Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   More people suffer serious head injuries in car accidents than in bike accidents. So why do all the mandatory helmet laws only target bicyclists?   (treehugger.com) divider line 20
    More: Stupid, bicycle accident, mountain biker, moving violation  
•       •       •

3081 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2014 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-18 02:37:15 AM  
4 votes:
*facepalm*
Just get in the corner and stay there, subby.
2014-05-18 09:28:16 AM  
2 votes:
I ain't getting any head injury when I'm stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

On the flip side, I regularly biked to work in Japan where the streets are narrower, and never thought much of it.  Yet when I climb on a bicycle here in America I feel completely defenseless.  Not only is there often nowhere to go, it's just how the cars move -- I can tell nobody's paying attention.  I definitely wear a helmet every time I climb on a bike and even then I feel it's not enough.

American drivers are bad.
2014-05-18 07:05:29 AM  
2 votes:
More people suffer serious head injuries in car accidents than in bike accidents.

Ah, another lesson in how to lie with statistics.

How many car accidents occur every year?  How many multiple-passenger cars are there?  In the USA alone, hundreds of thousands, if not millions?  How many bicycle accidents? A few thousand?  So does it stand to reason that there are more head injuries in car accidents than head injuries in bike accidents?

Why am I bothering to type this since you're just trolling anyway.
2014-05-18 04:42:00 AM  
2 votes:
I don't understand why helmets are required for adults. Yes, you could be seriously hurt and brain damaged from a fall off of a bike. Then again, you could just as easily choose to stay home and drink Draino. So much in this world COULD happen, why should we mandate that certain events be safeguarded against while others which are equal or greater risks are not?
2014-05-18 02:56:51 AM  
2 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: *facepalm*
Just get in the corner and stay there, subby.


I don't have the citations on hand (it's Saturday night, cut me some slack) but a car and a bicycle are equally likely to give you a head injury per mile traveled, and a bicycle helmet would prevent a lot of head injuries in cars, but we dismiss the idea as ridiculous for cultural reasons.

I always wear a helmet when I ride on the streets, mostly because my brother had his life saved by a helmet when he was young and I think it models good behavior for kids. But really, requiring people to wear helmets in cars makes as much sense as requiring them to wear them on bikes.

Now, motorcycle head injuries are way beyond car/bicycle head injuries, and I definitely support mandatory helmet laws for them.
2014-05-18 03:51:46 PM  
1 votes:
This article makes a great test!

If you didn't immediately spot the intentional misrepresentation in his very first chart, you need to take a statistics class.

/Not a joke. I'm dead serious.
2014-05-18 01:45:38 PM  
1 votes:
Only time I actually needed a helmet was jogging on a snowy rails to trails, slipped, fell back, and slammed the back of my head into the asphalt directly.   Almost passed out for a second.  So I guess, since the possibility exists that you can smash your skull jogging, we should mandate helmets for jogging.
2014-05-18 01:10:56 PM  
1 votes:

sendtodave: Linux_Yes: sendtodave: Linux_Yes: yea?  you shouldn't have to wear a helmet.

 and when you crack your skull, the taxpayer shouldn't have to treat you.

Aren't you the socialist?


Democratic Socialist to be more precise.  i've seen and heard enough of crony capitalism and its talent for buying off our Legislators and funneling the nation's wealth up to the upper 2%. and when it needs a bailout, goes running to the government.   it's gotten old after 20/30 years.

Ok, well, uh, shouldn't everyone have to pay for stupid people, then?


ah, yes.  except big business and the wealthy don't think so.  if everyone paid the costs, the costs would be low for everyone.

when the middle/working class pays for everything, the burden is much higher for them and the Beautiful People get a free ride.
2014-05-18 10:18:23 AM  
1 votes:
About a month ago I got into a bicycle accident where I fractured my left radial bone. I still have about two more weeks of healing. I was very happy that I was wearing my helmet because I very well could have fell on my head. If other people don't want to wear helmets I couldn't care less though I think it's a dumb decision. As far as I'm concerned I'll happily wear a seatbelt in the car and use a helmet while biking.

