4 ms·

Bike helmets should be compulsory only if - Having a five-point harness for every car is compulsory (alright, I'll admit this is somewhat overkill and rhetoric

Bike helmets should be compulsory only if - Having a five-point harness for every car is compulsory (alright, I'll admit this is somewhat overkill and rhetorical) - Cars are certified yearly as being road safe (not the case in all states in the US, but I think this is the case in the EU) - Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. The motorist is driving a much more dangerous vehicle capable of causing serious injuries to themselves and other parties. Let us all behave in a responsible manner.

Pxtl 11y ago
Exactly. If being at-fault in a severe traffic accident cost you driving rights long-term, then I'd be understanding that we're taking safety seriously. Until then, talk of mandatory helmet laws is just trying to get the cyclists off the road. /wears a helmet when cycling.
hueving 11y ago
I don't follow your logic. Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks, but that's plenty fast enough to die on a bike going head-first into the ground.
- parennoob 11y ago
  > Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. Yes, at the time of manufacture. How about maintenance? If your car has severe mechanical problems, you are endangering everyone around you (and of course yourself as well). > I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks Not that many cars go 10mph. Why should it be some kind of benchmark for car safety? Freeway speed limits are usually between 55 and 70mph, and are violated with a level of casualness that varies by state.
- Pxtl 11y ago
  Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously by regulators, but not by law enforcement. If you kill somebody when you're behind the wheel, and you were sober? You'll usually get dinged with "failure to yield", which basically means "there was an accident and it was your fault because your car was where it was when it had no right to be". Like turning when the intersection isn't clear or something. That comes with a $500 fine. A $500 for taking a life by negligence. Yeah, besides airbags and seat-belts, we collectively don't give a crap about vehicular safety.
disordinary 11y ago
As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). The five point harness is not the same thing though as you aren't harnessed to a bike. Compulsory seatbelt wearing and air bags are more apt, and these things are currently in place. One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. I don't think that's the point: I don't think most bike fatalities are from the kinds of injuries that helmets mitigate. I think the point of helmets is reducing the incidence and severity of a certain class of non-fatal injuries that are experienced without them.
  - disordinary 11y ago
    Exactly, if you get hit by a truck a helmet isn't going to do much, but if you go over the bonnet of a car that pulls out without looking then it might mean the difference between a few scrapes and a long stint in hospital.
- parennoob 11y ago
  > As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). Yes, this sounds pretty good. I think the situation on car safety is much better in the EU and other countries compared to the US. > But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one. As will I. I do wear a bike helmet a lot. What pisses me off is that I can be fined $100+ for not wearing it when the guy next to me with a car that seems to be running on coal and two tires with questionable pressure goes scot free.
  - disordinary 11y ago
anon4327733 11y ago
You going to give a cost benefit analysis of any of these? I don't see any reason to see a better cost-benefit than wearing a biking helmet.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. Maybe you haven't noticed, but at some point, a meaner nastier criminal justice system does little or no additional good at the expense of harming innocent people. That point's long been passed with DUI laws, and people still do it.
- handedness 11y ago
  Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification for long prison sentences. If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle or the keys down, then they need to be restrained. I'd rather find a cheaper way than prison, but it's insanity that you can drive drunk and receive a punishment that serves as almost no disincentive to continue to do it.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world would have been better off that way. Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish. I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world.
    - handedness 11y ago
      Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is what's wrong here? I don't even know where to begin...
      - nsxwolf 11y ago
        Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver? Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse. There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny percentage they catch!
Johnny555 11y ago
I'd add "Mandatory and significant jail time for leaving the scene of an accident". A local lawyer just got off with a 30 day sentence after he hit a cyclist and drove off because he claimed he thought he hit a deer or rock. And this was after he admitted that he just came back from a function where he was drinking. The prosecutor was looking for a felony hit-and-run, the judge reduced it to a misdemeanor because "This could have happened to anyone." So, the moral of the story is -- if you hit someone while drunk, don't stop, just drive home and sober up, then claim you thought you hit a deer. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-bicyclist-in-hit-and-run-6562312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-...

Pxtl 11y ago

Exactly. If being at-fault in a severe traffic accident cost you driving rights long-term, then I'd be understanding that we're taking safety seriously. Until then, talk of mandatory helmet laws is just trying to get the cyclists off the road. /wears a helmet when cycling.

hueving 11y ago

I don't follow your logic. Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks, but that's plenty fast enough to die on a bike going head-first into the ground.

parennoob 11y ago
> Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. Yes, at the time of manufacture. How about maintenance? If your car has severe mechanical problems, you are endangering everyone around you (and of course yourself as well). > I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks Not that many cars go 10mph. Why should it be some kind of benchmark for car safety? Freeway speed limits are usually between 55 and 70mph, and are violated with a level of casualness that varies by state.
Pxtl 11y ago
Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously by regulators, but not by law enforcement. If you kill somebody when you're behind the wheel, and you were sober? You'll usually get dinged with "failure to yield", which basically means "there was an accident and it was your fault because your car was where it was when it had no right to be". Like turning when the intersection isn't clear or something. That comes with a $500 fine. A $500 for taking a life by negligence. Yeah, besides airbags and seat-belts, we collectively don't give a crap about vehicular safety.

disordinary 11y ago

As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). The five point harness is not the same thing though as you aren't harnessed to a bike. Compulsory seatbelt wearing and air bags are more apt, and these things are currently in place. One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. I don't think that's the point: I don't think most bike fatalities are from the kinds of injuries that helmets mitigate. I think the point of helmets is reducing the incidence and severity of a certain class of non-fatal injuries that are experienced without them.
- disordinary 11y ago
  Exactly, if you get hit by a truck a helmet isn't going to do much, but if you go over the bonnet of a car that pulls out without looking then it might mean the difference between a few scrapes and a long stint in hospital.
parennoob 11y ago
> As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). Yes, this sounds pretty good. I think the situation on car safety is much better in the EU and other countries compared to the US. > But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one. As will I. I do wear a bike helmet a lot. What pisses me off is that I can be fined $100+ for not wearing it when the guy next to me with a car that seems to be running on coal and two tires with questionable pressure goes scot free.
- disordinary 11y ago

anon4327733 11y ago

You going to give a cost benefit analysis of any of these? I don't see any reason to see a better cost-benefit than wearing a biking helmet.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. Maybe you haven't noticed, but at some point, a meaner nastier criminal justice system does little or no additional good at the expense of harming innocent people. That point's long been passed with DUI laws, and people still do it.

handedness 11y ago
Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification for long prison sentences. If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle or the keys down, then they need to be restrained. I'd rather find a cheaper way than prison, but it's insanity that you can drive drunk and receive a punishment that serves as almost no disincentive to continue to do it.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world would have been better off that way. Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish. I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world.
  - handedness 11y ago
    Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is what's wrong here? I don't even know where to begin...
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver? Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse. There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny percentage they catch!

Johnny555 11y ago

I'd add "Mandatory and significant jail time for leaving the scene of an accident". A local lawyer just got off with a 30 day sentence after he hit a cyclist and drove off because he claimed he thought he hit a deer or rock. And this was after he admitted that he just came back from a function where he was drinking. The prosecutor was looking for a felony hit-and-run, the judge reduced it to a misdemeanor because "This could have happened to anyone." So, the moral of the story is -- if you hit someone while drunk, don't stop, just drive home and sober up, then claim you thought you hit a deer. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-bicyclist-in-hit-and-run-6562312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-...