# Citation for no helmet



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

I got a citation for riding without a helmet at the bottom of Purissima Creek today. That should be the end of story, because there is a law about helmet use and I was on the trail riding without one. :/

I was completely honest and very cooperative, and the officer at one point said that he was "still thinking whether to give me a warning or a citation." I will never know why he swayed towards a citation within half a minute after that.

Some thoughts, mostly for myself:

- Will this citation do any good to anybody becase of not being a warning? No. I will still be as cautious as ever. (Good boy!)

- Do I ever leave my helmet at home knowingly? Never. (Good boy!)

- Did I pack my helmet this morning? Yes. (Good boy!)

- Why did I not have my helmet at the trail head? Because I left my helmet in my car when I moved my stuff to a friend's van to carpool with him. (Good boy!)

- Why did I not move my helmet from my car to my buddie's car? I got distracted when I went to help another buddy put his bike in the van. (Good boy!)

- Why did I ride without a helmet?

a) Social reasons: I didn't want to spoil others' ride by either waiting in the car for 3-4 hours or waste 80 minutes round trip to drive back to the helmet. (Good boy!)

b) Safety reasons: I am aware of studies that show that helmet use is controversial. There are certain types of falls where a helmet is good, and certain types of falls where a helmet is bad (e.g. increased diameter is more risky for neck injuries through the increased torque that the helmet applies). (Controversial boy!)

c) Trail reasons: Withemore Gulch downhill is nontechnical and I thought that the risk would be minimum if I rode slower than ever, which I did. (Good boy!)

Ali


----------



## pcruz8 (Jun 27, 2008)

Excuse my ignorance, but helmets are required when riding? I thought if you're over 18, helmets are optional.

I wear my helmet most of the time; I only take it off when I'm doing a long climb and need to cool down.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

pcruz8 said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but helmets are required when riding? I thought if you're over 18, helmets are mandatory.


(You meant "optional for over 18".)

That is on the roads. I was on a trail system though, and there are signs about helmet requirements at trail heads.

Ali


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

stripes said:


> So pay the ticket already, and take your responsibility like a man.


That's the idea.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I just listed my feelings and actions before and after the fact and analyzed the events that took me to get a citation.

Ali


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

*another example of big brother*

who does the govt. think it is. Im an adult and I dont need some bureaucrat making rules to protect me from myself. that inludes seatbelts, helmets,and drugs. As long as what I do doesnt impact anyone else, then its nobodys business. as far as the emt who doesnt want to be bothered helping someone without a helmet, i have an option, dont help. If you have pre conditions to helping someone in need, maybe youre in the wrong business.I mean how far can you go with that logic? the idiot who doesnt have a spare tube or patch kit? , the numbskull who didnt pack a snakebite kit? how about the dumb hiker who should of had a gun when she got attacked by a mtn lion?
you cant idiot proof the world, and I resent the officials who think they are smarter than everyone else and delight in their ability to impose their beliefs on the public.
We have a motto in NH Live free or die
anyone over 18 can ride their bikes and motoorcycles with or without helmets. Personally I wear one, but its my choice


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

It sounds good when you say "nobody gets hurt but me" but who's picking up tab when a helmet-less rider busts his or her coconut? All of us, thanks to insurance premiums and public hospitals. I'm not saying that all risk is bad--just that society...or "big brother" if you choose to call it that...does have a stake in the decisions we make, and therefore does have some say in deciding what risks are acceptable vs. unacceptable.


----------



## moto0013 (Apr 14, 2006)

I say we allow people who complain about big brother and not having choice to sign a waiver that says they are not entitled to use any of the laws that might protect them.This will make their well being fall on their own shoulders.This will also mean they cant sue for anything that they have lost by signing the waiver.Lets give them the freedom they want and let evolution take over.Let the smart and strong survive.


----------



## justme (Nov 27, 2005)

Sometimes in life we learn the hard way. How much the ticket cost? I've seen teens riding without helmet and told them that they might get a ticket for riding without helmet but I didn't know what to tell them about the fine.


----------



## EBrider (Aug 3, 2004)

So what's the point of this thread?

You knew it was illegal to ride without a helmet and rode without one. No need to whine to us, just accept the consequences.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

EBrider said:


> No need to whine to us, just accept the consequences.


I did accept the consequences and did not whine. Are you wondering what made you think that I did otherwise?

The point of this thread is to share one of my mountain biking experiences with my friends here at the Norcal forum. You are free to take anything from it that you want, as you already did. 

Ali


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Dad Man Walking said:


> It sounds good when you say "nobody gets hurt but me" but who's picking up tab when a helmet-less rider busts his or her coconut? All of us, thanks to insurance premiums and public hospitals. I'm not saying that all risk is bad--just that society...or "big brother" if you choose to call it that...does have a stake in the decisions we make, and therefore does have some say in deciding what risks are acceptable vs. unacceptable.


I pick up the tab because I pay for insurance, and if I ride for 25 years without having to use that insurance then my premiums go to help defray the costs of others who do, since when did insurance become a guaranteed profit for the insurance industry? The insurance companies need to grow a set and start fighting the bogus claims instead of going the cheaper route and settling.
stuff happens and you cant legislate against every little thing. I could just as easily get hit by a car on the way to ride, or perhaps a rotted tree falls on me as I ride by and crushes my head inside that helmet. My point is as a responsible adult I should be in charge of me. What qualifies some bureaucrat as an expert on what is or is not safe for me? suppose they next decide that 2 wheels are unsafe and from now on everyone has to have 3 wheels or perhaps they say from now on we all have to wear full compression suits and body armor.
just because the govt says so isn't good enough, Ive seen first hand the kind of committee driven rules that can be imposed,. several years ago OSHA decided that workplace safety wasn't up to par and tried to impose a rule that stated you had to wear a safety harness while on an extension ladder! never mind that if the ladder falls you're now attached to it
its time this country stepped back and people took responsibility for their own actions instead of letting someone else take care of you


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

*My wife is ROFL*

I just told my wife the whole story.

To my amazement, she listened with some amusement and asked how much I would pay. I said "I don't know yet; I will go to the court." Then she literally laughed out loud, wide eyed... She couldn't picture me at the court looking at the floor saying "I didn't put on my helmet." 

I am glad she didn't accuse me.

Ali


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

moto0013 said:


> I say we allow people who complain about big brother and not having choice to sign a waiver that says they are not entitled to use any of the laws that might protect them.This will make their well being fall on their own shoulders.This will also mean they cant sue for anything that they have lost by signing the waiver.Lets give them the freedom they want and let evolution take over.Let the smart and strong survive.


it would be much easier to say " if you do something that is unsafe, and get hurt , you cant sue because of it" no waiver needed just common sense

".Lets give them the freedom they want and let evolution take over.Let the smart and strong survive.[/ "
isnt that how we got to this point in our lives? 
if you rode a bike in the 1800s and fell and broke your neck , do you think you could sue someone?, how about if you were riding a horse in 1776 , drunk, at night and hit your helmetless head on a pub sign ? somehow the strong did survive didnt they, without big brother and without insurance. Its only in our very modern history that weve come to expect the Govt. to help us out of every little mess and tell us how to live our lives


----------



## velocipus (Apr 27, 2005)

I agree nanny laws are annoying, but I also understand mid-pen covering their liable asses and require use to use helmets. One less potential condition for a civil suit. It's not big brother telling us what to do, it's mid-pen's board saying something like, "do what you want, but if ya wanna ride here, put your helmet on your head."

If I ride around with no helmet and bust my noggin' it affects my friends, family, co-workers and my ability to produce (think loss of income.) Not to mention I feel like a complete jackhole because all I needed to do was strap on my frikkin helmet.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

velocipus said:


> I agree nanny laws are annoying, but I also understand mid-pen covering their liable asses and require use to use helmets. One less potential condition for a civil suit. It's not big brother telling us what to do, it's mid-pen's board saying something like, "do what you want, but if ya wanna ride here, put your helmet on your head."
> 
> If I ride around with no helmet and bust my noggin' it affects my friends, family, co-workers and my ability to produce (think loss of income.) Not to mention I feel like a complete jackhole because all I needed to do was strap on my frikkin helmet.


maybe I missunderstood, was there a law stating mandatory helmet use or was it the property owner stating rules to use their property? (remember, state and federal property is owned by the people) thats us, and I dont remember any mandated helmet hearings or votes
as for the second part of your statement, I have to say and?
those are quite good reasons to wear a helmet and its good that you realise that, it goes to prove my point, you didnt need a law to force you did you?


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

Dan O

When you say ' I pay it [the costs] because I have insurance" I have to call Bull.

We the taxpayers pick up the tab for:

911 service
Fire Dispatch
Salaries for the Fire Dept Personel that respond
Fuel for the vehicles
Mainentence and repair of rescue equipment
cost of sending cover crews and engines from their home stations to cover the area that the rescue crew left unprotected to come to your aid
the extra fuel costs for the law enforcement guys that come to help with traffic control

and then there is all the reports that have to be written and filed

Oh and if you don't live in that Fire Protection District your taxes didn't pay a cent for it, the locals just picked up your tab.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Buzz Cut said:


> Dan O
> 
> When you say ' I pay it [the costs] because I have insurance" I have to call Bull.
> 
> ...


by we, doesnt that include me? I pay taxes too and how about the thousands of times I go out and nothing happens? I stiill pay taxes and recieve no benifit. Its like public schools, we all pay into them with taxes weather we use it or not, thats part of living in a society. They are working on a law here in NH that if you go hiking in the mtn.s without proper gear, you have to pay for the rescue , sounds fair to me, not passing a law that says I have to have the proper gear
in other words if you act stupidly then you have to pay,
not its against the law to act stupidly


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

i ride uphill without a helmet on a fairly reg basis just cause my head cools more efficients.


----------



## scoutcat (Mar 30, 2008)

i'd be pissed if i got the same ticket but you wont ever forget it again.

bottom line is that the cost of evacuating, assessing, treating, then rehabing a head injury is astronomical.


----------



## ElHombre (Apr 19, 2004)

*Perspective*



Dad Man Walking said:


> It sounds good when you say "nobody gets hurt but me" but who's picking up tab when a helmet-less rider busts his or her coconut? All of us, thanks to insurance premiums and public hospitals. I'm not saying that all risk is bad--just that society...or "big brother" if you choose to call it that...does have a stake in the decisions we make, and therefore does have some say in deciding what risks are acceptable vs. unacceptable.


According to this there are about 4.4 million reported injuries per year in the US from 'slip and fall' accidents in the house, with about 16,000 deaths.

Bicycle accidents supposedly account for about 540,000 injuries per year with about 800 deaths per year. And this is mainly road accidents involving motorized vehicles - the 2 minutes of Googling I was willing to spend didn't result in any mountain bike specific data but it's probably a fraction of the road stuff.

I don't think anyones taxes or premiums will be increased even if half of this board will suddenly start riding without helmet...

If I were in Ali's case, I probably would have done a trail run or hike, or have tried to convince my friends to drive down 92 to Half Moon Bay to go buy a helmet in Bike Works and start the Purisima ride from there. Mainly because the risk of running into a ranger there on a weekend and getting a ticket is so high...


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

The amount of faith that people put into a Styrofoam hat never ceases to amaze me.

