Police Harassment

[Alaskan]

The bottom line issue IMO is what standard of personal responsibility is being applied.

I am a very active rider, usually on my bike at least 20 days a month, typically riding 30+ miles per day. I am an alert and defensive rider but also ride at a good clip most of time, As such I am usually good for at least two spills a year. Of the four spills I have taken in the past year a a half, two of them would clearly have resulted in some degree of head injury had I not been wearing a helmet. This based on the scrapes, scratches and evidence of impact on the helmet surface. I choose to wear a helmet and replace it after such incidents.

The only way I could possibly have any respect for someone who chooses not to wear a helmet is if they take full responsibility for their choice. That means paying 100% of the cost of injury out of pocket, not falling back on private or public insurance. Being insured means that many others are helping you meet the costs of your health care. If you don't wear a helmet, do you think others should have to help you bear the cost if you sustain a head injury? If your choice results in a big fat hospital bill, why should anyone else have to help you pay for it through insurance or mandatory emergency care laws? The only exception I would think reasonable to this standard is for injuries that occur due to self destructive decisions made by a person who is mentally deficient, i.e. unable (not unwilling) to properly care for themselves.

 

[pnop]

The bottom line issue IMO is what standard of personal responsibility is being applied.

I am a very active rider, usually on my bike at least 20 days a month, typically riding 30+ miles per day. I am an alert and defensive rider but also ride at a good clip most of time, As such I am usually good for at least two spills a year. Of the four spills I have taken in the past year a a half, two of them would clearly have resulted in some degree of head injury had I not been wearing a helmet. This based on the scrapes, scratches and evidence of impact on the helmet surface. I choose to wear a helmet and replace it after such incidents.

The only way I could possibly have any respect for someone who chooses not to wear a helmet is if they take full responsibility for their choice. That means paying 100% of the cost of injury out of pocket, not falling back on private or public insurance. Being insured means that many others are helping you meet the costs of your health care. If you don't wear a helmet, do you think others should have to help you bear the cost if you sustain a head injury? If your choice results in a big fat hospital bill, why should anyone else have to help you pay for it through insurance or mandatory emergency care laws? The only exception I would think reasonable to this standard is for injuries that occur due to self destructive decisions made by a person who is mentally deficient, i.e. unable (not unwilling) to properly care for themselves.

Others could believe that those pesky bikes don't belong on the road at all and the only way you should be allowed to ride them on the road is if you take all responsibilities for anything that might happen to you.

Do we refuse to rescue mountain climbers unless they pay up? Hikers? You get lost, you pay up? If you have to be rescued in a body of water you pay up unless you were wearing a flotation device?

 

[J.R.]

The bottom line issue IMO is what standard of personal responsibility is being applied.

I am a very active rider, usually on my bike at least 20 days a month, typically riding 30+ miles per day. I am an alert and defensive rider but also ride at a good clip most of time, As such I am usually good for at least two spills a year. Of the four spills I have taken in the past year a a half, two of them would clearly have resulted in some degree of head injury had I not been wearing a helmet. This based on the scrapes, scratches and evidence of impact on the helmet surface. I choose to wear a helmet and replace it after such incidents.

The only way I could possibly have any respect for someone who chooses not to wear a helmet is if they take full responsibility for their choice. That means paying 100% of the cost of injury out of pocket, not falling back on private or public insurance. Being insured means that many others are helping you meet the costs of your health care. If you don't wear a helmet, do you think others should have to help you bear the cost if you sustain a head injury? If your choice results in a big fat hospital bill, why should anyone else have to help you pay for it through insurance or mandatory emergency care laws? The only exception I would think reasonable to this standard is for injuries that occur due to self destructive decisions made by a person who is mentally deficient, i.e. unable (not unwilling) to properly care for themselves.

I think that's an unreasonable standard to set. Using that standard a person that walks for health and exploration could say riding a bike is too dangerous, and any bike rider should have to pay for injuries out of pocket. The standard is unworkable.

 

[Alaskan]

I think that's an unreasonable standard to set. Using that standard a person that walks for health and exploration could say riding a bike is too dangerous, and any bike rider should have to pay for injuries out of pocket. The standard is unworkable.

Would you then say that wearing a helmet on a bike is an unreasonable precaution?
Should laws be able to require people to take reasonable precautions, especially where the goal is avoiding high collective costs?
I would argue that the limit of your autonomy and freedom should be the line where you rely on others to pay the costs of your choices.

