"Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets."
1. First of all, it is mandatory in my country.
2. Wether the accident is the biker's fault or the car driver's fault or anything else you are way better wearing a protective helmet if you fall off your bike. Head trauma is not something to be dismissed on the basis that wearing an helmet isn't mandatory or - gasp - fashionnable.
3. Regarding the yellow jacket: without it most bicylists are simply invisible in night traffic. In broad daylight there are easier to see and thus one can be more cautious around them. Remember that cyclists are "weak" road users.
4.
> Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets.
Wearing a helmet and yellow jacket are really good signs that the biker knows what he is doing. Especially in a country (mine) where it is mandatory. Especially in a country (mine) where car culture is overtly agressive towards cyclists.
There is absolutely no reason not to wear protective gear when riding a bike (especially in a city).
> I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.
Weeelll ... not use a bike any more?? How are you going to get around then? :) :)
Indeed most would refuse and not do it, and if largely enforced, many would still refuse and not do it. ... but give up our bikes? Never! :)
They'll never enforce it though. Too many bikes. Take mandatory working front and back lights. I don't know about all cities of course, but where I live, they only enforce that a few weeks per year, at only a few same spots every year. Any other time, anywhere else, you can drive past a police car with no lights and they won't stop you (because they are there with something better to do). And this is for a bike law that pretty much everyone agrees is useful and important for safety (it's just that those damn lights break so quickly).
> You could also argue that if you're enforcing helmets for riding bicycles then you should also enforce it for [...] being an occupant in a motor vehicle.
Funny you mention that, because in my country a motocycle passenger is
required to wear a helmet (the driver is required too, obviously). I cannot
think of any sane reason why helmet would be required for the driver but not
for the passenger (other than unintended omission in the law).
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes.
Non-recreational biking (e.g. using a bike to get around) with a helmet is a giant pain in the ass. I have to find a place to store my helmet securely or carry it around all day. It messes up my hair, so I have to perform extra effort to be presentable at my destination.
Within my city, I travel by bike a decent percentage of the time; with a helmet law, I would basically never do so.
> I also find it interesting the Dutch rarely ever wear helmets.
Good or bad; I am Dutch and I would confidently say that all people I know would never ride a bike again if they have to wear those silly helmets. More likely if it would be mandatory, they just would refuse and not do it, but if largely enforced they would just not use bikes anymore.
> I see a lot of people with no business in traffic commuting on bikes too.
Bikes should not be forced to drive in traffic anyways.
> Especially with the advent of divvy or whatever your local equivalent is.
We’ve had bike sharing like this for years at this point and it works like a charm. In fact, it’s offered by the local transportation agencies. I haven’t noticed any differences between bike sharing users and others in terms of cycling ability.
> The test is not hard either. Nothing like what our European counterparts have to go through.
I got my motorcycle license last year. When I started to take riding lessons it was the first time that I sat in a motorcycle, it took me about 5 months to get my license (here in Germany). I don’t understand how a few hours of dedicated training is seen as sufficient for safe traffic participation in the U.S.
> Just to nitpick a little, let's use the word cyclists, not bikers
Humans are capable of gleaning from context.
> I feel that bikers actually obey traffic signs more than cyclists do.
Motorcycles have completely different traffic laws, both legally and socially... so yes they would follow car style traffic rules more closely than a cyclist.
>If you want car drivers to respect bikers, stop running red lights and stop signs.
As a cyclist who doesn't run red lights and stop signs, I haven't noticed any improvement in people's attitudes toward me when I tell them I'm a commuter cyclist. And why should I? I do it to get from A-to-B safely. I'm not some sort of cycling ambassador.
When a car behaves dangerously, that guy is an asshole. When a biker behaves dangerously, bikers are assholes. Let's hold everyone to the same standard, shall we? (relevant xkcd: https://www.xkcd.com/385/)
> For context: Sikh bikers in Canada have protested laws mandating helmets be worn while riding.
Why is there a need for a law? Someone should be free to ride without a helmet, whatever his religion, as long as he can find an insurer willing to provide adequate coverage (or be able to self-insure) for his medical bills.
>If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at all...etc.
So wear a helmet, there is no law whatsoever prohibiting you to wear one.
Me, I am a datum point for the argument that helmets stop you from cycling. I used to ride a bike everywhere before the compulsory helmet laws were introduced. After, cycling became so much less convenient, you had to make sure that you brought your helmet, that you kept it secure, and I plain do not like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head.
I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone.
> As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old).
Yes, this sounds pretty good. I think the situation on car safety is much better in the EU and other countries compared to the US.
> But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one.
As will I. I do wear a bike helmet a lot. What pisses me off is that I can be fined $100+ for not wearing it when the guy next to me with a car that seems to be running on coal and two tires with questionable pressure goes scot free.
> Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road?
I don't think cyclists should need licenses to co-habit the roads with other vehicles. However, I think road safety education should be mandatory, perhaps in schools? When I attended (ordinary state) primary school we were all put through the RoSPA[0] Cycling Proficiency Test[1] at around ages 8-10. This was back in ~1977/78 so I'm showing my age :)
As I remember it the course was good fun. You got to use your own bike - I had a Raleigh Chopper :) - and the instructor set up different road layouts in the school playground to negotiate - he even had traffic lights and road signs. We were then lead out on the actual road where the instructor shepherded us through various real life challenges. We were even taught to perform "life saver" looks over our shoulders before carrying out any manoeuvres. At the end of the course we sat a test and were given wee metal triangular RoSPA badges.
I'm not sure if this is still a thing in schools now (I don't have any kids of my own), but I think it should be. Even basic education such as this prepared me to be a better driver, biker (i.e. life saver looks) and pedestrian.
Could you explain why you think that? That’s a pretty general statement. Are you imagining city biking here, or something more like racing in the country-side?
> My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required.
I certainly wouldn't ride a bike if a helmet would be mandatory. Or I would just ignore the law.
I can't see something like this flying in the Netherlands where I'm from. Most people will feel the same as me. It's not just the inconvenience, it's also a matter of pride.
But in the Netherlands biking is very safe. Bike lanes are everywhere and have separate crossings. Motorists are always blamed even if they didn't cause an accident with a bike (because a cyclist won't have insurance) so I think it's safe enough.
I've fallen many times in single-vehicle accidents due to slippery ice or wet leaves and my arm was always under my head due to my reflexes.
I understand that cycling is not as safe in the US but perhaps making it so would be a better priority.
There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy.
I bike a lot as in for transportation and running errands, and the speeds are generally quite low, and after many years I'm good at not falling off my bike. The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers and their associated cars. In many cases a helmet will do nearly nothing when you get crushed by an overpuffed SUV or truck.
> There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost
You could make an equal argument about driving and car/vehicle use. For example the city I live in has had more deaths by vehicle than deaths by homicide this year.
This is a bit of a circular argument, isn't it?
It's not mandatory in Denmark, so by that very logic these people, following the law, are "good bikers."
reply