Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
helmets - an open letter
Quote | Reply
I e-mailed this to Velonews.com in response to a Bob Mionske column in which he stated "I would urge cycling advocates to try to add no-blame clauses to their state bicycle helmet laws." (note: "no blame" clauses exempt cyclists from being held contibutorily negligent if they suffer preventable injuries as a result of their failure to wear a helmet)

Dear Bob,

How about urging cycling advocates to advocate that all cyclists, regardless of whether there are helmet laws or not, wear a helmet when they ride?

It does sometimes happen, that a cyclist crashes and suffers serious injury, or even death, which could have been prevented by helmet use (ever heard of Andrei Kivilev Bob?), without a car driver to blame it on.

Even if there is another vehicle involved in a bicycle accident, if you or your loved one is the one killed or left with permanent brain damage that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, the fact that there is someone else to blame who can pay the medical bills is cold comfort indeed.

Professional cyclists, who ride bikes for money, are now required to wear a helmet at all times, for their own safety. These riders do not have to deal with cars, stoplights, or any of the other hazards that recreational cyclists encounter every day, and their bike handling skills are immeasureably greater than those of the average cyclist. I would argue that recreational cyclists are exposed to much greater risks than professionals, and should also wear a helmet at all times, for their own safety.

Whether there are laws or not, I would urge you to advocate helmet use, rather than attempting to insulate peope from their own bad decision making by advocating "no blame" laws. Contributory negligence is a part of tort law for a reason, and that reason is to make people responsible for the risks they willingly take.

If you ride without a helmet, and you suffer a head injury that could have been prevented by wearing one, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I support the right of cyclists to make that choice, but with that right comes responsibility.

Sincerely,

Mikel C. Pearce

p.s. Velonews posted a few replies and then said "that's it for the helmet debate for now" (as is their right - it's not a discussion forum). I'd like to see what the people here think.

Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Whatever the legalese is, the bottom line is this: When ever you get on a bike to ride it - wear a helmet, period.

It's the same as a seatbelt in the car. There are those who will chafe at this and claim that it is their right to do whatever they want. However, wearing a helmet just seems to make so much sense. Furthermore, it could save your life!


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
<<Whatever the legalese is, the bottom line is this: When ever you get on a bike to ride it - wear a helmet, period.

It's the same as a seatbelt in the car. There are those who will chafe at this and claim that it is their right to do whatever they want. However, wearing a helmet just seems to make so much sense. Furthermore, it could save your life! >>

For those who don't want to wear a helmet, I say get permission from your loved ones first. You see, getting into an accident and then subjecting your loved ones to a lifetime of caring for you is not just your decision. You really need to sit everyone down and lay it out for them and get their approval. "Mom, Dad, you watched me grow up, start my own family, etc. Now, I want to ride down the street on my bicycle with out a helmet because I can. If I become a vegitable, my creditors may come after your assets all the while you will have to feed me mashed peas and wipe my bottom for me. Don't forget the frequent massages to help prevent bed sores. I may become spastic at times and you will have to look into my eyes and see my memory struggle with what I have become versus the healthy, strong capable athlete I was. And my beautiful wife and loving kids, I want to ride "free" all the while it is you who will bear the consequences of my actions and miss trips to Disneyland and Yellowstone park. Is this alright with you?"

Death is it, bam, finito. People mourn and eventually move on. It's subjecting your loved ones to decades of emotionally draining care should you suffer brain damage that pisses me off.

Wear your fucking helmet--it's that simple.

Brett
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is somewhat similar to the bike helmet issue. Last night I saw a lady rollerblading. She was wearing her knee pads and wrist guards, but no helmet. Does she value her knees and wrists more than her Head. She must realize she is going to crash if she is wearing some pads. I know, the helmet will mess up her hair.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [timberwolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that by-and-large, the triathlon crowd gets this. If for no other reason than since day-one it has been mandatory to wear a helmet when racing.

