The board of health... began to scrutinize the helmet rule in 2020 after an analysis of court records from Crosscut, a local news site, showed that it was rarely enforced, and enforced disproportionately when it was. Since 2017, Seattle police had given just 117 helmet citations, over 40 percent of which went to people who were homeless. Since 2019, 60 percent of citations went to people who were homeless. A separate analysis from Central Seattle Greenways, a safe streets advocacy group, found that Black cyclists were almost four times as likely to receive a citation for violating the helmet requirement as white cyclists. Native American cyclists were just over twice as likely to receive one as white cyclists....
You know, I laughed at the headline, but I've got to say, good. And this is the argument against too many rules. Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family. This is a rule like that. And let the presumption always be against requiring people to do something, because this danger of unequal enforcement is always lurking.
I know you're going to say but maybe black people are less likely to wear helmets, but I really don't care, because my point is the presumption should be against restrictions.
Posts
105 comments:
Progressive nanny-staters know what is best.
"Progressive nanny-staters know what is best" — well, the "nanny-state" approach is to require helmets. Here, they are recognizing the problem with nannyism — that you don't believe in your rules enough to stop you from letting your friends get away with not following them. The switch is to libertarianism: Make your own decision about whether to wear a helmet.
Good? Laws are falling all over the place on the justification that too many Black people violate them, including the non-prosecution of burglary, grand larceny, robbery, etc.
Seems rather racist to me.
Maybe replace the helmet law with Emergency Government Warnings.
but I've got to say, good. And this is the argument against too many rules.
Hmmm. That sounds like a libertarian argument.
I know you're going to say but maybe black people are less likely to wear helmets...
I suspect they are much like periwigs and don't fit well over an afro.
Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family.
Won't be many rules left if that is the standard.
Too many rules is always bad.
They should get rid of 80% Of them and life would seriously improve.
Okay, now analyze vaccine mandates.
I agree that we have too many rules and laws that only protect people from themselves, such as this helmet law. I would make a different point: it seems that we are in an era when, if a crime or misdemeanor is not perpetrated evenly according to any sub-group’s demographic (race, sex, age, etc.), then it cannot possibly be held as a fair rule and must be abandoned. In this case, it’s not only race, but social status (homeless vs. non-homeless). Since any given rule/law will no doubt be violated along lines that don’t match all demographics, we can conclude that we cannot have laws and rules that are enforced. That is the reasoning that is being used here in this case, not a reasoning that asks why we have that rule/law in the first place.
I do not always wear a bike helmet... and I often wonder if I will get in trouble in my nanny-state paradise.
Meanwhile, real crime is approaching insane levels.
or course it is good to roll back nanny-state laws. I'm all for it! my point with "Progressive nanny-staters know what is best" = my sarcastic nod at the very nanny-state that would produce something like a bike helmet requirement. tis' all.
… but I really don't care …
Of course not.
People who don't like wearing helmets, and therefore won't ride bikes are probably more negatively affected health wise than if they simply rode their bikes without helmets and took their risks.
I have experience with people in my life not wearing a helmet and almost dying.
So I make it a rule to always wear one when on a bike, etc.
If bums, junkies, native Americans, etc. don't want to wear them, I'm OK with that.
With the proviso that if they can't afford brain surgery, they will die.
The state should be under no obligation to pay for their folly.
...because this danger of unequal enforcement is always lurking.
I know you're going to say but maybe black people are less likely to wear helmets, but I really don't care, because my point is the presumption should be against restrictions.
So we're gonna run with how about we just say that...
If a person riding a bike without a helmet has an accident resulting in a head injury should the hospital refuse to treat them? Wasn’t that the approach some people wanted in reference to the Covid vaccine?
You know, I laughed at the headline, but I've got to say, good. And this is the argument against too many rules. Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family.
Wait.
You vote for democrats then you write something like this?
Your cause and effect relationships are way out of wack.
Read Ann's comment at 10:08 and substitute the word "masks" for "helmets". She would be right on both counts.
My take: AA comes out in favor of freedom. In this case the freedom to decide for yourself whether to wear a helmet or not (masks anyone?) based on your own assessment of risk. AA shall now be disparaged as a "right winger" by all the elitist rule-makers and influencers in our formerly respected institutions.
Is wearing a bicycle helmet a public good? Wearing a helmet should reduce the load on emergency vehicles, emergency rooms, the healthcare system etc.
