Table of Contents
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently made a recommendation for all 50 states to implement laws mandating bicycle helmet laws for adults. Presently, many states, including California, have bicycle helmet laws in place for certain classes of children under 18 years of age to help reduce head injuries in the event of a bicycle accident. Still, not all states require adult bicycle riders to wear helmets with helmet legislation. In comparison, most states do mandate motorcycle rider helmet laws for adults. And most states have laws requiring seatbelt usage, yet none force bike riders to wear helmets.
Pundits argue that in the age of electric bicycles, it makes sense to treat adult bicyclists the same as adult motorcyclists to decrease head injuries and hence, the strain on tax-funded health care. While proposals for local ordinances and state laws aim to enhance safety, there are concerns about the potential negative consequences of universal forced helmet use.
This article by Los Angeles bicycle lawyer, Michael Ehline, explores the arguments against mandatory bicycle helmet laws and sheds light on their potential bike helmet laws and their drawbacks. By analyzing the steady reduction in cyclist numbers, the financial impact on bike-sharing systems, and the disproportionate enforcement in marginalized communities, we can comprehensively understand the issue of forced helmet usage and reducing head injuries.
Of course, the goal of preventing or reducing head injury claims by forcing bicycle helmet use for adults is commendable. But bicycle helmet use laws, like many Draconian laws, encourage people to become outlaws, as will be discussed. One of the main arguments against a mandatory helmet law is their potential to discourage cycling, ultimately reducing the number of cyclists on the streets. Some say the rules educate people about head protection, making them indispensable to public safety.
In 2005, Lee et al. conducted a study published in Accident Analysis & Prevention that examined the effects of California’s bicycle helmet law on head injuries among different age groups. The research found that head injuries in the under-16 group, covered by the law, decreased by 18.2% after a state-wide helmet law was enacted. But this statistical analysis does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of laws that require helmets.
The study’s findings highlight a notable reduction in head injuries among youth riders following the enactment of the helmet requirement. This indicates that mandatory helmet usage for this specific age group contributed to improved safety outcomes. When they wear helmets, young riders are better protected from head injuries in accidents, which is a positive outcome.
However, it is worth noting that the study did not observe any significant change in head injury rates among adults after the implementation of the law. This suggests that the impact of the helmet law on adult riders’ safety outcomes was minimal or inconclusive. Other factors may have influenced these results, such as existing helmet usage rates among adults before the law’s enactment or differences in cycling patterns and risk behaviors.
Another important aspect of the study is its assessment of the law’s effect on cycling rates among those covered by the legislation. The analysis concluded that the implementation of a state-wide bicycle helmet law resulted in a 4 to 5 percent reduction in cycling participation among the targeted age group. This finding highlights a potential unintended consequence of forced helmet laws, as some individuals may be deterred from cycling due to the perceived inconvenience or discomfort associated with wearing helmets.
It is essential to interpret these statistical findings in the context of the overall goals of promoting cycling as a healthy and sustainable mode of transportation. While the reduction in head injuries among youth riders is a positive outcome, the decrease in cycling participation warrants careful consideration. Encouraging cycling as a safe and accessible mode of transport requires a balanced approach that includes helmet usage and investments in infrastructure, education, and awareness campaigns to create a comprehensive cycling-friendly environment.
In conclusion, the study conducted by Lee et al. provides valuable insights into the impact of California’s bicycle helmet law on head injuries among different age groups. The findings indicate a significant reduction in head injuries among youth riders covered by the law, while no substantial change was observed among adults. However, the study also highlights a potential decrease in cycling rates among the targeted age group, suggesting a need for a comprehensive approach that considers multiple factors to promote cycling safety and participation effectively.
A study carried out by the University of New South Wales in 2011 showed that compulsory Helmet Laws led to a 29% reduction in cycling-related brain injuries. When Australian cities like Melbourne and Brisbane introduced helmet mandates, they witnessed a significant decline in cycling participation. This phenomenon can be attributed to the deterrent effect of non voluntary bike helmet laws, as potential riders may feel burdened by the requirement to wear a helmet even though it could prevent a head injury.
Moreover, the decrease in cyclist numbers has implications for the goal of bicycle helmet law safety. The “Safety in Numbers” concept posits that the more cyclists there are on the streets, the safer it becomes for all riders. With fewer cyclists, the visibility and awareness of bicycle traffic diminish, potentially resulting in less caution from motorists and decreased overall safety for riders even when they do wear helmets. This counterintuitive outcome challenges the assumption that forcible bicycle helmet laws unequivocally enhance road safety.