The "My helmet saved my life!" anecdotes just illustrate peoples' lack of understanding about the design parameters of/level of protection offered by, helmets.

The inane "health insurance/cost to society" chest thumping is just icing on the cake of helmet Chicken Little silliness.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I have just one question*

Wasn't it weird riding without a helmet?


----------



## Akathisia (Sep 30, 2008)

Buzz Cut said:


> Dan O
> 
> When you say ' I pay it [the costs] because I have insurance" I have to call Bull.
> 
> ...


And remember that with a serious head injury that requires a lot of ICU time or a long hospital stay, many people's insurance will max out and then someone else foots the bill for maintaining the formerly righteously oppositional gorked-out head trauma genius.


----------



## backpedal (May 22, 2004)

*Once in a while*

I will drive a little without my seatbelt. It makes me feel naked.

Is that too much information?


----------



## Denis (Jan 7, 2004)

dan0 said:


> We have a motto in NH Live free or die
> anyone over 18 can ride their bikes and motoorcycles with or without helmets. Personally I wear one, but its my choice


Well, it is your choice or not to ride on MROSD land. But if you decide to, then you have to obey their rules. If you don't agree with any of the rules, then don't go riding there.

The rules include: helmets at all time, riding on the trails, speed limits, etc...


----------



## Zen_Turtle (Sep 22, 2005)

Akathisia said:


> And remember that with a serious head injury that requires a lot of ICU time or a long hospital stay, many people's insurance will max out and then someone else foots the bill for maintaining the formerly righteously oppositional gorked-out head trauma genius.


All you guys are right, but then again explain me why helmet is not mandatory above 18yo on the road and it is mandatory on the trails? That's where the large majority of accidents and fatalities occur (paid by our tax dollars). I don't think you have a good point there.



Denis said:


> Well, it is your choice or not to ride on MROSD land. But if you decide to, then you have to obey their rules. If you don't agree with any of the rules, then don't go riding there.
> 
> The rules include: helmets at all time, riding on the trails, speed limits, etc...


MROSD rules are ludicrous and have the sole purpose of discouraging mountain biking at all costs. Rider safety and well being is nowhere in their concerns. I don't have the option not to ride on their land as there are no other places to ride.

I rode helmetless the first 28 yrs of my life, and since I started wearing a helmet I would never ride without one ever again: but this is based on common sense, gathering the info and making the right decision. I wear an helmet all the times also to be an example for my kids and possibly in Ali's shoes today I wouldn't have ridden my bike, but again that would have been my decision.

I agree with dan0 and I think that blindly forcing dumb rules on people has the negative effect of destroying common sense (and California seems to have a sad record in that area). This way people do dumb things, unless there's a rule against it....
Not repression but education is the right way.

Ali, sorry to hear about your day: put it this way, having an endo and cracking your mellon would have been worse and more expensive, so the ticket is not so bad after all.

ZT


----------



## knobbyknees (Dec 30, 2004)

backpedal said:


> I will drive a little without my seatbelt. It makes me feel naked.
> 
> Is that too much information?


Yes. And, no. Do you like it?


----------



## Swell Guy (Jan 20, 2005)

Melt said:


> i ride uphill without a helmet on a fairly reg basis just cause my head cools more efficients.


I do that too with my full-face. With my regular helmet, it's got a lot of vents, so I just deal to avoid hassles with Mid-Pen. I had a volunteer trail patroller hassle me on that one once, and I didn't feel like arguing with him about the nuanced dangers of uphill riding v. downhill.

Yeah, Mid-Pen is a bunch of weenies. They can't ban mountain biking altogether, so what do they do is everything possible to discourage mountain biking like another poster said rather than trying to embrace the community and get some support. All the Sierra Club supporters of the incestuous board will be dead in a few years, so things'll hopefully start to change then.

Does Stripes really have to remind us in every Mid-Pen post that she's a NMB patrol member?

Yeah, suck it up and pay the ticket. Good boy.


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

dan0 said:


> who does the govt. think it is. Im an adult and I dont need some bureaucrat making rules to protect me from myself. that inludes seatbelts, helmets,and drugs. As long as what I do doesnt impact anyone else, then its nobodys business. as far as the emt who doesnt want to be bothered helping someone without a helmet, i have an option, dont help. If you have pre conditions to helping someone in need, maybe youre in the wrong business.I mean how far can you go with that logic? the idiot who doesnt have a spare tube or patch kit? , the numbskull who didnt pack a snakebite kit? how about the dumb hiker who should of had a gun when she got attacked by a mtn lion?
> you cant idiot proof the world, and I resent the officials who think they are smarter than everyone else and delight in their ability to impose their beliefs on the public.
> We have a motto in NH Live free or die
> anyone over 18 can ride their bikes and motoorcycles with or without helmets. Personally I wear one, but its my choice


Do I need to quote statistics about fatalities for passengers without seatbelts? Motorcycle riders without helmets? Cost to taxpayers for long term disability?

Somethings, like not packing a patch kit, means a long walk instead of a nice ride. The chances of getting eaten by mountain lion is what, one incident 4 years ago?

I've ridden without a helmet, and just like if I get caught doing 80 in a 65mph zone, I take my ticket without comment.

P.S. if you were stuck without a patch kit, attacked by a mountain lion, or suffered a head injury, I bet you wouldn't wave me on.


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

P.S. I think you should have driven to the closest department store and buy a helmet.

I threw a cheapo in the trunk just in case someone forgets theirs.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Wasn't it weird riding without a helmet?


Yes it was weird. For that reason I rode slower and was more careful.

My point has been that the citation did not gain anything at all. Since I've never been a criminal and have always been a good guy and today, the riding without a helmet has been the result of a couple of "doing good" (like carpooling), I will not gain a bit from this citation.

I will always be as careful as I've always been and this ticket has made me less a friend of the "system." That's been my point. There is no gain with the citation, no single gain in this ticket. The system dreamed about correcting something that never existed and failed miserably.

This citation achieved less than a warning. If I received a warning, I would respect the ranger more and would be thankful to the "system." Today, all I saw was a young ranger who followed the rule to the letter. He did not gain anything at all with the citation. Nothing! I will continue to wear my helmet to protect my head for myself as I've been doing for years. This citation has nothing to do with it! The citation is completely bogus at least in this case. A dud. Failed attempt in whatever it tries to achieve. A forced donation, I wonder? Go to the court for not wearing a helmet? As my wife has been laughing all night long, it is ridiculous. The court is a "your honor" place that shouldn't deal with "I didn't wear my helmet" cases. 

I hope others can see the huge difference between a warning and a citation. The former pulls the bad guy (me, in this case :/) to the side of the ranger, increases respect to the ranger and the system; and the latter triggers all these questions about following the rule to the letter. Dumping my honesty and cooperation down the drain in the process...

It is a rider on the side of the good guys, vs. a good guy pushed to the side of the bad guys. Thank you very much for your failed attempt to correct nothing.

Ali


----------



## MrCrash (Apr 29, 2004)

pisket said:


> I did accept the consequences and did not whine. Are you wondering what made you think that I did otherwise?
> 
> The point of this thread is to share one of my mountain biking experiences with my friends here at the Norcal forum. You are free to take anything from it that you want, as you already did.
> 
> Ali


You seem like a straight up guy - I didn't get any sort of whining vibe from your post. I would have likely done the same thing in your shoes - although if I knew the ticket was over say $100, I may have gone for a hike / trail run instead 

So how much was the ticket?


----------



## Akathisia (Sep 30, 2008)

Zen_Turtle said:


> All you guys are right, but then again explain me why helmet is not mandatory above 18yo on the road and it is mandatory on the trails? That's where the large majority of accidents and fatalities occur (paid by our tax dollars). I don't think you have a good point there.


I guess I don't care if anything's mandatory, I wear a helmet to protect my head so I can keep doing all the things I want to do. I've worked with too many brain damaged people to want to be there myself.

I started wearing a helmet skiing too--it's not mandatory, but it's warm and makes me feel safer.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

Zen_Turtle said:


> All you guys are right, but then again explain me why helmet is not mandatory above 18yo on the road and it is mandatory on the trails? That's where the large majority of accidents and fatalities occur (paid by our tax dollars). I don't think you have a good point there.
> 
> MROSD rules are ludicrous and have the sole purpose of discouraging mountain biking at all costs. Rider safety and well being is nowhere in their concerns. I don't have the option not to ride on their land as there are no other places to ride.
> 
> ...


While I said that "society has a stake" and therefore has the right to regulate certain behaviors, I never suggested that we applied that responsibility rationally. The application and enforcement of this charter falls to the responsibility of our political system...which, if you have been taking notes over the last 40 years, easily allows the will of vocal (and well-funded minority interests) to jam their ideas and values on to the majority. We clearly don't have a perfect implementation of the principle.

Thanks to Buzz Cut for calling BS on the "I have insurance" angle. We don't check off "I wear seat belts" or "I wear helmets" or "I don't hit drops bigger than 2 feet" on our applications, do we? So by definition, the people who engage in less risk are underwriting the costs of the people who engage in more risk. The only risky behavior the insurance companies are factoring into their pricing is smoking. And I don't know how we would implement a very refined risk-based pricing model anyway...do the EMT's look up my coverage while on the scene, see that I had elected the "I wear helmets" pricing, notice that I didn't have a helmet on, and drive away because I'm now not covered? ...don't think so...

So virtually everything we do is underwritten. We are all paying some portion of the bill when a smoker gets sick, when a kid packs his car into the ditch, and when a properly clad, experienced rider takes a digger.

Which gets us back to the "imperfect implementation" angle. Yeah it sucks that road riding is helmet optional, MidPenn makes it mandatory. Is the problem MidPenn, or our state's road-use laws?


----------



## bayareamtnbiker (Jan 2, 2006)

*Message received*

That ranger will know of your post and know he sent out a strong message. 

Regarding authority, when universal health care arrives, will the government claim a greater right to impose helmet-type laws, since everybody will then be getting the bills for patching up risk takers?


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

MrCrash said:


> if I knew the ticket was over say $100, I may have gone for a hike / trail run instead
> 
> So how much was the ticket?


Actually I saw the ranger's truck before he saw me but I didn't feel like hiding or running. 

The ranger didn't know the amount but when I guessed $300, he indicated that it wouldn't be that high at all. He said that $300 is for a speeding ticket. I will know the amount later, presumably in court.

Ali


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

bayareamtnbiker said:


> That ranger will know of your post and know he sent out a strong message.


Thank you!  That has been part of sharing this experience anyway...

Ali


----------



## Spindelatron (Aug 15, 2006)

sanjuro said:


> P.S. I think you should have driven to the closest department store and buy a helmet.
> 
> I threw a cheapo in the trunk just in case someone forgets theirs.


cheap-o helmet FTW!!!

nice post


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

midpen is actually recruiting ranger trainees from chico states recreational administration program .... i didnt even apply because it seems like every time some governmental agency that isnt a city parks departmet takes me on for an interview, they end up hiring some preppy piece of **** that has no real world experience.


----------



## Moto'n'PushBiker (Sep 22, 2005)

Do horse riders need helmets when they ride on bay area trails? I suspect they are at a similar risk when falling off.