One alternative would be to not aid or care for people injured while riding a bicycle un-helmeted.
911 ... What is your emergency?
"My friend crashed his bicycle and is lying unconscious in the street."
Is he wearing a helmet?
Now do fun control!
tommyesq said...
Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family.
Won't be many rules left if that is the standard.
The problem here is not the rules.
It is the rulers.
A system requires integrity in leadership in order to be more free.
The difference between a free society and a standard corrupt tyranny is adherence to the system which delivers the proper balance between Justice and Mercy.
*gun control. Lol. But fun control works too.
In Seattle, Portland and Boulder, I imagine a room full of curly-gray haired schoolmarm look-alikes at the local city council pronouncing their intent to require bike helmets, shopping bag taxes and sugary drink taxes.
The Nanny staters will save us!
Forget the needle parks, the meth, the graffiti, the violent gang crime, the shop-lifting, the arson, the antifa nazis and BLM looters.... Surgery drinks! surgery drinks!
You are also more likely to be shot dead while black. So, bike helmets are kind-of a non-issue.
Hearing of the statistical discrepancies, I am reminded about the stories told tome of encounters with police in traffic stops. They related how they complained and challenged the officer writing the ticket, and the second ticket, and third ticket, until they realized the cop was going to keep writing as long as the driver was going to keep challenging his mothers honor. How many of those ticketed would have gone without ticketing, if they had complied with the officers request? Homeless people are know to be confrontational.
Even outside that dynamic, what is the racial population makeup of the precinct writing the tickets?
Giuliani, said in an interview, that NYC did an analysis of 911 calls. 70% came from black neighborhoods. It will follow that those 911 responses will be disproportionate arrests of blacks as compared to the racial breakdown of whole population.
Statistical breakdown only, is a bad way to make decisions. I recall, the Notorious RBG, explained that once.
IIRC, back in the 60's, Nederland CO had a rule about wearing underpants. Unequal enforcement was the intent.
The state should be under no obligation to pay for their folly.
It's the State of Definition "folly" that ruins your conclusion. Donating to a civil right protest can be folly, due all sort of State mischief.
Cant keep a job? No food stamps for YOU! All about choices, right?
But I really don't care.
Reminds me of the excellent BBC series The Irish R.M. together with its appearance on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre many years ago, hosted by Alistair Cooke.
As Alistair introduced the show, he related the tale of an American expatriate friend of his who had moved to Ireland many years before. When Alistair visited him there, he noticed that his friend was still driving a 1950's-vintage American car — complete with 1950's-vintage American plates — license plates.
Alistair inquired of his friend: “Don't you ever get stopped?”
His pal looked pityingly at him, and replied: “Alistair — in Ireland — there's always somebody who just doesn't care!”
Not sure that observation still applies to 21st century Ireland, but that's the story. Too bad the DVD's of the Irish R.M. series (concerning the antics and culture clash between Irish vs. English in turn-of-the-20th-century Ireland) don't include Alistair's introduction….
The helmet rule pretty obviousy invites unequal enforcement. A cop driving down the street, sees a cyclist w/o a helmet, can easily and w/o fear of criticism drive on by. So the cop has an enormous amount of discretion as to whether to enforce the law or not. It is an invitation to abuse. Not every law has this defect. For example, if a cop sees an assault taking place, and drives on by, the cop is risking someone seeing this and complaining, and the cop may face discipline. It is not surprising that with the helmet law, cops exercise their enormous discretion to target black and homeless people. There was a video on twitter yesterday showing a typical teenage fight at a mall, two boys, highschool age, one white, one black. Typical escalation -- taunts, then a push, then fisticuffs. In this case, the white kid pushed first. Cops show up, tackle and hand cuff the black kid, the white kid left sitting on a sofa in the mall. White kid sees the unfairness, and asks to be handcuffed as well. You see something like, it it is not at all surprising that blacks riding w/o a helmet would get stopped way more frequently than whites w/o a helmet.
When younger,(and not responsible for anyone but ME) I motorcycled 10 to 15 thousand miles a year. A lot, for working 60 hours a week, and living in Iowa. But I always wore a helmet. Work was 5 miles away on a rural stretch of highway. Always a helmet. The Bar was 2 blocks away, always a helmet. But I never lectured anyone that did not.
We can have normal social interactions with women again without legal hassles.
Based on videos I have seen lately, helmets should be mandatory in NYC to protect people from getting hit from behind with baseball bats.....
