Another Helmet Thread

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:19:36 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:

Helmet promoters write rules saying "You're not allowed on this ride (on public roads!) unless you wear a helmet and agree that bicycling is dangerous."

Just curious, are these rules enforced? How?

The rules I had in mind were the typical disclaimers at the bottom of organized ride registration forms. Most contain a phrase like "I understand that bicycling is dangerous..." and almost all say "I will always wear a helmet..." in one way or another.

Are they enforced? I've seen ride officials tell riders that they had to put their helmet on (e.g. a rider with his helmet hanging from his handlebar, probably due to the heat). And I remember driving sag on one local ride (not put on by our club, but our club volunteered to assist) where another club member wanted me to pull over and force just such a rider to put his helmet back on. I refused to stop.

Then there are the laws. In some parts of Australia, I understand the fines have been more than doubled, to well over $100. And there have been cases where people have been jailed for repeatedly refusing to pay the fines.

For details on one example of enforcement, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...mets-australia

Here in the U.S., I've seen a paper (and may have it on file) in which a small Georgia town official talks about the increase in percentage of kids wearing helmets after they began confiscating the bikes of kids caught riding without one. From http://www.trails.com/facts_36101_ge...elmet-law.html

"In 1997, police in the small town of Wadley, Georgia, began confiscating bikes when children were found riding without a helmet as part of a study after officials realized the state law was rarely enforced. Helmet use rose dramatically after the confiscation began."

Sounds a bit unconstitutional to me, but hey, all's fair in the nanny state!

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:33:19 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
My club had to require helmets in order to obtain

insurance, originally just for the century, but eventually for all club

rides. Without the helmet requirement the club would have folded because

the insurance premiums would have been impossibly high.

I continue to question that. I ran our century for either seven or eight years, and won a national award for it. We never required helmets. In fact, LAB's suggested event waiver form does not mention helmets. Yet we were fully insured, and never had a problem with this issue.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 24, 2013 4:35:39 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/23/2013 11:12 PM, Dan wrote:



Tired spiel. Not convincing.



Every time you see "Scuffham" mentioned you can be sure of it.

:-) Scharf obviously has no rebuttal for that paper, so he wants people to ignore it.

Get it and look at the graphs, at least. They're very clear and easy to understand, even for those who don't have the background to understand the failed mathematical attempts to find _some_ benefit.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 24, 2013 5:18:31 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:

I've been on a fair number of centuries over the years and while helmets

are now required on all of them, I was never asked to sign anything

agreeing that explicitly stated "I agree that bicycling is dangerous," I

suspect that someone is making up stories again.

Sometimes that exact phrase is used, sometimes it's paraphrased, sometimes it's covered by copious examples of danger. Here's the quote from this year's Great Ohio Bicycle Adventu
"In signing this agreement for myself or for the named
participant (if the participant is under age 18), I know that
those participating in The 2013 Great Ohio Bicycle
Adventure (GOBA) will be exposed to the risks of serious
bodily injury, sickness, death, or loss of property due to the
circumstances inherent in this event including the negligent
acts or omissions of others. I also understand and am
aware that there are a variety of specific risks and dangers
inherent in a voluntary bicycling event such as GOBA
including, without limitation, falls, collisions with other
bicyclists, motor vehicles or stationary objects; adverse
weather conditions; and those caused by conditions of the
road. I also understand that by participating in GOBA I will
be riding my bicycle on public roads with many other
bicyclists, some of whom may be inexperienced at riding in
groups. I also understand that the large number of bicyclists
in GOBA many of whom are inexperienced, adds a further
element of danger.
I understand that during GOBA I may suffer serious bodily
injury, sickness, or death, while walking or travelling via bus
or other motor vehicle or boat, due to my own carelessness
or because of the negligence of others. I further understand
that I may be exposed to these same risks while engaged in
other voluntary activities such as dancing, swimming, and
dining during GOBA. I understand as well that I will be
camping outdoors during GOBA and that this necessarily
involves being exposed to the elements including the risk of
unpredictable and possibly dangerous weather conditions
such as severe or violent thunderstorms, rain, hail,
lightning, wind, and tornadoes either during the day or at
night..."

It goes on and on.

Incidentally, it's not uncommon to find registration forms with which riders must agree to wear ANSI or Snell approved helmets. (Tour of Colorado is one, IIRC.) But Snell approved helmets are rare as hen's teeth, and the ANSI standard has been out of existence since the mid-1990s.

