Man challenges bike helmet law in BC

[wthwyt]

I have no problem with anyone not wearing a helmet as long as that person will sign a wavier with BC Ministry of Health.
Any head injuries suffered while riding without a helmet is at your own personal expense.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... t-law.html



IMO not wearing a helmet is pretty stupid.

[36Drew]

Not wearing a helmet is stupid. However, before you insist that he pay for his own injuries, how about those involved in:

Skiing accidents, particularly involving the head and in the absence of a helmet.
Sports injuries
Cheerleading injuries - everything from twisted ankles to broken backs.
Whatever your favourite pastime is, because it's sure to have some risk associated with it.
Injuries from motorvehicle accidents where driver error/inattention/negligence is involved (ie., all of them). It's still a form of insurance, publicly funded (in BC), and an individual's lifelong premiums certainly wouldn't cover a single accident involving serious medical treatment. If you cause an accident, perhaps you should pay for your own medical care?

There's inherent risk in everything that we do. All risk is preventable. Just because somebody's taking a risk with an activity that you personally don't agree with doesn't negate that they should receive the same level of care that everybody else does. Society should be *promoting* safety equipment to help prevent life-changing and life-threatening injuries - however, legislating it is far too overboard. My personal take on it is that only a complete and total idiot would forgo the use of such basic safety equipment. Those that would choose to do so will have an increased probability of meeting an early demise, thus removing themselves from the gene-pool (hopefully before it's too late).

[fvkasm2x]

Yes Drew, but there aren't laws against skiing, cheerleading, etc...

There is a law for bikes, etc... regarding helmets. If he wants to circumvent those laws, then he does it on his own dime.

[wthwyt]

Yes Drew, but there aren't laws against skiing, cheerleading, etc...

There is a law for bikes, etc... regarding helmets. If he wants to circumvent those laws, then he does it on his own dime.

Exactly fvkasm2x.

[36Drew]

I realize there's a law for cyclists wearing helmets. What you are missing is that I agree with the gentleman arguing that law. Either the law is unnecessarily or unfairly targeting cyclists, or we should be expanding such nanny-state laws to cover all sporting activities that carry similar risks.

As for your statement re: paying on his own dime... have you ever been involved in a motor vehicle accident that was deemed to be your fault? Did the police attend and issue you a ticket for speeding/inattention/failing to yield/insert infraction here? That would mean that you voilated a law. Did you pay for any damages or injuries out of your own pocket, or did you let the publicly-operated insurance agency and bc medical take care of those costs for you?

[dg3]

many more head injuries would be prevented if helmets were required in automobiles.

[fvkasm2x]

I realize there's a law for cyclists wearing helmets. What you are missing is that I agree with the gentleman arguing that law. Either the law is unnecessarily or unfairly targeting cyclists, or we should be expanding such nanny-state laws to cover all sporting activities that carry similar risks.

As for your statement re: paying on his own dime... have you ever been involved in a motor vehicle accident that was deemed to be your fault? Did the police attend and issue you a ticket for speeding/inattention/failing to yield/insert infraction here? That would mean that you voilated a law. Did you pay for any damages or injuries out of your own pocket, or did you let the publicly-operated insurance agency and bc medical take care of those costs for you?

I am not missing it, I just think you (as well as the "challenger") are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Why oppose something that obviously is intended for the common good?

The argument is essentially the same for seatbelts. Why doesn't this guy include that in his legal argument? He is forced to wear one of thsoe in a car as well.

As for your question:

Yes and Yes.

But the bill was just under $1000 and I thought it was smarter to pay out of pocket than raise my premiums.

[36Drew]

I am not missing it, I just think you (as well as the "challenger") are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Why oppose something that obviously is intended for the common good?

...because if we want to legislate protection for the common good, where does one draw the line? Laws enacted to provide protection against another's actions are good. Laws to protect you from yourself - that's the making of a nanny state.

The argument is essentially the same for seatbelts. Why doesn't this guy include that in his legal argument? He is forced to wear one of thsoe in a car as well.

I don't know. I hold seatbelt laws in the same regard as helmet laws. I think if somebody wants to ride around without their seatbelt on - all the power to them. Heck - I think if somebody wanted to ride their motorcycle buck-arse naked, no helmet - go for it.

I always ride with full protective gear, wear my seatbelt, and wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. I know better - but that comes from education and not legislation.

As for your question:

Yes and Yes.

But the bill was just under $1000 and I thought it was smarter to pay out of pocket than raise my premiums.

How about if you caused property damage or injury that was greater than the value of your premiums? Are you still willing to foot that bill, under the same circumstances?

