Record Black Friday spending despite Fox News telling everyone the economy is terrible

[Zorba]

A seatbelt is built into a car. It's far more convenient than carrying around a helmet with you everywhere to maybe use a bike share for 15 minutes. They are big and bulky. Not built in. Big difference.

Yeah, they are a much bigger issue for bike shares. That is why I specifically said your own bike. Bike share could be exempted, or fine the share company for not providing a helmet. Especially shares with racks could provide helmets, you could also just lock a helmet onto the bike. I'm sure someone could come up with a clever way to clean them.

 

[pmv]

Seriously, I have personally been hit by a car on bike (doing 50 mph, and my fault) and have had multiple accidents with no car involved. I didn't need a helmet when hit by a car (very luckily), but I have needed it in single bike accidents.

I know many serious bikers that have been in very bad single bike incidents they a helmet significantly reduced injuries. People have bike accidents without the involvement of cars all the time.

I _mostly_ wore a helmet when cycling - but I would have _hugely_ resented it being a legal obligation, and having the risk of being prosecuted on those occasions when I forgot the thing and couldn't be bothered to go back and get it. The idea felt like the equivalent of a Taliban demand for women to wear a burkha.

I had two non-car accidents, in one I didn't have a helmet and the other I did, and in neither case did the presence or absence of the helmet make any difference. The anxiety though was always about being hit by a fast-moving car, and I doubt a helmet would have helped at all in such a situation. If your torso is crushed under a lorry, a helmet won't make any difference.

Few cyclists, outside of mountain bikers, are killed or injured in accidents not involving motorised vehicles. _With_ motorised vehicles involved, it's very common for cyclists to be killed or seriously injured even when they are weating a helmet. Clearly the problem is the presence of motorised vehicles, not the absence of helmets. Maybe address that issue first?

Wearing a helmet when riding down trails on hills as a sport is probably sensible, but all the evidence is if you make it a legal requirement for commuting or going to the shops it just further dissuades people from cycling and increases traffic accidents, pollution, and physical inactivity (and hence leads to more deaths).

Just looking at Australia, and the relentless hostility to cycling there (even the wildlife seems to hate cyclists there) makes it pretty clear to me that compulsory helmet laws are of a piece with multiple other bits of legislation intended to suppress cycling (like the law they proposed that said cyclists should be legally obliged to carry ID). Any gammony petrolhead who rants about cyclists 'taking up space' on the road (that petrolhead seem to think are their property) will usually segue into moans about them 'not wearing helmets' (which gives the game away that the demand for helmet use is really about punishing cyclists and dissuading people from cycling).

 

[pmv]

Motorcyclists also have to wear helmet.

No comparison - an entirely different thing. Motorcyclists travel at much faster speeds and are at much more risk from their own momentum - plus motorcycle helmets are an entirely different type of thing to cycle helmets - provide much more protection. A better point would be to ask why car drivers aren't obliged to wear helmets, given the high incidence of head injury among motorists.

 

[pmv]

It is FUCKING INSANE that I am reading about people arguing against helmets or helmet laws.

Maybe it sounds "Insane" becuase you've never really thought about the issue in any depth? I find it insane that we tolerate the domination of the streets by motorised vehicles (and that they get steadily larger and more dangerous).

 

[Zorba]

Few cyclists, outside of mountain bikers, are killed or injured in accidents not involving motorised vehicles. _With_ motorised vehicles involved, it's very common for cyclists to be killed or seriously injured even when they are weating a helmet. Clearly the problem is the presence of motorised vehicles, not the absence of helmets. Maybe address that issue first?

Even if they aren't killed, plenty end up with serious life altering injuries from head trauma. Just a month ago my daughter face first and the helmet protected her pretty little face from significant scrapping. It didn't save her life, but based on the scratches on the helmet, it did probably prevent some long term face scars. I agree cars are a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but otherwise your arguments sound like the local rednecks that bitch about having to wear a seat belt.

 

[Zorba]

No comparison - an entirely different thing. Motorcyclists travel at much faster speeds and are at much more risk from their own momentum - plus motorcycle helmets are an entirely different type of thing to cycle helmets - provide much more protection. A better point would be to ask why car drivers aren't obliged to wear helmets, given the high incidence of head injury among motorists.

Cars already mandate many safety systems that are there to prevent injuries, including mandatory seat belt wearing. You also can't fall over and hit your head on a concrete curb from hitting a pothole.

 

[pmv]

Cars already mandate many safety systems that are there to prevent injuries, including mandatory seat belt wearing. You also can't fall over and hit your head on a concrete curb from hitting a pothole.

