New Bontager Helmet Material

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:54:24 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/24/2019 5:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Are there places that a) don't have national health care, and b) do have
a mandatory helmet law for adults?

Yes, Thailand which has a universal health care plan doesn't mandate
helmets for bicycles. For anyone :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.


You misread my question. What is of interest are places without
universal health car that do have mandatory helmet laws for adults.

You are correct I certainly did reverse the meaning of your post.

It's understandable why a country with national health care would have
an mandatory helmet law. But in a country without national health care,
an individual that wants to engage in risky behavior is only going to be
a burden to society if they don't have private health insurance and are
seriously injured.

I somehow feel that it is the insane reasoning that the government
should dictate to everyone in the name of safety or whatever else
seems to evoke the most sympathy.

But strangely no one seems to be particularly upset about the 37,133
highway deaths (2017) or at least I see nothing in the news that says
so. On the other hand the bicyclists get all upset when their deaths
are 2% of the number of auto deaths.

Given that most of the USian cyclists probably also drive a car it
seems strange that one should wear a helmet on a bicycle but not when
driving a car, doesn't it.

--

Cheers,

John B.

with James wrote:
On 23/3/19 7:03 am, wrote:

*SKIP*
A lot of people, including me that do find the weight of them tiring
on the neck. So if you think that a lighter material is good because
it makes your overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink
something. That is on the off-hand guess that you can think at all.
No, I want the helmet to be nonexistent. Not just lighter.
Disappeared. They are hot, make your head sweat more and leave
strange marks on your head. They are also fragile and are something
else to look after.

That made me thinking. There absolutely must be a startup for this:
Inflatable Magic Hat.

Think about it. Terminally light, (bonus) heat insulation. Also just
as useless.

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 10:16:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 6:34:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that "this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if they provide
proof of a specific amount of coverage of health insurance. The thought
is that the government doesn't want to have to cover the cost of medical
care for indigent people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries without
nationalized health care. Since all the research concludes that bicycle
helmets greatly reduce head injuries in accidents involving head impact...

That's false.

this would be a compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or
perhaps just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to wear a
helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for having certain
kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Would your "discount" on health insurance apply to pedestrians and
motorists who wear helmets, given that pedestrian and motorist head
injuries cost the insurance companies and/or the health care system FAR
more than the tiny number of bike-related injuries?


This is the fundamental weirdness of the helmet mania. It's applied to
bicyclists, who comprise a tiny portion of the brain injury problem.
It's the result of a carefully crafted meme started by Bell Sports and a
few other people. It's accepted by millions of people who haven't the
brains to look for data. SMS is but one example.


There is plenty of proof that helmets reduce the effects of head strikes.

OK, there is plenty of proof that helmets reduce scratches, abrasions, minor
bumps etc. But helmets are never promoted on that basis. Instead, they are
promoted by 1) implying that riding a bike is very likely to cause serious or
fatal brain injury, and 2) claiming or implying that bike helmets tremendously
reduce the likelihood of such injury. And again, both of those ideas are false.

The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless.

Why? Pedestrians suffer far, far more serious or fatal brain injuries than
bicyclists, so their "cost to society" is far more - and "cost to society" (or
as SMS showed, "cost to insurance agencies or national health care systems")
is one of the arguments persistently given for promoting or mandating bike
helmets.

Maybe thirty years ago Bell apparently made a push to promote groups that promoted helmets -- and certainly Trek has a profit motive, but I'm not seeing Big Helmet at work here.

I notice you switched from past tense to present tense. I think if there is
(present tense) no current "Big Helmet" effort to push the helmet meme, it's
only because their (past tense) efforts were so successful. We now have a
society that thinks riding a bike is dangerous in a general sense, and a major
source of serious brain injuries.

There is plenty of good old fashioned scientific research proving from a biomechanical standpoint that bike helmets help prevent certain injuries, and MIPS and newer designs are better at reducing concussions.

First: "Certain" injuries, yes, and "old fashioned research," yes. But if you
look at concussions or TBI fatalities among all bicyclists (not just those in
small scale hospital studies) you don't see the help that is claimed. And again,
helmets are promoted and sold based on prevention of concussion and worse TBI.

Since helmets became widely accepted, what's happened to bike-related
concussions? They've risen dramatically, not fallen. What's happened to bike-
related fatalities? They've fallen, but not as much as pedestrian fatalities -
and most of the reductions have probably been caused by better medical techniques.
IOW, better ER work saved pedestrian lives. That same improved ER work plus
bike helmets somehow seems to have saved _fewer_ lives.

No helmet can eliminate concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash).

But golly gee, why wasn't that what was said when mandatory helmet laws were
pushed in countless states and cities? Why wasn't that and ISN'T that part of
every helmet promotion blurb in flyers, on the internet, in books and magazine
articles and radio and TV spots?