I wish the helmet rules would allow for not wearing it when you're going uphill slowly (e.g. below a certain speed). At slow speed there isn't much air flow through helmet vents and you do get hot.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

stripes said:


> I do MTB patrol for MidPenn (NOT a ranger, so I don't give tickets), but it's your own fault for getting the ticket. If you make me use my first aid knowledge because you didn't wear a helmet, I'll be pretty annoyed--especially since you know better.
> 
> No matter how non-technical a trail is, hitting your head against it can hurt and cause brain damage or a concussion. KNOWN FACT. Your reasons are pretty lame. Two helmets have saved my husband, both on non-technical trails.
> 
> ...


We all my bad decisions once in a while. Unless you're that one guy that can walk on water that includes you too. Get over yourself.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

I'm sick and bored and it's cold outside so I'll respond to this powderkeg issue despite my better judgement.

You were in a tight spot and you took the chance of riding without a helmet.

You got caught and could not talk your way out of it. The reason you got a ticket and not a warning is because your sell job was not good enough. You are not in sales and you did not close the deal. You needed to beg/convince and use your charm. Don't worry, I'm no good at it either but I know a couple people that have that gift.

If the fine is around $30, just pay the fine, end of story. No court, no nothing. That is a fair price and it's not worth your time and it is the right thing to do. If the fine is $300 or $3000 then you should fight and use every ounce of energy to denounce unfair fines.

fc


----------



## spec306 (Sep 30, 2007)

The fine is $127.00. I know as that is the amount I wrote on the check for the same ticket I received on Jones Trail a few years ago.


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

Moto'n'PushBiker said:


> Do horse riders need helmets when they ride on bay area trails? I suspect they are at a similar risk when falling off.
> 
> I wish the helmet rules would allow for not wearing it when you're going uphill slowly (e.g. below a certain speed). At slow speed there isn't much air flow through helmet vents and you do get hot.


Actually a good percentage of the Equestrians ride the multi use trails with helmets and close to 100% of the equestrians that compete in endurance events do all the time and every time [I should know as I'm one of them ( biker 1st, equestrian second)]. The ones that don't are the folks that ride two to 3 abrest at a walk and usually get freaked out by everything while on horeback and are the ones that due to really poor horsemanship need to have a helmet.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

Buzz Cut said:


> Actually a good percentage of the Equestrians ride the multi use trails with helmets and close to 100% of the equestrians that compete in endurance events do all the time and every time [I should know as I'm one of them ( biker 1st, equestrian second)]. The ones that don't are the folks that ride two to 3 abrest at a walk and usually get freaked out by everything while on horeback and are the ones that due to really poor horsemanship need to have a helmet.


Interesting. At Garin / Dry Creek in the East Bay 0% wear helmets. In fact the only person I've ever seen wearing one was the horse patrol.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

Razorfish said:


> Interesting. At Garin / Dry Creek in the East Bay 0% wear helmets. In fact the only person I've ever seen wearing one was the horse patrol.


I have to say I see lot of horse riders in the Santa Cruz area not wearing helmets either. Doesn't make sense to me when I think about it. The physics of a human falling from the height of a cycle make helmets seem sensible to me, and a horse is a lot taller/ higher thing to fall off.


----------



## Zen_Turtle (Sep 22, 2005)

I'm bored too (just started snowing here in Tahoe...) so here's a good question for you guys:
Similarly to some other posters here I wear pretty often a full face helmet. To be precise every time I've ridden Demo in the past year I've used a full face helmet. The reason I do is pretty obvious to me and despite the many riders I see there shredding down the trail in lycra and superlight lids, I know (from few painful experiences) that elbow/knee pads and full face are the most reasonable option to keep my skin and teeth where they belong on those beautiful technical trails (given my limited skills)

On the climb out on hinn road I don't wear my helmet, most of the times, that is. 
The climb out is painful enough alone, don't need to make it worse on hot days. Not a problem in winter though... I'm slow uphill, I can see another rider bombing down and quickly pull over, I can see a ranger (sometimes smell them  ) a mile away when going uphill and stop before they do. 

Not a real problem, more like a ethical problem if you want:
Should I abide to the law (and wear a regular XC lid) and reduce my safety level on the DH, or use my judgment and wear a fullface on the DH and no lid on the long steady climb? (Or buy a casco MX....)

To me this is a clear example of where the law can interfere with better judgment.

I want to bring another example of when education surpasses repression: in Colorado on many roads I've seen the sign: xx people died on this road in the past year. That is one powerful message to me: it works way better than 'drive safely' or "click'it or ticket"
It makes me think, and that's the most important thing.

Threatening people of a ticket doesn't help building a better judgment, providing information does. 
I'd rather see ranger's time spent educating kids on the trail (101 trail etiquette, safety on the trail, etc...) rather than holding a radar gun.

But again this is the problem we have: midpen does not want to educate young riders, it wants to eliminate them, and that's too bad.

ZT


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

francois said:


> The reason you got a ticket and not a warning is because your sell job was not good enough. You are not in sales and you did not close the deal.


How true!  That feeling makes me feel little.

For the rest of the ride, we talked about how I could have avoided the ticket. None of us are good in such situations.

We told stories about other people that we know that are successful in getting themselves out of even highway speeding tickets. Like "Hello officer, let me first thank you very much for your great service that makes the highways make safer for my family. I am very thankful for that. But... etc. etc." 

Ali


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

pisket said:


> Yes it was weird. For that reason I rode slower and was more careful.
> 
> My point has been that the citation did not gain anything at all. Since I've never been a criminal and have always been a good guy and today, the riding without a helmet has been the result of a couple of "doing good" (like carpooling), I will not gain a bit from this citation.
> 
> ...


Well, don't wear your helmet and lets hope Darwin strikes soon.


----------



## lw2385 (Jul 18, 2007)

*Helmet saved be two days ago*

I hit an enormous redwood on friday at about 20mph straight on. Lost control landing a drop and hit it full speed. Couldn't breathe for a while, had to get backboarded in the ambulance on the way to the bospital. I'm fine, no broken bones or anything (very very lucky) but without the helmet it would have been really bad. My point is, big brother or not, it's pretty easy to wear one and pretty stupid not to. They have these rules because people hurt themselves and then sue. The government has to reduce its risk of lawsuits and a fine for no helmet seems kind of reasonable to me. Yeah it sucks to have to pay, but is it really going to impact your overall financial situation? If so, fight it, if not, let it go.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

francois said:


> I'm sick and bored and it's cold outside so I'll respond to this powderkeg issue despite my better judgement.
> 
> You were in a tight spot and you took the chance of riding without a helmet.
> 
> ...


Hey, yo with 5-oh, don't be hatin! I gots meself a carbone fiber helmet with thin microcellular padding shaped like a baseball cap. It's pimp! The big'ol helmets be crampin my style on the rigid SS, dawg!


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

lw2385 said:


> I hit an enormous redwood on friday at about 20mph straight on. Lost control landing a drop and hit it full speed. Couldn't breathe for a while, had to get backboarded in the ambulance on the way to the bospital. I'm fine, no broken bones or anything (very very lucky) but without the helmet it would have been really bad. My point is, big brother or not, it's pretty easy to wear one and pretty stupid not to. They have these rules because people hurt themselves and then sue. The government has to reduce its risk of lawsuits and a fine for no helmet seems kind of reasonable to me. Yeah it sucks to have to pay, but is it really going to impact your overall financial situation? If so, fight it, if not, let it go.


so instead of making more and more intrusive laws that impact everyone and further burden law enforcement why not make it impossible to sue someone for your own stupidity?
a good start would be to allow people to be counter sued for bringing such lawsuits in the first place. Suddenly lawyers wouldnt be so quick to take these cases on a contigency basis if it could end up costing them money


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Pete Fagerlin said:


> The amount of faith that people put into a Styrofoam hat never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> The "My helmet saved my life!" anecdotes just illustrate peoples' lack of understanding about the design parameters of/level of protection offered by, helmets.
> 
> The inane "health insurance/cost to society" chest thumping is just icing on the cake of helmet Chicken Little silliness.


Yes faith in magic hats seems to have leap frogged the science of what a helmet can and can not do.

Recent opinion on a common cause of brain damage says that it's the rapid rotation of the skull and not a blunt force that causes it. Something a helmet can not protect against and it's even been mentioned might even exsagerate.

http://www.gnlaw.ca/resources/articles.htm

And I love the claims that a helmet saved my life, where folks point to a broken helmet as proof. What's happened is that the helmet failed, absorbing very little energy and it's their skull that did its job in keeping them alive.

For the record I do wear a helmet for what I feel it is designed to do, protect my head from lacerations and superficial injuries. A good enough reason for anyone to wear one.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

bayareamtnbiker said:


> That ranger will know of your post and know he sent out a strong message.
> 
> Regarding authority, when universal health care arrives, will the government claim a greater right to impose helmet-type laws, since everybody will then be getting the bills for patching up risk takers?


we are already doing that with higher taxes, ask any doctor or hospital how many patients come in with no insurance, they dont work for free they pass it on to medicade & social security, the govt. will however use that as an excuse


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Akathisia said:


> And remember that with a serious head injury that requires a lot of ICU time or a long hospital stay, many people's insurance will max out and then someone else foots the bill for maintaining the formerly righteously oppositional gorked-out head trauma genius.


same thing applies to the righteously pro helmet head trauma genius,
I have a friend who almost gave himself a severe neck injury when a branch caught a vent hole in his helmet and ripped him off the bike


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Buzz Cut said:


> Actually a good percentage of the Equestrians ride the multi use trails with helmets and close to 100% of the equestrians that compete in endurance events do all the time and every time [I should know as I'm one of them ( biker 1st, equestrian second)]. The ones that don't are the folks that ride two to 3 abrest at a walk and usually get freaked out by everything while on horeback and are the ones that due to really poor horsemanship need to have a helmet.


why no law? all the arguments posted here apply to horse riders as well dont they


----------



## Hel Mot (Sep 19, 2007)

Better safe than sorry, as soon as I wake up in the morning I put on my fullface helmet, elbow pads, shin gaurds, shoulder pads, chest protector, spine protector, condom, steel toed shoes, cup, knee pads, safety goggles, kevlar body suit, strap myself to a backboard and then wrap myself in bubble wrap for good measure. Because you never know when I'll be caught in a drive-by shooting while riding my bike off a 40 foot road gap, being chased by a mountain lion and grizzly bear cubs, while cutting ceramic tile (safety goggles), with drunk drivers texting on their cell phones coming at me, and need to be shipped via fedex (bubble wrap) to the emergency room because all of the "ricky and rachel rescues" are out of work because no one can afford to pay taxes for services they have never used, and have a lawyer on retainer because everyone sues everyone for anything regardless if it's your own fault. Better safe than sorry, who knows what is going to happen today. 

by the way, this thread kills me (what PPE do i need to protect myself from death by internet absurdity)

To the OP, thanks for posting this. I didn't see any whining in your post just a heads up that this could happen. Yes, I have ridden my bike without helmet (e.g. the first 20 years of my life and when I ride my cruiser around town) - not bragging just being honest. To the rangers reading this message, all I have learned is brush up on my schmoozing and RUN!