If you don’t follow the rules you don’t get medical care seems to be the stick lately.....
In Boulder, we have gobs and gobs of stolen bikes. The thieves are untouchable. The local laws prohibit police from doing jack-all to stop it.
Now, citizens are taking things into their own hands. We are forming networks and getting bikes back on our own.
In the meantime, the curly-gray-haired ninnies who run the show, supported by the local democrat loyalists who would vote for Hitler if Hitler had a D behind his name, are clueless to make the connection, or place any sort of creativity in stopping all the crime.
The only creativity they can muster, is banning natural gas and sugary drinks.
But I do wonder? Should bike thieves be required to wear bike helmets?
I'm asking for the schoolmarms on the city council.
I worked in a road safety office, and helmets certainly came up. Here in Ontario helmets for bicycle riders are required for those under 18. Adults are more likely to be in traffic, at higher speeds, but they also tend to resist helmets; groups advocating for cycling, for fitness and environmental reasons, often don't like helmets or know their funders and supporters don't like them. Comfort, bogus reasons about hearing or sightlines. If a helmet rule discourages bike riding, this may be bad for fitness, environment, etc. People under 18 aren't required to have ID, and are unlikely to carry one unless it's a novice driver's licence. Do the police have the right to ask them for ID in relation to wearing a helmet while riding a bike? And yes, it may be true they're more likely to ask a kid who's not white: did you steal this bike?
I summed things up at one conference by saying (I wasn't really a researcher, but I was team lead in a research office): whether wearing a helmet on a bicycle improves your safety is questionable. The benefits of enforcing a helmet law are certainly questionable. The actual danger of riding a bike in traffic depends on circumstances. It's a bit like the trenches of World War I. The first few over the top face almost certain death. After that there is some safety in numbers, moreso as the numbers go up. Dedicated trails are much safer, but then it is cyclists vs. runners and dog walkers. Pray there is not a concealed carry law.
Then there are motorcycle helmets. They probably do some good in reducing brain injury from crashes; this may mean you remain aware of the fact that you are a quadriplegic. The motorcycle gangs in the U.S. have lobbied for no helmet laws. I don't think it's actually true that a motorcycle rider mangled in a crash has hurt or caused financial impacts only to himself.
Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family.
=========
did not editors used to have rule about fact-checking own grandma?
what happened to that?
Bicycle helmet rules were famously supported by POTUS Obama. Couldn't agree more with getting rid of it. All these progressive rules screw over all the people they will never meet or know. F that.
"Since 2019, 60 percent of citations went to people who were homeless."
They should have quoted Anatole France
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
A whole lot of information missing from Althouse’s excerpt. Do Black folks make up a disproportionate amount of the homeless? How many middle-class Black men were given citations? Hell, have you even ever seen a middle-class Black man riding a bicycle in Seattle?
The reality is, from the perspective of the police, is that such laws exist as a tool to confront, and move on, miscreants who are making nuisances of themselves. The notion that a SPD officer would otherwise walk two steps to cite someone for not wearing a bicycle helmet is absolutely laughable.
Could somebody please come up with a study that show Black people get pulled over for not wearing their seatbelt?
I am totally fine with abolishing this rule for the reasons already stated. I wouldn't ride a bike without a helmet, but that's just me.
Why would the wearing of helmets have any racial dimension? Is it that white people are more able to afford a helmet? That must be it!
Helmet equity! Get the bike shops to pay a surtax to fund this!
Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family.
========
let us try >>>> dont talk to strangers : ok/ not-ok
'enforce against' : unclear as to meaning and process
The switch is to libertarianism: Make your own decision about whether to wear a helmet.
Be careful... Libertarianism is a dangerous path. You start out opposing bike helmet mandates, and the next thing you know, you're promoting states' rights...
Me: "Officer why me, I was just keeping up with traffic."
Cop: "When you go fishing, do you catch every fish in the lake?"
Robin Hanson argues for private bounty hunters. If you want to stop riding without a helmet, put a $1,000 fine on it and give $500 to anyone that can prove someone else rode without a helmet. Totally eliminate discretion (favoritism) by cops, prosecuters, and judges. Do this for all crimes. We would quickly narrow our criminal laws. https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/01/privately-enforced-punished-crime.html#more-31715
One silver lining of the plague is that it is now years since I have had to jump out of the way of a bicyclist barrelling down the sidewalk or through a crosswalk. I am in favour of more draconian enforcement against bicyclists but I am happy to make an exception for helmet laws. Maybe if they feel themselves more at risk from a crash they'll be more considerate of pedestrians.