Instead, all those sources typically use the following trick: They give an
anecdote about a bike crash that resulted in a concussion or worse, then imply
that a helmet would have prevented it. A common example is the news reporting
of a cyclist death: "The bicyclist was riding south in the northbound lane at
2 AM when he was hit head-on by the tractor trailer. The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet."

And manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable health claims.

Of course they're not claiming helmets are cure-alls! Instead, they put stickers
inside the helmet saying, essentially, "This thing isn't nearly as good as
others led you to believe." But they are certainly glad that the others are
still pushing the helmeteer meme.

If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.

The less you know about this issue, the more reasonable that choice seems.

- Frank Krygowski

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 25/3/19 9:19 pm, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with James wrote:
On 23/3/19 7:03 am, wrote:

*SKIP*
A lot of people, including me that do find the weight of them tiring
on the neck. So if you think that a lighter material is good because
it makes your overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink
something. That is on the off-hand guess that you can think at all.
No, I want the helmet to be nonexistent. Not just lighter.
Disappeared. They are hot, make your head sweat more and leave
strange marks on your head. They are also fragile and are something
else to look after.

That made me thinking. There absolutely must be a startup for this:
Inflatable Magic Hat.

Think about it. Terminally light, (bonus) heat insulation. Also just
as useless.


Have you seen the exploding collar?

https://hovding.com/

--
JS

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:46:45 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 10:16:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 6:34:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that "this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if they provide
proof of a specific amount of coverage of health insurance. The thought
is that the government doesn't want to have to cover the cost of medical
care for indigent people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries without
nationalized health care. Since all the research concludes that bicycle
helmets greatly reduce head injuries in accidents involving head impact...

That's false.

this would be a compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or
perhaps just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to wear a
helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for having certain
kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Would your "discount" on health insurance apply to pedestrians and
motorists who wear helmets, given that pedestrian and motorist head
injuries cost the insurance companies and/or the health care system FAR
more than the tiny number of bike-related injuries?


This is the fundamental weirdness of the helmet mania. It's applied to
bicyclists, who comprise a tiny portion of the brain injury problem.
It's the result of a carefully crafted meme started by Bell Sports and a
few other people. It's accepted by millions of people who haven't the
brains to look for data. SMS is but one example.


There is plenty of proof that helmets reduce the effects of head strikes.

OK, there is plenty of proof that helmets reduce scratches, abrasions, minor
bumps etc. But helmets are never promoted on that basis. Instead, they are
promoted by 1) implying that riding a bike is very likely to cause serious or
fatal brain injury, and 2) claiming or implying that bike helmets tremendously
reduce the likelihood of such injury. And again, both of those ideas are false.

The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless.

Why? Pedestrians suffer far, far more serious or fatal brain injuries than
bicyclists, so their "cost to society" is far more - and "cost to society" (or
as SMS showed, "cost to insurance agencies or national health care systems")
is one of the arguments persistently given for promoting or mandating bike
helmets.

Maybe thirty years ago Bell apparently made a push to promote groups that promoted helmets -- and certainly Trek has a profit motive, but I'm not seeing Big Helmet at work here.

I notice you switched from past tense to present tense. I think if there is
(present tense) no current "Big Helmet" effort to push the helmet meme, it's
only because their (past tense) efforts were so successful. We now have a
society that thinks riding a bike is dangerous in a general sense, and a major
source of serious brain injuries.

There is plenty of good old fashioned scientific research proving from a biomechanical standpoint that bike helmets help prevent certain injuries, and MIPS and newer designs are better at reducing concussions.

First: "Certain" injuries, yes, and "old fashioned research," yes. But if you
look at concussions or TBI fatalities among all bicyclists (not just those in
small scale hospital studies) you don't see the help that is claimed. And again,
helmets are promoted and sold based on prevention of concussion and worse TBI.

Since helmets became widely accepted, what's happened to bike-related
concussions? They've risen dramatically, not fallen. What's happened to bike-
related fatalities? They've fallen, but not as much as pedestrian fatalities -
and most of the reductions have probably been caused by better medical techniques.
IOW, better ER work saved pedestrian lives. That same improved ER work plus
bike helmets somehow seems to have saved _fewer_ lives.

No helmet can eliminate concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash).

But golly gee, why wasn't that what was said when mandatory helmet laws were
pushed in countless states and cities? Why wasn't that and ISN'T that part of
every helmet promotion blurb in flyers, on the internet, in books and magazine
articles and radio and TV spots?