The growing concern over what many pundits call our “outrageously unsafe road environment” and the need for sustainable urban mobility has helped the concept of “15-minute cities.” These are akin to giant jail cells where you can legally own no private property, providing fewer parking spaces for the number of motor vehicles per unit required for everyone. Advocated by various proponents of a New World Order, including US Democrats, CNN, and partner organizations like the World Economic Forum, the idea of creating compact cities is growing. The selling point is that essential services within a 15-minute reach have gained traction with some adult cyclists.
While this approach holds promise to many democrats and their fellow Marxists, it is essential to acknowledge the current reality in societies that rely on a republican form of governance structure. Freedom and personal liberty in the US starkly contradict an adult bike helmet law. Furthermore, the relationship between 15-minute cities and bicycle helmet laws and injury prevention deserves examination to understand how they intersect in promoting safety and mobility while preserving “unalienable rights” granted by our “Creator.” For now, in most states, it’s “my body, my choice” whether you choose to wear a helmet.
Obviously, like all forms of centralized control, the safety appliance known as a helmet will be mandatory for all bike riders. In other words, there will be the need for local helmet laws, as far away government gets to decide whether adults wear helmets. Libertarians are always weary of things like helmet laws, as they represent an erosion of personal liberty and an empowering of political control over the citizenry. Some would prefer dangerous freedom over the safety of forced helmet use.
Another significant concern regarding helmet mandates revolves around their impact on bike-sharing systems. Seattle, Washington, serves as an example where the implementation of similar policies resulted in a decline in the city’s bike share system. Although there are fewer bicycle-related fatalities and bicycle accidents in general, there are fewer riders to protect with helmet laws! This accident analysis decline can be attributed to various factors, including the inconvenience of carrying helmets or the added expense faced by bike riders purchasing them. Adult bike helmet laws impose an additional barrier to accessing bike-sharing systems, making them less attractive to potential users and hindering their viability.
Similar cases have been observed among bike riders in several Australian cities, where bike-share systems faced financial challenges after the introduction of helmet mandates. These struggles affect the availability of affordable and sustainable transportation options and limit the potential for increased ridership and the associated benefits for public health and the environment. Bike helmet laws forcing people to wear a helmet seem to have the effect of forcing people into gas-powered cars to get around.
A critical aspect that warrants consideration in the debate surrounding centralized bicycle helmet laws is that they are disproportionately enforced, with glaring racial disparities overshadowing any benefits of highway safety via mandatory helmet use. Studies have shown that these laws tend to be enforced more heavily in communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods. This differential enforcement raises concerns about equity and fairness in policing practices.
Cities like Austin and Dallas, Texas, have repealed or modified their mandatory helmet laws due to the emergence of distressing racial disparities in ticketing for non-compliance. Similarly, in Tampa, Florida, an alarming 80 percent of bicycling-related citations issued by the police during three years targeted African-Americans, despite comprising only 25% of the population. These disparities echo the broader criticisms of racially biased policing and have prompted comparisons to the controversial “stop-and-frisk” practice in New York City.
Many riders regard helmets as more of a fashion accessory than a safety measure. Until adult riders consider how dangerous riding a bike can be, the lazy view of bicycle safety and helmet laws is changed, and head and brain injuries will likely increase per capita per miles ridden—increased helmet use when bike riding could be one way to prevent a severe head injury or death for many adult bicycle riders. Instead, more should be done to promote helmet use by adults without helmet compulsion.
State and local laws are not the answer. Making helmets compulsory for adults will drive bike riders away from riding bikes at all. While the objective of increasing cyclist safety through a universal, mandatory bicycle helmet law is commendable, it remains crucial to consider the potential adverse effects of forcing people to wear bike helmets. Evidence suggests that such laws can discourage cycling participation, create financial obstacles for bike-sharing systems, and exacerbate racial disparities in law enforcement.
It is essential to balance promoting safety and ensuring that mandatory helmet laws do not inadvertently impede the broader goals of fostering active transportation, equity, and community well-being. Wearing helmets falls under “my body, my choice.” Mandatory bicycle helmet legislation and local helmet laws will only create more nanny state regulations that punish ordinary people who want to choose to wear cycle helmets themselves. Do you think California or Texas should force compliance on bicycle riders with a statewide helmet law to decrease head injury claims? We encourage bike riders to sound off and let us know!
Michael Ehline is an inactive U.S. Marine and world famous legal historian. Michael helped draft the Cruise Ship Safety Act and has won some of the largest motorcycle accident settlements in U.S. History. Together with his legal team, Michael and the Ehline Law Firm collect damages on behalf of clients. We pride ourselves in being available to answer your most pressing and difficult questions 24/7. We are proud sponsors of the Paul Ehline Memorial Motorcycle Ride, and a a Service Disabled Veteran Operated Business. (SDVOB.) We are ready to fight.
Go here for for More Verdicts and Settlements