New bill in CA would require helmets for everyone and reflective gear after dark!

[malbecman]

No idea if it will pass but I'm sure this will stir up some controversy.


SB 192, authored by Senator Carol Liu of Glendale, introduced yesterday. It would require all bicyclists--not just those under 18--to wear helmets. What's more, anyone bicycling during hours of darkness would have to wear high-visibility safety apparel, which would include a retroreflective vest, jacket, or shirt that meets specified standards.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB192

Existing law prohibits a person under 18 years of age from operating a bicycle, riding on a bicycle as a passenger, or riding in a trailer towed by a bicycle unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet meeting specified standards. A violation of those provisions is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $25.
This bill would require every person, regardless of age, to wear a bicycle helmet when operating a bicycle, riding on a bicycle as a passenger, or riding in a trailer towed by a bicycle. The bill would also require a person engaged in these activities in the darkness to wear retroreflective high-visibility safety apparel, as specified. Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . without active local enforcement it's useless. I'll skip over the civil liberties and equal treatment of road users aspects.

Once again legislators seeking to LOOK like they are solving a problem when they really aren't. It's just to make them look like they are doing something.

BBD

[jmoore]

Are there bike share programs this would effect in CA? I'm sure there are. City of Dallas just repealed the helmet laws because of our (crappy) bike share program.

[etu]

. . . without active local enforcement it's useless. I'll skip over the civil liberties and equal treatment of road users aspects.

Once again legislators seeking to LOOK like they are solving a problem when they really aren't. It's just to make them look like they are doing something.

BBD

1+
Let's not get into the civil liberties aspect
Still think fondly about sitting on pile of newspapers on the back of a pickup truck on our monthly recycling run as a Boy Scout back in the day...

Oops, I think I went there.

[abalone]

Once a province, state, or other land governed mass has erected enough laws to keep people safe, lawmakers really do not have much of a role. So, a lawmaker / legislator would basically not do a whole lot of anything unless they can continually change, update, and create new laws. Alot of these laws are unnecessary, but this is where we have evolved in most of our state legislatures.

[JAllen]

Once again legislators seeking to LOOK like they are solving a problem when they really aren't. It's just to make them look like they are doing something.

BBD

+1

Never mind addressing what actually keeps people safe, like halfway decent bike infrastructure and driver education. Or maybe better enforcement the laws ALREADY in the books regarding distracted driving.

I think this does more to sooth the minds of overbearing parents and drivers who can't be bothered to slow down or take responsibility of operating a vehicle.

[Saint Vitus]

+1

Never mind addressing what actually keeps people safe, like halfway decent bike infrastructure and driver education. Or maybe better enforcement the laws ALREADY in the books regarding distracted driving.

I think this does more to sooth the minds of overbearing parents and drivers who can't be bothered to slow down or take responsibility of operating a vehicle.

Yes, because the cost of additional enforcement and training is negligible and whatever fines are collected might cover that cost. Bike infrastructure, driver training programs? That 5h!t costs money, no one wants to spend anything for reasonable dare I say, worthy ideas.

[JAllen]

Yes, because the cost of additional enforcement and training is negligible and whatever fines are collected might cover that cost. Bike infrastructure, driver training programs? That 5h!t costs money, no one wants to spend anything for reasonable dare I say, worthy ideas.
Totally. It would require a few lawmakers who were disciplined enough to stay the course. I'm sure there are quite a few loopholes that could be closed and allocation of funds to make that happen. Rob Peter to pay Paul. Honestly, the infrastructure needs work anyways. If people could just understand that cars aren't the total answer to transportation needs, then other modes, I.e. pedestrians and cyclist, will be able to have a slice of that pie.

[unterhausen]

does California have a vulnerable road user law? Because that's probably what they should be working on. Additional safety requirments are just a way of keeping down the underclass

[aramis]

^^^ yup. A law like that would affect the homeless population and casual cyclist the most. It deters regular people from riding a bike and is yet another way to punish the poor in my opinion. I Love riding around the neighborhood or to the store without a helmet, too.