There should be a Federal helmet law, cameras at intersections, and facial recognition software so offenders can be identified and ticketed. Confiscation of bicycle after second offense.
It is clearly in the public interest to require helmets. In event of head injury with no helmet there should be no payments for medical care or Social Security disability.
Voters have chosen Legislators who removed medical care from the free market and placed it under Federal administration. Strict helmet enforcement is needed out of fairness to the stakeholders (taxpayers).
On the other hand, I still have vivid memories of what the Quebec Minister of Health said 20-30 years ago when they were legislating to require helmets for motorcycle riders. An angry motorcyclist said "It's nobody's business but our own if we want to risk dying by riding without a helmet!" and the MoH replied (add French Quebecois accent) "Oh, yes, you have that right. Unfortunately you do not always die, and then the rest of us must spend millions to keep you alive in your hospital bed, paralyzed, for many years until you do." That's all from memory, so no doubt inaccurate, but I have the gist. "Unfortunately, you do not always die" is seared (seared!) in my memory, word for word.
Of course, that's a stronger argument in a country with a national health system, but even in the U.S. hospitals are not allowed to dump a paralyzed motorcyclist on the street and let him die if he or his family can't pay his vast medical bills. We all end up paying his bills, one way or the other - or at least all of us who have any income.
Oh, and Crosscut used to be a news site. Now it’s a self-parodic catalog of absurdist Prog grievances and condescension to POCs. The fact that they even bothered to check the stats on bicycle helmet citations speaks volumes about their Python-esque lunacy.
One time I was riding with my wife, and a Helmeted stranger rode along side and shouted "Don't you know this city requires a Helmet!" He was quite angry. Frankly, I was shocked. Imagine telling a 40 year old man and his wife they need to wear a bike helmet.
I just said "thanks" and he rode on, still angry with steam still coming out of ears.
Rule enforcement lacking police involvement...
I very rarely ride without a helmet. Primarily because if I bust my head sometime, we all know what the follow up question will be after "What happened to you?"
A tire store wouldn't install two snow tires on my front wheel drive vehicle because it is too dangerous - the rear end will kick out in a turn and something about brakes or whatever.
I asked if two snow tires are more dangerous than no snow tires. The counter guy wouldn't answer. The question was essentially facetious, but if that is known to be the case I would have accepted yes as an answer. I think the answer is that the store can't be sued for not installing two. As a rule, businesses don't like to be sued.
Re: Cracker Emcee:
The reality is, from the perspective of the police, is that such laws exist as a tool to confront, and move on, miscreants who are making nuisances of themselves. The notion that a SPD officer would otherwise walk two steps to cite someone for not wearing a bicycle helmet is absolutely laughable.
Doesn't it depend on how easy it is to issue the ticket and how much money the government gets in fines? Apparently traffic cameras (which automate a lot of the the process of issuing tickets) have a vastly disproportionate impact on Black drivers (or at least drivers from Black neighbourhoods) in Chicago, but that isn't because the traffic police particularly want to confront Black miscreants. It's because their job is to issue fines so the government can get more money. Revenue is the point.
"because my point is the presumption should be against restrictions"
Someone's motto, "Less government, more responsibility and - with God's help - a better world"
.. because this danger of unequal enforcement is always lurking.
And see, here I thought Althouse was defending prosecutorial discretion back in the days of Obama and Holder and Loretta Lynch.
I don't think it's actually true that a motorcycle rider mangled in a crash has hurt or caused financial impacts only to himself.
Now do skiing, surfing, rock climbing (free climbing especially) and parachute jumping (wingsuits?).
If you don’t follow the rules you don’t get medical care seems to be the stick lately.....
That's the whole point of universal payer.
Interesting views from Althouse next to the post on Iglesias. Althouse noted the inherent bias in applying some laws while Iglesias is arguing for government sanctioned bias in applying laws against its political enemies. Isn’t the latter a much bigger threat to us all? After all, if I am cited for not wearing a helmet, I can still ride my bike with or without a helmet afterwards. But if my right to engage in nonviolent protest of government stealing my individual rights, and steal my bank account, and take away my license to operate a business, I am permanently harmed. The latter example obviously comes from Canada.
"Native American cyclists were just over twice as likely to receive one as white cyclists."
