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.

Or, possibly, not all bicyclists think exactly alike, and different people are making different arguments in response to different situations. Personally, I always wear a helmet when I ride, as do my kids, and I'd also like the streets to be safer for them and for me. I don't find the arguments against helmet laws persuasive, though I understand that there are some, and I'm fine with increased enforcement there. But I also think you'd improve overall safety more with increased enforcement of car traffic laws.

Yeah, I wear a helmet 99.9% of the time - i.e., whenever I reasonably can. But passing a law that says I am legally required means that when I judge it's ok not to I'm dissuaded from doing so. What if it's a short/safe ride on a CaBi and I don't have a helmet available?

I can't believe bikers aren't required to wear helmets

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.

Or, possibly, not all bicyclists think exactly alike, and different people are making different arguments in response to different situations. Personally, I always wear a helmet when I ride, as do my kids, and I'd also like the streets to be safer for them and for me. I don't find the arguments against helmet laws persuasive, though I understand that there are some, and I'm fine with increased enforcement there. But I also think you'd improve overall safety more with increased enforcement of car traffic laws.

Yeah, I wear a helmet 99.9% of the time - i.e., whenever I reasonably can. But passing a law that says I am legally required means that when I judge it's ok not to I'm dissuaded from doing so. What if it's a short/safe ride on a CaBi and I don't have a helmet available?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a child is in a car, they have be strapped into a car seat that meets federal safety standards or they have to be seat belted in.

But if that child is on a bike, on the very same road, then no safety rules apply at all? How can this be?

Maryland requires people younger than 18 to wear a bike helmet.

DC requires under 16. The PP is mad that DC doesn't enforce this, though DC also doesn't really enforce basic driving laws beyond camera tickets, for which it then doesn't really penalize people who don't pay those tickets (MD and VA drivers have no reciprocity so repeated ticketing of bad drivers goes unpunished unless DC can find and boot their car). DC has recently stepped up booting cars without outstanding fines, that's about it.

I personally care more about ramping up traffic enforcement and traffic safety before DC spends time on bike helmet enforcement. Drivers and street safety are, and should be, the clear priority at this time.

Anonymous wrote:If a child is in a car, they have be strapped into a car seat that meets federal safety standards or they have to be seat belted in.

But if that child is on a bike, on the very same road, then no safety rules apply at all? How can this be?

Maryland requires people younger than 18 to wear a bike helmet.

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.

Or, possibly, not all bicyclists think exactly alike, and different people are making different arguments in response to different situations. Personally, I always wear a helmet when I ride, as do my kids, and I'd also like the streets to be safer for them and for me. I don't find the arguments against helmet laws persuasive, though I understand that there are some, and I'm fine with increased enforcement there. But I also think you'd improve overall safety more with increased enforcement of car traffic laws.

Please show your work on the city spending "a bajillion dolalrs" on bike lanes.

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.

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/

Of course DC never enforces rules requiring kids to wear helmets and no adult bicyclist is ever required to wear a helmet.

DC does the bare minimum in terms of traffic enforcement, never pulls people over for traffic violations, and allows a significant number of traffic camera violations to remain unpenalized. DC has no reciprocity with MD/VA.

On a day to day basis as a driver, it's generally the other drivers I'm most concerned about.

Yes, parents should make kids wear helmets, but in terms of enforcement priorities, DC needs to put in traffic enforcement for DRIVERS first.

It would be dope if bicyclists stopped fighting proposals to require them to wear helmets. Makes their complaints about safety seem a little hollow.

Are there such proposals? I (a sometime cyclist) would fully support such a thing. Make the electric scooter people wear them too.

The arguments against helmets for these bike and scooter share services is that the benefits to air pollution and environment of such programs far out weigh the risks of brain damage or death and that people would not utilize them if they had to wear helmets because most people who would use them would not carry their own helmets. Considering that most CaBi users are subscribers who have use the bikes regularly for commuting, I think it’s a faulty assumption. Will it otherwise diminish recreational opportunities for the occasional weekend user? Probably. But I think it’s worth the trade off.

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/

Of course DC never enforces rules requiring kids to wear helmets and no adult bicyclist is ever required to wear a helmet.

DC does the bare minimum in terms of traffic enforcement, never pulls people over for traffic violations, and allows a significant number of traffic camera violations to remain unpenalized. DC has no reciprocity with MD/VA.

On a day to day basis as a driver, it's generally the other drivers I'm most concerned about.

