Carla, maybe you're interesting post is commenting more on the zeitgeist of the Oregon politic, but I'll take the opportunity to say that I think the helmet proposal was good policy. I see no substantive difference between it and speed limits or seat belt laws. In fact, I would go even further and require bright clothing and taillights.

Government has a legitimate interest in requiring a minimal level of safety on the streets and highways we all share. In fact, it seems to me that's kind of one of the main things government should be involved in.

Why should society foot the bill for the increased medical costs associated with a dangerous behavior when a simple preventative alternative is available? It's not like we're asking them to quit smoking--just to wear a little hat so their brains won't end up on the pavement.

Com on Kev, you think helmet laws are wrong because they make you unhappy? Fortunately for those of us whose brains have not been splattered on the pavement, the Declaration of Independence does not constitute the law of the land.

GLV, you may be technically correct that the Declaration doesn't constitute the law of the land, but you aren't going to win many people over to your way of thinking with statements like that.

Your rights end where mine begin.

It's rarely that simple Kevin. For starters, mere interests and inclinations are not civil rights. Even our most cherished individual rights have ragged, overlapping edges.

I have an interest in living in a society that isn't spending inordinate sums of money to reconstruct the shattered heads of free-wheeling bikers. That is at least as worthy of consideration as the desire of some bicyclists to ride bare headed into the nearest concrete barrier.

Indulge me for a moment...

I have to pay the cop to reroute traffic around the scene, I have to pay the coroner to transport the corpse, etc. If we're lucky, I'll have to pay slightly higher health care costs to cover the trauma team, and will have to pay higher taxes when the recovering biker is on permanent disability because he can no longer speak his own name.

Driving without a seat belt or biking without a helmet is not quite the victimless indulgence you're suggesting. It costs us all, perhaps more dearly than we might guess.

I get what you are saying Kevin, there is a difference in magnitude. I'll admit to that. To me, however, it isn't enough of a difference.

I think you're right about the libertarian streak that runs through Oregon and the west. When I traveled east for college, my liberal friends didn't share that same libertarian streak. This was the time when campus speech codes were sweeping through small northeast colleges, and they didn't understand how a good liberal could oppose such codes. I didn't understand how a good liberal could support them.

On helmets specfically, I see both sides. But it is a rare death/severe injury that only affects the deceased/injured. Often we end up paying for some or all of the medical costs, but even when that doesn't happen there are the social costs to the dead/injured guy's family, friends, and the other drivers involved.

We have lots of laws on the books designed to mitigate social costs like these: you're not allowed to sell sex, even if both parties consent; you're not allowed to take whatever drugs you want even if you never steal to support your habit; it's illegal to kill yourself unless the state certifies that you're suffering from an end-of-life disease (although they have a hard time enforcing this); adultery is still illegal.

I'm not convinced that dying without a helmet is a victimless act. If there are economic or social costs the people, though their government, have a right to demand that you behave according to community standards.

Dealing with the "hassle" of wearing a seat-belt was annoying back in the 80s. Just the same as it would be to learn to deal with the hassle of always wearing a helmet.

To me, perhaps the oddest part of this discussion is that the VAST majority of bicyclists I know wouldn't be caught dead (pardon the pun) riding their bike without wearing a helmet. Who is voicing the biggest opposition to this, non-bicyclists?

I'm not sure from where this ethos began.

I find it hard to take this question seriously. I don't know anybody, western, eastern, or in between, who hankers for more government oversight over their life (in this case, bodily sovereignty).

I do know plenty of people who think the government ought to limit other people's bodily autonomy. Perhaps in the west we are less interested in controling the bodies of other people than are folks elsewhere (though recent conversations about abortion here at Blue Oregon suggest that we pioneering westerners are fairly willing if it's only women's bodies).

those maverick explorers who carried their lives on their back and lived on their own terms

Uh, Roanoake? Jamestown? Ville Marie?

Everybody thinks she/he is special. And as I learned in preschool, we all are. But perhaps not for the reasons we imagine.

Clearly, none of you are legal scholars.

First, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are pretty words in a more or less (legally) meaningless document.

Second, law by its very nature is paternalistic. EVERY law impinges upon someone's ability to do something they might like to do. Thus, asking whether the law "would give the government power over the way we choose to live our lives" gives you no useful information. The RIGHT question to ask is whether the benefits of the proposed law law outweigh the restrictions on liberties that it entails.

In the extreme cases (like, say, laws against murder), that calculus is pretty easy. When it comes to things like bike helmets, its a tougher call, and I just don't know enough to make it. How many helmeted drivers who die would have died with or without a helmet? Are drivers more agressive with helmeted cyclists because they think less risk is involved? How are death and injury rates affected when jurisdiction enact and enforce helmet laws?

This juvenile "I don't wanna" attitude makes for terrible social policy. So stop patting yourselves on the back for being so "maverick" and start thinking about what makes the most sense as a social rule. Personally, I don't have enough information to make that judgment. A post compiling that sort of information would be much more constructive than this nonsense.