I just think the people making a big deal about those laws requiring either because the Gubmint is encroaching on my freedoms are going overboard. Those laws are asking you to do something simple that may save your life someday. The Goverment does worse things than that.
2014-05-18 10:06:19 AM  
1 votes:

mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.


I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?
2014-05-18 09:40:18 AM  
1 votes:
My inner libertarian tends to agree, but on the other hand you know we're all paying for these idiots who crack their skulls open and have to undergo tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical treatment.

Just think of how much money we could save if we forced fatties to diet, avoiding the huge medical costs of their cancer/diabetes/cardiac issues, and prevented people who can't afford kids to not have them, thus reducing juvenile delinquency problems, and so forth.

Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society. Because of that, these laws should be vigorously opposed and eliminated. Not because seatbelts and helmets are bad ideas (they aren't), but because of the dangers presented by the precedent  of letting the government regulate behavior by individuals that do not directly affect anybody else's rights or privileges.

Where does the slope stop? Government review/approval of all your life choices? After all, your success in life indirectly impacts the rest of society. Society benefits from productivity, and pays for your mistakes.

/Wore seatbelts as soon as they became available in 1965
//my dad looked at me and said "What? You don't trust my driving?"
///I don't wear a helmet while bike riding, and I wear a Top Hat whilst Foxhunting, 'cause I live for danger
2014-05-18 09:27:38 AM  
1 votes:
yea?  you shouldn't have to wear a helmet.

 and when you crack your skull, the taxpayer shouldn't have to treat you.
2014-05-18 09:24:56 AM  
1 votes:

Shadowknight: As long as you weren't actively killing a person or a gypsy,


This came off unfortunately wrong.  I didn't mean that gypsies weren't people.  I meant that police saw a gypsy, or someone they deemed to be gypsy-like, and they were immediately treated with suspicion.  Spain was a weird place sometimes.

/that bit of racism aside, I loved the country and their bike-friendly ways
2014-05-18 09:17:47 AM  
1 votes:
Well, let's see here:

It used to be that most life threatening injuries in car accidents could be prevented by simply wearing seat belt.  So we mandated that.  The most common life threatening injuries on a bike could be solved by wearing helmets, so we started mandating that too.

You're never going to eliminate ALL risk to anything ever.  But I think we can try to fix the obvious ones.

/oh, and there are a lot more people in cars than there are riding bikes, thus a larger number of injured
//but that's too obvious to say, right Subby?
2014-05-18 09:14:27 AM  
1 votes:
Hah, I'm just picturing guys in hummers driving around with retard helmets on and it's making me happy.
2014-05-18 09:11:15 AM  
1 votes:

baka-san: You sir are dumb, and your will never stop being dumb.

Shese.


1/10 or 10/10.

I just can't tell any more.
2014-05-18 09:08:22 AM  
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: *facepalm*


Clearly, some sort of face protection is necessary. And -- depending on how delicate your hand is -- maybe gloves.
2014-05-18 08:51:04 AM  
1 votes:

Earguy: More people suffer serious head injuries in car accidents than in bike accidents.

Ah, another lesson in how to lie with statistics.

How many car accidents occur every year?  How many multiple-passenger cars are there?  In the USA alone, hundreds of thousands, if not millions?  How many bicycle accidents? A few thousand?  So does it stand to reason that there are more head injuries in car accidents than head injuries in bike accidents?

Why am I bothering to type this since you're just trolling anyway.


Yeah, this.
2014-05-18 04:43:33 AM  
1 votes:
If Michael Schumacher hadn't been wearing a helmet while skiing, he'd probably be dead now instead of in a coma.
2014-05-18 03:32:19 AM  
1 votes:
Perhaps they address them by seatbelt laws....
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report