The missing link has been with road cyclists, commuters, and casual cyclists. Road cyclists are getting much better. It helps that ALL professionals must now where helmets with the odd exceptions. As for the latter two groups, many people still do not wear them. Kids don't wear them and as they say, it's a serious accident waiting to happen.


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At least now some US states require the use of helmets by children.



It took getting into triathlon for me to smarten up...I had no choice, so I bought one and wore it, and now I wear it on every ride, racing or not. The "it bothers me" or "I don't like it" excuse doesn't cut it, and I'm just plain lucky that I never needed it before the age of 36.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [timberwolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's about as well put as I could have done.

When I see a helmetless rider here in NYC (you'd be surprised how many), I figure it's natural selection hard at work.

When I ask people why they don't wear them, they give me responses which I immediately shoot down to make them feel stupid for not using them, including:

It's too hot in the summer - drink more water, or if pro athletes can do it...

It's old and doesn't fit - buy a new one dumb-ass

I never crash - yeah, I never crashed either until I crashed... and landed right on my HELMETED head - that's why I can still talk

I'm only going a mile or so - and that helps cushion your impact how?





What are the excuses that people have told you when you question them?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animal!!!
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [timberwolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would take it a step farther and ask permission of all of your friends, neighbors and fellow Americans because if you are unlucky and don't die but are incapacitated we all will be paying for the cost through higher taxes and insurance. Survival of the fittest involves intelligence or lack there of.

Larry

Don't be afraid to ride too long or too hard. That's what cell phones are for. Rich Strauss
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
uhhhhhh.... you guys are missing the point here.

the issue is not responsibility, nor whether or not you should wear a helmet. the issue that mr mionske is addressing is in closing a tactical pathway for drivers who barrel down a cyclist.

say some car plows thru a stop sign, and turns left in front of a cyclist. mr mionske is trying to get law to NOT allow that driver to shift responsibilty of the injuries the cyclist sustain to the rider based on whether or not the rider had a helmet on !! without this, said driver could duck much liability, simply by saying it was the riders fault, and not his own that the rider was injured. we see this all the time already - a cyclist will be in the right, and killed and the newspaper will not even mention the car ran a stop sign but WILL note whether or not the cyclicst had a helmet on.

helmet zealots get a clue- broaden your perspective a little - mr mionske is on our side.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [t-t-n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ah yes! The old "blame the victim" gambit. Invented for rape case defense, it has proven a powerful tool for defense attorneys who bank on juries' inability to think clearly, and the media, which prefers not to.

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A couple of other points to make to others (of course none of us here would do this!):

Wear the helmet properly - I've seen a number of triathletes that have their helmet stylishly pushed back on their head, like it was a yarmulke.

Make sure the chinstrap is tight enough. I volunteered at the mount/dismount line at a race and was amazed at how much slack some people had. A few were so loose that when they put their head down, the chinstrap swung right past the chin and was hanging by their nose - lot of good that would do if they hit something and their head gets thrown forward and down.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [t-t-n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
t-t-n,

Of course the issue is responsibility! As I said in my initial post: If you are in an accident and suffer injuries which could have been prevented by wearing a helmet then you have no one to blame but yourself.

It doesn't matter if you crash on your own, or if another vehicle is involved, if your injuries could have been prevented by a helmet, your decision not to wear a helmet is the cause of your injuries!

If you want to sue the driver of the hypothetical car for all they're worth when they eventually hit you (apparently all car/bike accidents are caused by cars running stop signs ...), I have three words for you: Wear your helmet.

If Mr. Mionske is on our side, he has a funny way of showing it.

We are all responsible for the choices we make. If you choose not to wear a helmet, then you are responsible for the risks that come with that decision.

mp
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does anyone know if there are insurance companies that have put something like a "helmet clause" in their medical or life or disability policies? Something that has the effect of forcing you to pay an extra premium to get coverage in the event that you are injured/killed while cycling without a helmet.

I'm fully in favor of helmet laws, because I also pay to care for people who don't have insurance. As a society, we have chosen not to deny critical medical attention to people who can't afford to pay for it. To me, that means that people are not really "free to choose" to be idiots because their choice costs the rest of us real dollars. Which, by the way, is why I'm also in favor of banning smoking and guns.