The ethos that Carla reflects is accurate for those of us with our roots here in Oregon. My family only had one part come in the covered wagon, the rest took the train, but we were all here 100 years ago except those not born yet. And the "leave me alone unless you can prove a necessary case" ethos is strong and vibrant in my family.

And that is where the good State Senator from Eugene went wrong. He didn't make a case for the necessity of getting into my life. Now, I don't ride a bicycle often, maybe twice a decade at this stage of my life. But I really don't want to wear a helmet. I'd wear one if I was regularly in traffic, but on the back roads and streets near where I live, where you can see a car coming for half a mile, and they don't come that often - I don't need a helmet.

But I could be convinced it could be a good State law. You'd have to prove to me that it costs me a lot of money to pay for the medical expenses of the bicycle riders that were injured for the lack of a helmet. If it costs me and everyone one of my neighbors lots of money to pay for those medical expenses, and it had better be provable, then and only then would I entertain consideration of a helmet law. I would entertain consideration as one possible option out of many options. Perhaps helmets must be worn in areas of population density of over 500 people per square mile. Perhaps bicycle riders could post a bond or provide proof of insurance in lieu of wearing a helmet.

In my sense of sensibilities, you don't jump to the solution before you have defined and explored both the problem and the possible solutions. Who knows - helmets that slide into your field of vision might increase accidents??

So, the Senator blew it.

I can see where I could be persueded that requiring helmets should be law but not right now. This proposal is not the quick band-aid to bike/car relationships. Until we add laws and policies that make our roads more suitable for the dual use as well as enhancing traffic patrol to enforce those laws a helmet law is going to be pretty meaningless. Not quite the election year talking point he was looking for. Sorry Floyd.

Pat Ryan wrote:

Until you are able to madate[sic] airbags and helmets for Old People Taking a Shower or Old People Standing at the top of the Stairs in Their Own Homes........

While I am not too keen on government protecting adults from themselves, there is a difference between these proposed regulations and seatbelt and helmet laws - the latter apply to public, not private property. It's reasonable to argue that highway safety laws are bad policy, but I do not see the grounds for arguing that the state does not have legitimate power to regulate behavior on public highways.

I don't understand what the big deal is. I think they're just trying to save people's lives with a helmet law.

I dont' recall where I read this, but I saw something the other day that said something like of the 800 or so deaths among bicycle riders last year, 770 of them were not wearing helmets. These aren't precise #'s, but they're close (as is the ratio).

Given the fact that in at least some of the non-lethal cases, the health care costs of injured riders ultimately come out of our pockets, I don't think it's particularly unfair. Nor do I think helmets are even that much of a burden.

Just my $.02

Carla, another great post; and not just because you speak to my strong libertarian streak!

Mike, your argument is exactly that which makes us fear government the most. If, closed head injuries are the real issue here, AND I could show you the statistics for closed head injuries sustained from AUTOMOBILE accidents, would you support mandatory helmet laws for adults in their autos? I did the data search about 12 years ago and the numbers are staggering in favor of auto related closed head injuries rather than bicycle related closed head injuries.

Again, the nanycrats (great name whomever came up w/it) have nothing better o do than establishyet another mandatory infringement on normal adult activities.

I ride a Harley and would wear a helmet regardless the law. It chaps me that there is such a law, but I don't fight it. This is over-reaching. next thing you know the nanycrats will be mandating safety harnesses w/D-Rings and bungie cords when we go up on the roof to clean gutters or hang Chrsitmas lights.

"the western U.S. seems to be a region whose citizens have a strong preference for government to remain out of their personal decisions."

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Your pants are on fire, Carla.

You and your liberal pals here on the blogs are the biggest proponents of government in our lives.. Wow. You can't be serious.

Some bike helmet and injury stats:

*a really honest link saying the Morton Salt Girl is the queen of that page, given the crappy data on this subject:

http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html

*national, awfully dated, but the concept remains intact:

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

*a number of graphs based on Oregon data -- the guy asks good questions: http://cyclerslife.blogspot.com/2008/07/portland-bike-crash-data.html

I second the tenor of Kristin's story. As a motorcyclist who has had some really interesting wrecks of the slo-mo as well as the high speed freeway kind, I cannot say enough about the use of the right gear to fit the risks and vulnerabilities of a particular mode of transport. It's about ME, not about "the man" or anything else.

Also an avid cyclist, I've had my share of close calls where bike handling skills were the only reason my bike, my noggin and my ass were intact. I've always been grateful to know that I had a nice second cranium wrapped around me to safeguard me till I've hit alzheimer's where I can wreak some real havoc. Legacy has an excellent driver's education program for those who do not use seat belts -- the trauma nurse is a bit too screamy and dogmatically self-righteous for my taste, assuming every last asshole in that auditorium thinks like TR and company; however, the statistics and the visuals to help make it real are worth every grinding minute of self-righteous rant. These are auto-related head injuries they are discussing, but when is the last time you saw a cyclist get off with nothing but a shake while the driver somehow sustained the massive injury? Never yet for me.

