am also an active voice in vehicle related accidents and raths and cyclist infrastructure you anti bike people would call me a bike lobby person, even though I am just a person who bikes as their primary mode of commuting.

I personally always wear a helmet. I personally encourage others to wear a helmet. My helmet has absolutely protected my big dumb big lobbyist rain from certain death in traffic accidents in the past.

However, mandating a helmet is problematic, as it isn't always available or necessary. If you are on a multi mile commute or are going fast on any length, or are riding in traffic then please I hope you wear a helmet. But if you are just leaving a restaurant on a nice afternoon and decide to take a ride on a bikeshare spontaneously down a couple blocks of PBL to get home, do you really need a helmet? Not really. Do you carry a helmet with you everywhere? Just in case you want to bike? What about the stand on scooter rentals?

As with many things, the intention of a bike helmet law is good (improve safety of rider in certain types of crashes), but the execution of it would be messy and bring about another measure that is ride with potential of biased enforcement and conflict with police that just isn't necessary. Cycling advocate groups like WABA absolutely do recommend that a cyclist wears a helmet. They just won't back laws on that for the fairly obvious reasons above.

Yeah, if a driver made an argument like this -- that they don't want to wear a seat belt or strap a child into a car seat because they're not going very far or it's otherwise inconvenient -- people would think they are deeply irresponsible. And people are way safer in cars than on bikes.

A seat belt comes standard on a car, even a rental one. A helmet must be carried by the owner and I gave an example of where that is infeasible. People don't know they are going to bikeshare at all times and are unlikely to carry a helmet just in case. It's not the same thing at all.

I would say that a cyclist who takes their child on a bike without a helmet is being reckless. And they should be admonished by people around them for that. But a universal helmet mandate is infeasible to enforce or require.

It’s not infeasible, it’s just that it would lead to people being cited or ticketed in situations that many reasonable observers would say don’t merit a penalty. But sometimes that’s just how the law is. My bigger concern with helmet laws is that invariably, white cyclists would ride without a helmet whenever they want, but the laws would become a pretext to stop Black or Latino cyclists, or would be a charge that gets tacked on if they’re involved in some other entanglement with the law.

I’d still support helmet laws, though. Would it mean effectively that I no longer ever consider using the rental e-bikes? Probably, since I don’t routinely carry a helmet with me if I don’t have my own bike with me. But… so what?

I'm picturing the police tackling someone off their bike giving them a concussion while shouting at them for not being safe enough by wearing a helmet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It’s not infeasible, it’s just that it would lead to people being cited or ticketed in situations that many reasonable observers would say don’t merit a penalty. But sometimes that’s just how the law is. My bigger concern with helmet laws is that invariably, white cyclists would ride without a helmet whenever they want, but the laws would become a pretext to stop Black or Latino cyclists, or would be a charge that gets tacked on if they’re involved in some other entanglement with the law.

This is why DC got rid of bicycle registration a few years ago. It was only being enforced against minorities.