Lee
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [lsilverman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
<<Which, by the way, is why I'm also in favor of banning smoking and guns. >>

Yes, gun control worked quite well for Hitler

www.jpfo.org

Brett

"Du or Du not-there is no Tri" - Yoda
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
His column was answering a specific question from a legal standpoint.

That question was:

"
Bob;
This question came up at our weekly post-ride coffee break. If a car hits me while I'm riding my bike, and I'm not wearing a helmet, can the driver use that to blame me for my own injuries?
R.L.
New York
"

His answer was germane to the question.

Guess I don't understand why you're so mad at him.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tritoronto sez:

"It doesn't matter if you crash on your own, or if another vehicle is involved, if your injuries could have been prevented by a helmet, your decision not to wear a helmet is the cause of your injuries! "

i could not possibly disagree with you more. simply sir, if you cannot see why this is flawed at both the basic level and the precedent setting legal level which mr mionske was addressing i will not attempt to aide you ( tho here is a little hint - perhaps the "cause" of injury is the c-a-r hitting you??). you would make a fine attorney for the defence of guys plowing into cyclists everywhere - or at least they will employ your perspective. mr mionske is addressing the issue of preventing the deflecting of responsibilty from auto's illegally striking cyclists onto the cyclists themselves. if you cannot - thru your helmet zeal - see where this helps cyclists while your own view hurts them then i am very happy mr mionske is our man and not you sir. sheesh.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
>if your injuries could have been prevented by a helmet, your
>decision not to wear a helmet is the cause of your injuries

Not exactly. That's like saying your decision to preheat your oven caused a cake. Necessary, maybe, but not sufficient.

It also doesn't follow that a negligent driver is blameless.

So, hypothetically, what would you say if I said that you should wear a mouthguard, and any injuries you sustain to your teeth are your own fault if you weren't wearing a mouthguard? Is that different? Is so, how?
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A problem with this line of reasoning: in a practical sense, how do you ever know if a particular injury could have been prevented by wearing a helmet? A helmet cannot protect against all head injuries, and can only be reasonably expected to reduce the severity of certain types of trauma.

Also, as another poster pointed out, a helmet is completely useless if it is not properly attached to the person's head.

In 2000, there were 10,801 homicides in the US with a firearm. There are around 750 deaths per year while riding a bicycle, around 60% (or 450) are due to head injuries. Therefore, should I be considered to be contributing to the injury if I am shot and I am not wearing a bulletproof vest? Obviously not.

If a driver fails to exercise due care and strikes a cyclist, I don't believe that it is reasonable to say that the cyclist is responsible for being struck and becoming injured. If the cyclist swerves into oncoming traffic, then yes, the cyclist is responsible.

If helmets were mandatory (they are not in most countries, Oz being the exception) then a stronger case could be made for a cyclist to be contributing to their injuries, as they were not obeying the law. Similar to riding at night with no lights or reflective gear.

Before anyone asks, I don't know the stats for non-fatal injuries.

J.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [pyker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
His answer was germane to the question until he suggested that cycling advocates push for "no-blame" laws in states that don't already have them.

That suggestion is not germane to the answer to the question asked, from a legal standpoint, and in my view is a completely irresponsible approach to the problem of the issues society is faced with with respect to the injuries suffered by cyclists as a result of their failure to wear a helmet. Advocating for "no-blame" laws for cyclists not wearing helmets is, in my view, akin to advocating for "no-blame" laws for those who refuse to wear seatbelts in cars. All it does is discourage the wearing of helmets and increase the severity of injuries likely to be suffered by those cyclists who crash while not wearing a helmet.

mp

p.s. Brett, with respect to your post, several responses come to mind, but I will act with descretion rather than anger and not bother to respond - perhaps you should learn to do so as well.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [pyker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jason and pyker make excellent points. consider:

say the cyclist is not killed and does not have a scratch on his head. but, his spine is severed at C7 from a car hitting him from behind. according to tritoronto - the cause of this rider's new parapalegic status is NOT the wayward automobile but instead is his OWN fault because he elected to not put on his dainese back protector that day.