[brando]

This is probably some idiotic tit-for-tat law because the 3-foot rule requiring drivers to drive with some common sense just recently went into effect. :banana:

[Bradford]

You can't drive a car a night without lights. You can't fly a plane at night without lights. You can't drive a boat at night without lights. But somehow its a crazy idea to say people using bikes on public roadways at night need to be seen also? That just doesn't make sense.

I ride with reflective bits on my bike, reflective clothes, and lights at night. I do so because it is safer for me and safer for drivers who don't want to hit me. I really wish other people would as well. If they won't, I love for a law to force them to. Just like I love that all the cars around me have to have functioning lights so I can see them.

Laws like this are for the general good, they aren't being mean to cyclists. They are good for us and good for drivers. Think of the trauma you would suffer if you hit a cyclist dressed like a ninja, like the one I drove by earlier this week and didn't see until I was a few feet behind him.

My only beef is that the law should allow front and rear lights as reasonable substitutes.

[gasman]

You can't legislate everyone's actions. I wish the students around the University here had lights or reflectors on their bikes. I've almost hit several as well as ninja skaters. It's not going to ever happen.
But even if the law is passed I can't imagine it would have strong enforcement.

The bill will probably die in committee.

[pbarry]

You can't drive a car a night without lights. You can't fly a plan at night without lights. You can't drive a boat at night without lights. But somehow its a crazy idea to say people using bikes on public roadways at night need to be seen also? That just doesn't make sense.

I ride with reflective bits on my bike, reflective clothes, and lights at night. I do so because it is safer for me and safer for drivers who don't want to hit me. I really wish other people would as well. If they won't, I love for a law to force them to. Just like I love that all the cars around me have to have functioning lights so I can see them.

Laws like this are for the general good, they aren't being mean to cyclists. They are good for us and good for drivers. Think of the trauma you would suffer if you hit a cyclist dressed like a ninja, like the one I drove by earlier this week and didn't see until I was a few feet behind him.

My only beef is that the law should allow front and rear lights as reasonable substitutes.

+1 Thank You.

We all share the road, let's share some visibility. Even really old cars are required to have front and rear lights, and turn signals..

[Elefantino]

Requiring lights and helmets doesn't strike me as a grab-the-pitchforks type of rallying cry.

If the law passes you can still ride without lights or helmets. On a trainer, or rollers.

[Coluber42]

Has anyone looked into the background of this? Often stuff like this is just grandstanding by someone who has a momentary ax to grind but isn't really that interested in following it through, doesn't have other support, and just wants to be able to feel like they did something. It doesn't mean it's serious enough to start a letter-writing campaign about.

Lots of states have laws requiring headlights and tail lights, and sometimes ankle or pedal reflectors or wheel reflectors. I'd bet that most cops in my state don't even know that ankle or pedal reflectors are required, and I've never once heard of anyone being pulled over for not having them. Headlights and tail lights are obvious things to require, plus they are very easy to check for and to enforce. There are no questions about measuring square inches or checking certification labels. And a bicyclist with a decent headlight and a decent tail light *should* be sufficiently visible under most conditions.

That doesn't mean additional reflectivity isn't a good idea; but "a good idea" and "should be required by law" are not the same thing. Cars are required to have headlights, tail lights, and turn signals, but they aren't required to have reflective material on their sides. Trucks and oversized vehicles are required to have it, so it's clear that they're extra large. It might not be a bad idea to put reflective tape all over your car, either, but it's not required by law.

Unfortunately, the things that might actually reduce collisions like reducing speed limits or increasing fines for things like passing too close, riding the wrong way, or increasing enforcement of existing laws on a statewide level, are all complicated and politically difficult. It's pretty unambiguous that reducing speed limits reduces traffic fatalities, but the mere suggestion generates howls of protest. People don't like being told not to do stuff they're used to doing every day. Saying you're going to tell bicyclists to wear reflective vests is easy.

[brando]

You can't drive a car a night without lights. You can't fly a plan at night without lights. You can't drive a boat at night without lights. But somehow its a crazy idea to say people using bikes on public roadways at night need to be seen also? That just doesn't make sense.

I ride with reflective bits on my bike, reflective clothes, and lights at night. I do so because it is safer for me and safer for drivers who don't want to hit me. I really wish other people would as well. If they won't, I love for a law to force them to. Just like I love that all the cars around me have to have functioning lights so I can see them.