 

[MechaNut]

Even though helmets are entirely optional for cyclists in my state I wear a helmet. I know far too many cyclists that have survived bad crashes and had helmets save them to not see their worth. I honestly don't care how "dorky" I look if the helmet protects me if I have an accident. That's the thing about accidents, they don't happen on a schedule. It is better to have the helmet and never need it than to not have the helmet and get your brain permanently scrambled in an accident. That's just my thinking on helmets.

 

[pnop]

Would you then say that wearing a helmet on a bike is an unreasonable precaution?
Should laws be able to require people to take reasonable precautions, especially where the goal is avoiding high collective costs?
I would argue that the limit of your autonomy and freedom should be the line where you rely on others to pay the costs of your choices.

Simply riding a bike incurs risks.

 

[ListWeevils]

Simply riding a bike incurs risks.

Simply existing incurs risk.

 

[Alaskan]

If it is possible to mitigate, reduce or avoid the most serious and costly risks, it is irresponsible not to do so. If it only effects you that is one thing. If it costs and impacts others it is a different matter.

 

[J.R.]

Would you then say that wearing a helmet on a bike is an unreasonable precaution?
Should laws be able to require people to take reasonable precautions, especially where the goal is avoiding high collective costs?
I would argue that the limit of your autonomy and freedom should be the line where you rely on others to pay the costs of your choices.

Wearing a helmet is a reasonable precaution. Expecting everyone to agree with me is an unreasonable expectation. If we are to single out certain activities to preclude insurance coverage, where does it end? Insurance would be useless. If half of my legal activities aren't covered, I'd drop out of that insurance pool. Do we deny insurance coverage for heart patients who eat too many carbs or shake the salt shaker one too many times in a day? I know, sounds extreme. But that's where it leads. If people are high risk the only fair thing to do is to charge more for coverage. That's how we do it now.

 

[christob]

I think the video post above from @Deacon Blues could be the answer -- just get those clever folks to work up a full-body airbag product, and we all wear that at all times!
(Though they'd need to make a version that didn't slowly deflate, for those folks who fall off boats or bridges...)

 

[tomjasz]

I

If it is possible to mitigate, reduce or avoid the most serious and costly risks, it is irresponsible not to do so. If it only effects you that is one thing. If it costs and impacts others it is a different matter.

Please don't mistake my intentions, but I ride my bike exclusively from March through most of November. I've NEVER had a spill. If I were you I'd be questioning my riding skills and awareness. From my now deceased aviator friend.

"I have posted before, and will post again, when it comes to fatalities, study after study show that most are as a result of driving actions within the rider's control (excessive speed, lane errors, alcohol, etc). While helmets may save lives, the majority of the fatal mishaps could have been avoided in the first place had the rider not ridden as he or she had chosen to at the time of the mishap. Not saying one should be fool enough to ride without a helmet, but that all too many fools ride in a manner which results in their own demise."

 

[tomjasz]

A favorite post!

"
To reiterate, in brief, "Safety" is is probably more accurately called "mishap prevention", and "Survivabliity" is what you do to make a mishap less costly in terms of life and limb of those involved.

Gear is a survivability issue. Gear does not prevent mishaps, but only mitigates the physical damage, within the limits of the gear, one suffers should a mishap occur.

I write this again, only in the hope that it might cure someone from a false sense of security. If wearing gear leads you to take more risk, you are increasing the probability of a mishap. Yes, there is risk involved in riding. The "more risk" I speak of is excessive speed, lane violations, riding while alcohol impared and willful inattention. All items within your control. Personally, I would find it quite difficult to find a compelling logic for any of these safety violations.

As to specific elements of gear, there is a lot of data about the survivability benefits of helmets, for example. I offer this link again, because it is a good (albeit long and technical) read: (Link Removed - No Longer Exists)
Unfortunately, even with all the data, there is not universal agreement over which standard (DOT, Snell, ECE) is most protective. One conclusion that is pretty spot on is that a helmet can increase survivability. Moving vehicle mishaps always involve some form of impact (sooner or later), and the head is quite susceptible to impact injury.

Why are helmet standards not cut and dry? Well, I would have to agree with the authors of the above article on one point to some extent. Money is a powerful motivator. One of the better helmets tested in the article costs under $100. If pure and simple maximum survivability were the "Holy Grail" of helmets, then the make and model that they mention would be the best seller, hands down. But "comfort", "cool looks", "built in blue tooth" (a potential cause of inattention, a significant cause of fatal accidents) and the like add to consumer desires, and for a price, we can get a potentially lesser (although to the minimum "standard") level of survivability that tickles our fancy. Further, if the helmet's "options" can cause inattention, we raise the risk of mishap causation.