this is the sort of issue that mr mionske was addressing. and, as pyker notes while this example seems silly, it is in fact apprapo in light of helmets NOT being required on cyclists - just like back protectors.

helmet-nuts scare me more than cars . . . . . . . .
Quote Reply
furthermore [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
logically-extended-tritoronto says:

Of course the issue is responsibility! As I said in my initial post: If you are in an accident and suffer injuries which could have been prevented by not going on a bike ride then you have no one to blame but yourself.

It doesn't matter if you crash on your own, or if another vehicle is involved, if your injuries could have been prevented by not riding, your decision to go for a ride is the cause of your injuries!

If you want to sue the driver of the hypothetical car for all they're worth when they eventually hit you (apparently all car/bike accidents are caused by cars running stop signs ...), I have four words for you: don't ride your bike.

If Mr. Mionske is on our side, he has a funny way of showing it.

We are all responsible for the choices we make. If you choose to ride a bike, then you are responsible for the risks that come with that decision.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [t-t-n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
t-t-n

I am certainly not saying that the car driver who negligently strikes and injures a cyclist is not responsible for the injuries caused. However, if the cyclist is not wearing a helmet and his or her injuries are more severe than they would have been had he or she been wearing a helmet, the the cyclist must bear some of the responsibility - their decision to not wear a helmet has contributed to their injuries.

Saying the cyclist is not at least partially responsible is akin to saying that a back-country skier shouldn't have to pay for their rescue if they become trapped or lost in the back-country. They have courted the risk, and are at least partially responsible for their situation. We as a society should not have to pay for the risks you willingly take, and that is what ends up happening.

mp
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>That suggestion is not germane to the answer to the question
>asked, from a legal standpoint, and in my view is a completely
>irresponsible approach to the problem of the issues society is
>faced with with respect to the injuries suffered by cyclists as a
>result of their failure to wear a helmet. Advocating for "no-
>blame" laws for cyclists not wearing helmets is, in my view,
>akin to advocating for "no-blame" laws for those who refuse to
>wear seatbelts in cars.

At least one difference is that wearing seatbelts is a legal requirement in most states (if not all?).


>All it does is discourage the wearing of
>helmets and increase the severity of injuries likely to be
>suffered by those cyclists who crash while not wearing a
>helmet.

I disagree that a no-blame law *discourages* the wearing of helmets.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
All it does is discourage the wearing of helmets and increase the severity of injuries likely to be suffered by those cyclists who crash while not wearing a helmet.


I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. I don't think that a no-blame law will have any effect on whether an individual chooses to wear a helmet. When I go for a ride, I certainly don't think about whether I will be held responsible if I get in an accident with a car. I usually am thinking that i should put the helmet on to prevent the injury in the first place.

I do wear a helmet and I think it is a good idea for people to wear them. But I don't think that a driver should be held any less responsible for injuring or killing a cyclist if the cyclist was not wearing a helmet.

Also, in most states it is the law to buckle up. Failure to obey the law is contributory, by default (i'm not a lawyer, so that may not be true in the strictest sense, but you get the idea I hope). It is not the law to wear a helmet, although it is a good idea.

J.
Quote Reply
Re: helmets - an open letter [tritoronto] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tritoronto. fair enough, but what then of the back protector? as it happens i received two catalogues today that have them available. i choose not to wear them. am i responsible, then for my spinal injury when a car rear ends me?

mr mionske's comments are an attempt to keep the focus where the focus belongs, on the auto driving into my right of way and striking me. whether or not i have a back protector, leather suit, or giro pnuemo on should make zero difference as to where the blame lies for me being in the ambulance. all thos echoice in protective eqipment are merelt that - choices. my choice in clothing has nothingto do with me riding safely and being hit. your assertions, while well meaning - are i believe shortsighted and hurtful to cyclists in the broadscope.
Quote Reply

Prev Next