Instead, all those sources typically use the following trick: They give an
anecdote about a bike crash that resulted in a concussion or worse, then imply
that a helmet would have prevented it. A common example is the news reporting
of a cyclist death: "The bicyclist was riding south in the northbound lane at
2 AM when he was hit head-on by the tractor trailer. The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet."

And manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable health claims.

Of course they're not claiming helmets are cure-alls! Instead, they put stickers
inside the helmet saying, essentially, "This thing isn't nearly as good as
others led you to believe." But they are certainly glad that the others are
still pushing the helmeteer meme.

If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.

The less you know about this issue, the more reasonable that choice seems.

- Frank Krygowski

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

Another illustration of incomplete numbers telling us nothing. We don't even have the gross number of cyclists to come up with an injury rate. By one local metric, the number of cyclists in Portland increased almost seven-fold between 1994-2014. I'm not going to bother looking up the national number..

-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/24/2019 7:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that
"this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety
clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the
decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if
they provide proof of a specific amount of coverage of
health insurance. The thought is that the government doesn't
want to have to cover the cost of medical care for indigent
people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries
without nationalized health care. Since all the research
concludes that bicycle helmets greatly reduce head injuries
in accidents involving head impact, this would be a
compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or perhaps
just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to
wear a helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for
having certain kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Are there places that a) don't have national health care,
and b) do have a mandatory helmet law for adults?

BS.
Wisconsin has no requirement whatsoever for adult motorcycle
riders. The legislature postulated some rules once and the
citizenry smacked them down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 8:46:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 10:16:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 6:34:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that "this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if they provide
proof of a specific amount of coverage of health insurance. The thought
is that the government doesn't want to have to cover the cost of medical
care for indigent people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries without
nationalized health care. Since all the research concludes that bicycle
helmets greatly reduce head injuries in accidents involving head impact...

That's false.

this would be a compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or
perhaps just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to wear a
helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for having certain
kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Would your "discount" on health insurance apply to pedestrians and
motorists who wear helmets, given that pedestrian and motorist head
injuries cost the insurance companies and/or the health care system FAR
more than the tiny number of bike-related injuries?


This is the fundamental weirdness of the helmet mania. It's applied to
bicyclists, who comprise a tiny portion of the brain injury problem.
It's the result of a carefully crafted meme started by Bell Sports and a
few other people. It's accepted by millions of people who haven't the
brains to look for data. SMS is but one example.


There is plenty of proof that helmets reduce the effects of head strikes.

OK, there is plenty of proof that helmets reduce scratches, abrasions, minor
bumps etc. But helmets are never promoted on that basis. Instead, they are
promoted by 1) implying that riding a bike is very likely to cause serious or
fatal brain injury, and 2) claiming or implying that bike helmets tremendously
reduce the likelihood of such injury. And again, both of those ideas are false.

This is absolutely true and this sort of thing should be limited with lawsuits. How are they getting away with making these claims over and over? Because those who are making them are private parties using their Freedom of Speech to make absolutely false statements.

The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless.

Why? Pedestrians suffer far, far more serious or fatal brain injuries than
bicyclists, so their "cost to society" is far more - and "cost to society" (or
as SMS showed, "cost to insurance agencies or national health care systems")
is one of the arguments persistently given for promoting or mandating bike
helmets.

This is also true but you cannot promote helmets to a class where the use of them is so obviously ridiculous. But you CAN expect this claim to become popular in the future as the socialists are using any tool they can to promote saving the masses.

Maybe thirty years ago Bell apparently made a push to promote groups that promoted helmets -- and certainly Trek has a profit motive, but I'm not seeing Big Helmet at work here.

I notice you switched from past tense to present tense. I think if there is
(present tense) no current "Big Helmet" effort to push the helmet meme, it's
only because their (past tense) efforts were so successful. We now have a
society that thinks riding a bike is dangerous in a general sense, and a major
source of serious brain injuries.

This is absolutely incorrect. Bell was sued to the point where they learned that advising people that a helmet HELPED protect you head is about as far as they now go. You can see that the Trek helmets will be using a material that will not meet the international standard which has to do with skull fractures whereas the new Trek material is designed to reduce concussions more effectively that the International standard. So they DARE not say anything other than the absolute truth.

There is plenty of good old fashioned scientific research proving from a biomechanical standpoint that bike helmets help prevent certain injuries, and MIPS and newer designs are better at reducing concussions.

First: "Certain" injuries, yes, and "old fashioned research," yes. But if you
look at concussions or TBI fatalities among all bicyclists (not just those in
small scale hospital studies) you don't see the help that is claimed. And again,
helmets are promoted and sold based on prevention of concussion and worse TBI.

