Letter: Bicycle helmet law won't cure injuries

Maybe he should push for more education for bicyclists. Like what the laws are when riding on the road, what a "STOP" sign looks like, etc. etc.

Woo Hoo 2 wrote:

Maybe he should push for more education for bicyclists. Like what the laws are when riding on the road, what a "STOP" sign looks like, etc. etc.

I think the helmets are to protect them from their own stupidity and ignorance of laws. I have nothing against bicyclists, just stupid ones. I see no reason people shouldn't have to get a license to operate one though that doesn't seem to prevent idiots from driving cars either.

Why do Americans have the ridiculous idea anecdotal occurrences trump real statistics and science? Helmets save lives and protect from injury, period. Mr. McLaughlin's letter is completely without merit.

I hate the idea of a mandatory helmet law, but I hope there is someone out there who can present a better argument then this goop.

Hey Dean, how much stock to you own in a Helmet Company?

Bicycle helmet laws are just the snake oil the politicians peddle to the voting populace to get elected because it looks like they "did something for" the people.

Natural selection rules! Protecting yourself is a basic human drive that will be bread out of us if we demand that people who would otherwise choose not to, take interest in their own safety. I'm not saying that only stupid people don't wear helmets. A lot of people plan routes in an attempt to circumvent traffic for example. There are many things you can do to stay safe on a bike. The only law that needs to be enacted is one that gives the right of way to whoever is obeying the law instead of automatically giving it to the cyclist. They ride around like we won't hit them because they know the law is on their side. If a few of them get hit and not only have to pay their own medical bills, but also have to pay for damage to a motorists car because he wasn't doing anything wrong, maybe they would start riding right. No, I'm not saying all cyclists are to blame. I ride a bike. There are however a lot of bike riders in Chico who have no idea what they are doing and who need a wake up call before they are killed and an innocent driver winds up in jail for it. These riders give the rest of us a bad name.

Thankyou Ed. Maybe I'll see you at the locker sometime soon!

Dean wrote:

Why do Americans have the ridiculous idea anecdotal occurrences trump real statistics and science? Helmets save lives and protect from injury, period. Mr. McLaughlin's letter is completely without merit.
I hate the idea of a mandatory helmet law, but I hope there is someone out there who can present a better argument then this goop.

You must be new around here. Mr. McLaughlin was wearing a helmet when he hit a bollard in the park, was thrown from his bike, and is now paralyzed pretty badly. So his letter has plenty of merit, dum-mas. He's the expert on getting injured with a helmet on.

Christine Girton was also wearing a helmet when she was hit as she exercised a perfectly legal crossing of an intersection. The driver who killed her would have been found at fault if he'd hit another car, but for some reason, he was not at fault in hitting and killing Girton and was not cited. Her helmet didn't do her a damned bit of good.

A question occurs to me then, is that why is there a law that children need to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle (there is a law for kids, isn't there?), but adults don't.

I see a parent riding with say two of their children, the kids have helmets on but the parent doesn't. Assuming that a helmet could possibly prevent a serious head injury, the kids are protected, but if the parent were to be seriously injured, those kids would then have a seriously injured parent. Not a good situation.

I was WALKING downtown once and actually smacked my head on a pole because I was looking away for a second. I think we need a mandatory law that everyone should wear helmets AND bulletproof vests when walking. This would protect us from gunslinging psychos too. First time offense would be a $1,000 fine, second offense $2,000 and six months in jail, third offense $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

Joe Sixpack wrote:

I was WALKING downtown once and actually smacked my head on a pole because I was looking away for a second. I think we need a mandatory law that everyone should wear helmets AND bulletproof vests when walking. This would protect us from gunslinging psychos too. First time offense would be a $1,000 fine, second offense $2,000 and six months in jail, third offense $10,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

Best comment yet!

I was reaching for my alarm clock this morning and rolled over in my bed and fell out. Mandatory seatbelts to strap us into bed are needed in order to prevent possible injury. Catheters can be used in case anyone has to urinate during the night.

Self protection laws for the win!!!!!

First time that a ChicoER comments thread has made me laugh out loud...nice job, y'all!

Bogie wrote:

A question occurs to me then, is that why is there a law that children need to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle (there is a law for kids, isn't there?), but adults don't.
I see a parent riding with say two of their children, the kids have helmets on but the parent doesn't. Assuming that a helmet could possibly prevent a serious head injury, the kids are protected, but if the parent were to be seriously injured, those kids would then have a seriously injured parent. Not a good situation.

And to take this a step further, most of the time, the helmets on the kid's heads are NOT properly adjusted, so they sit very far back on their head, exposing the forehead/front of the head. How a parent can look at their child and not figure this out is beyond me....But, I do know for a fact that you can walk in to any downtown bike ship and they will be more than happy to adjust your child's helmet so it fits properly and more importantly, safely. I'm not one for a million laws, but I think common sense would dictate that young kids are better off wearing helmets than not....most responsible parents I think would agree with me. Get those helmets adjusted correctly people! And, if you ask your child to wear one, do the same! Set a good example parents.