That stat jumped out at me. Can there be enough Native American bicyclists getting helmet violation tickets in Seattle to come up with a data point which can be used by the Times to prove racial discrimination against red skinned people?
Well, it's 2. Two tickets.
That's two as in one plus one.
Over 4 years. 2017 through 2020.
Any law protecting people from themselves should be repealed. There's no justification for it in a free society. Moreover, it's better for people to learn on their own how to stay safe and be alert to dangers than for them to assume that the government or anyone else will always keep them safe.
The argument that we need laws to protect people from themselves in order to avoid straining the health care system is nonsense. First, it assumes that the laws in question work better than having people make their own decisions. Second, nothing soaks up medical resources more than people living into their 80s or 90s.
Lily-white, leftist Seattle has a problem with black people not wearing bicycle helmets?
Uh-huh.
What happens if, after the fine is removed, the stats show that a disproportionate number of Seattle's BIPOCs suffer serious head trauma in bicycle accidents?
A separate analysis from Central Seattle Greenways, a safe streets advocacy group, found that Black cyclists were almost four times as likely to receive a citation for violating the helmet requirement as white cyclists. Native American cyclists were just over twice as likely to receive one as white cyclists....
Ok, and how more often were "Black cyclists" NOT wearing helmets than "white cyclists"? They don't say? So it's a garbage "study".
Imagine my shock
You know, I laughed at the headline, but I've got to say, good. And this is the argument against too many rules. Don't have rules you won't uniformly enforce — enforce against your friends and family. This is a rule like that. And let the presumption always be against requiring people to do something, because this danger of unequal enforcement is always lurking.
Entirely agree.
Note, I once had a bike accident where I flipped over my handlebars. Because I did NOT have a helmet on, I was able to cleanly land on my back, and walk away pretty much unhurt.
If I'd been wearing one of those helmets that sticks out at the back, I probably would have had a significant neck injury from that part of the helmet hitting the ground and pushing up my head.
Helmet mandates, like every other rule promulgated for "other people's own good" are bullshit
typingtalker said...
Is wearing a bicycle helmet a public good? Wearing a helmet should reduce the load on emergency vehicles, emergency rooms, the healthcare system etc.
One alternative would be to not aid or care for people injured while riding a bicycle un-helmeted.
911 ... What is your emergency?
"My friend crashed his bicycle and is lying unconscious in the street."
Is he wearing a helmet?
Is wearing a condom during a public good? Wearing a condom while having sex should reduce the load on the healthcare system.
AIDS would never have been a serious issue if we'd just forced all gay men to wear condoms whenever they had any sexual encounters.
So, how about we stop providing any insurance coverage / hospital support for people who have AIDS? After all, it's their own fault that they got it, right?
Or, how about you and all your fascist buddies shut the fuck up and stop believing that you have the right to make decisions for other adults.
You want health insurance to vary its costs based on your risk factors? We had that. ObamaCare got rid of it.
By all means, let's bring that back.
But until you're ready for that, FOAD
Is it possible that AA youths riding without helmets are targeted because of a suspicion that they stole the bikes?
Regardless of race, I suspect that kids riding expensive bikes without the usual biking gear may have stolen the bikes.
BTW, I live in the biking capital of the US - greater Tucson. The bicyclists here are extremely serious, well outfitted and often annoying to drivers. 99.9% wear helmets.
"the presumption should be against restrictions"
WTF? You mean after two years of mask mandates, and school closure mandates, and business closure mandates, and eviction moratoriums, and worker vax mandates, that should be the presumption?
In the real world, progs in power restrict what they want to restrict. The end.
If the Althouses of America want there to be a presumption against restrictions, they should vote the Dems out of power. Reveal your preferences.
I don't care whether other riders wear helmuts. I didn't use to wear one either but then I crashed, smashed my head against the concrete and suffered a bad concussion. Now, I wear one.
I do not know whether it would have actually protected me in that crash but, I don't think it would have made things worse. I just hope to never need to rely on it and, if I do, that it actually lives up to expectations.
What they should do is have a program to give bike helmets to people who need them. Bike helmets are not that expensive. Heck, cops could carry a few bike helmets with them in their cars. I always wear a helmet when I bike. I know I look like a dork, but I value my head too much to risk it.
BTW, I live in the biking capital of the US - greater Tucson. The bicyclists here are extremely serious, well outfitted and often annoying to drivers. 99.9% wear helmets.
