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.
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.