----------



## bayareamtnbiker (Jan 2, 2006)

*Good article*

:madman: interesting para. from your linked article 
/><O></O>></O>
"a soccer player can strike a fast-moving ball with his or her head by taking care to avoid rotation of the head on impact. In contrast, an upwards and sideways blow to the chin of much less magnitude, by producing a rapid rotation of the head, may cause loss of consciousness or brain damage"<O></O>
<O></O>

Probably a boxer gets an easier knockout with an uppercut or cross due to the greater amount of brain injury? :madman: 



marzjennings said:


> Yes faith in magic hats seems to have leap frogged the science of what a helmet can and can not do.
> 
> Recent opinion on a common cause of brain damage says that it's the rapid rotation of the skull and not a blunt force that causes it. Something a helmet can not protect against and it's even been mentioned might even exsagerate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Damage*

Brain damage is only one of the injuries one can suffer from a blow to the head. Toss in spinal injuries, cranial and facial fractures, scalp removal. The list is long. The variety of consequences gets long, too, and I guess you can toss death in there. Death and brain damage are pretty scary and I think it a bit much to use this as the final word to motivate helmet use but there it is.

I'm not sure that there is any argument that not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing one. I also think the argument that Mid Penn doesn't want to educate young riders is specious, too. Mountain bikers are notoriously resistant to the realities of danger. They are near it so often that they become desensitized to it and the denial of it's negative potentials is what makes for much of the thrill. That is not to say that they are totally stupid; evidence the armor and pads worn by some who know they ride at great risk.

Simply saying, "now Johnny, be careful you might bet hurt" falls on many deaf ears. That is why, where people are concerned for liability in managing the inevitability of personal injury, strict laws and rules are put in place.

As to the chiding from the helmet-is-not-a-magic-hat contingent? I've broken 3 helmets and imagine that many of you out there have broken a few. Sometimes it was our own fault, sometimes someone else's, and sometimes it is just bad luck. In any case, I doubt we would have been better off without them. The possibility of an event is so easy to deny with some determined idea that we lie outside the probability of it. After it occurs, though, it is an immutable fact and too late to learn a lesson.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Brain damage is only one of the injuries one can suffer from a blow to the head. Toss in spinal injuries, cranial and facial fractures, scalp removal. The list is long. The variety of consequences gets long, too, and I guess you can toss death in there. Death and brain damage are pretty scary and I think it a bit much to use this as the final word to motivate helmet use but there it is.
> 
> I'm not sure that there is any argument that not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing one.
> 
> ...


Spinal Injuries, not protected by helmets and there's some discussion that helmets may make things worse. From Bell's helmet manual...

_A helmet protects only what it covers. It does not protect the neck or any
areas of the head that it does not cover. It cannot guard against spinal or other bodily injuries that may result from an accident. Since this helmet is made of
polystyrene foam, there is a chance it may be penetrated by sharp objects._

Cranial, I'll agree that a helmet may stop a sharp rock cracking your skull.

Facial fractures, maybe if you're wearing a full face helmet.

There's plenty of argument that helmets can make things worse, though most of it is around use of helmets on the road. There seems to be a major lack of research on the benefits of a standard XC type helmet for off road use.

I disagree that liablity and legal action with regards to helmet use should even exist given that a helmets benefits at this point seem to be based more on opinion than fact.

Again, just because you can point to a broken helmet doesn't mean it did anything more than save you from a few scratches. It's broken, therefore it failed.

_But my helmet broke - isn't that proof?
A helmet is a fragile piece of equipment. On seeing a damaged one, it is easy to assume that a serious injury has been prevented. Cycle helmets split very readily, and often at forces much lower than those that would lead to serious head injury. Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all.

If a helmet splits after fully compressing, it will have reduced initial forces to the head, but thereafter it will afford no further protection and any residual energy will be transmitted to the brain. Cycle helmets fail catastrophically, not gradually, so it is a mistake to believe that they provide useful, if reduced, protection at higher velocities. In high impact crashes, such as most that involve motor vehicles or fixed vertical objects like concrete barriers and lamp posts, the forces are so great that a helmet will compress and break in around 1/1000th of a second. The absorption of the initial forces during this very short period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious injury or death.

Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence anyway._
From http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html

The reason I rant on about this, is because we're told or that folks say that you gotta wear a helmet as it might save your life. So riders bomb off down the trails thinking it's ok, if I fall off my helmet will save me. It's just setting folks up with a major false sense of security. The first thing that's going to save your life is you and your riding skills, second is dump luck and third, and a long way third, is maybe your helmet plus even more luck.

You do realise that the standard test for a helmet is...

_The CPSC standard uses a lab test drop of 2.0 meters on a flat anvil and 1.2 meters on a hemispheric and a curbstone anvil._

A test with as far as I can tell equates to falling over while standing still. Not quite loosing it at 15mph on a 15% incline over a rock garden.

Nuff said, sorry, shutting up!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*"a few scratches'?*

Sorry. That is being obtuse in the extreme, dismissive, and begs the whole question with an unfounded opinion. My crashes and broken helmets are a fact of direct experience, not a contrived proposition to support a what then becomes a specious argument. Maybe we need to ride together and I can watch you crash at speed and see "a few scratches" on your head. I really don' t mean to sound nasty but your proposition is just too wide of the mark.

As for riders thinking that they can disregard their safety because a helmet will protect them.....? It takes all kinds of people to make a world, god love 'em, but that is just a mistaken notion and it is so very hard to disabuse people of certain types of thinking. That, in itself, is no argument against the limits of a helmet to protect one and I know there are limits. I just hope I don't exceed them.

In the mean time I will wear my helmet and if we ride together so will you. Otherwise you ride without me.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Sorry. That is being obtuse in the extreme, dismissive, and begs the whole question with an unfounded opinion. Maybe we need to ride together.


Sounds good, I'll bring my helmet. :thumbsup:


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

While I agree that helmets are a good idea, and I most always use one, I do take it off on long climbs, as I am no more likely to fall on such a road then your average hiker just walking. I wear it on singletracks, or when riding faster.

People should wear a helmet on their own, not because of a law.

What's next - will we require every hiker to carry a cane?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bayareamtnbiker said:


> Regarding authority, when universal health care arrives, will the government claim a greater right to impose helmet-type laws


I dread that day.

I prefer my medical care without long lines and of high quality. It is not that hard to maintain a proper insurance, and it is easier to fight with a private insurance, then with a government bureaucracy.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Laws are the nexus of shaping widely ranging behavior.*

We actaully have laws imposing penalties for murder. No one needs to tell me not to murder but the law still exists. Though few of us will ever have the chance to test them there is still a societal exdict to avoid such misbehavior and stipulations for what happens if we cross that line.

At the other end of the spectrum are laws requiring seatbelts. I guess that in the sense that Curmy suggests, people should wear seatbelts on their own, not because of a law. I would hope that people would behave that way, too, but they don't. Consider an early ******* comedienne who said " hell I don't want to wear no seatbelt; I'd rather be thrown clear."

My guess is that EMT people got tired of scooping brains and guts off of floorboards and the ragged edges of windshields (I used to see those cars hauled into the back lot of my dad's shop.) The stats and the physical and financial costs are just too hard to ignore so we have seatbelt laws. I think, in this case, the helmet rule is the same thing.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> At the other end of the spectrum are laws requiring seatbelts. I guess that in the sense that Curmy suggests, people should wear seatbelts on their own, not because of a law. I would hope that people would behave that way, too, but they don't. Consider an early ******* comedienne who said " hell I don't want to wear no seatbelt; I'd rather be thrown clear."
> 
> My guess is that EMT people got tired of scooping brains and guts off of floorboards and the ragged edges of windshields (I used to see those cars hauled into the back lot of my dad's shop.) The stats and the physical and financial costs are just too hard to ignore so we have seatbelt laws. I think, in this case, the helmet rule is the same thing.


Seatbelt law was necessary to force manufacturers to offer proper safety options. Too few manufacturers with too big leverage for this to happen under free market alone.

It is much easier to put on a helmet then to buy a car with a safety device nobody makes.

There is no need for a government intervention to save us from ourselves. And do not kid that it is somebody caring about your brains - they only care about a lawsuit from your relatives, nothing else. If anybody cared about your brains it would be a universal law, not limited to a land management bureau with deep pockets.

Guess why helmets are not required at ski resorts - and they are just as important there. It is because those resorts got effective immunity from lawsuits. EMT personnel in ski towns are not tired apparently.

Proper government role is to create standards (like CE certification) and ensure transparency. Ruling in tort lawsuits is not a very bad idea either.

But I guess the whole idea of people being responsible is not close to heart for somebody from Berkeley.  (JK)


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*It is curious how quickly the argument for taking responsibility*

is trotted out by those who have some idea that they have cornered the market on it. And it is done with such finality and as if it were some sort of trump card. I know it is said so as not to offend and I appreciate that but the content is understood. However the idea that people don't observe the best behaviors unanimously it closer to reality and practicality than expecting everyone from one end of society to the other to "accept responsibility."

I wonder, though, that it is not so much that people will not take responsibility for their actions as some moment of cognitive determination but more a function that their actions, in a temporal sense, preclude an understanding of the consequences through denial, ignorance, or thoughtlessness. "It can't happen to me," so to speak or "I had no idea", or " I was just riding along."

At the same time I have little doubt that bureaucratic concern for liability is ought be confused for genuine caring. At point, though, is the desire to avoid the thrash of traumatic injury regardless of its legal, emotional, or physical consequences.

Draw a clear line, use that as an index for disputes and then make a determination.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Draw a clear line, use that as an index for disputes and then make a determination.


My line is that I do appreciate organized society - and I do contribute my share to it - to be able to make clear, well informed decisions for myself.

That means defining and enforcing manufacturing standards, having consumer protection laws, providing access to education for everybody, maintaining safety and security net.

Writing a ticket for not wearing a lid on a fireroad climb is beyond that line. Just let me sign a waiver and decide for myself. Just like I do when I ski (and, by the way, you will not see me without a strdy helmet and a back protector on the slopes).


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

It seems to me that the logic of requiring us to do something "for our own good" could be used to outlaw everything fun. The hikers could get rid of us mountain bikers by saying that it is too dangerous and costs everyone else money when that biker breaks an arm or something. Even if you required full downhill body armor, people would still get hurt riding mountain bikes. What then? Do you add some sort of high tech device that applies the brakes at speeds over 10mph? What about the guy in China Camp who was wearing a helmet and wasn't even riding his bike but fell off the trail and died? Once the mountain bikers are gone, the couch potatoes can outlaw hiking since those people could get eaten by mountain lions, sprain an ankle, die of hypothermia, etc. 

I think as long as our actions aren't directly harming other people, we should be free to decide the level of risk that we want to engage in.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Thor29 said:


> The hikers could get rid of us mountain bikers by saying that it is too dangerous and costs everyone else money when that biker breaks an arm or something.


They already do. It is called "wilderness". There is a whole lot of people who think humans should be outlawed for their own good.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*There are problems with both arguments*

concerning:
1) informed determination 
2) the incidence of harming others.

In the first case aside from being ugly and drinking more than his fair share of beer Curmy is more than capable of determining and controlling his behavior within limits. However our society is not made up 100%of such people.
In the latter case we cannot control the frequency of harm which is what the term "as long as" begs. IAs we say in our racing team: "it's all cool until it isn't." That is, we understand the statistical limits of risky behavior.