There are folks on life sustaining systems and in vegetative care on the dollars of their families and you and me because protecting their brains responsibly was not part of their politics.

I agree that consenting adults should be allowed to make their own decisions so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others. However, all bets are off if were going to expect government to take care of everyone from cradle to grave (see "Nanny State"). You can't have it both ways.

I think t.a. is onto something, although I wouldn't say it that way.

On a philosophical/societal level I think we are seeing an expression of a highly individualistic culture, which teaches us to value our separateness/individuality/personal choices far over and above those who might be affected by those.

But really, I think that's something of a myth, we are taught that Americans are individualistic, selfish even, and taught to value that "supposed" specialness of being American: "American Exceptionalism" we called it in my last college History class (History of American Thought an Society, with Thomas Haskell at Rice U -- a brilliant fellow).

The myth that we are so different and that difference makes us special, somehow unique, is what makes those foolish enough to pride themselves on being able to argue successfully for your right to throw your naked head into on-coming traffic feel as though somehow this is a fabulous part of our culture.

Come on, that's just plain silly.

People, even adults, are remarkably willing to be led by authority. Will that change all of a sudden if we don't pass one measly law? I think not. Evolution works, but very VERY slowly. Read a little about social behavior in humans, and your faith in individual decision making will be seriously shaken!

Meanwhile you've got a society of people who'd really much rather be told what to do (in various minor, every day decisions, mind you, not to kill each other) free to make many fool-hardy decisions, often because our frontal lobes might not yet be fully developed, our hormones often outfox our impulse control, or our tastebuds and pleasure receptors just are so much more influential in the moment then, say, my college history class. So what's wrong with a little direction to save the lives who many who haven't done the consdierate thing and bought life and health insurance to protect those left behind to clean up their mess?

I DO think humans as individual CAN make intelligent decisions (especially when presented with evidence in a sober, fair context, with social pressures to make responsible, sensible, pro-social decisions) -- but I think as a society we should stack the deck in favor of what would save lives (and cash) at NO cost to us. Unless you want to stake your argument on pure ideology, that is.

"but I saw something the other day that said something like of the 800 or so deaths among bicycle riders last year, 770 of them were not wearing helmets."

That's a meaningless statistic because it doesn't tell you how many of those would have been saved by a helmet. For example, neither of the two cyclists who died in the recent high-profile Portland fatalities would have been saved by a helmet.

As noted previously, the pro-nanny crowd quite tellingly never seems to be able to supply any statistics to back up their claims about this alleged plague in need of correction. And without any factual basis, it seems more like a solution in search of a problem.

"We are a society, therefore we bear one another's burdens. Wouldn't it be better if we took care of each other in that way? Wear your freaking helmet."

I already have a mom, but thanks. Maybe you should save it for your own children.

"Why should society foot the bill for the increased medical costs associated with a dangerous behavior"

Well, then I imagine you'd be for government mandates to deal with the No. 1 killer in America: heart disease. Get back to me when you've got everyone on a government-mandated healthy diet. Maybe after the long list of real killers in America is taken care of we can start with relatively minor factors like injuries caused by not wearing a bicycling helmet. Until then it's just bullshit.

Maybe with the new $4,400 desks in place, the legislators will be inspired to use their time more wisely and tackle issues of actual importance.

Mindin' other people's business seems to be high tone, well I've got all that I can do just a mindin' my own.

Maybe that's what Floyd figured out.

"I think t.a. is onto something"

I think you meant that T.A. is on something.

I'd say he's on a high horse and it's sailing on a boatload of self-righteousness.

Yay for Steven! Sam loves Steven! Yeesh. I'd never'a' got it said.

I am a left leaning libertarian, but I am troubled by other peoples "partial approach" to personal responsibility. If there was a way to guaranty that a given person gave up ANY AND ALL rights to public or private benefits - for themselves, their partners, wives, children, next of kin, etc., when they are injured or killed due to a decision to not use available safety equipment, then I really don't care what they do to themselves, regardless of whether it is safe, sane or etc.

However, the reality is that if you are injured, your insurance company pays for your care (thus increasing rates for all policy holders) or if you are uninsured the state pays for your care under Medcaid (thus increasing general taxes) or the hospital treats you as a charity case (and spreads the cost over all patients thus increasing general medical bills) or if you are killed your spouse or children get survivor's benefits from Social Security (thus decreasing the pool of money available to pay retirement benefits) or at the very least Multnomah County gives you a free pauper's funeral.

If this was the 1850s where you could do what you want, suffer the consequences personally and not affect anybody else, then I say go to it. But I think those days are over by about 158 years.

Helmets are designed to withstand a 12mph crash. They are also only designed to help with an impact directly on the top of your head. They are also worthless after between 3-5 years of use. Look inside your helmet. It has a "born on" date. If it's older than 5 years you might as well not be wearing anything.

Unlike most people commenting here I know two reasons for 2 ghost bikes personally. Nick and Noah. You can find them in SE Portland. I'll send you the addresses if you want to check them out. One was wearing a helmet and one wasn't. Neither would have lived if they were wearing a helmet.