Laws like this are for the general good, they aren't being mean to cyclists. They are good for us and good for drivers. Think of the trauma you would suffer if you hit a cyclist dressed like a ninja, like the one I drove by earlier this week and didn't see until I was a few feet behind him.

My only beef is that the law should allow front and rear lights as reasonable substitutes.

As well-meaning as you hope your post sounds, it falls right into the trap. Front and rear lights are already the law in Cal. As are reflectors on bikes. Hence, why this law is ignorant. And then there's the required-helmet part...:banana:

[Dead Man]

You can't legislate everyone's actions. I wish the students around the University here had lights or reflectors on their bikes. I've almost hit several as well as ninja skaters. It's not going to ever happen.
But even if the law is passed I can't imagine it would have strong enforcement.

The bill will probably die in committee.

Oregon law does require lights at night - front and back. I'll find the ORS and post it. It's in the vehicle code.

[Dead Man]

Oregon law does require lights at night - front and back. I'll find the ORS and post it. It's in the vehicle code.

I was wrong... only reflector required in the back, visible to 600 feet when shined on with headlights. Front light must be visible to 500'.

ORS 815.280 - Violation of bicycle equipment requirements; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of violation of bicycle equipment requirements if the person does any of the following:
(a) Operates on any highway a bicycle in violation of the requirements of this section.
(b) Is the parent or guardian of a minor child or ward and authorizes or knowingly permits the child or ward to operate a bicycle on any highway in violation of the requirements of this section.
(2) A bicycle is operated in violation of the requirements of this section if any of the following requirements are violated:
(a) A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator of the bicycle to stop the bicycle within 15 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.
(b) A person shall not install or use any siren or whistle upon a bicycle. This paragraph does not apply to bicycles used by police officers.
(c) At the times described in the following, a bicycle or its rider must be equipped with lighting equipment that meets the described requirements:
(A) The lighting equipment must be used during limited visibility conditions.
(B) The lighting equipment must show a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front of the bicycle.
(C) The lighting equipment must have a red reflector or lighting device or material of such size or characteristic and so mounted as to be visible from all distances up to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlights on a motor vehicle.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of additional parts and accessories on any bicycle consistent with this section.
(4) This section does not apply to electric personal assistive mobility devices. Equipment requirements for electric personal assistive mobility devices are provided in ORS 815.284.
(5) The offense described in this section, violation of bicycle equipment requirements, is a Class D traffic violation.

[marciero]

Amazingly, the bill does not mention lights.

Edit- but as Brando points out, lights are already required.

[JAllen]

Is it a good idea to wear reflective clothing and/or have reflectors mounted? Absolutely! But the making it law aspect gets a little tricky. However, I feel VERY strongly about front and rear lights. That should be law everywhere. The helmet thing is a ridership killer... but maybe that's what they want...

[r_mutt]

I almost hit a pedestrian wearing no lights or reflectors last night. I think if you are out at night, and intend to cross a street, you should be required to wear lights and/or reflectors. helmets should be required for drivers as well. I hit my head on a windshield once, and if I was wearing a helmet, I wouldn't have received a concussion.

[oldpotatoe]

You can't drive a car a night without lights. You can't fly a plan at night without lights. You can't drive a boat at night without lights. But somehow its a crazy idea to say people using bikes on public roadways at night need to be seen also? That just doesn't make sense.

I ride with reflective bits on my bike, reflective clothes, and lights at night. I do so because it is safer for me and safer for drivers who don't want to hit me. I really wish other people would as well. If they won't, I love for a law to force them to. Just like I love that all the cars around me have to have functioning lights so I can see them.

Laws like this are for the general good, they aren't being mean to cyclists. They are good for us and good for drivers. Think of the trauma you would suffer if you hit a cyclist dressed like a ninja, like the one I drove by earlier this week and didn't see until I was a few feet behind him.

My only beef is that the law should allow front and rear lights as reasonable substitutes.

When I rode to and from work, going home at night, not a night went by when I didn't see some numbskull on a bike without lights. Often in dark clothes. In Boulder. The 'law' in Colorado says 'headlight and rear reflector' as a minimum. The 'law' in Colorado does nothing to ensure people ride with lights, this one in CA. won't either.