What I see as the rub here is where the line is drawn, not that it is drawn at all. It isn't that we can't determine our behavior reasonably and/or control the frequency of hazards as individuals but as a society it is quite another thing. Evidence, the Darwin awards, the Volare, re-electing Nixon for a second term, and a stadium of 40,000 doing the Wave or the Macarena.


----------



## traildoc (Mar 5, 2007)

In Arizona we don't have to wear a helmet. We think it should be a personal choice. 

If we were to ride at a Midpen park in Cali we would have a person ride ahead with a walkie talkie and they would radio back that there is a Midpen ranger ahead and the people w/o helmuts would turn around and ride back up the trail.

So far no one has gotten hurt and we hoping for good luck in the future.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

See what your started Pisket ?

This is an endlesssssss issue since helmet is religion.

fc


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> .
> In the first case aside from being ugly and drinking more than his fair share of beer Curmy is more than capable of determining and controlling his behavior within limits.


So much for my perception on anonymity on the net..


----------



## bullit71 (Apr 9, 2004)

Melt said:


> i ride uphill without a helmet on a fairly reg basis just cause my head cools more efficients.


On big climbs I take off my helmet and pack it away too. Keeps me cooler and i'm not worried about crashing when I'm going at turtles pace.


----------



## otis24 (Apr 1, 2004)

The fine sucks. I wonder where the money goes? I hope it goes to the parks at least.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

francois said:


> This is an endlesssssss issue since helmet is religion.


Personal freedoms and responsibilities are religion.

Helmet laws are just an example.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

francois said:


> See what your started Pisket ?


Compared to all the excellent opinions, my starting point was embarrassingly selfish and naive: I wanted to talk to my friends about this uncomfortable event.  The ticket implies being bad. So I wanted to find some comfort here. 

Thanks to all who replied, now I feel much better. Especially rensho's picture in baseball cap was awesome!  I don't think that he planned riding without a helmet that day either.

Funny thing is, if anybody asked me before Saturday whether I ride with or without a helmet, my answer would be "I never ride without a helmet." Interestingly, my answer is still the same today!

But I have this incident at hand, which only teaches me something about myself. Even though I always thought I was a law abiding person, apparently in certain circumstances, I may do some thinking and weigh some options. :/

Ali


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> We actaully have laws imposing penalties for murder. No one needs to tell me not to murder but the law still exists. Though few of us will ever have the chance to test them there is still a societal exdict to avoid such misbehavior and stipulations for what happens if we cross that line.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum are laws requiring seatbelts. I guess that in the sense that Curmy suggests, people should wear seatbelts on their own, not because of a law. I would hope that people would behave that way, too, but they don't. Consider an early ******* comedienne who said " hell I don't want to wear no seatbelt; I'd rather be thrown clear."
> 
> My guess is that EMT people got tired of scooping brains and guts off of floorboards and the ragged edges of windshields (I used to see those cars hauled into the back lot of my dad's shop.) The stats and the physical and financial costs are just too hard to ignore so we have seatbelt laws. I think, in this case, the helmet rule is the same thing.


If that was the case wouldnt motorcycles be outlawed also? no seatbelts, plenty of blood & guts 
Its not the manufacturer either, Ford tried seatbelts as a safety option in the 50s, the public didnt want them , it wasnt untill Govt. mandate that they became the law. even then, people either didnt wear them or removed them entirely. finally, in order to keep getting fed from the Govt.tit the state governments started implementing seatbelt usage laws. 
again the Govt. wants to protect you from yourselves, you're too stupid to make your own decisions. The problem is , who is the govt.? who decides ? 
Dont try to muddy up the waters with whether or not you should wear a helmet or seatbelt
that question should be answered by the person affected
The question is, what makes them any better at deciding than you


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

*Do Not Anger*

Lord Vader :nono:



francois said:


> See what your started Pisket ?
> 
> This is an endlesssssss issue since helmet is religion.
> 
> fc


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*We aren't talking about helmets or religions*

but about the function of rules and laws and human foible.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> but about the function of rules and laws and human foible.


I thought it was common sense, and the Govt. erroding away our rights as free adult citizens to make our own decisions. "for our own good" of course


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*There is no such thing as common sense.*

that is just a disposition people use to invoke a universality of their thinking.


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

About seatbelts and helmets: all the anti-safety can argue is how the government hurts their feelings by requiring them to do something they probably do anyway.

For me, this weekend, I witnessed the necessity of both items.

On the way home from a party, I passed a massive accident. Turns out a guy crashed and was ejected from his truck and died. I bet he wasn't wearing seatbelt. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...59141E90.DTL&hw=san+jose+crash&sn=001&sc=1000

Today, I was riding to work and someone behind me laid it down on pavement. I went back to help, and the guy was hurting all over. He also said he hit his head pretty hard but luckily, he was wearing a helmet, so all I had to do was help him up, not call for an ambulance.

Now I know there will be some to analyze this stories and blame it on lots of things, and I couldn't argue that if both guys were safer, the accidents would not have occurred. But sh*t happens, and wearing safety items helps you.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

sanjuro said:


> About seatbelts and helmets: all the anti-safety can argue is how the government hurts their feelings by requiring them to do something they probably do anyway.
> 
> For me, this weekend, I witnessed the necessity of both items.
> 
> ...


no one said they dont, you're missing the point my friend


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> that is just a disposition people use to invoke a universality of their thinking.


then how do you explain people doing the right thing even when not mandated? chance?


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> There is no such thing as common sense.


Yes, faith is substituted for "common sense" so often in these discussions that the *facts* about the efficacy of helmets in reducing serious head injuries and/or saving lives are ignored.


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

traildoc said:


> In Arizona we don't have to wear a helmut. We think it should be a personal choice.
> 
> If we were to ride at a Midpen park in Cali we would have a person ride ahead with a walkie talkie and they would radio back that there is a Midpen ranger ahead and the people w/o helmuts would turn around and ride back up the trail.
> 
> So far no one has gotten hurt and we hoping for good luck in the future.


LOL! No one has gotten hurt from not wearing a helmet!

I found this tidbit from Colorado's DOT site:

From 2003-2007, 402 motorcycle riders or passengers were killed in traffic crashes

_ 88% of those killed were men
30% of those killed were ages 18-34
24% of those killed were ages 35-44
44% of those killed were age 45 or older
* 80% of those killed were either not wearing a helmet or it was improperly used*
Alcohol was a factor in 35% of the motorcycle traffic deaths
_
I like how the lack of a helmet were 80% of the deaths but alcohol is just 35%.

Here is another statistic:

_California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992. Helmet use jumped to 99 percent from about 50 percent before the law.12 During the same period, the number of motorcyclist fatalities in California decreased 37 percent to 327 in 1992 from 523 in 1991_


----------



## NoBalance (Feb 23, 2007)

Does it really take 5 pages to say that MROSD sucks? Thats all that needs to be said here. 

Glad to see there are so many people on the peninsula willing to pay a portion of their property taxes towards these imbeciles running this police-state park. Its rare that I feel happy to be in the east bay, but this is one of those times.


----------



## Zen_Turtle (Sep 22, 2005)

NoBalance said:


> Does it really take 5 pages to say that MROSD sucks? Thats all that needs to be said here.
> 
> Glad to see there are so many people on the peninsula willing to pay a portion of their property taxes towards these imbeciles running this police-state park. Its rare that I feel happy to be in the east bay, but this is one of those times.


You have to change your viewing options to show 100 posts per page: It's all in one page for me  and you are completely right: MROSD SUCKS! :yesnod:

ZT


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Setting aside the arguments for or against helmets... does anyone want to point out where in the CA VC that it says an adult (over 18) is required to wear a helmet while operating a bicycle, anywhere?

Because after scanning all four pages the only thing I've seen is speculation. From what I've read of the CA VC regarding bikes, there is no such law.


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

CA Vehicle Code relating to bicycles via the CA DMV.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c1a4.htm


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*"Doing the right thing"*

is a wonderful concept but is a gross generalization from all angles. It is context-dependent and is a consequence of specifically shaped behaviors within a culture. If one shares that culture and cultivation then a behavior becomes normative. If one does not share that culture and cultivation we have laws and context-specific rules to manage behavior.

One of the funny rubs here is that people are complaining about laws and rules that require them to behave as they would have behaved anyhow.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

flowmaster said:


> CA Vehicle Code relating to bicycles via the CA DMV.
> 
> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c1a4.htm


If I read that right, which is difficult, a bike needs 5 reflectors at night. 2 pedals, 1 on each side, rear. Not to mention the light visible from 300 feet.


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> is a wonderful concept but is a gross generalization from all angles. It is context-dependent and is a consequence of specifically shaped behaviors within a culture. If one shares that culture and cultivation then a behavior becomes normative. If one does not share that culture and cultivation we have laws and context-specific rules to manage behavior.
> 
> One of the funny rubs here is that people are complaining about laws and rules that require them to behave as they would have behaved anyhow.


You sound like the architect in the Matrix Revolutions movie telling Neo that giving people the illusion of choice was enough to have control. The inherent problem still remains, excessive government control taking away some of our own personal liberties and our basic individual right to pursue happiness.

I don't like the fact that we have come to live in a system that tells us what we can and can't do. One that says you can't smoke cigarettes because they're bad for you, or one that says you have to wear wear a helmet because you might hurt yourself. I choose to do what is right, I don't care what the law says about helmets (including on my motorcycles), sometimes I wear them, sometimes I don't - I don't need a gov nanny telling me what to do. :nono:


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Razorfish said:


> If I read that right, which is difficult, a bike needs 5 reflectors at night. 2 pedals, 1 on each side, rear. Not to mention the light visible from 300 feet.


Yes that is correct, I think we almost universally violate those features of the law


----------



## Jorgemonkey (Mar 10, 2004)

Can't we all just get along and ride bikes? Geez, its still good riding outside (which I don't have time to do  ). 

At the rate the Norcal threads are, it could be a fun cranky winter on the boards here


----------



## Ryan G. (Aug 13, 2004)

Armchair Experts Union just got a boost in membership.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> is a wonderful concept but is a gross generalization from all angles. It is context-dependent and is a consequence of specifically shaped behaviors within a culture. If one shares that culture and cultivation then a behavior becomes normative. If one does not share that culture and cultivation we have laws and context-specific rules to manage behavior.
> 
> One of the funny rubs here is that people are complaining about laws and rules that require them to behave as they would have behaved anyhow.


The laws and rules are wrong.

Would you think it fair for a driver involved in a fatal accident with a cyclist to claim reduced responsibility for the death of the cyclist because that cyclist was not wearing a helmet?

Like wise if a landowner is negligent in the maintenance of their trails and a cyclist dies because of this negligence, they may be able to claim reduced responsibility for the death if the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. You think this is fair, given the complete lack of supporting evidence, other than conjecture and opinion, that a helmet is capable of saving lives in life threatening situations.

Helmet use needs to remain a personal choice until a helmet can be produced that is capable of higher levels of protection than the current crop of magic hats.


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> One of the funny rubs here is that people are complaining about laws and rules that require them to behave as they would have behaved anyhow.


It would be wrong for those of us who are defending freedom of choice to only defend that freedom when the regulation conflicts with our choices. I may choose to wear a helmet everytime, but I defend your right not to. Americans need to get their noses out of other people's business - and that includes all the fascists that voted for Prop 8. Oh yeah, that's right, I just injected a little politics into it. So sue me.