Someone must not be paying their lawyers enough, eh, Jay? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On 25/06/13 00:12, Jay Beattie wrote:

I think your aggressive style and inability to accept any negative
evidence tends to alienate even dedicated cyclists. Your smarmy put
down of my profession (among others) and incessant self-promotion are
off-putting. I would never have the nerve to say that "important
people praise me" -- at least not without a few drinks first.

I don't know how you could possibly be an effective advocate with
your argument style. If you can't convince me and the rest of the
choir, I don't know how you could possibly convince citizen
legislators with little sympathy for cyclists.

Nicely put.

--
JS

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:04:39 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 3:33:19 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:

My club had to require helmets in order to obtain



insurance, originally just for the century, but eventually for all club



rides. Without the helmet requirement the club would have folded because



the insurance premiums would have been impossibly high.



I continue to question that. I ran our century for either seven or eight years, and won a national award for it. We never required helmets. In fact, LAB's suggested event waiver form does not mention helmets. Yet we were fully insured, and never had a problem with this issue.

Someone gives out awards for planning a century? Were you praised, too?

Try this waiver (USA Cycling): https://s3.amazonaws.com/USACWeb/for...er_release.pdf

It expressly mentions helmets, and it is required for event coverage: https://s3.amazonaws.com/USACWeb/for...tInsurance.pdf

The nature of the waiver depends on the event insurer. The LAB event policy requires a waiver that does not mention helmets. Some event insurers require waivers that expressly require helmets, e.g.:

I accept responsibility for the condition of my bicycle and agree to abide by all rules of the Tour, especially
the wearing of an ANSI, SNELL, or ASTM approved bicycle helmet at all times while riding my bicycle on
the Tour. I agree to follow all instructions of leaders and volunteers. I understand this is not a race, and I will
abide by all traffic and pedestrian laws and requirements. I understand that bicyclists may ride two abreast,
unless conditions warrant otherwise

See http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org...2ndEdition.pdf

-- Jay Beattie.

writes:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:19:36 AM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
fk writes:

Helmet promoters write rules saying "You're not allowed on this ride (on public roads!) unless you wear a helmet and agree that bicycling is dangerous."

Just curious, are these rules enforced? How?

The rules I had in mind were the typical disclaimers at the bottom of organized ride registration forms. Most contain a phrase like "I understand that bicycling is dangerous..." and almost all say "I will always wear a helmet..." in one way or another.

Are they enforced? I've seen ride officials tell riders that they had to put their helmet on (e.g. a rider with his helmet hanging from his handlebar, probably due to the heat). And I remember driving sag on one local ride (not put on by our club, but our club volunteered to assist) where another club member wanted me to pull over and force just such a rider to put his helmet back on. I refused to stop.


Well, yeah - good move. They should appreciate the help and not try to
turn you into one of their goons.

But basically I was wondering how they keep you off the road. I guess
it's possible that they can get roads closed for their "event", in
which case they might be able to call the shots. The only organized
ride I ever participated in recently required helmets, but was on open
public roads; and I was not a "registered" participant - just a self-
supported dude on a bike - the only one in more than a thousand with
no helmet. So maybe I'm not a helmeteer.

Then there are the laws. In some parts of Australia, I understand the fines have been more than doubled, to well over $100. And there have been cases where people have been jailed for repeatedly refusing to pay the fines.

For details on one example of enforcement, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...mets-australia

Here in the U.S., I've seen a paper (and may have it on file) in which a small Georgia town official talks about the increase in percentage of kids wearing helmets after they began confiscating the bikes of kids caught riding without one. From http://www.trails.com/facts_36101_ge...elmet-law.html

"In 1997, police in the small town of Wadley, Georgia, began confiscating bikes when children were found riding without a helmet as part of a study after officials realized the state law was rarely enforced. Helmet use rose dramatically after the confiscation began."

Sounds a bit unconstitutional to me, but hey, all's fair in the nanny state!


I hear you, man. That sounds pretty nuts; but I am never surprised
anymore at the crazy *&^% that goes down.

Busybody's notwithstanding, the road transportation culture and
environment is extremely inhospitable in many (most?) places -
maybe not the best place to make the stand for self-sufficient
kids just yet until we can offer better circumstances (like here
in Mayberry, for example).

writes:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 4:35:39 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/23/2013 11:12 PM, Dan wrote:



Tired spiel. Not convincing.



Every time you see "Scuffham" mentioned you can be sure of it.

:-) Scharf obviously has no rebuttal for that paper, so he wants people to ignore it.