As to apparel, I have not seen much real data on the protective features it affords. Lots of anecdotal stuff, but no real testing data, nor, to the best of my knowledge, are there any standards. And, folks, lets not forget that impact and penetration injury is probably the killer, not road rash. I am not minimizing the issue of road rash, nor questioning the wisdom of wearing protective apparel. I am just suggesting that you add some cold logic to the emotion this subject stirs. The apparel argument is much more difficult to resolve, as there is little or no empirical data.

So, from my soapbox, issue number one is to prevent mishaps to the best of your ability. Yes, there will be, on occasion, mishaps that are outside the control of the rider. But again, look at the fatality stats that I previously posted from the State of Washington. The overwhelming majority of motorcycle fatalities involved causation factors totally within the rider's control.

Lastly, returning to the "money" motivator I mentioned above. One major cycle dealer I know once told me that the big money is in riding apparel. He said that there is a term in the industry - "apparel whores". These are the customers who will spend a small fortune on all kinds of apparel, to include helmets, over and above the "necessities". And spend it time and time again. No offense intended to any of you, but I share this to cast a glimmer of light on one dealer's representation of how he views the survivability equipment market - as a cash cow.

The apparel or Toreador Pants argument is difficult to resolve. Lacking data or standards, it's very subjective. Anecdotes are illustrative, but not conclusive. All we can really conclude is that protective apparel seems to be a plus.

No survival gear makes you a safer rider. Your practices and attitude while at the controls determines that. While a helmet, for example, can be the prime life saver after the fact, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we are going to get worked up over anything, I suggest we focus on mishap prevention. If any topic should be vorbotten here or roundly condemned by our community, I would suggest we start with discussions of how we ride at speeds above the legal limit (for whatever reason), for openers. That is more of a proven killer than riding in shorts. Think about the inconsistency we exhibit when we jump on the "stupidity" of a guy riding in shorts , but never challenge the guy posting he achieved a 95+ mph top speed on other than a closed race course. A speed illegal in virtually every state, and a causative factor in over 50% of the fatal accidents studies in the graph above.

Hopefully, I've offered food for thought.

Treat people as being precious. Drive as if your life depends upon it.

Al

 

[tomjasz]

No survival gear makes you a safer rider. Your practices and attitude while at the controls determines that. While a helmet, for example, can be the prime life saver after the fact, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we are going to get worked up over anything, I suggest we focus on mishap prevention. If any topic should be vorbotten here or roundly condemned by our community, I would suggest we start with discussions of how we ride at speeds above the legal limit (for whatever reason), for openers. That is more of a proven killer than riding in shorts. Think about the inconsistency we exhibit when we jump on the "stupidity" of a guy riding in shorts , but never challenge the guy posting he achieved a 95+ mph top speed on other than a closed race course. A speed illegal in virtually every state, and a causative factor in over 50% of the fatal accidents studies in the graph above.

 

[Citycrosser]

The bottom line issue IMO is what standard of personal responsibility is being applied.

I am a very active rider, usually on my bike at least 20 days a month, typically riding 30+ miles per day. I am an alert and defensive rider but also ride at a good clip most of time, As such I am usually good for at least two spills a year. Of the four spills I have taken in the past year a a half, two of them would clearly have resulted in some degree of head injury had I not been wearing a helmet. This based on the scrapes, scratches and evidence of impact on the helmet surface. I choose to wear a helmet and replace it after such incidents.

The only way I could possibly have any respect for someone who chooses not to wear a helmet is if they take full responsibility for their choice. That means paying 100% of the cost of injury out of pocket, not falling back on private or public insurance. Being insured means that many others are helping you meet the costs of your health care. If you don't wear a helmet, do you think others should have to help you bear the cost if you sustain a head injury? If your choice results in a big fat hospital bill, why should anyone else have to help you pay for it through insurance or mandatory emergency care laws? The only exception I would think reasonable to this standard is for injuries that occur due to self destructive decisions made by a person who is mentally deficient, i.e. unable (not unwilling) to properly care for themselves.

I for one, to minimize my impact on society and insurance costs, wear a full fire retardant race jump suit and full face helmet any time I leave the house. I simply can't have respect for anyone who doesn't also do the same.