I wear a helmet but keep your fingers off telling me to wear a helmet.

Oh and T.A. you're such a self righteous idiot sometimes. You actually made a good argument and then I totally dismissed your view at the very end because you couldn't lay off 7 letters.

I think the magic words are "public" vs "private". Not "cost to the public", but location of the activities. And, dear, check your epidemiology on HIV/AIDS -- the spike on the graph is no longer in the stereoptypified population only, though it does exist there indeed.

As to the efficacy of the egg-holder: are you advocating that because it is not designed to take 70 mph such as a motorcycle helmet might, it is of little use to advocate it? Are you saying that just because not all will be helped, then forget it entirely? Lemme tell you: the motorcycle crash that smithereened my bike unto unfixable was NOT the 73 mph slide on the wet rain ridges of the Richmond Bridge in rush hour -- it was the Laugh-In Trike Guy flop I pulled at a blushing slow and tottering speed. That bike was toast, and so was my helmet. For the sake of fact checking, I'll write back tomorrwo after I talk to a bike shop or two -- I think you are quoting a five dollar GI Joe's Action Figure hat for a five year old tyke. I'll mea culpa if I'm wrong.

This all-in/all-out thinking doesn't make sense to me. Thank god my life is made up of the grey areas. How many kids are really out there riding on the freeways and Beaverton Hillsdale at five pm? Ummm.... they get crushed on their own little neighborhood streets.

I just don't get it. Why are you all het up against a requirement that we put on the protective gear? You can get top of the line helmets of all shapes and sizes through Legacy Trauma Nurses every day of the working week, and they sell the lights and other things for nearly nothing too. I wish you would bitch about domestic violence, or lack of work for the youth who really want to work. Or something.

When I drag race my car is fast enough that NHRA mandates a helmet, I don't mind. Unless something goes horribly wrong, I'm going to go in a straight line for a few seconds and then I can ditch the brain bucket. I also choose to go that fast.

I don't ride a bicycle, I get plenty of exercise, so I have little basis to say much. The helmets are dinky and weigh little. I am not overly impressed by the argument for mandating them.

Motor cycle helmets are a bit different deal. I loath the weight and obstruction of my hearing and vision. I find all three to be real issues. The weight almost guarantees a neck injury, your neck is made for the weight of your head and a bit of abuse. The vision and hearing problems do contribute to accidents, how much is debatable as are all motorcycle helmet statistics. I rode a lot of miles in a non-helmet state, I chose to wear one in some conditions, mostly not. I wore leathers and gloves in most conditions to keep my hide on me, something you will lose in almost any kind of crash.

There are a lot of competing agendas going on regarding helmets, manufactureres have a very real stake in mandates. Many people who advocate madates have no experience in the issue and frankly their opinions being based on not much are worth about as much. You may notice how little I had to say about bicycles helmets.

I am guessing from the first comment in this thread, by Mr Ryan, that he wants to ride his motorcycle unencumbered by a helmet. Fine. I just want him first to sign a legally binding document absolving the taxpayers of Oregon of all responsibility for his medical bills if he winds up with a head injury after a wreck. Let the hospital repo his house and everything else he owns, let his family be kicked out, and let his progeny be cursed to the 6th generation :-) Just as long as I'm not footing the bill. Now there's small-L libertarianism for you.

The state requires insurance, right? A helmet is a sort of insurance.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. US courts decided that a long time ago.

Finally, as a parent, you're damn right that my kids wear bike helmets...as do I. Too bad it took me having a helmet-less crash, and getting a trip to the hospital with a concusion and lacerations, to learn this lesson.

Carla: My reaction and why it hit such a nerve for so many other Oregonians is a testament, I think, to the libertarian sensibility that runs wide through our state. Notice I don't mean "Libertarian", as in the Party. I use that label to infer the idea of the "leave me alone" ethos that tends to be an intregal part of what we're about in the west. As a rule, the western U.S. seems to be a region whose citizens have a strong preference for government to remain out of their personal decisions. jk: Of course the "leave me alone" ethos is at the very heart of the Libertarian party ALONG WITH equal rights for all which leads to “in return, I’ll leave you alone.”

I do hope that you will consider joining the real freedom loving party - the Libertarians. They are pro-choice on just about everything.

Carla: What we (in general terms, of course) are opposed to is being told that we can't live the way we like--as long as we're not harming anyone else. JK: Where are you on seat belts?

Thanks JK

Wow, this conversation has gotten very interesting!

Hats off to Steve Maurer, who I think deserves a prize for most articulately explaining the political/philosophical position I was trying to get at.

It isn't so simple as "your rights end at my wallet" Kari, though that is perhaps the obvious simplification. I don't really care about whether we have a helmet law or not -- my point is that progressive Oregonians really need to examine our libertarian streak to understand exactly where it plays into the hands of conservative Republicans.