Yes, parents should make kids wear helmets, but in terms of enforcement priorities, DC needs to put in traffic enforcement for DRIVERS first.

It would be dope if bicyclists stopped fighting proposals to require them to wear helmets. Makes their complaints about safety seem a little hollow.

Are there such proposals? I (a sometime cyclist) would fully support such a thing. Make the electric scooter people wear them too.

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/

Of course DC never enforces rules requiring kids to wear helmets and no adult bicyclist is ever required to wear a helmet.

DC does the bare minimum in terms of traffic enforcement, never pulls people over for traffic violations, and allows a significant number of traffic camera violations to remain unpenalized. DC has no reciprocity with MD/VA.

On a day to day basis as a driver, it's generally the other drivers I'm most concerned about.

Yes, parents should make kids wear helmets, but in terms of enforcement priorities, DC needs to put in traffic enforcement for DRIVERS first.

It would be dope if bicyclists stopped fighting proposals to require them to wear helmets. Makes their complaints about safety seem a little hollow.

Right. Let's talk when DC actually enacts some meaningful driver enforcement.

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/

Of course DC never enforces rules requiring kids to wear helmets and no adult bicyclist is ever required to wear a helmet.

DC does the bare minimum in terms of traffic enforcement, never pulls people over for traffic violations, and allows a significant number of traffic camera violations to remain unpenalized. DC has no reciprocity with MD/VA.

On a day to day basis as a driver, it's generally the other drivers I'm most concerned about.

Yes, parents should make kids wear helmets, but in terms of enforcement priorities, DC needs to put in traffic enforcement for DRIVERS first.

It would be dope if bicyclists stopped fighting proposals to require them to wear helmets. Makes their complaints about safety seem a little hollow.

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/

Of course DC never enforces rules requiring kids to wear helmets and no adult bicyclist is ever required to wear a helmet.

DC does the bare minimum in terms of traffic enforcement, never pulls people over for traffic violations, and allows a significant number of traffic camera violations to remain unpenalized. DC has no reciprocity with MD/VA.

On a day to day basis as a driver, it's generally the other drivers I'm most concerned about.

Yes, parents should make kids wear helmets, but in terms of enforcement priorities, DC needs to put in traffic enforcement for DRIVERS first.

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/

Of course DC never enforces rules requiring kids to wear helmets and no adult bicyclist is ever required to wear a helmet.

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?

I’m also confused. I was replying specifically to PP who was implying that helmet-wearing was irrelevant and no child should be on a bike ever because bikes were such a high cause of head injuries and death among youth. To which I say: drowning is the highest cause of death among young children and yet we put out children in and near water they can drawn in (swimming and bathing). In both cases, there are ways to improve the safety of the situation (e.g. helmets, supervision, safer roads, swim lessons in a pool, driver education, lifeguards, etc). We should do those things, in both cases.

I have not said anything about the safety of DC roads — the part I live in is residential and has lots of lights and bike lanes so I consider it pretty safe for cyclists. I do think a small subset of drivers are sociopaths and I think a high percentage of them post on this board tbh given the level of vitriol directed at people who want to go places in any form of transportation that’s not a car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes walk with my children in my neighborhood. Arguments against car safety for kids on bikes also means arguments against care safety, traffic safety, trafic enforcement, etc. for kids on foot.

Kids must leave the house. Streets should be improved to make them safer. Cars have hit kids in crosswalks walking with their parents and one single instance of that, no matter how rare, is unacceptable to me as a parent.

I support emergency legislation for the specific location every time a pedestrian or biker is struck.

Bottom line: As a driver, I'm willing to accept street safety implementations that slow me down if it means safer roads for my kids who must, sometimes, leave the house for a variety of reasons.

What does this have to do with following the law so that kids wear helmets that evidence proves saves lives and protects from brain damage?

What it has to do with is that the folks starting this thread inevitably devolve into the chronic argument over whether every traffic accident with a bicyclist is the bicyclist's fault or the driver's fault and whether DC should ever have anything for traffic safety, ever. There's someone who keeps starting these arguments on this forum (suspicion that it's a specific, notorious, anti-bike person previously named). So we end up with arguments of distraction, like saying it's parent's fault for not putting a helmet on their kid's head rather than the driver's fault for hitting them.

Sure, parents should make kids wear helmets on bikes, but we end up with folks who stretch this into that people shouldn't ever bike with kids in DC, that kids shouldn't be outside at all (what?), that it's bicyclist's fault for biking unsafe vs. an issue with drivers not being safe.