Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA

the motivation behind this law probably boils down to insurance liability.

The quote below comes from the sponsoring Senator's press release.  It doesn't mention insurance or other costs as a motivation - seems as though she knows whats best for everyone.

“Any responsible bicycle rider should wear a helmet,” said Liu, Chair of the Senate Education Committee. “This law will help protect more people and make sure all riders benefit from the head protection that a helmet provides.” - See more at:http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/news/2015-02-11-new-bill-requires-all-bicycle-riders-wear-helmets#sthash.0I6WDXZ2.dpuf

- any responsible person should not smoke cigarettes,...this law will help protect more people...

- any responsible person should not drink alcohol,...this law will help protect more people...

- any responsible person should not eat fast food,...this law will help protect more people...

- any responsible person should not drink sugary drinks,...this law will help protect more people...

All I know is that any responsible person would wear a jacket tonight...........geez, it's COLD!! 

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by SevenZulu

Yes, it's in the works.  I'm hoping this one goes down in flames.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/government-and-politics/20150215/legislation-would-make-bicycle-helmets-mandatory-for-adults

If the law somehow goes through (anything is possible in CA), I have to wonder what's next?  Mandatory safety harness when taking the stairs?

In general, I believe in a person's inalienable right to do stupid things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Not sure why this is necessary, other than as another means to generate revenue.

At first glance I'm with ya guys...but...I'd like to see an economist's take on the issue. How many lives will it save though? How much MONEY will it save? How effective will the law be at getting more people to do the right thing (which is to wear a helmet)? I have to think there are a whole lot of under or uninsured folks out there. When they inevitably make a mistake (we all do, we're human), who's footing the bill? Traumatic brain injury rehab aint cheap. Neurosurgery aint cheap. I wish it was as black and white as "Freedom vs. Nanny-State," but it probably isn't.

I struggle against my knee-jerk-bleeding-heart-liberal tendencies on this one. It will probably save lives. It will probably save money too, though whose money it will save is open to debate. I struggle with the question of, to what degree is it appropriate to mandate safe behavior if the unsafe behavior doesn't, ostensibly, infringe on the rest of us in any way other than financially. IOW, second hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers, so I'm ok with curtailing smoking. Drunk driving can potentially kill non-drunk-drivers, so make that illegal, fine. But if we mandate helmets, shouldn't we also outlaw unhealthy food, for example?

Yes, yes we should. Soilent green for all!!! Yeah, and this is why it's such a difficult issue. We do all end up footing the bill for people behaving irresponsibly. We'd all agree smoking is absolutely horrible and has no redeeming value...unless you're a tobacco farmer or work for the tobacco industry I guess. How do they sleep at night? Anywhoo, alcohol's a little different because there are documented benefits in moderation. Also, unhealthy food's a tough one. The French take in lots of rich foods and have lower heart disease rates...so that's not all food. No easy answers darn it!

I have trouble with this one too.  I think it will save money and lives.  While people should have their choice in the matter also.  I personally think riding with out a helmet is selfish to the family.  In case of traumatic injury that could be lessened or even prevented with the use of a helmet.  But that's a different argument.

I see the food issue as a immediate vs long term gain.  While unhealthy food is not inherently dangerous (I have my girl scout cookies coming soon!  I know The 2 boxes will be gone in a few days!)  it is if you eat it by the semi load.  Now getting hit by that semi with out wearing a helmet is likely to end much worse, much quicker.  Simply put - it's easier to regulate.

As a Californian my .02 is they actually start enforcing laws relating to bicycling safety... like maybe the 3 foot rule?....  rather than passing inane new ones.  We loves our laws in liberal mommy state land

Originally posted by Justin86

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by SevenZulu

Yes, it's in the works.  I'm hoping this one goes down in flames.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/government-and-politics/20150215/legislation-would-make-bicycle-helmets-mandatory-for-adults

If the law somehow goes through (anything is possible in CA), I have to wonder what's next?  Mandatory safety harness when taking the stairs?

In general, I believe in a person's inalienable right to do stupid things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Not sure why this is necessary, other than as another means to generate revenue.