Get it and look at the graphs, at least. They're very clear and easy to understand, even for those who don't have the background to understand the failed mathematical attempts to find _some_ benefit.


Oh, yeah - take the incomplete data, and abstract it further still.

That's not one of these studies, BTW, is it?

"Critics of helmet legislation cite 2 ecologic studies from Australia and New Zealand in which the observed proportion of cyclists with head injuries was no different from the downward trend predicted from helmet use rates before legislation.15,16 However, the first study15 was a presentation of a work in progress. In the final published analysis the authors concluded that mandatory helmet use had a positive and persistent effect on the number and severity of head injuries.8 The second ecologic study was restricted to 1 year of postlegislation data;16 subsequent analysis of 3 years of postlegislation data by the same principal author showed that the helmet law led to a 19% reduction in the rate of head injury.14"

On Monday, June 24, 2013 6:23:24 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:04:39 PM UTC-7, fk wrote:


I continue to question that. I ran our century for either seven or eight years, and won a national award for it. We never required helmets. In fact, LAB's suggested event waiver form does not mention helmets. Yet we were fully insured, and never had a problem with this issue.



Someone gives out awards for planning a century? Were you praised, too?

They did give out awards that year, to what they considered the top three centuries. And I was the guy who got the Blackburn workstand they gave as a prize.





Try this waiver (USA Cycling): https://s3.amazonaws.com/USACWeb/for...er_release.pdf



It expressly mentions helmets, and it is required for event coverage: https://s3.amazonaws.com/USACWeb/for...tInsurance.pdf

The nature of the waiver depends on the event insurer.

Of course.

The LAB event policy requires a waiver that does not mention helmets.

That's what I said. Or rather, I said the LAB waiver does not require helmets. If SMS's club is a LAB affiliate (and very many are) they would not have needed to require helmets for a ride event, despite his claims. BTW, our club is not insured by LAB's policy, but by a different and less expensive carrier. And our policy also has no helmet mandate.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:24:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 5:18:31 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:



I've been on a fair number of centuries over the years and while helmets



are now required on all of them, I was never asked to sign anything



agreeing that explicitly stated "I agree that bicycling is dangerous," I



suspect that someone is making up stories again.



Sometimes that exact phrase is used, sometimes it's paraphrased, sometimes it's covered by copious examples of danger. Here's the quote from this year's Great Ohio Bicycle Adventu

"In signing this agreement for myself or for the named

participant (if the participant is under age 18), I know that

those participating in The 2013 Great Ohio Bicycle

Adventure (GOBA) will be exposed to the risks of serious

bodily injury, sickness, death, or loss of property due to the

circumstances inherent in this event including the negligent

acts or omissions of others. I also understand and am

aware that there are a variety of specific risks and dangers

inherent in a voluntary bicycling event such as GOBA

including, without limitation, falls, collisions with other

bicyclists, motor vehicles or stationary objects; adverse

weather conditions; and those caused by conditions of the

road. I also understand that by participating in GOBA I will

be riding my bicycle on public roads with many other

bicyclists, some of whom may be inexperienced at riding in

groups. I also understand that the large number of bicyclists

in GOBA many of whom are inexperienced, adds a further

element of danger.

I understand that during GOBA I may suffer serious bodily

injury, sickness, or death, while walking or travelling via bus

or other motor vehicle or boat, due to my own carelessness

or because of the negligence of others. I further understand

that I may be exposed to these same risks while engaged in

other voluntary activities such as dancing, swimming, and

dining during GOBA. I understand as well that I will be

camping outdoors during GOBA and that this necessarily

involves being exposed to the elements including the risk of

unpredictable and possibly dangerous weather conditions

such as severe or violent thunderstorms, rain, hail,

lightning, wind, and tornadoes either during the day or at

night..."



It goes on and on.



Incidentally, it's not uncommon to find registration forms with which riders must agree to wear ANSI or Snell approved helmets. (Tour of Colorado is one, IIRC.) But Snell approved helmets are rare as hen's teeth, and the ANSI standard has been out of existence since the mid-1990s.



Someone must not be paying their lawyers enough, eh, Jay? ;-)

How about underwriters. Any language relating to helmets is insurance driven since the release is sufficient alone to bar a claim -- at least in those states where waivers are upheld (a lot of states, including Oregon, uphold waivers relating to athletic and other elective outdoor activities). Insurers have taken a belt and suspenders approach by throwing in the helmet requirement.

-- Jay Beattie.