[Woodenhead]

meh I always hated nanny state laws - hope the dude wins. (doubt it tho) Hey legislators - quit throwing a monkey wrench into Darwin's law! Stupid already breeds too damned fast.

for the record, I normally wear a bike helmet, but I believe it should be optional after 18.

[Oxl3y]

The guy is a tool, he wants to risk his life and why? Because he hates helmet hair? Shut the hell up and wear your helmet already...

[36Drew]

The guy is a tool, he wants to risk his life and why? Because he hates helmet hair? Shut the hell up and wear your helmet already...

I'll wear mine. You wear yours. He can skip the helmet if he wants.

Dead people don't breed stupid babies.

[Jo]

Interesting article about bike helmets:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

[MAPearce]

I have no problem with anyone not wearing a helmet as long as that person will sign a wavier with BC Ministry of Health.
Any head injuries suffered while riding without a helmet is at your own personal expense.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... t-law.html



IMO not wearing a helmet is pretty stupid.

Well I ride my bike lots...I love riding. Although I do believe wearing a helemt is the right thing to do, It is only because of the risk I take commuting along with all those monkeys with car keys that have crappy attitudes on the roads. If I'm going for a slow cruise on the greenway I leave my helmet at home. I think when The ministry if health ,ICBC, AND the OSMV sign a declaration to fix me, compensate me and deal PROPERLY with the idiot who caused any accident that injured me , I'd sign a waiver. But that won't happen.

I've ridden a bike for 43 years without any major incident, and the only fear I have is not of my behavior on the road but the behavior of the @sses that I am forced,by law, to travel with.

[RR24K]

For myself the risk of not wearing an helmet is little to high, just as high as riding on main routes in Kelowna. Which is why I ride sidewalks (pedestrians always get the right of way) on those routes unless they have proper bike lanes (example those along Enterprise). I have had few very close calls were having an helmet was good thing, but due to these close calls I stopped riding to-and-fro work. The improvements to 97 north of Reids corner I may return to riding to work.

To each his/her own, wear or don't wear.

It would be nice if motor traffic would give me as a cyclist as much respect as I give them, most do few don't. Its those few that will that cause problems, before you jump all over me. Yes I agree, those cyclists who choose to ride in groups or side-by-side are a problem. I am not one of them.

[Bagotricks]

I don't wear a helmet.

I learned to ride on a BMX in the 80's without a helmet - I learned to fall properly and protect my head.

I skateboarded for 6 years through Jr High - High school. Only wore a helmet on ramps, most street skating without a helmet. Again - I knew how to fall properly. I managed to huck myself off 8 stair sets for years without injury.

I watch kids fall today and they don't even put their arms out! Talk about Darwin - let the helmet do all the work? Jeez.

Helmets may save your noodle if you get t-boned by a car, or your head may crack open like a egg too. Its a crap shoot. Chances are if you get beaned by a car on a bike your not coming out well on top. Even then, most of the time its the cars fault for hitting the bike. Some people on this thread start to put the blame of increased health care costs on "not wearing a helmet" when infact its lazy, inattentive drivers running into bikes that are causing the accidents in the first place. Who are we going to blame here? Me after the fact I was tboned by a lady on a cell phone because I wasn't wearing a helmet? Can we start blaming shooting victims for not wearing bullet proof vests if they are in a high crime area too?

This law is obviously a nanny state law. I regularly run for exercise and take the same risks when I'm out on the street. Heck I could fall down the stairs while I'm walking to the corner store. As other posters have pointed out, there are many activities that are riskier than riding a bike that do not require a helmet.

Why don't we require people driving CARS to wear them? Don't tell me that wouldn't "prevent head injuries" as there are much more automobile accidents than bike accidents, at greater speeds and with greater force. What? You have a problem with messing your hair up? BUT ITS SAFTEY - blah blah blah.

I choose to uninsure my daily driver this summer and bike to work. I have had 3 run ins with cops this summer, and each time I was threatened with a ticket I explained my points and how the helmet law actually stops people from biking and listed off my points and the cops ignore me and leave me alone. What is funny is I only get harassed when I go downtown with a backpack. If I am on Abbott or anywhere else in the city police wont even bother - but go downtown and the "red zone" drug enforcement starts with harassing people on bikes without helmets.

As Woodenhead suggested - a under 18 law makes sense to me if we are going to "have" to have a helmet law. Kids cant concent. I am a adult however and can make up my own mind thanks.

Helmets are worth over 100 bucks. That's almost 2 months of insurance on my car. Why even bother trying to save money by biking?