_God bless the magic styrofoam hat, worker of miracles and saver of souls. If I had not been wearing that magic hat, I am certain that I would have ridden off the cliff to my doom. But instead, it lifted me to safety and massaged my furrowed brow. And behold, when I waved my magic styrofoam hat above my water bottle, the water turned to wine and I rejoiced. (But then I passed out drunk face down in a creek and drowned. I'm writing this from heaven where we sit around bored, strumming harps and flapping our itchy wings.)_


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

flowmaster said:


> CA Vehicle Code relating to bicycles via the CA DMV.
> 
> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c1a4.htm


So, if I read that right, only minors are required to wear a helmet
and peace officers can ride drunk or under the influence of drugs if they are in an emergency situation ? and you can ride bikes on the highway?

Nice


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

Berkeley Mike said:


> is a wonderful concept but is a gross generalization from all angles. It is context-dependent and is a consequence of specifically shaped behaviors within a culture. If one shares that culture and cultivation then a behavior becomes normative. If one does not share that culture and cultivation we have laws and context-specific rules to manage behavior.
> 
> One of the funny rubs here is that people are complaining about laws and rules that require them to behave as they would have behaved anyhow.


no one is complaining about behavior, just the over abundance of nanny laws


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

dan0 said:


> So, if I read that right, only minors are required to wear a helmet
> and peace officers can ride drunk or under the influence of drugs if they are in an emergency situation ? and you can ride bikes on the highway?
> 
> Nice


As far as I understand the law, yes only minors must wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. I also emailed my father (attorney) just to be certain, but the law in spite of its legalese is pretty clear.

Now as far as the other stuff, not exactly 



> *..except as those requirements relate to driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs*, if the bicycle is being operated under any of the following circumstances:
> 
> (A) In response to an emergency call.
> 
> ...


Also- 


> 360: "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.


Which really just means any public street.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Thor29 said:


> Americans need to get their noses out of other people's business - and that includes all the fascists that voted for Prop 8. Oh yeah, that's right, I just injected a little politics into it. So sue me.


What about my right of not having my daughter taught in school that same sex marriage is a normal marriage? I do not think it is appropriate, and I have every right to think that way. Gay people should have all the same economic rights, but they should stay out of this propaganda, just like others should stay out of their lives.

Fascist? F. U.


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Curmy said:


> What about my right of not having my daughter taught in school that same sex marriage is a normal marriage? I do not think it is appropriate, and I have every right to think that way. Gay people should have all the same economic rights, but they should stay out of this propaganda, just like others should stay out of their lives.
> 
> Fascist? F. U.


IMHO on the off topic portion, it really boils down to parenting, there will always be subjects taught in public schools parents don't agree with. Come on, I'm sure some of the same arguments were made when schools started teaching that blacks and whites equal men. It is the* responsibility of the parent* to instill in his/her children what he/she believes, not the school's teachers. Why not throw out teaching evolution as well; anyone up for a book burning. Jesus... what century are we in?

But, to steer this back on topic, the core argument here seems to be that there is too much of the nanny state nonsense going on with the government dictating what they believe is right about whatever topic is at hand, sometimes going with what was voted as popular, sometimes not.

And as far as the OP goes, there is no CA state VC prohibiting you from riding anywhere with no helmet. Some city code might have been created, but it cannot go against the state VC, although since the VC doesn't explicitly say anything about adults with helmets, it is possible a city law might. Although personally I'd tell them to take a flying leap.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

flowmaster said:


> IMHO on the off topic portion, it really boils down to parenting, there will always be subjects taught in public schools parents don't agree with. Come on, I'm sure some of the same arguments were made when schools started teaching that blacks and whites equal men. It is the* responsibility of the parent* to instill in his/her children what he/she believes, not the school's teachers. Why not throw out teaching evolution as well; anyone up for a book burning. Jesus... what century are we in?


I am ok with my responsibility. I am not OK with a preschool book that describes how king married a king. And I am not sorry that I am not OK with that. My kids will grow up fine, no matter what, but that has nothing to do with that.

Just in general - after growing up in the good old Soviet Union, I have an allergy to people telling me how to behave whether I like it or not (jebus, this SF idiot is the definition of smug)


----------



## Denis (Jan 7, 2004)

marzjennings said:


> And I love the claims that a helmet saved my life, where folks point to a broken helmet as proof. What's happened is that the helmet failed, absorbing very little energy and it's their skull that did its job in keeping them alive.


Disinformation at it's best... Talk to people who actually design and manufacture helmets and you'll see how far off this statement is.

Do your research and then post...


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Curmy said:


> I am ok with my responsibility. I am not OK with a preschool book that describes how king married a king. And I am not sorry that I am not OK with that. My kids will grow up fine, no matter what, but that has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Just in general - after growing up in the good old Soviet Union, *I have an allergy to people telling me how to behave whether I like it or not* (jebus, this SF idiot is the definition of smug)


Kinda like someone dictating that you must wear a helmet whether you like it or not.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

flowmaster said:


> Kinda like someone dictating that you must wear a helmet whether you like it or not.


Indeed.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*For the High School Riders in the NorCal League*

helmets are mandatory. At races they are mandatory on trainers.
For everyone. Always. No discussion. No one seems to have a problem with it. In fairness may be people do but they know it would be a futile uphill struggle to rescind the helmet rule and the penalties for breaking it.

It is a part of a saturated program of steady learning, building on basic principles, creating and sustaining a high level of safety. It starts on day one. We don't have anywhere nearly the crashes adults have. Not even close.

Bring on the nazi/nanny comments but I have 6 years of training and racing with thousands of teens with a great safety and health record and will put it up against any number of "f'rinstance" riding buddy experiences anyone cares to throw out there. The helmet certainly is not the cause for the good record. Rather, I imagine, that the helmet is symbol of caring. Symbols are powerful things. In this case it symbolizes an attitude that a rider is prepared to ride safely.

Adults? You guys can do whatever you want. Funny thing is that most of you wear helmets all the time. So is not wearing a helmet or a seat belt a political statement or just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Even PETE wears a helmet.

I just returned from 3 hours at Tamarancho and passed a rider or two. Unlike our local bike path the riders tend to be pretty skilled and experienced. They all wear helmets. Mandatory helmet rules help people who don't know any better.

Pisket knew better. He''s told you that in so many words but somehow the jones to ride won out. I get that but let's not blame the rule. Pisket doesn't.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> helmets are mandatory. At races they are mandatory on trainers.
> For everyone. Always. No discussion.


100% liability. The ONLY reason is that lawyers of their insurance provider require that.

Do not confuse that with caring for the riders. They only care about their pocket book and their insurance premiums.

When I ride on the public land, bought on my tax money, there should be an assuption of risk and no nanny laws.

Case in point: downhill ski resorts. They got immunity, and now they only require things where they can be found liable.

That is the most annoying part of those nanny state laws - the claim it is for my own good. Fugg no.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*The assumption of risk*

is tossed aside as soon as something stupid happens. That is when the lawyers come out whether we like it or not. Okay, maybe not some of the posters here but, frankly, I'll believe that when things really start to happen. We all do curious things when push comes to shove.

In order to get high schools and their connected districts to allow mtb racing we have to go through all sorts of hoops to assure these entities that we can cover their butts legally through insurance. I have had these discussions many, many times and I always tell them this:

As a leader of these children I act in loco parentis. I do more to assure their safety out of caring through a deep program of checks and balances than you can imagine. That, to me, is far more important than your window of liability. I don't want them hurt in the first place. You are only concerned for what happens AFTER they get hurt. Having said that I guarantee that I will perform, to the letter and spirit, to meet every requirement you have to the letter.

Administrators and paper-people can be a real pain and will not flex if one piece of paper is a threat without another piece to quell that threat. Just try to get a Mortgage company to ignore a problem cited on a house inspection. The reality that the districts have to handle are the very real lawsuits they have to address, which can cost millions, for any number of things, not just mtb. As such, we insure. As such, we delineate parameters for behavior which fulfill an insurers requirements. However whether we are insured or not, by the way, our requirements built from experience and genuine caring are more elaborate than required by an insurance company or school district. That is because WE are the experts in this field, not them..

The consequent hazards of an injury are physical, emotional, and legal. A safety precaution, if they only provide some modicum of safety, which helmets clearly do, goes a long way to reducing the general thrash. Why is that such a bad thing regardless of motive.

If I had a bike park I would require a waiver and helmet wearing at all times. If you didn't want to do that then go somewhere else. Gosh, I wonder what North Star and Whistler do?


----------



## Pete Fagerlin (Oct 15, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Gosh, I wonder what North Star and Whistler do?


There's an old lawyer adage that goes something like this:

"Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to"

Canada isn't quite as burdened with liability issues as we are in the States.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To ensure the safest and most enjoyable experience while in the Whistler Mountain Bike Park, please read the following *guidelines* carefully.

Feel free consult one of our Mountain Bike Park Guides if you are uncertain of your ability level and/or equipment needs. These *guidelines* are especially important for parents of children aged 12 years and younger*.

From those picking up mountain biking as a new outdoor sport, to those breaking through barriers after years of experience, the Dirt Series has created a legacy of fun, support, energy, and success.
Level 1

You have little or no experience on a bike, and have trouble keeping the front wheel straight while riding.

Recommended programs:

* Private Lessons
* Kids Mountain Bike Adventure Programs

*Recommended* equipment: gloves, elbow, knee and shin pads, *helmet* (CSA certified), mountain bike with front suspension, minimum V-brakes required, adequate tread on tires
Trails: green trails only (under the supervision of a Bike Park Guide)
Level 2

You have limited experience on a bike. You can control bike speed and direction on paved surfaces, but have little or no experience riding off-road terrain.

Recommended programs:

* Private Lessons
* Kids Mountain Bike Adventure Programs

*Recommended* equipment: gloves, elbow, knee and shin pads, *helmet* (CSA certified), mountain bike with front suspension, minimum V-brakes required, adequate tread on tires.
Trails: green trails only
Level 3

You have limited experience riding off-road terrain. You are capable of controlling bike speed and direction on gentle single track trails and slightly uneven surfaces.

Recommended programs:

* Dirt Series Camps
* Private Lessons
* Kids Mountain Bike Adventure Programs

*Recommended* equipment: gloves, elbow, knee and shin pads, *helmet* (CSA certified), mountain bike with front suspension, minimum V-brakes required, adequate tread on tires
Trails: green trails only
Level 4

You have been mountain biking for at least two years. You are capable of controlling bike speed and direction on moderately steep and technical single track trails.

Recommended programs:

* Richie Schley Freeride Camps
* Dirt Series Camps
* Summer Gravity Camps
* Private Lessons
* Kids Mountain Bike Adventure Programs

Recommended equipment: gloves, elbow, knee and shin pads, mountain bike with front suspension and a minimum of four inches of travel (dual suspension suggested), minimum V-brakes required (disc brakes suggested), adequate tread on tires, full-face helmet, chest and spine protection
Trails: green and blue trails only
Level 5

You are a strong and confident rider who is comfortable on steep and technical terrain and will attempt small to moderate drops and jumps.