But the safety systems mandated in cars tend to increase the danger to everyone outside the vehicle. For example, the stronger A-frames designed to save those in the car if it rolls over, have the side-effect of decreasing visibility by making the blind=spots at the edges of the windscreen larger, which has been a factor in drivers hitting cyclists (that they fail to see).

And the burden of dealing with potholes should be on those responsible for maintaining the roads (which happens to be a rare situation where cyclists and motorists have a common interest - the dire state of the roads - thanks to Tory austerity that has pretty much wrecked the entire country - is a threat to both of them, even if for motorists the risk is more a financial risk than a danger of physical injury)

 

[pmv]

Even if they aren't killed, plenty end up with serious life altering injuries from head trauma. Just a month ago my daughter face first and the helmet protected her pretty little face from significant scrapping. It didn't save her life, but based on the scratches on the helmet, it did probably prevent some long term face scars. I agree cars are a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but otherwise your arguments sound like the local rednecks that bitch about having to wear a seat belt.

Conversely, your arguments sound to me like conservatives (Islamic or otherwise) moaning about women not dressing 'modestly' and blaming them for being victimised by sexually-predatory men.

I don't find all these "a helmet saved my life" anecdotes at all convincing. I note the many many cases where helmets entirely failed to do so.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, but merely arguing that it should be left up to the choice of the individual and not legally mandated. Having the same authorities who fail dismally at policing the behavior of motorists (and who repeatedly come up with road designs that endanger people) then hector the victims of their own failure to do their jobs with the demand that they 'keep safe' is hard to stomach.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Conversely, your arguments sound to me like conservatives (Islamic or otherwise) moaning about women not dressing 'modestly' and blaming them for being victimised by sexually-predatory men.

I don't find all these "a helmet saved my life" anecdotes at all convincing. I note the many many cases where helmets entirely failed to do so.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, but merely arguing that it should be left up to the choice of the individual and not legally mandated. Having the same authorities who fail dismally at policing the behavior of motorists (and who repeatedly come up with road designs that endanger people) then hector the victims of their own failure to do their jobs with the demand that they 'keep safe' is hard to stomach.

Your argument actually sounds like U.S. conservatives when they argue against a government imposed restriction. I've heard similar statements about drunk driving, seat belt laws, and motorcyclist helmet laws. Yet, those are enforced just fine.

I haven't seen anyone argue that helmets save your life in every instance, but it sure is gonna help you out when you hit your head versus not wearing one, regardless of the speed involved.

In the U.S., you'll find not all states require helmets (both biking and motorcycles, e.g. My state requires motorcyclists to wear helmets, the state just to our south, CT, does not). Coming up the interstate from CT into MA, motorcyclists can be seen pulling off the side of the road put their helmets on.

Here's a link to my state's bicycle safety laws:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/laws-for-bicyclists-and-motorists-in-the-presence-of-bicyclists/download

Massachusetts law about bicycles

Laws, regulations, and web sources on bicycle law.

www.mass.gov

Key points:

1. Helmets are required for 16 and younger
2. MA makes the claim that 75% of bike-related deaths and disabling injuries could have been prevented by a helmet.

You and I agree on this point: Governments should enforce bike safety laws more frequently. The amount of times aggressive drivers have cause me problems on the road is a WAY bigger deterrent than putting on a helmet, or having a backpack that accommodates a helmet so it's ready as needed.

I also find it odd that people in this thread have said that helmet requirements reduce biking. I've never met a single person that was like "I was gonna bike, but those damn helmet laws got me down again". So if there are people are not wearing helmets, I'd imagine it's due to cost or inability to assess risk (ie under 25 with this same "don't tell ME what to do attitude"). Quality helmets are $50+, IMO a small price to pay to enjoy biking or skating.

No comparison - an entirely different thing. Motorcyclists travel at much faster speeds and are at much more risk from their own momentum - plus motorcycle helmets are an entirely different type of thing to cycle helmets - provide much more protection. A better point would be to ask why car drivers aren't obliged to wear helmets, given the high incidence of head injury among motorists.

It's a valid comparison though. You haven't made the argument (unless I missed it), that helmet requirements are net negative because bicycles don't go that fast, but I guess you could. We've been discussing how road sharing is the real problem, and Motorcyclists have to the share the road

Also, you tossed out these red herring "comparisons" below just two pages back when I stated "helmets save lives, on or off the road"...so I do find it a little amusing that you found a motorcycle comparison "no comparison", but showering or walking down the street a valid comparison. WRT driving, do you think if there was a helmet mandate for standard drivers, you would be arguing the same things?

I also have not seen a shred of evidence to support your last statement, which reads like an argument against firearms....as we know simply owning a firearm has been shown to increase the probability of being dead by gun. Are you actually saying that simply owning a helmet makes it more likely to die in general?

