Proposed California law would make helmets compulsory for all cyclists

Never understood why motorists should not wear helmets?

Apart from something I heard about reduced peripheral visibility, but sure you could design a suitable helmet for a road motorist.

I am not a licensed driver, but have spent a good amount of time driving off-road and off-highway vehicles including Honda Pilots, Honda Big Red 4x4 and Yamaha Banshee quads, Land Rovers, various track go-karts or off-road buggys, even Warrior APC, Stollies, AV432 and a Sherman tank!

Would not go anywhere near these vehicles without wearing a suitable helmet, because its not a case of 'if' you crash, but 'when' you crash, or take a hard bump to the noggin.

Need to protect the head when it happens. Try driving a tracked vehicle off-road; its like being put in a cocktail shaker, in this photo below my brains still look scrambled after 2 hours in the turret of a Warrior APC, I am the guy at the front looking a bit dazzled!

Would the woman killed in the crash that involved reality star Bruce Jenner have survived had she been wearing a helmet? Perhaps the authorities in CA should be pushing for all motor vehicle occupants to wear helmets.

@spen, the fundamental problem with those statistics is reporting. I know from personal experience many accidents are unreported. The ones that make it on to the statistics are biased to the serious injuries, ie the ones where head injury is more likely.

I have been hit on a few occasions by cars, a few bruises is all I have suffered. No need to waste A&Es time. I also know someone who was doored, they went to hospital with concussion, I know someone else who lost a leg and was left in a coma for a few weeks, someone else who broke his pelvis. These are the accidents that will make it to hospital and into the statistics. Are they really representative though?

I accept that helmets reduce injury in the event of an accident, but there is good evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, due to risk compensation by themselves and passing motorists, which may cancel out much, if not all, of the protective effects.

I can't see how else to explain that the benefits seen in hospital based studies dont seem to translate into the population level accident statistics.

The real downside of helmets is that they discourage cycling, leading to even more obesity, heart disease, stroke and cancer.

I hope we can keep helmet wearing a personal choice until the picture is completely shaken up by self-driving cars and trucks.

How many of the 91% were drinking alcohol? What proportion of cyclist-kilometres are with a helmet worn, and without?

@spen - not sure what those statistics are meant to indicate. That 100% of reported casualties suffered some kind of injury?

If governments, voluntary bodies etc want to make people safer while cycling they should be looking at the big risk factors.

Meanwhile the owners of any cyclist-focussed business in California should be concerned about their future income and ensuring this law is not passed.

RoSpa has figures for accidents with a section on types of injury

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

"Injury Patterns

Limb Injuries
Limb injuries are common in cyclist casualties, with over 40% suffering arm injuries and around 25% suffering leg injuries.

Chest/Abdomen Injuries
Chest and abdomen injuries occur much less frequently (5%), but are often serious. When they do occur they are often accompanied by head injuries.

Head Injuries
Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and 45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries. A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads. "

No comment on how many were wearing helmets

100% of people killed whilst driving weren't wearing helmets

Hurrah, another helmet debate....

I think its a great idea, mainly because it pee's off so many people who "obviously" know a hell of a lot more than her.....or so they claim lol.

As Car crashes are the leading cause of fatal head Trauma, perhaps State senator Carol Liu should propose all car drivers be forced to wear a helmet in this new law. After all it would definitely save lives so it would be irresponsible not to wouldn't it?

Stick a glorified egg carton on everyone's head and the problem is solved, State senator Carol Liu gets her 15 minutes of fame and she thinks she'd saved the world from itself. That saves her from the really hard work MUCH more complicated problem of preventing crashes in the first place.
The helmet-nannies make me laugh.

IMO helmets protect ones head under impact, I know many disagree but that's your right, just like it is my right to wear a helmet and yours not too.

I don't however believe that the quantitative evidence for wearing helmets to prevent injury is strong enough to support the enforced wearing of helmets. If you take seat belts as an example the evidence to support them was quite strong.

I also agree with Chris Boardmen, too much enfasis is placed on blaming none helmet or lack of lights, or reflective clothing for cycle injury and not enough is placed on driver behaviour and infrastructure to support riders.

I make no bones about this, I am pro helmet but not pro compulsion. Unfortunatly I think there is a lot of nonsense from both the pro and anti helmet camps which I think prevents reasoned debate.

Perhaps one day there will be evidence which clearly shows helmets as infective and no one will Wear them. At that point, I will be happy too put my helmet in the bin! alternatively it may be proven that helmets save life's and I would then support compulsion, until the evidence is clear however, I believe that helmets compulsion would be foolhardy.

I think that some polititians see cyclist bashing as a vote winner with some petrol heads, this is possible a bigger vote winner in the land of the free

100% of politicians who spouted uninformed shit in 2009 reportedly were not wearing large pieces of duct tape over their mouths. One or two have their careers ruined by what they say, and all contribute to a constant prattle which annoys others, such as myself. But, as a cyclist and not a politician, I rightly have no ability to force another group in society to wear something just because I think it would save them from themselves, and would spare me some minor inconvenience. Even if a few people upvote this comment, and despite the fact that my proposal would be 100% effective. Ms. Liu and her colleagues might like to think on that before proceeding with such legislation.

The funny thing about American politics is that there'll probably be more resistance to this on the right than the left. If this appeared in the British press, the usual Daily Fail nutters would pile in with more demands in order to make cycling as onerous as possible.

In the US, there is always opposition first from libertarians who basically think it's none of the governments damn business. The requirement for motorcyclists to wear a helmet is law in less than half of US states, with state senators also occasionally proposing they be abolished.

Ninety-one percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets

Yes, but how many died from head injuries?