Deebo wrote:

First time that a ChicoER comments thread has made me laugh out loud...nice job, y'all!

STOP! release the mouse. step away from the computer. go get your prescribed computer glasses..clean your hands with germ-ex. don't bicycle to Starbucks without helmet and red calvar vest..don't use cream. your five pounds over

If bicycle helmets don't seem to be necessary, or don't seem to prevent serious hesd injuries, and most posters here seem to think that adults shouldn't be forced to wear them, then why are children being forced to wear them?

If bicylclists weren't running red lights or stop signs, not riding like they were in the Tour de France, riding 5 bicyclists wide yelling at people to get out of their way they would be a lot safer.
>
Sad about the lady on the bike who ran the red light, but not surprised.
>
Sorry Ed ran into a bollard because he was in a pack, riding to fast to see and was hurt, but not surprised
>
Or the CSUC student who ran the stop sign at 32 last year.
Eventually a child or who does not understand "on your left" or "on your right" is going to be hit and killed. Or an elderly person who can't hear or even a dog on a leash. I feel sorry for them too.

juanita wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be new around here. Mr. McLaughlin was wearing a helmet when he hit a bollard in the park, was thrown from his bike, and is now paralyzed pretty badly. So his letter has plenty of merit, dum-mas. He's the expert on getting injured with a helmet on.
Christine Girton was also wearing a helmet when she was hit as she exercised a perfectly legal crossing of an intersection. The driver who killed her would have been found at fault if he'd hit another car, but for some reason, he was not at fault in hitting and killing Girton and was not cited. Her helmet didn't do her a damned bit of good.

You and "outraged" prove my point of just how stupid people are. You mental midgets really think a couple of anecdotal stories add up to some kind of proof helmets do not protect people from injury.

I kept my response short, but I guess it was too overwhelming for you two. I clearly said I was against mandatory helmet laws, but I am much more against people using a bunch of irrational sentiments to make some stupid and unintelligible point. For example, how long I have lived in this town has no bearing on the physical realities of the world. The forty years I have been peddling a bike in this town does not prove or disprove the FACT bicycle helmets help prevent injury and death.

Really, the assertion helmets to not protect is morally repugnant. What's next? Cigarettes are good for you? Seat-belts are bad and one is better off flying through a windshield? Good grief!

Born to be Mild wrote:

If bicylclists weren't running red lights or stop signs, not riding like they were in the Tour de France, riding 5 bicyclists wide yelling at people to get out of their way they would be a lot safer.
>
Sad about the lady on the bike who ran the red light, but not surprised.
>
Sorry Ed ran into a bollard because he was in a pack, riding to fast to see and was hurt, but not surprised
>
Or the CSUC student who ran the stop sign at 32 last year.
Eventually a child or who does not understand "on your left" or "on your right" is going to be hit and killed. Or an elderly person who can't hear or even a dog on a leash. I feel sorry for them too.

Absolutely.

Cycling can be a great activity, but it seems to attract the jerks. Riding in a pack is fun, but keep it out and away from road and foot traffic.

In the years following the introduction of California's mandatory motorcycle helmet law motorcycle fatalities dropped by 50%. It is just stupid to imply that helmets won't reduce injuries and deaths.

juanita wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be new around here. Mr. McLaughlin was wearing a helmet when he hit a bollard in the park, was thrown from his bike, and is now paralyzed pretty badly. So his letter has plenty of merit, dum-mas. He's the expert on getting injured with a helmet on.
Christine Girton was also wearing a helmet when she was hit as she exercised a perfectly legal crossing of an intersection. The driver who killed her would have been found at fault if he'd hit another car, but for some reason, he was not at fault in hitting and killing Girton and was not cited. Her helmet didn't do her a damned bit of good.

I'm not new around here Juanita and if anything, this letter completely removes any merit that Ed may have had. Of all the people in the world to be against bicycle helmets, I would think Ed would be the last. This just proves his head was hurt worse than they thought, he's apparently lost his mind.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supports the enactment of bicycle helmet usage laws. Bicycle helmets offer bicyclists the best protection from head injuries resulting from bicycle crashes, and bicycle helmet laws have been proven effective in increasing bicycle helmet use.

Universal bicycle helmet use by children aged 4 to 15 would prevent 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries, and 18,000 to 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually.

Bicycle helmets are 85 to 88 percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries, making the use of helmets the single most effective way to reduce head injuries and fatalities resulting from bicycle crashes.

Look this stuff up Juanita, it's all over the Internets.

The fact that Ed was wearing a helmet and still got hurt is completely irrelevant. It is anecdotal and completely unsubstantial. The fact that he is against helmet laws is just stupid and that can't be fixed.

Helmets save lives. Period.