I love driving west on Speedway to Gates Pass and into the Sonoran Desert. There are lots of bicyclists but there is no reason to drive fast. It is beautiful.
Are the majority of whites wearing helmets wearing them because they are racist? Should the police cite a certain number of whites who wear helmets in order to reach equity? It boggles the mind.
It's woke reasoning. But, getting rid of the rule is the right result.
It's woke reasoning. But, getting rid of the rule is the right result.
Q: What do you call a cyclist without a helmet?
A: An organ donor.
Things like bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets should not be forced on people. Seat belts for adults are also best left unregulated. I can see the other side, as it affects insurance rates for all bikers and motorists, but that can be written into individual choice insurance policies.
Rules that people aren’t going to follow teach people to disrespect rules. Rules that aren’t generally enforced will be enforced unevenly, teaching people to disrespect authority.
That's a nice photo AZ Bob. We have been there and need to find time to get back.
I live 15 minutes from Catalina State Park which has similar vistas. The "professional" cyclists are nowhere to be seen there. However, there are a few really gutsy mountain bikers and trail runners.
Regular bike helmets can be dangerous, because they restrain your head forcing the rotational velocity of your body to be applied to your neck. Get an MIPS or wave cell helmet with a STAR rating of 5. These have an inner liner that allows your head to slip inside the helmet to keep your neck from breaking and have better impact resistance.
Josephbleau said...
Regular bike helmets can be dangerous, because they restrain your head forcing the rotational velocity of your body to be applied to your neck. Get an MIPS or wave cell helmet with a STAR rating of 5. These have an inner liner that allows your head to slip inside the helmet to keep your neck from breaking and have better impact resistance.
I went looking for some, just for grins.
They cost more than my last bike did.
I'd rather just drive, and live someplace where driving is better than biking for getting where you want to go
While I favor wearing bike helmets, I don’t think it should be legally required. Enforcing such a law seems like a waste of public resources
in the era of police defunding and law enforcement shortages. There is now a serious shortage of people entering law enforcement, plus lots of police retirements and resignations. Police in most big cities have much more serious issues to address with their reduced numbers than bicycle helmets. Moreover, I think that police stopping cyclists on busy roads might be quite dangerous for the cyclists.
Police encounters with unhelmeted riders strikes me as quite random and rare and thus impossible to enforce fairly.
A bicycle thief doesn't always have a helmet with him or her, but needs to ride away on the stolen bike, so the rule discriminates against bicycle thieves.
I thought ly*ft was matching drivers of color with passengers given how many people of color I was/am picking up.
But then it occurred to me that maybe ly*ft ridership might be predominantly of color. So what might appear to me as nefarious, as in segregation, what might’ve happened was do to numbers doing what numbers do.
If more blacks ride more blacks might be susceptible to the application of bike rules.
And let the presumption always be against preventing people from doing something, because unequal enforcement almost always occurs.
Speedway to Gates Pass and into the Sonoran Desert.
Great place, we used to go out there in the 1970s to do some "song bird shooting" with revolvers, because we'd heard it was a federal crime. Never came close to hitting one. (it was actually just plinking). No bicycles back then that I recall.
I should say Helmets and high visibility contrasting clothing comprised of such a square inch ratio as necessary to catch the attention of drivers. Like hunter orange. Many more bicyclists are injured than deer hunters around here. Helmets are not stylish, perhaps that's why people avoid them.
Blogger madAsHell said...
You are also more likely to be shot dead while black. So, bike helmets are kind-of a non-issue.
Prove it, and cite source(s).
Surgery drinks! surgery drinks!
Remember!! Spell check is your friend.
Silly me, I thought that was the whole Democrat platform - protecting the Blacks from their own failings.
Mad as hell... well I spelled 'sugary' correct the rest of the time. malfunction. sue m,e.
Diversity (e.g. racism), Equity, and Inclusion complements Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion. #HateLovesAbortion
Silly me, I thought that was the whole Democrat platform - protecting the Blacks from their own failings.
The DEI (e.g. marginalization of people of black) and DIE (e.g. Jew privilege) platforms are used for leverage in their pursuit of capital and control.
Make stupid laws, get stupid enforcement, and get unpleasant stupid outcomes.
It all holds together.
We only ever read of these racist police behaviors in blue cities where everyone votes Democrat. The klan must still be strong with them.
loudogblog said...