My hubby and I debated this last night (silly me, he can barely tolerate seat belts after all) but when it came down to it, his position wasn't really about whether he has the right not to wear a helmet, but rather with law enforcement being so broken, racially/economically oppressive, politicized, and corrupt (in his point of view) he really doesn't think giving cops one more reason to detain citizens is worth the risk of infringing civil liberties. That perspective is one we should really consider, since he surely isn't the only progressive who feels that way.

Every so often he gets me. (Don't tell -- he doesn't read BO!)

<i.hiding behind="" someone="" else's="" name="" is="" just="" lame.<="" i="">

As lame as being a self-righteous has who wants to tell others how to live?

It's a toss up.

As a taxpayer, I've invested plenty in your education, on the idea that over your lifetime of employment, you'll pay it back.

When did I become your indentured servant, Steven? You make a comment like that and then accuse others of being stupid? Amazing.

You don't own me. None of you. Stop trying and mind your own business. Is that so fucking hard to understand you nosy nellies.

Hold on! There's something you need to see.

Pat said: "When it comes to group action, Anarchists are screwed by definition when opposed by Collectivists."

By whose definition? Anarchists ARE collectivists where I come from. That you're "...not dumb enough to be advocating for some sort of Anarchist Utopia" assumes that you actually have some knowledge of what anarchism is. The legitimacy of the existence of the state is null. How many of us voted for the existence of the state? What state was ever created by democratic consent?

Real libertarians (not corporatist Libertarians) are closer to the anarchist ideal than war-monger supporting liberals, who are responsible for tens of millions of deaths for which no insurance exists. Why aren't you complaining about that cost being passed on to the public?

When Oregon State Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) floated a proposed new law requiring all adults to wear a bicycle helmet, the reaction was a swift and harsh "no". So much so that Prozanski quickly backed off.

Seems to me Prozanski might have had a better reception if he'd specified that the helmet law was only for while people are actually riding bicycles.

Not quite as amazing as reading someone comparing seatbelt laws to slavery. Being hunted down like an animal....</blockquite>

Uh, McFly? Indentured servitude was not the same as the forced slavery you described, Steven.

Indentured servitude involved signing a contract wherein you get something (like transport to the new country, or, in your example, an education) in exchange for years of service to your master.

So your grasp of history is no better than your weak logic, which is based on the type of amazing ignorance I'd expect from a person who has zero education. Is that you, or did you just skip the history/civics classes.

Absolute moron! There ought to be a law!

Moreover, The United States is not a lowest common denominator society. You think you need a helmet, by all means where one. That's as far as it needs to go.

I guess Democrats aren't the pro-choice party after all.

Steve! Nothing funnier than somebody who won't admit they're stupid.

Indentured servitude, while certainly exploitive and coercive, was not the same as the African slavery by kidnapping that you described in its place.

Don't change the subject just because you said something embarrassingly stupid. I said indentured servitude and you described African slavery that originates with kidnapping.

Not the same at all, doubly dummy.

You blew it with your over-heated rhetoric about stolen baby's, and you used it to conflate and confuse my comparison of your attitude about my owing you (and other taxpayers) something because you paid for my education -- kind of like indentured servitude.

By the way, Steve, if a person who accepts a public education in this country moves to Europe as an adult and doesn't pay U.S. taxes, is that person stealing? You seem to imply it is. It's silly and stupid.

Just accept your moronitude and learn, Steven. That's how morons get smarter. Indentured servitude is not the same as the slavery by kidnapping, as I pointed out and you still can't quite grasp.

But keep trying. You're cute, although not very successful, when you're trying to cover up your moronitude.

By the way, steven, when's the last time you rode a bike, nosy nellie? It's an act that does require minimal intelligence, so I imagine it's been awhile -- if ever.

"And that means if we choose to harm ourselves..well, that's our choice"

Which is why we are in trouble as a society. Choosing to harm one's self in favor of our own selfish notion of personal rights is not a good use of common sense. It encourages bad social behavior. This is why common sense is an oxy-moron today. If you hurt yourself because of this, you have no one to blame but yourself, and don't expect anyone to come to your aid because of your stupidity. I have no sympathy for people who get severely hurt because their rights ovverode thier common sense. They get what they deserve and I hope they learn from it.

Tom: ...but I do not see the grounds for arguing that the state does not have legitimate power to regulate behavior on public highways.

Kevin: Behavior which doesn't harm others?

Tom: If there is no possibility of harm to others, then, no, I do not see legitimate governmental power. But I have not seen a convincing rebuttal to the argument that society is responsible for the medical care of helmetless riders, and that this is harm to others. From a political standpoint, I do not think that is a good argument for helmet laws, but from a reasonable standpoint, I think it is enough to differentiate mandating helmets on public roads from mandating them in home showers.

Did some research on bicycle helmet safety standards. Called some folks who are professionals, not the adolescent down the block on a summer job.

First, there is no such thing as a mph-impact testing standard per se. This is not how helmets are tested. The following link explains all you ever wanted to know about how all helmets are tested, the physics being tested and the outcomes as well as the paucity of advancements in bicycle helmet engineering since the 1970's, as well as clarity on the testing. http://www.helmets.org/idealstd.htm

Helmets are dropped from 2M. onto an anvil! It has been determined that the primary force of the impact is derived from gravity, not forward motion. Force is peeled off your impact if you can manage to bounce off some things before your eggshell hits the concrete.

