THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality. Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day. HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ite/Banco/7man... It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a cycling helmet. HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some conclusions: • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous. • It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from dying. • If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived. • If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration difficult to overlook. SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION? New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly, only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears. First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant. So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many lives. THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS • Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying • Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist they should all be put in helmets? • 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway • We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists anyway • Helmets are not perfect anyway • Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society in health losses • Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist that motorists wear helmets inside their cars? • Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial helmet makers • Helmets are too heavily promoted • Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets • A helmet makes me look like a dork • Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES • 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved • 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace • Education has clearly failed • Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are still advising cyclists not to wear helmets • An example to the next generation of cyclists • A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract more people to cycling © Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full including this copyright and permission notice. |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW ?(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
Per Andre Jute:
?by MacIntosh? -- Pete Cresswell |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW ?(IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
On Monday, October 29, 2012 7:03:19 PM UTC, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Andre Jute: ?by MacIntosh? -- Pete Cresswell I use a Mac, sure, but the thing doesn't show me what you've noticed, it shows me the presumably correct version. -- Andre Jute |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
"Andre Jute" wrote "It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free ?individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much ?constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese ?collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled ?in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese." Unfortunate truth, control from the nanny state. "To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. " And that "smacks" of STUPIDITY from those willing to endure tyranny for a FALSE sense of security. |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW ?(IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
well, wahtever.
1) As with motorcycle helmets, enforcement costs will reduce health insurance costs born by the public thru insurance companies insuring the cyclists from head injuries caused by Andre Jute. if you laughed at that please email. tnaks |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
one would not type mandatory helmet use as TYRANNY. duh.
I miss Bob Ross. I watched him only once painting a duck. Without Tv for looooong stretches then a spot here and there, once. Expletive deleted could he paint a duck. 3 to go.... https://www.google.com/search?q=++GO...=960&bih= 512 |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
On 29 Oct, 15:55, Andre Jute wrote:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality. Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and statistical grounds. State intervention MUST be opposed at every opportunity. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day. State intervention MUST be opposed at every opportunity. Failure to persist, allows them to control our thoughts. HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? IT'S NOT! EOT |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:36:37 AM UTC, thirty-six wrote:
On 29 Oct, 15:55, Andre Jute wrote: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality. Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and statistical grounds. State intervention MUST be opposed at every opportunity. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day. State intervention MUST be opposed at every opportunity. Failure to persist, allows them to control our thoughts. HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? IT'S NOT! EOT That's the conclusion I arrived at, Eeyore. Andre Jute |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW ?(IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
On 10/29/2012 6:47 PM, datakoll wrote:
well, wahtever. 1) As with motorcycle helmets, enforcement costs will reduce health insurance costs born by the public thru insurance companies insuring the cyclists from head injuries caused by Andre Jute. if you laughed at that please email. tnaks Of course I did. It was humor, right? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
a 'sport' where every second the patricipant lies at a die not ndien threshold....this isnot dangerous ?
the activity does not represent a public danger requiring costly legislation...except for enhancing PR for relection or attracting retirees..whoi have what stored away ? same deal as why is the motorist allowed to go free after killing a cyclist...where's failure to yield ? the cyclist ahs no rights and no impact on these levels above smearing paint on the asphalt. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com