Since helmets became widely accepted, what's happened to bike-related
concussions? They've risen dramatically, not fallen. What's happened to bike-
related fatalities? They've fallen, but not as much as pedestrian fatalities -
and most of the reductions have probably been caused by better medical techniques.
IOW, better ER work saved pedestrian lives. That same improved ER work plus
bike helmets somehow seems to have saved _fewer_ lives.

This would be nice were it true but it isn't. ER's are if anything, worse than ever since laws were passed that anyone that appears must be treated insurance or not.

The RATES of bicycle injuries are in general freeways in general be more used by cars than highways and byways. Less traffic around cyclists means that the RATE of bicycle injuries falls.

No helmet can eliminate concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash).

But golly gee, why wasn't that what was said when mandatory helmet laws were
pushed in countless states and cities? Why wasn't that and ISN'T that part of
every helmet promotion blurb in flyers, on the internet, in books and magazine
articles and radio and TV spots?

Instead, all those sources typically use the following trick: They give an
anecdote about a bike crash that resulted in a concussion or worse, then imply
that a helmet would have prevented it. A common example is the news reporting
of a cyclist death: "The bicyclist was riding south in the northbound lane at
2 AM when he was hit head-on by the tractor trailer. The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet."

That has nothing to do with the helmet manufacturer now does it? The propensity for leftists and leftist media to "protect" people is their own.

And manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable health claims.

Of course they're not claiming helmets are cure-alls! Instead, they put stickers
inside the helmet saying, essentially, "This thing isn't nearly as good as
others led you to believe." But they are certainly glad that the others are
still pushing the helmeteer meme.

Whether they appreciate the propaganda or not, it is not their responsibility to push the idea that they are building something that is little more effective than a toy.

If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.

The less you know about this issue, the more reasonable that choice seems..

And that is your opinion. I cannot say how many times I've crashed where the helmet has saved me from minor head injuries. In the one case where if they really worked they could have saved me from serious injuries it did precisely as I said it would - nothing.

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:00:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2019 7:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that
"this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety
clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the
decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if
they provide proof of a specific amount of coverage of
health insurance. The thought is that the government doesn't
want to have to cover the cost of medical care for indigent
people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries
without nationalized health care. Since all the research
concludes that bicycle helmets greatly reduce head injuries
in accidents involving head impact, this would be a
compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or perhaps
just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to
wear a helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for
having certain kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Are there places that a) don't have national health care,
and b) do have a mandatory helmet law for adults?

BS.
Wisconsin has no requirement whatsoever for adult motorcycle
riders. The legislature postulated some rules once and the
citizenry smacked them down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

There is absolutely no question that helmets help motorcyclists. While you rarely are dragging your head along the ground for a long enough period to expose your brain this is a very large number of possible motorcycling injuries. That hard shell makes all of the difference in the world.

On 3/25/2019 1:22 PM, wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:00:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2019 7:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that
"this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety
clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the
decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if
they provide proof of a specific amount of coverage of
health insurance. The thought is that the government doesn't
want to have to cover the cost of medical care for indigent
people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries
without nationalized health care. Since all the research
concludes that bicycle helmets greatly reduce head injuries
in accidents involving head impact, this would be a
compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or perhaps
just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to
wear a helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for
having certain kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Are there places that a) don't have national health care,
and b) do have a mandatory helmet law for adults?

BS.
Wisconsin has no requirement whatsoever for adult motorcycle
riders. The legislature postulated some rules once and the
citizenry smacked them down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM


There is absolutely no question that helmets help motorcyclists. While you rarely are dragging your head along the ground for a long enough period to expose your brain this is a very large number of possible motorcycling injuries. That hard shell makes all of the difference in the world.


You're not wrong. And yet the winning argument was "Let
those who ride decide". Case closed.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 11:25:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2019 1:22 PM, wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 8:00:41 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/24/2019 7:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that
"this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety
clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the
decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if
they provide proof of a specific amount of coverage of
health insurance. The thought is that the government doesn't
want to have to cover the cost of medical care for indigent
people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries
without nationalized health care. Since all the research
concludes that bicycle helmets greatly reduce head injuries
in accidents involving head impact, this would be a
compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or perhaps
just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to
wear a helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for
having certain kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Are there places that a) don't have national health care,
and b) do have a mandatory helmet law for adults?

BS.
Wisconsin has no requirement whatsoever for adult motorcycle
riders. The legislature postulated some rules once and the
citizenry smacked them down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM


There is absolutely no question that helmets help motorcyclists. While you rarely are dragging your head along the ground for a long enough period to expose your brain this is a very large number of possible motorcycling injuries. That hard shell makes all of the difference in the world.


You're not wrong. And yet the winning argument was "Let
those who ride decide". Case closed.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Remember - I am a conservative and believe in the least and the least intrusive government control.