So: a good issue - if you are bitching that the helmets do nothing (I've tested them on the business end of a harassing-driver incident, I do not agree), then why not move on to next and look at why the technology that would solve a lot of potential head-injuries is not pressing forward.

If you take the statistically significant number of young males now whiling away their lives in full-care nursing homes due to car wrecks, the same logic for requiring seat belts to help you stay in and not get rolled over or customize your windshield on the way out... might just as reasonably be applied to the requisite that you use what little is available to protect your brains in case you are the lucky one and it works.

Beautiful helmets, to the current standard, are available for as little as five dollars from Trauma Nurses [Talk Tough?] at Legacy.

Sorry to belabor - the material on this link is just too good. At issue is American cultural refusal to join bicycle-based cultures in testing, standards, expectations. And our good old, legalistic risk-avoidance built into the business [as usual] model....

"Development of an international bicycle helmet standard is stalled. Europe has a different test rig that it considers superior and the US regards as unnecessarily complex. The US uses two different drop rigs that produce slightly different results and studiously ignores the problem because each rig has its champions who regard the other as inferior, and because nobody wants to invest in new rigs. The US uses 2 meter drop heights, while Europe uses 1.5 meters, resulting in helmets that are thinner and often will not pass US tests. Europe uses a 250 g failure criterion, while the US uses the same 300 g threshold that it has used for 50 years and can't let go of. In fact Consumer Reports In the absence of better standards, manufacturers are stalled in improving their helmets by two constraints: marketing and legal liability. They are convinced that they can't sell a helmet that is thicker and therefore bulky looking. And their lawyers will not let them advertise that a helmet is "safer" or "more protective" or even "designed to prevent concussion" for fear that they will lose lawsuits when a rider is injured in that helmet."

I think all these discussions are basically moot (?) without actual figures on just how much cost the country incurs because of injuries caused specifically because a person isn't wearing a bicycle helmet. Without that information, all the rest of this discussion is just B.S.

I'll bet it's relatively nil compared to the real costs incurred by society.

Where's the proof that riding without a helmet is this economy-bleeding plague of dangerous behavior that so many here have simply assumed it is without providing any actual proof.

It's absolutely ludicrous to worry about this "safety" issue while society still allows ce3ll phone use in cars. Talk about AN ACTUAL DANGER. It's the equivalent of driving drunk. yet people here are worried about a couple out on a5 mph weekend ride instead of true danger.

It's all absolute bullshit. You've skipped right over the part about whether there's an actual need to prioritize this law and skipped right on to th legality of it.

Again, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Usually that means there's something else at play.

As a 60-year-old daily bike commuter, I like to point out to many younger bicyclists that one rarely sees and older biker who doesn't wear a helmet. The reason, I add, is these are the younger cyclists of yesteryear who survived.

I'm sure the stats are out there. I recently talked with a trauma nurse at Emmanuel Hospital. He's been there for at least a dozen years. His experienced estimate is that of all bike accident fatalities, 80 percent were helmetless bicyclists. If that ratio is substantiated by further research, it means that bike helmets are more crucial to bicyclists' safety than seat belts are for motorists.

Every year, Portland has between three and five gruesomely fatal bike collisions. This scares the bejesus out of folks who would otherwise be commuting or shopping by bike. If the total bike deaths were zero or one a year, I'm sure more people would be less afraid to mount their bikes.

If we are ever going to be serious about bicycling as a realistic mode of transportation, we need to enact and enforce serious bicycling laws. I've noticed that the bikers who flout traffic laws--such as running red lights, riding the wrong way on streets, cutting across traffic and not having lights on at night--rarely wear helmets. These people need to be brought under control.

I will try to look out statistics on mortality and morbidity for bicycle riders who wear helmets vs. those who don't.

That's not the statistic we need, Chris. We need to find out how many people were injured specifically because they weren't wearing a helmet. Finding out if they were injured while not wearing a helmet doesn't tell you if that helmet would have protected them.

Moreover, it's obvious that a society concerned with saftey and costs would make it illegal to operate a cell phone (hands free or otherwise) while piloting a vehicle.

But a law like that -- even though it would make sense from a safety and associated healthcare costs perspective -- isn't even being considered. Why? because it would inconvenience too many people.

Instead we turn our attention to a relative non-factor in the safety/healthcare sphere, and jump on that. Why? Because the group that will be affected is much smaller and can not stand up to the majority that wants to impose its will.

So if the majority is engaging in a behavior that is considered the equivelent of being a drunken driver, that's OK.

But if a minority of people engages in behavior that is much less dangerous and destructive to society, we've got a move to force laws on them.

This smacks of majority-driven bullies to me.

It's really pretty ludicrous. Usually when stuff gets this stupid there's a reason behind it.