What they should do is have a program to give bike helmets to people who need them. Bike helmets are not that expensive.
--
Very typical approach folks continue to apply to a huge proportion of homeless who want nothing to do with convention.
It's like giving condoms to teens raised to be failures if not a mom before 18.
Bike and motorcycle helmet laws swing back and forth every once in a while, as there are arguments for and against such mandates versus free choice. I've fallen off enough bikes to wear as protective a helmet as I can find, no matter how goofy.
Reason #837 why I am ecstatic that I escaped from that place.
The danger,is,not unequal enforcement, it's enforcement per se. Ask yourself whether you want cops with guns coming to enforce the ruke, because that possibility is behind every rule. Jyst Asterix Garner.
The switch is to libertarianism: Make your own decision about whether to wear a helmet."
No it isn't - it's a new rule: Think about race before putting on your helmet. Meet the new rule, same as the old rule.
Richard Fagin said...
The danger,is,not unequal enforcement, it's enforcement per se. Ask yourself whether you want cops with guns coming to enforce the ruke, because that possibility is behind every rule. Jyst Asterix Garner.
Yep. Before you support any law, ask yourself this:
Do I think it's appropriate for a cop to point his gun at someone's head, and say "do this / stop doing this or I will kill you"?
If your answer is "no", then the law should not be passed.
You can't have the rule of law, unless it's right and proper to shoot people for resisting arrest
Bike and motorcycle helmet laws swing back and forth every once in a while, as there are arguments for and against such mandates versus free choice. I've fallen off enough bikes to wear as protective a helmet as I can find, no matter how goofy.
Helmet laws increase injury to riders as it encourages riskier behavior. The Peltzmann Effect.
Good luck getting a law passed that tells insurance companies they can just charge people more if the riders volunteer that they won't wear helmets or seat belts. They reward some safety features, but I doubt they can ask you if you intend to go helmetless and then charge you more.
The world does not work this way, which is pretty much all you have to say to disprove any libertarian argument.
Insurance rates also vary wildly by zip code based on the number of uninsured motorists. So we pay for those in our region who refuse to get insurance, usually illegals. This isn't freedom: it is lawbreakers forcing costs onto other people. The law abiding are universally punished with higher insurance rates, while the criminal element avoids consequences--until they don't. And then we get to pay for their medical care too, not to mention the effect on anyone injured or killed by them.
Even a libertarian can think this one through. Also, has anyone considered that it is the politically active cyclists themselves demanding these laws, not imaginary granny in the corner? Not that I have a dog in that fight either way, except to thank all the future and past organ donors created by helmetless bikers.
Insurance rates also vary wildly by zip code based on the number of uninsured motorists. So we pay for those in our region who refuse to get insurance, usually illegals
No, you pay for having a government that welcomes illegals, instead of working to drive them out.
While I'm guessing you didn't vote for that government, the majority of your neighbors did.
Think of it as just another tax they're imposing on you. If you don't like said tax, move.
That's what I did
"too many rules"
Great tag, important idea.
If you're not willing to enforce it against your family, don't make it a rule.
So many many Dems without masks, so very very often.
What is amazing to watch is the behavior of the left and the left-leaning... It's quite like the way a flock of birds or a school of fish manages to move in unison: Somehow, the coordination is made, apparently through telepathy, and all conform, all at once.
Amazing to observe, really. I'm in awe of how they do it. Yesterday, helmets mandatory because safety. Today, helmets are bad, mmmkay, 'cos those poor incapable minorities simply can't cope.
Y'all really need to make up your 'effing minds. Either blacks are fully capable of being full citizens alongside everyone else, or they're perpetual children, in need of keepers and who shouldn't have even basic civil rights because they're incapable of exercising them responsibly. Which is it, people? You cannot have it both ways.
What is amazing to watch is the behavior of the left and the left-leaning... It's quite like the way a flock of birds or a school of fish manages to move in unison: Somehow, the coordination is made, apparently through telepathy, and all conform, all at once.
Amazing to observe, really. I'm in awe of how they do it. Yesterday, helmets mandatory because safety. Today, helmets are bad, mmmkay, 'cos those poor incapable minorities simply can't cope.
Y'all really need to make up your 'effing minds. Either blacks are fully capable of being full citizens alongside everyone else, or they're perpetual children, in need of keepers and who shouldn't have even basic civil rights because they're incapable of exercising them responsibly. Which is it, people? You cannot have it both ways.
Post a Comment