At first glance I'm with ya guys...but...I'd like to see an economist's take on the issue. How many lives will it save though? How much MONEY will it save? How effective will the law be at getting more people to do the right thing (which is to wear a helmet)? I have to think there are a whole lot of under or uninsured folks out there. When they inevitably make a mistake (we all do, we're human), who's footing the bill? Traumatic brain injury rehab aint cheap. Neurosurgery aint cheap. I wish it was as black and white as "Freedom vs. Nanny-State," but it probably isn't.

I struggle against my knee-jerk-bleeding-heart-liberal tendencies on this one. It will probably save lives. It will probably save money too, though whose money it will save is open to debate. I struggle with the question of, to what degree is it appropriate to mandate safe behavior if the unsafe behavior doesn't, ostensibly, infringe on the rest of us in any way other than financially. IOW, second hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers, so I'm ok with curtailing smoking. Drunk driving can potentially kill non-drunk-drivers, so make that illegal, fine. But if we mandate helmets, shouldn't we also outlaw unhealthy food, for example?

Yes, yes we should. Soilent green for all!!! Yeah, and this is why it's such a difficult issue. We do all end up footing the bill for people behaving irresponsibly. We'd all agree smoking is absolutely horrible and has no redeeming value...unless you're a tobacco farmer or work for the tobacco industry I guess. How do they sleep at night? Anywhoo, alcohol's a little different because there are documented benefits in moderation. Also, unhealthy food's a tough one. The French take in lots of rich foods and have lower heart disease rates...so that's not all food. No easy answers darn it!

I have trouble with this one too.  I think it will save money and lives.  While people should have their choice in the matter also.  I personally think riding with out a helmet is selfish to the family.  In case of traumatic injury that could be lessened or even prevented with the use of a helmet.  But that's a different argument.

I see the food issue as a immediate vs long term gain.  While unhealthy food is not inherently dangerous (I have my girl scout cookies coming soon!  I know The 2 boxes will be gone in a few days!)  it is if you eat it by the semi load.  Now getting hit by that semi with out wearing a helmet is likely to end much worse, much quicker.  Simply put - it's easier to regulate.

I'm with you guys on this too.  I always struggle trying to figure out if I'm in favor or against these types of laws for most of the same reasons you guys point out.

In most states they have mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, but in Iowa which neighbors us there are no such laws.  I would never get on a motorcycle (or bicycle) without a helmet, but do I have the right to mandate my personal opinion on everyone else?  Then you get into the costs of injury to society and it gets all out of whack.  lol
I ultimately fall on the side of live and let live because there are an infinite number of safety items I could legislate on others using the argument of "saving society money".  No motocross, no skiing, heck people die in triathlons so we should ban those too...  yada yada  (i know there's health benefits that outweigh the dangers of Tri's.  Just trying to be funny)  

At some point, society has to just accept that a certain percentage of stupid people are going to injure or kill themselves every year.

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Justin86

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by SevenZulu

Yes, it's in the works.  I'm hoping this one goes down in flames.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/government-and-politics/20150215/legislation-would-make-bicycle-helmets-mandatory-for-adults

If the law somehow goes through (anything is possible in CA), I have to wonder what's next?  Mandatory safety harness when taking the stairs?

In general, I believe in a person's inalienable right to do stupid things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Not sure why this is necessary, other than as another means to generate revenue.

At first glance I'm with ya guys...but...I'd like to see an economist's take on the issue. How many lives will it save though? How much MONEY will it save? How effective will the law be at getting more people to do the right thing (which is to wear a helmet)? I have to think there are a whole lot of under or uninsured folks out there. When they inevitably make a mistake (we all do, we're human), who's footing the bill? Traumatic brain injury rehab aint cheap. Neurosurgery aint cheap. I wish it was as black and white as "Freedom vs. Nanny-State," but it probably isn't.