Recommended programs:

* Richie Schley Freeride Camps
* Dirt Series Camps
* Summer Gravity Camps
* Private Lessons
* Kids Mountain Bike Adventure Programs

Recommended equipment: gloves, elbow, knee and shin pads, mountain bike with front suspension and a minimum of four inches of travel (dual suspension suggested), minimum V-brakes required (disc brakes suggested), adequate tread on tires, full-face helmet, chest and spine protection
Trails: all trails except double black diamond
Level 6

You are a downhill or freeride mountain biker who is confident riding all types of terrain including large jumps, drops and narrow elevated trail sections.

Recommended programs:

* Richie Schley Freeride Camps
* Dirt Series Camps
* Summer Gravity Camps 
* Private Lessons

Recommended equipment: gloves, elbow, knee and shin pads, mountain bike with front suspension and a minimum of four inches of travel (dual suspension suggested), minimum V-brakes required (disc brakes suggested), adequate tread on tires, full-face helmet, chest and spine protection
Trails: all trails


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

The thing I have against all you helmet nazis, is that you kill the growth of cycling in the US. You've conviced every kid and every mom that cycling is the most dangerous thing a kid can do. It is so dangerous, that if you even consider riding down the street without a helmet, you're taking your life into your own hands.

No wonder our kids would rather sit on the couch and play video games than go outside and ride a bike.

And it's not only the kids. The adults on here thing cycling without a helmet is paramount to playing Russian Roulette. Why in the world would you choose to ride a bike the the store that is 1/2 a mile down the street when you could travel in the safetly of a car.

Go look at European cities where everyone cycles everywhere every day..... almost NO helmets. Why? Because cycling is just part of every day life and it's not made out to be some ultra risky activity.

Cycling in the US will never been seen as an acceptable alternative to driving until you helmet nazis stop scaring everyone.

It's a bike, it's no more dangerous that walking down the sidewalk. Your kids don't need to be in fear of it.

Then again, sitting on the couch is a LOT safer.


george


----------



## cadmanrjm (Dec 25, 2005)

it's not the bike people fear, it is the sudden stop of your head hitting the ground that people fear.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

cadmanrjm said:


> it's not the bike people fear, it is the sudden stop of your head hitting the ground that people fear.


That's cute and all, but you're part of the problem. You, keep kids on the couch and in their cars.

george


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> The thing I have against all you helmet nazis, is that you kill the growth of cycling in the US. You've conviced every kid and every mom that cycling is the most dangerous thing a kid can do. It is so dangerous, that if you even consider riding down the street without a helmet, you're taking your life into your own hands.
> 
> No wonder our kids would rather sit on the couch and play video games than go outside and ride a bike.
> 
> ...


Very well said George.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

george_da_trog said:


> It's a bike, it's no more dangerous that walking down the sidewalk. Your kids don't need to be in fear of it.


It is more dangerous then walking on a sidewalk, helmets are a very good idea, and I do advise everybody to use it.

It is just completely irrelevant to the issue on whether a government organization needs to be concerned with enforcing such a habit, or whether a private organization need to live in fear of being thrown out of business when some yahoo breaks his neck.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

george_da_trog said:


> That's cute and all, but you're part of the problem. You, keep kids on the couch and in their cars.
> george


It is better to be part of an imaginary problem, then to be a member of the Organ Donors Anonymous.


----------



## fred-da-trog (Oct 28, 2003)

george_da_trog said:


> That's cute and all, but you're part of the problem. You, keep kids on the couch and in their cars.george


As a "kid", it was the drive-in theater and back seat that kept me in my car. 

-Fred, closet helmetless rider.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Curmy said:


> It is more dangerous then walking on a sidewalk, helmets are a very good idea, and I do advise everybody to use it.
> 
> It is just completely irrelevant to the issue on whether a government organization needs to be concerned with enforcing such a habit, or whether a private organization need to live in fear of being thrown out of business when some yahoo breaks his neck.


Please provide some links to where cycling is shown to be more dangerous than walking on a sidewalk.

Also a helmet is not going to protect anyone from a broken neck.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Disregarding a helmet because it doesn't protect form everything*

seems silly. It doesn't stop broken collarbones or wrists either but that is not the fault of the helmet.

Recently I started to build a lightweight HT racer for my son. What I came to understand is that it takes more than a light frame. A light bike is the result of a method of thinking which looks to reduce weight at every opportunity from wheels to grips and everything in between. It requires a systemic approach to lightness without sacrificing utility.

Safety is a lot like that. A helmet is a big part of a systemic approach to safety as it addresses concerns, rightly or wrongly, for what might be considered the most fragile part of our existence. Not to be too dramatic but a fully functioning body and a dead brain are about as awful a spot as can be. You wanna argue about personal choice? Gotta have working brain. Spinal injuries? (Yuch! This whole thread is starting to creep me out and I may be the worst part of it.) It may be drooling, helmet with stick and keyboard, wheelchair.......it's not brain dead.

My point here is though, that a helmet is not the total answer to safety, just a big one. For some the answer is body armor.( Yet when I see armor-clad, full-face helmeted boinger boys on the paved Nimitz Trail in Tilden on Sunday I know THEY will be safe but what about everyone else?) The most substantial part of the answer is an attitude for safety. While many posters here have suggested it is their choice to wear a helmet my guess is that they choose to do many other things to be safe, too.

The limits of safety and fun in the population of adults who take up this sport tend to be defined by trial and error. I often hear people who believe that the only way to progress is to push the envelope to see what happens. That is just another way of saying "do whatever and when it breaks back off." It all depends what you are breaking, I guess, yet if it only effected the person who breaks said body part we wouldn't have a problem with the "personal choice" part of this discussion at all.

All our parks have rules even though we "own" them. In this case there was a helmet rule and Pisket chose to ride without it. I never heard him make any excuse; he's a stand-up guy. However, I am pretty certain that he felt pretty lame when asked "where's your helmet? saying "I forgot it."

Safety is a state of mind but you have to have one.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*We get kids off the couch*

by overcoming the negative stereotypes of cyclists and cycling by emphasizing safety, skills and power. We get them of the couch and keep them on bikes by overcoming ideas that cycling is not cool and those funny clothes really do work. We help id to understand that they are athletes of a caliber equal to any athlete in the more traditional sports. And all this at a time when teens are jonsing for Spore, their learners permit, and learning how to paint their toenails neatly. At least that is what I do, and that is what my experience tells me. All I am hearing here about kids is supposition to support a predisposition.


----------



## Melt (May 24, 2004)

i ride around town helmetless all the time


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

marzjennings said:


> Please provide some links to where cycling is shown to be more dangerous than walking on a sidewalk.
> 
> Also a helmet is not going to protect anyone from a broken neck.


As a scientist, I am not about to interfere with natural selection and go out of my way to prove anything to anybody.

I do not beleive in helmets laws, and I agree that discouraging cycling is worse then a potential for injury. But it is patently obvious that having a helmet on is safer then not having it on.

There is a good article about the effect of the helmet laws: http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BKS/bhacc.htm - discouraging cycling led to an increase in collisions and increased overall incidence rate.

But that has NOTHING to do with whether you are better off with a lid on once you get into an accident.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

sanjuro said:


> P.S. I think you should have driven to the closest department store and buy a helmet.
> 
> I threw a cheapo in the trunk just in case someone forgets theirs.


Thanks for the tip. I bought the extra helmet yesterday and put in my buddy's van.

We carry lots of inner tubes, lots of tools, extra chain, etc. in our backpacks, but never thought about carrying an extra helmet in the van. :/

Also, we were too far from department stores (top of Purissima at Skyline), it was 7:30 in the morning, and one of us had a hard deadline anyway. :/

Ali


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

Helmets? Bah!!! This is the only way to be fully protected. We should all ride in one of these.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Curmy said:


> But it is patently obvious that having a helmet on is safer then not having it on.
> .


No it's not, not if you really read all the documentation regarding helmets. While at present I think the positives do out weigh the negatives, there are some negatives. One of which is regarding the possibility that a helmet may aggravate injuries caused through rotation of the skull.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Cracked skull, skull rotation*

cracked skull, skull rotation, cracked skull, skull rotation.

Golly, I just can't decide which is better.

I do know that once an accident crosses a certain threshold, like a fall over 6 ft, past a certain speed, lack of consciousness and such, my Wilderness First Aid training has me isolate the neck, head, and spine. Sometimes it calls for removing the helmet but that is not automatic; it may be the only thing holding everything together.

Yuch! I'm done with this. Thanks for all of the responses. I really appreciate the exchange of ideas. This is a great site.


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

Faceplant on pavement w/no helmet = no fun. This is after healing for a few weeks. Dig that discoloration :madman:










But it was *MY CHOICE* to make. That's the beauty of freedom, we get to choose for ourselves the outcome of our own lives, not have it controlled by the government. I'm obviously a libertarian


----------



## Nazareth Frescas (Feb 6, 2008)

Economy is ****ed up, so they need money they have to make some people pay for some little things. Excuses.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Let me know when you guys are ready to lock this pup and move on to another topic/thread...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

marzjennings said:


> No it's not, not if you really read all the documentation regarding helmets. While at present I think the positives do out weigh the negatives, there are some negatives. One of which is regarding the possibility that a helmet may aggravate injuries caused through rotation of the skull.
> 
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html


Yes it is. Overall helemt is better then no helmet. If you do not believe it, it is certainly your right to do so. I just hope you still would put one on your kids.

I use Kong Scarab helmet. It has less of the issue you have described.

There are ten helmets in my garage: cycling, skydiving, kayaking, rollerblading, climbing - sport and mountaneering, boxing, windsurfing, skiing - full face and regular. For each one I have heard enough of compelling reasons for its use and personally got some hard knocks to make it very sure for me.

For every bad accident where it does not make a difference, there are plenty of those where you get a bad bump of concussion. Thank you, I will pass on that.


----------



## Borat Sagdiyev (Mar 14, 2007)

rensho said:


> Let me know when you guys are ready to lock this pup and move on to another topic/thread...


I don't have a dog in this fight, but...


----------



## flowmaster (Jan 22, 2004)

rensho said:


> Let me know when you guys are ready to lock this pup and move on to another topic/thread...


I think it is past that time already


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

Hey now, that horse is only sleepin.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*I'm not dead yet.*

I'm feeling better....


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> The thing I have against all you helmet nazis, is that you kill the growth of cycling in the US. You've conviced every kid and every mom that cycling is the most dangerous thing a kid can do. It is so dangerous, that if you even consider riding down the street without a helmet, you're taking your life into your own hands.
> 
> No wonder our kids would rather sit on the couch and play video games than go outside and ride a bike.
> 
> ...


Your logic is as solid as Palin's geography knowledge.

Here is some stupid comebacks.

Here is one Briton who is for helmets http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3557721.stm

BTW, did helmet wear end football, baseball, hockey?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> One of the funny rubs here is that people are complaining about laws and rules that require them to behave as they would have behaved anyhow.


Yes we do complain about it. I do want to decide for myself and I do not want any governement where it is not needed.


----------



## pisiket (Sep 19, 2006)

rensho said:


> Let me know when you guys are ready to lock this pup and move on to another topic/thread...