So do you wear one at all times? For having a shower? Walking down the street? For driving?

Banning cars from most urban roads saves lives. Why aren't you calling for that, if that's your concern?

The evidence, incidentally, is that making helmets compulsory for cycling increases morbidity overall.

In population dense areas that want to implement bike roads only, I could see removing the helmet requirements. But anywhere there's cars near bikes, I think they should stay. Incidentally, population dense areas will probably have some other kind of transit like trains or buses. Neither is a fun as biking, as convenient, or as good for you health-wise.

edit: some typos and rewording for clarity (hopefully lel)

 

[Zorba]

Conversely, your arguments sound to me like conservatives (Islamic or otherwise) moaning about women not dressing 'modestly' and blaming them for being victimised by sexually-predatory men.

I don't find all these "a helmet saved my life" anecdotes at all convincing. I note the many many cases where helmets entirely failed to do so.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, but merely arguing that it should be left up to the choice of the individual and not legally mandated. Having the same authorities who fail dismally at policing the behavior of motorists (and who repeatedly come up with road designs that endanger people) then hector the victims of their own failure to do their jobs with the demand that they 'keep safe' is hard to stomach.

There are tons of studies and statistics that disprove you. You can choose to not wear a helmet and blame the Tories when you get a brain injury. I prefer being alive over being right.

Feel free to link up to actual research that shows helmet decreases rider safety. I'd also love seeing any study that seatbelts result in more death. Just because a seat belt won't save your life in the worst accidents, doesn't mean it doesn't improve outcomes in less serious accidents. Same with a helmet.

We can all hope that cars are banned from roads, and the roads get perfect maintenance including daily cleaning, but in the meantime I am wearing a helmet any time I'm riding a bike or skateboard and high visibility clothing any time I'm using shared right of ways. Doing so is self preservation, not victim blaming.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't find all these "a helmet saved my life" anecdotes at all convincing. I note the many many cases where helmets entirely failed to do so.

'my friend's cousin got thrown from an accident he might have died from because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so seatbelts shouldn't be required' <---this is you right now.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Further, the reason our government requires helmets is because it's the one who takes care of you if you end up brain dead because your dumbass hit a rock and scrambled your egg because you couldn't be bothered to put on a helmet. Quit acting like a fucking child and wear the helmet, or fuck off and walk.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah I’m pretty sure it is very well established in the research that bike helmets save lives.

Also, this is kind of common sense. If you’re engaging in an activity where your skull may come into contact with a hard object at high speed it’s usually better to put something between your skull and that hard object.

 

[Brainonska511]

Bike helmets save lives.

Mandatory bike helmet laws crush public bike shares. Attempts to do "shared helmets" have also been limited, ill-received, logistically complicated, and limit the network size (which then limits the use of the bikeshare)

These two items are not necessarily in conflict with one another.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Bike helmets save lives.

Mandatory bike helmet laws crush public bike shares. Attempts to do "shared helmets" have also been limited, ill-received, logistically complicated, and limit the network size (which then limits the use of the bikeshare)

These two items are not necessarily in conflict with one another.

I'm not even sure any state in the U.S. has a mandatory bike helmet law for adult riders. I know there's laws based on age, but over 18 YO I'm not aware of any.

personally, I would find it hard to overcome my personal hygiene neurosis' to share a helmet with other riders. I'm more likely just to use my backpack that comes with a helmet holder.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yeah I’m pretty sure it is very well established in the research that bike helmets save lives.

Also, this is kind of common sense. If you’re engaging in an activity where your skull may come into contact with a hard object at high speed it’s usually better to put something between your skull and that hard object.

Pretty much, and I'd add that just because a child (or anyone) isn't going fast doesn't mean that a helmet isn't needed. simply falling while getting on a bike can result in quite a bit of head trauma.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

In population dense areas that want to implement bike roads only, I could see removing the helmet requirements. But anywhere there's cars near bikes, I think they should stay. Incidentally, population dense areas will probably have some other kind of transit like trains or buses. Neither is a fun as biking, as convenient, or as good for you health-wise.

edit: some typos and rewording for clarity (hopefully lel)

-Was100% with you right up to this part. The more bikes there are sharing a road, the more you're gonna need a helmet.

People are bad drivers and frankly even worse cyclists. And at least driving is restricted to adults, the number of near misses I've had with kids on their bikes veering wildy, stopping suddenly and randomly, or falling over themselves causing a scramble not to run them over or pile up is more than 0. And there are barely any cyclists here.