I struggle against my knee-jerk-bleeding-heart-liberal tendencies on this one. It will probably save lives. It will probably save money too, though whose money it will save is open to debate. I struggle with the question of, to what degree is it appropriate to mandate safe behavior if the unsafe behavior doesn't, ostensibly, infringe on the rest of us in any way other than financially. IOW, second hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers, so I'm ok with curtailing smoking. Drunk driving can potentially kill non-drunk-drivers, so make that illegal, fine. But if we mandate helmets, shouldn't we also outlaw unhealthy food, for example?

Yes, yes we should. Soilent green for all!!! Yeah, and this is why it's such a difficult issue. We do all end up footing the bill for people behaving irresponsibly. We'd all agree smoking is absolutely horrible and has no redeeming value...unless you're a tobacco farmer or work for the tobacco industry I guess. How do they sleep at night? Anywhoo, alcohol's a little different because there are documented benefits in moderation. Also, unhealthy food's a tough one. The French take in lots of rich foods and have lower heart disease rates...so that's not all food. No easy answers darn it!

I have trouble with this one too.  I think it will save money and lives.  While people should have their choice in the matter also.  I personally think riding with out a helmet is selfish to the family.  In case of traumatic injury that could be lessened or even prevented with the use of a helmet.  But that's a different argument.

I see the food issue as a immediate vs long term gain.  While unhealthy food is not inherently dangerous (I have my girl scout cookies coming soon!  I know The 2 boxes will be gone in a few days!)  it is if you eat it by the semi load.  Now getting hit by that semi with out wearing a helmet is likely to end much worse, much quicker.  Simply put - it's easier to regulate.

I'm with you guys on this too.  I always struggle trying to figure out if I'm in favor or against these types of laws for most of the same reasons you guys point out.

In most states they have mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, but in Iowa which neighbors us there are no such laws.  I would never get on a motorcycle (or bicycle) without a helmet, but do I have the right to mandate my personal opinion on everyone else?  Then you get into the costs of injury to society and it gets all out of whack.  lol
I ultimately fall on the side of live and let live because there are an infinite number of safety items I could legislate on others using the argument of "saving society money".  No motocross, no skiing, heck people die in triathlons so we should ban those too...  yada yada  (i know there's health benefits that outweigh the dangers of Tri's.  Just trying to be funny)  

At some point, society has to just accept that a certain percentage of stupid people are going to injure or kill themselves every year.

Well said. 

Enjoyed a nice ride without my helmet today (rode the mtb in the foothills).  That was nice, and fun.  And I survived.  Just say no to helicopter legislators.  She needs to be voted out of office.  Bet her stupid butt hasn't been on a bicycle seat ever.

Congratulations?

While I agree that legislation is overkill, congratulations to you for having no common sense.

Many people would argue riding a bike on the road shows no common sense.  So, welcome to the no common sense club.

I have a sister-in-law who lost her job in California because of a law like this.  It was one about motorcyclists wearing helmets.  The entire department she worked in, neurological trauma (or something like this), had to close its doors because of lack of business.  She is a nurse.

Really?  So the neurological trauma department wasn't overflowing with brain-injured bicyclists?  That's pretty interesting.

I'd like to help Ms. Liu craft some effective legislation to help protect all Californian's against traumatic brain injury.  Let's consult the CDC on this, since the sample size of her two brain-injured relatives seems a bit small to legislate behavior for the entire adult population of the state:

http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html

It appears that there is a much bigger opportunity for protecting the populace if we require 24/7 helmets for anybody over 45 and under the age of 14, with a particular emphasis on males.  Similarly, all occupants of cars need helmets, as well.  Boys age 10-14 need kevlar lined helmets to protect from cranial gunshot injury (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6005a1.htm).  And kids age 0-4, along with young adults 15-25, probably need some mandatory self-defense training.

Lastly, we really need to protect phone-happy pedestrians from themselves.  A new law to require helmets for people who are texting while walking should be strongly considered:  http://wtop.com/news/2014/03/texting-walking-more-risky-than-distracted-driving/

Can I not enjoy a beer without spitting it out laughing.......please?  LMAO

If you slip and fall on that beer you spit out, you'll wish you were wearing a helmet.