I think that reason is there's a bunch of stiffs out there who see a free-wheeling, unlicensed and relatively uncontrolled class of commuter and this is one way for the establishment and associated stiffs to put their thumbs on that free-wheeling class and let them know "we control you, too."

Seriously, there's so much assuming of a problem that doesn't exist while in complete denial with actual saftey issues, one can only assume there's an undercurrent of some other factor driving this.

I think it's The Man (and his apologists) looking for a way to put a finger on formerly free-wheeling group.

And that's what I will continue to believe until someone proves to me that the costs associated with helmetless riders are more than the costs associated with drivers impaired by cell phone use.

Oh, and here's one more thing.

"Just want to point out that bike helmets are probably as much or more for non-vehicular accicents than crashes with cars."

I remember crashing on my training ride once. I tried to get a surprise jump on my cohorts so that I could open a gap that I could hold to the city limits sign we were sprinting for. When I jumped my chain skipped off the front chain ring and I went over the handlebars, sliding for about 25 feet.

As I was dusting my self off, some punk schmoe I had never ridden with before came up and said "I bet you wish you were wearing a helmet>"

All I could say was that I wish I had been wearing a helmet on my ass, because that's where all the road rash was.

I am sympathetic to a law about bike helmets because I am sure that there's some public expense involved in picking your bloody body off the street when you fly over the handle bars and smash up your head on the pavement. If you would be willing to right then sign over all your past, present, and future assets to pay for the hospital time, I'd be for letting you ride without a helmet because, well, you're not hurting anyone else.

Chris: I've been trying to find recent materiel on this issue, it's scattered out, it's dated. I hope you will find the stats I've been unable to. It's like porn: I can't describe this to you, but I know it when I see it...

"Greg" troll - I am not completely out of agreement with you despite the differences in our apparent BELIEFS in this matter. I do think most cellphone drivers would drive better with that cell phone up their arse... I believe the issue may be that those with catastrophic head injury often end up on public rolls as a result of family and insurance resources being exhausted on longterm 24/7 care. I am certain we have the stats on car wreck trauma, and believe that this could surely be applied to those wrecks cyclists suffer that are catastrophic, involving head injuries. THe lack of stats is indicated as being related to 1. lack of profit motive; 2. we are not a bicycle-based culture, providing mere cultural motive.

Gil: Thanks for the anecdotal from the Trauma Nurse. It lines up with all I've been told in converse with them. Perhaps I'm assuming people whine against the law b/c of potential expense, hence my nattering on about the cheap and up-to-date resources for riders offered for more than a decade by EHHC Trauma nurses.

Chris: I've been trying to find recent materiel on this issue, it's scattered out, it's dated. I hope you will find the stats I've been unable to. It's like porn: I can't describe this to you, but I know it when I see it...

"Greg" troll - I am not completely out of agreement with you despite the differences in our apparent BELIEFS in this matter. I do think most cellphone drivers would drive better with that cell phone up their arse... I believe the issue may be that those with catastrophic head injury often end up on public rolls as a result of family and insurance resources being exhausted on longterm 24/7 care. I am certain we have the stats on car wreck trauma, and believe that this could surely be applied to those wrecks cyclists suffer that are catastrophic, involving head injuries. THe lack of stats is indicated as being related to 1. lack of profit motive; 2. we are not a bicycle-based culture, providing mere cultural motive.

Gil: Thanks for the anecdotal from the Trauma Nurse. It lines up with all I've been told in converse with them. Perhaps I'm assuming people whine against the law b/c of potential expense, hence my nattering on about the cheap and up-to-date resources for riders offered for more than a decade by EHHC Trauma nurses.

"If you would be willing to ... sign over all your past, present, and future assets to pay for the hospital time, I'd be for letting you ride without a helmet because, well, you're not hurting anyone else.

Do you offer the same deal for cigarette smoking, cell phone use while driving, swimming less than a half hour after eating, etc., etc?

Why just pick on people not wearing bike helmets? Again, your comment kind of makes my point about picking on the little guys for no apparent reason when their are plenty more egregious areas to address.

"I do think most cellphone drivers would drive better with that cell phone up their arse"

Rebecca troll, it really goers beyond that doesn't it? Not just better drivers, but drivers who aren't performing on the same level as a drunk. That's quite a bit different than just being "better" drivers.

By the way, I saw a couple pre-12-year-olds riding bikes in Portland today without helmets. That's against the law. Maybe we ought to see if we can't manage to enforce laws that are on the books before we ad more burdens.

It would be interesting to ask traffic patrol cops what they'd think of using their time to ticket helmetless cyclists?

Floyd Prozanski is widely reported to be a "long time bicycling advocate" as KATU puts it in Carla's link above. It seems he didn't consult his biking constituency for whatever reason.

My guess is Prozanski is of the more moderate, helmet-wearing crowd of cyclists who also don't care for cyclists who adhere to the more freewheeling, bohemian roots of cycling.

That "establishment" crowd also would like to rein in the rogue cycling element, which, of course, would be less likely to wear helmets. Making them wear helmets would be one way to put the thumb on them.