 

[Brainonska511]

-Was100% with you right up to this part. The more bikes there are sharing a road, the more you're gonna need a helmet.

People are bad drivers and frankly even worse cyclists. And at least driving is restricted to adults, the number of near misses I've had with kids on their bikes veering wildy, stopping suddenly and randomly, or falling over themselves causing a scramble not to run them over or pile up is more than 0. And there are barely any cyclists here.

Sorry, but a helmet does fuckall in a vehicle vs bike collision. Operators of motor vehicles need to be held to higher standards because they are operating something that can easily kill, especially as heavier vehicles with larger frontal blind spots have become more popular. Under the current paradigm, it's extremely easy to get out of any sort of real consequences if you kill someone with a car - "I didn't see him".

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sorry, but a helmet does fuckall in a vehicle vs bike collision. Operators of motor vehicles need to be held to higher standards because they are operating something that can easily kill, especially as heavier vehicles with larger frontal blind spots have become more popular. Under the current paradigm, it's extremely easy to get out of any sort of real consequences if you kill someone with a car - "I didn't see him".

I think we can't blanket statement it like this. Helmet's are a sound safety measure. Not all collisions are going to be the same. For example, a cyclist can run into a car at an intersection, be thrown from the bike, and sustain major head trauma (even at low speeds) that a helmet could've prevented.

@GodisanAtheist - to his point, it's fair....but I only disagree in part because an average bicyclist colliding with another cyclist will *likely* yield less tragic results, but the potential is still there for major head trauma. So if a state or local government decided that their bike areas still require helmets (maybe due to an injury like we're discussing), I would totally get it...and comply.

 

[HomerJS]

Enough already!

Insurance actuaries are why we have helmet laws. Math doesn't lie and results are not politically biased. Know what else actuaries tell us?

Climate change is an existential threat. Not only private companies but the military concludes the same.

 

[sdifox]

No comparison - an entirely different thing. Motorcyclists travel at much faster speeds and are at much more risk from their own momentum - plus motorcycle helmets are an entirely different type of thing to cycle helmets - provide much more protection. A better point would be to ask why car drivers aren't obliged to wear helmets, given the high incidence of head injury among motorists.

The mechanics (around the head) are identical. The forces involved differ in magnitude, that is why a motorcycle helmet is much more robust than a bicycle helmet.

 

[Zorba]

Bike helmets save lives.

Mandatory bike helmet laws crush public bike shares. Attempts to do "shared helmets" have also been limited, ill-received, logistically complicated, and limit the network size (which then limits the use of the bikeshare)

These two items are not necessarily in conflict with one another.

They could just have you lock the helmet onto the bike and if people are worried about sharing, carry some spray with them or their own helmet. Or build in a UV disinfectant light.

But I agree, it creates an issue for bike shares, but if the desire was there solutions could be developed.

 

[Zorba]

-Was100% with you right up to this part. The more bikes there are sharing a road, the more you're gonna need a helmet.

People are bad drivers and frankly even worse cyclists. And at least driving is restricted to adults, the number of near misses I've had with kids on their bikes veering wildy, stopping suddenly and randomly, or falling over themselves causing a scramble not to run them over or pile up is more than 0. And there are barely any cyclists here.

Hell, I've had many close calls with running over kids while I'm running. Kids just running right in front of you or riding a bike in front of you and just stop of of no where. My own daughter has braked checked me (on accident) multiple times when I'm riding a skateboard her.

 

[Zorba]

Sorry, but a helmet does fuckall in a vehicle vs bike collision. Operators of motor vehicles need to be held to higher standards because they are operating something that can easily kill, especially as heavier vehicles with larger frontal blind spots have become more popular. Under the current paradigm, it's extremely easy to get out of any sort of real consequences if you kill someone with a car - "I didn't see him".

Data I've seen (and posted) disagrees with you. Please provide some references that shows helmet provide no benefit in accidents involving a vehicle. Not every vehicle vs bike accident is a head on 50 mph collision, but even then I'll choose a helmet over not helmet.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Sorry, but a helmet does fuckall in a vehicle vs bike collision. Operators of motor vehicles need to be held to higher standards because they are operating something that can easily kill, especially as heavier vehicles with larger frontal blind spots have become more popular. Under the current paradigm, it's extremely easy to get out of any sort of real consequences if you kill someone with a car - "I didn't see him".

Uh, helmet saved my life when I was younger. Helmet saved my Uncle's life when he was hit on his harley. Yeah, he broke over 30 bones in his body, was in traction for many months, but his head and brain where still intact and functioning. You wouldn't even know he was in such a tramatic accident today roughly 25 years later. If either of us didn't have a helmet our family would be visiting us in the Cemetery.