Seriously: Your take is crazy. Do you lose respect for folks that are overweight and have type 2 diabetes? Their decisions to live an unhealthy lifestyle cost a lot more than my decision to not wear a helmet every time I ride my bike.

 

[The duke]

The bottom line issue IMO is what standard of personal responsibility is being applied.

I am a very active rider, usually on my bike at least 20 days a month, typically riding 30+ miles per day. I am an alert and defensive rider but also ride at a good clip most of time, As such I am usually good for at least two spills a year. Of the four spills I have taken in the past year a a half, two of them would clearly have resulted in some degree of head injury had I not been wearing a helmet. This based on the scrapes, scratches and evidence of impact on the helmet surface. I choose to wear a helmet and replace it after such incidents.

The only way I could possibly have any respect for someone who chooses not to wear a helmet is if they take full responsibility for their choice. That means paying 100% of the cost of injury out of pocket, not falling back on private or public insurance. Being insured means that many others are helping you meet the costs of your health care. If you don't wear a helmet, do you think others should have to help you bear the cost if you sustain a head injury? If your choice results in a big fat hospital bill, why should anyone else have to help you pay for it through insurance or mandatory emergency care laws? The only exception I would think reasonable to this standard is for injuries that occur due to self destructive decisions made by a person who is mentally deficient, i.e. unable (not unwilling) to properly care for themselves.

Helmet wearer here. When I first started mountain biking, my parents were dead set against it. They made your exact same arguments. Such risky behavior, and for what? My future injuries shouldnt be pushing up the cost of pooled health insurance.

You could make a similar argument from a million different standards. Anyone without a MIPS helmet. Anyone without lights, anyone without a rash guard or elbow and knee protectors, anyone traveling over 20kph should be coming out of pocket for their injuries.

Not only is it a free country, but it's a free marketplace too. My dad always dreamed of learning to fly. Buy he locked in a great deal on $1 million worth of life insurance back in the 70s, and if started he'd void the policy by doing risky activities like flight training. Insurance adjusters are big boys. They can figure out their own exclusions.

 

[The duke]

I for one, to minimize my impact on society and insurance costs, wear a full fire retardant race jump suit and full face helmet any time I leave the house. I simply can't have respect for anyone who doesn't also do the same.

Seriously: Your take is crazy. Do you lose respect for folks that are overweight and have type 2 diabetes? Their decisions to live an unhealthy lifestyle cost a lot more than my decision to not wear a helmet every time I ride my bike.

Some hilarious wit there!

 

[Alaskan]

This thread reminds me of a quote by Thomas Paine...
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to a corpse, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”

I'm done here.

 

[Toomanycats]

Personally, I just can’t bring myself to ride without a helmet. It’s like not wearing a seatbelt. Not only that, it’s a mountain bike helmet of blinding whiteness, because I’ve noticed when I’m out driving, that a white helmet on a biker catches the eye.
I think it’s a matter of common sense, which seems to be in short supply these days.
Riding my comfort bike on the boardwalk, or the sedate local bike path? I’d pass on the helmet. Anywhere out on the street? Yes, helmet. And I believe they’re actually required for racing or mtb competition.
And it’s a matter of cultural acceptance and habit, too. 40 years ago, bike racers wore those silly leather hairnets, or no helmets at all. Now I don’t think anyone thinks twice about wearing them-even when training, they’re part of one’s “kit”.

 

[tomjasz]

This thread reminds me of a quote by Thomas Paine...
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to a corpse, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”

I'm done here.

YIKES!!! THIS is exactly why helmet discussions destroy forums and create hard feelings. Some things are best just left alone. I'm always discouraged when reading a post and finding one of us has decided to mount the moral high ground. It makes a mess out of a great forum and alienates otherwise kind and helpful posters.

We do dress up our corpses and the religulous have destroyed many good relationships!

But I digress and fell into the trap. Have I said "I hate helmet threads?" and I respect and support your choices!

bike helmet of blinding whiteness,

Thought by many in the MC world to be a very safe, visible color choice.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

...
Do we refuse to rescue mountain climbers unless they pay up? Hikers? You get lost, you pay up? If you have to be rescued in a body of water you pay up unless you were wearing a flotation device?

If you go climb mountains in Pakistan, Nepal, India, or China. Because if you didn't fork over for rescue insurance you are on your own.

Some decades ago I was involved in a mountaineering accident in Alaska and all of our party were billed for the rescue. It certainly didn't cover all of the costs and I happily paid my share.