No! No! Nooo! :nono:

This thread is the biggest achievement of my life: 140 responses and counting! :yesnod:

Ok, how about this, ..., this, ... errrm, ... erm... yeah: If riding without a helmet were dangerous, the ranger wouldn't let me continue riding without a helmet. He told me to "show the citation" if I am stopped again. Please discuss...

Don't let my thread die... :cryin:

Ali


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

rensho said:


> Let me know when you guys are ready to lock this pup and move on to another topic/thread...


As long as it does not slip into a discussion about the immorality of circumcision...

Oh.. it just did...


----------



## Borat Sagdiyev (Mar 14, 2007)

Well, about that old horse ...


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Curmy said:


> It is better to be part of an imaginary problem, then to be a member of the Organ Donors Anonymous.


Sedentary lifestyles and over use of cars is NOT a problem in the us?

Have you ever heard words like heart disease and obesity, or how about a simple car accident?

Compare the number of deaths attributed to the three items above and compare them to the number of deaths due to cycling?

Which number do you think is bigger?

How many lives would be saved if more people were physically active instead of sitting on the couch or cruising through the drive thru?

The chances of of getting seriously injured while riding a bike is a very small non zero number. The chances of getting seriously injured while walking down a sidewalk is a very small non zero number.

The most dangerous thing people do every day is walk into the bathroom and drive in a car.

I have never stated you should NOT wear a helmet, I just stated that the helmet nazi attitude is far more detrimental to society than jumping on a bike and not wearing a helmet.

Look at societies where cycling is part of every day life.... what is the percentage of helmet use? Do you see bodies lined up in the street? No.

Go ride your bike and quit scaring people.

george


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

sanjuro said:


> BTW, did helmet wear end football, baseball, hockey?


Wow, you're really bad at analogies aren't you?

People don't play football, baseball or hockey as a way to get to the store and back. I'm not talking about the sport of cycling. I'm talking about cycling as a part of everyday life.

And I never said that you shouldn't wear a helmet, but I have stated that helmet zealots are detrimental to acceptance of cycling as an every day activity.

So let's see where you stand.

Is it dangerous for me to ride 1/2 mile to the store without a helmet?

Is it more dangerous than getting on a ladder and cleaning the leaves out of my gutter?

Is it more dangerous than getting in and out of the shower/tub?

Is it more dangerous than driving 1 hour to work on the freeway in the morning?

Is it more dangerous than being overweight?

george


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

Curmy said:


> Yes it is. Overall helemt is better then no helmet. If you do not believe it, it is certainly your right to do so. I just hope you still would put one on your kids.
> 
> I use Kong Scarab helmet. It has less of the issue you have described.
> 
> ...


Did you fail to read my post or just fail to comprehend it? I agreed with you that I think the positive reasons for wearing a helmet do outweigh the negative. Where I disagreed with you is that you think the reasons are obvious, which they are not.

The reasons my kids wears a helmet is because it'll stop her getting scratched if she bumps her head, not because I think it'll do any good if she gets hit by a car.

There are plenty of reasons for wearing helmets in any number of sports and for the most part their expectations for protection are reasonable. For example that climbing helmet of yours, do you wear it to protect your head from falling rocks or incase you fall onto rocks?

For some reason bike helmets, designed to protect in a simple fall, have been attributed the magical status of life saver in all accidents which is, I think, an obvious exaggeration.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

I hope those people that want the government to allow you to decide for yourself to wear a helmet or not are not the same ones who ***** about people smoking cigarettes and then driving up health care costs.

Certain parks get to tell you what to wear because they also have to fund the personnel to extract people with head injuries. I would imagine someone in a meeting somewhere decided it was cheaper in the long run to enforce a helmet law than to pay staff to extract all those with projected head injuries that could be avoided if the rider had worn a helmet.

In a true libertarian society, sure, you should be allowed to choose to wear a helmet or not. But if you hurt yourself, don't go crying to the ranger for help. I'm pretty sure right now that most people on this board would be ranting and raving all over the place if someone cracked their skull open on a MidPenn trail and the ranger told them "good luck getting to the hospital!" rather than doing anything to help.


*EDIT* Just in case there's any confusion, I'm not a helmet nazi. I ride my bike to the store and around the neighborhood with no helmet all the time. I don't care when someone wears a helmet or not, as long as their decision doesn't impact me in any way.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

marzjennings said:


> Did you fail to read my post or just fail to comprehend it? I agreed with you that I think the positive reasons for wearing a helmet do outweigh the negative. Where I disagreed with you is that you think the reasons are obvious, which they are not.


Did you fail to understand that if something is not obvious to you, it may quite obvious to others?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bdamschen said:


> I hope those people that want the government to allow you to decide for yourself to wear a helmet or not are not the same ones who ***** about people smoking cigarettes and then driving up health care costs.


As long as they buy their own health insurance - nobody should care. Once they tap into my tax money, yes it is ok to have a say.



bdamschen said:


> Certain parks get to tell you what to wear because they also have to fund the personnel to extract people with head injuries. I would imagine someone in a meeting somewhere decided it was cheaper in the long run to enforce a helmet law than to pay staff to extract all those with projected head injuries that could be avoided if the rider had worn a helmet.


The only thing that they care about is potential liability, not your injuries.



bdamschen said:


> In a true libertarian society, sure, you should be allowed to choose to wear a helmet or not. But if you hurt yourself, don't go crying to the ranger for help.


Do not be absurd. My tax money pay ranger's salary, I expect him/her to do their job that I have paid them to do.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Curmy said:


> As long as they buy their own health insurance - nobody should care. Once they tap into my tax money, yes it is ok to have a say.


Riding without a helmet is sort of like that not having your own health insurance. If someone takes a digger and cracks their skull on MidPenn trails, the rangers which your tax dollars have to pay for are first responders. That means they have to drop whatever else it is that they are doing and spend their time (paid for by your tax dollars) to help someone out.



Curmy said:


> The only thing that they care about is potential liability, not your injuries.
> 
> Do not be absurd. My tax money pay ranger's salary, I expect him/her to do their job that I have paid them to do.


Which is goes right back to my smoking analogy where you said:


Curmy said:


> As long as they buy their own health insurance - nobody should care. Once they tap into my tax money, yes it is ok to have a say.


As soon as someone jacks themselves up from not wearing a helmet out there, it's the Ranger who must respond, thereby spending your tax dollars. You can't ask for the right to do whatever your want (like not wear a helmet) from the government and then demand that they clean up your mess (like provide you with medical assistance for your bloody carcass).

One of the jobs of the a government entity is to make sure they're spending your tax dollars wisely. There's all sorts of rules, regulations and committees for that sort of thing. Someone, somewhere in writing those rules and regs as well as attending those committees probably figured out that you could save tax payer money by requiring riders to wear helmets, and that it is cheaper to enforce a helmet law than to pay rangers to respond to non-helmet related injuries.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bdamschen said:


> One of the jobs of the a government entity is to make sure they're spending your tax dollars wisely. There's all sorts of rules, regulations and committees for that sort of thing. Someone, somewhere in writing those rules and regs as well as attending those committees probably figured out that you could save tax payer money by requiring riders to wear helmets, and that it is cheaper to enforce a helmet law than to pay rangers to respond to non-helmet related injuries.


I doubt very much that anybody had done anything resembling a cost analysis for those situations except for asking their attorney about an estimate of a potential liability bill.

Most people getting evacuated are clueless hikers.

Having some nanny regulations in place serve only the purpose of fighting possible negligence charges. That's it.

You view of the government is (non)surprisingly idealistic.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

I'm a government worker myself, and I do try to make sure I'm not blowing money needlessly since it's everyone else's. Maybe thinking that there's a method to the madness is a bit optimistic. 

I do know that down here on Ft. Ord, riding off-pavement at night was made illegal for a while(might still be? I'm not sure) because people were crashing out in the middle of nowhere and each time, that happened it was required that Monterey Search and Rescue get called in(I guess normal medics won't drive down fire roads or something?).

Because calling Search and Rescue each time costs $$ and it was happening a lot, people started getting tickets for riding in the dirt at night. I was thinking maybe a similar scenario was happening up there.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

bdamschen said:


> Because calling Search and Rescue each time costs $$ and it was happening a lot, people started getting tickets for riding in the dirt at night. I was thinking maybe a similar scenario was happening up there.


A much better solution would be to ask people to purchase evacuation insurance. Prohibiting everything that is a nuisance is an easy way out of doing the work that government is paid to do.

If public funds are an issue - there should be a way to opt in - either by declining liability (like when I did skydiving I would sign all sorts of forms), or buying insurance.

Prohibition is a cop out by lazy bureaucrats. If I paid my load of taxes to acquire public land - I want to be able to actually use it.

I do buy such insurance when traveling abroad - covers medical evacuation. I think it will cover medical helicopter domestically as well.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

blah blah blah


 Who Posted? Total Posts: 153
 User NamePosts Curmy 21 Berkeley Mike 15 dan0 15 pisket 12 flowmaster 9 marzjennings 7 sanjuro 6 Razorfish 5 george_da_trog 4

It's sunny outside. Go out and ride, err I mean work :drumroll:

fc


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Curmy's Number !*

Da man!


----------



## norcalruckus (May 18, 2005)

*Wear The Helmet*

_"Do not be absurd. My tax money pay ranger's salary, I expect him/her to do their job that I have paid them to do"_

Exactly!!! This is why he gave the original writer a ticket. IT IS HIS JOB. If you want to contemplate the intricacies of his mind to try and figure out what on earth you could have done to give the RANGER a reason to give you a ticket instead of a warning...you will never know why. I was not there, so I really cannot comment given only your side of the story.

He has discretion...it is part of his job to decide. It is your tax money at work.

And if the state/county/city requires insurance and a waiver...then it would just be more bureaucracy. Nothing would be solved. There would still be lawsuits, and people would still complain.

Just wear the helmet. Yes you have insurance...but there are plenty of people on bikes with no insurance. Those are the guys the rest of society subsidizes. And society wants to keep the cost down. Down to not pay SSI to the rest of the family members that an injured rider may no longer be able to support. Down to not pay the union mandated overtime for any specialty units that have to be called in during their free time to medivac you away from a scary situation on the trail. Everyone falls at one time or another on a mountain bike. We all know this.

And yes, it is hard times for many cities right now. Cities like Vallejo have declared bankruptcy.

Blah Blah Blah...assume the risk...blah blah blah.

You decided to ride without your helmet. You got caught.

Pay the fine, and keep the thread going!!!!

And I concur with most of what Berkeley Mike Said.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*Maybe it is like a train wreck but, Francis,*

3100 hits says something important is going on.


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

george_da_trog said:


> Wow, you're really bad at analogies aren't you?
> 
> People don't play football, baseball or hockey as a way to get to the store and back. I'm not talking about the sport of cycling. I'm talking about cycling as a part of everyday life.
> 
> ...


I can't force anyone to wear a helmet. I could demand it, use peer pressure, maybe even uninvite you my ride or just skip the ride myself.

I really don't care whether someone rides with a helmet. I have had good friends who are much better riders than I go without a helmet, and I didn't say anything.

But I don't want to be responsible for a schmuck. My close friends, yes I will help them under any circumstance. But I don't want to have to stop and help some fool, very likely a casual rider, who fell on his noggin on a trail he shouldn't have been on.

But I will stop, which is why I want to see these idiots wear the most basic of protection.


----------