I know you'e a serious guy, Chris, but I seriously see a punishment factor involved in this ... even if it's coming from a "fellow cyclist."

Although it's circumstantial evidence, the timing of Prozanski's announcement, which came on the heels of several well-publicized skermishes between auto drivers and the more radical (helmetless) element of Portland's cycling community, leads me to believe I'm on the right track: Time to punish that rogue element.

In regards to your proposed studies:

Finding out whether a cyclist is safer with a helmet in a crash than without one also isn't the answer. All stipulate that a cyclist is safer with a helmet. But that's really not enough to force people to wear them, is it? That's a pretty big can of worms to open.

What proponents of this law need to prove is that injuries caused specifically because a person wasn't wearing a bicycle helmet are such an over-riding burden on this society that mandating helmet use should be prioritized over safety issues such auto accidents caused by cell phone use while piloting a multi-ton vehicle capable of great speeds, cigarette smoking, poor nutritional habits that bring on heart disease, diabetes, etc. ... you know, things that kill millions and are real drags on our healthcrae system. There are much, much bigger fish to fry. of course, you might have to step on a lot more -- and a lot bigger -- toes to do that.

Like I say. This smells of a solution in search of a problem. Usually when that happens, there's some other underlying reason. I think I've got my finger on part of it.

I won't tell you wear my other finger is.

:)

Whoops. A few points I missed.

1. I can stipulate that cycling with a helmet is safer than without one, but that doesn't mean cycling without a helmet is dangerous.

2. We are not obliged by society to act in the safest possible fashion at all times. This is especially true if the less-safe alternative isn't all that dangerous either.

Sorry to come into this discussion so late, but I'd like to add a few points.

Government makes all kinds of laws regarding use on the roads that it owns--speed laws (both maximum and minimum), what sorts of vehicles are allowed (and the conditions of those vehicles), traffic control (traffic signals, stop signs, yield signs, etc.), and jaywalking laws, to name but a few.

Many of the laws are designed so that those using roads are less likely to endanger others, but there are other considerations, such as traffic flow and reducing the risk of people using the roads endangering themselves. Jaywalking laws are an example of this, and is probably the best analogy to the helmet and seat-belt laws.

For all of the reputation of the West being a bastion of "rugged individualism", it used to be that Portland was one of the strictest cities in the country in enforcing jaywalking laws. Periodically, someone would even spend a night in jail for jaywalking. It didn't happen often, just often enough that people knew that was a possibility.

Does government have an interest in making roads generally safer? Of course it does, as traffic accidents use government resources, and lessening the severity of injuries should lessen the strain on those resources.

Now, the questions become:

Are head injuries from bicycle accidents a significant problem?

Do helmets significantly reduce the severity of head injuries in bicycle accidents?

Are laws requiring helmet use going to significantly increase helmet use?

I don't know the answer to the first question, the answer to the second seems a clear "yes", and, based on the effect of seat-belt laws, the answer to the third seems "probably."

Kevin wrote:

If society's responsibility for the medical care of citizens is truly the important factor then the distinction being drawn between public and private behavior is... intellectually dishonest, to put it kindly.

I disagree. Some issues require consideration of more than one point. In this case, public responsibility for medical bills would establish the public interest in safe behavior rules, while operating a vehicle on public rights-of-way would establish juristiction for regulation. Please remember, though, that I do not support helmet laws, even if I do see a legal basis for them.

For discussion of oversimplified political thinking, see Krugman's column Know-Nothing Politics

Who left the italics open?

Tom: who left the italics open?

R: some Sicilian maybe?

I used to be one of those "feel the wind blowing through my hair" guys as I bike commuted to and from work, even though my hairs are rarely longer than what's left from a No. 3 Wahl clipper. About four years ago, as I was scooting down Haight Street to Divisadero in my home town at about twenty MPH, a guy in a minivan decided he needed to signal left and turn right, into a driveway directly in my path. We collided, and I flew through the air, eventually making a three point landing on the concrete; the three points being my hands and my head. I came to just as the paramedics were asking me how many fingers... Then they put me in a bus and took me to a trauma center, where I spent the next six hours being examined by an incredible team of specialists. I was lucky, other than a few stitches and soreness I had no concussion, no permanent damage. But it was only luck, if I'd gone head first into one the parked cars or if I'd hit the curb instead of the flat sidewalk, I could have been dead or severely injured. In the ambulance on the way to the hospital, the paramedic said to me, "Promise me one thing." I said, "Promise what?", he said, "No, just promise me one thing..." I said, "OK, I promise". He said, "Promise me that you'll never ride without a helmet again." "OK." And I have worn a helmet ever since.

I didn't need a law to mandate my helmet use, just a really close call. I've taken spills since then and the dings on my helmets serve as a reminder that instead of pockmarked plastic I could be wearing those craters on my face. If I want to feel the wind in my hair I stand in front of a fan.

I think a helmet law would be a good thing, I think testimony from paramedics and trauma teams, backed up with stats, would bear out the public health benefits. But the bottom line is that it's hard to cure stupidity, which is the greatest public health menace IMO.