Enforce the existing laws, but you would need to triple+ the police force to do that, and that isn't going to happen.

[Dr Luxurious]

I see some (perhaps) unintended consequences.

In a car vs. bike incident this shifts the fault and financial responsibility to the cyclist.

"Well, Mr injured cyclist, you were wearing some reflective gear (helmet, lights, etc) but it wasn't approved gear, therefore my client, the guy in driving the 6 wheel pickup that was too wide for the narrow back road, bears no responsibility for this indecent. Furthermore, your bike left terrible scratches to the underside of my client's truck as it rolled over you and, as you are the one at fault, you responsible for his repairs."

^^^ yup. A law like that would affect the homeless population and casual cyclist the most. It deters regular people from riding a bike and is yet another way to punish the poor in my opinion. I Love riding around the neighborhood or to the store without a helmet, too.

yep. yep. the guys riding home from the restaurant jobs are the ones who will get ticketed the most.

[Mark McM]

If the legislators were really interested in saving lives, they'd mandate that helmets be worn while driving motor vehicles. Motorists suffer far more head injuries than cyclists (if only because their are far more motorists). But it is likely that there would be far more people objecting to such a law (again, if only because there are far more motorists), so the legislators are taking the easy way out by simply giving the appearance that they are interested in road safety.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I see some (perhaps) unintended consequences.

In a car vs. bike incident this shifts the fault and financial responsibility to the cyclist.

"Well, Mr injured cyclist, you were wearing some reflective gear (helmet, lights, etc) but it wasn't approved gear, therefore my client, the guy in driving the 6 wheel pickup that was too wide for the narrow back road, bears no responsibility for this indecent. Furthermore, your bike left terrible scratches to the underside of my client's truck as it rolled over you and, as you are the one at fault, you responsible for his repairs."

yep. yep. the guys riding home from the restaurant jobs are the ones who will get ticketed the most.

This legislation idea will spread like wildfire because:

A) It's feelgood legislation that allows politicians to claim they are solving a "problem" when it's for appearances only, like the three foot passing laws. They can even personalize the law and give it one of those cute sympathy stoking names like "Tom's (Palermo) law for cyclist safety" in Maryland, for instance. Many naive members of the public will be totally taken in and believe the (fictional) justification that it's to benefit cyclists.

B) It makes the pols look good to one of their core constituencies--drivers--without placing any responsibility on the motorist to actually do anything.

C) It gives the courts, the police, the media, and the public yet another way to blame those damn cyclists for their own injuries, since they deserved it anyway for just being out on the roads that we all know were made for cars. The arrogant, selfish comments sections on media stories will now refer to the cyclist not wearing a helmet AND deserving what happened to them because they weren't wearing day-glo everything.

BBD

[unterhausen]

I saw a story about a hit and run where the cops mentioned that the person was wearing a helmet and had lights but wasn't wearing any reflective gear. Funny thing was, the newspaper story showed the reflective gear that had been left behind when the cyclist was carted off.

[tlittlefield]

Here is NH it is a law that you need a light after sunset. I know people who have received tickets for not doing so, $50 fine.

[josephr]

. . . without active local enforcement it's useless. I'll skip over the civil liberties and equal treatment of road users aspects.

Once again legislators seeking to LOOK like they are solving a problem when they really aren't. It's just to make them look like they are doing something.

BBD

call me cynical, but I think a lot of these laws are perpetuated by insurance companies to mitigate claims and damages in event of accidents. $1M claim on a motorist hit-and-run on a cyclist who was in the hospital for a month? Hmm....weren't wearing a helmet as required by state law, so lets knock off a few zeros...

[Coluber42]

If we were really interested in saving lives, we'd lower speed limits, aggressively penalize moving violations, make it easier to revoke drivers' licenses and set a higher bar for getting them back, increase criminal penalties for driving without one, periodically re-test drivers, etc. Some of those things cost money, but they're generally cheaper per life saved than lots of other things we think are worth spending money on to save lives.
We are able to find the money and the political will for all kinds of intrusions and expenses in the name of addressing petty street crime; but lowering speed limits and seriously penalizing bad driving is politically untenable.

[Dead Man]

call me cynical, but I think a lot of these laws are perpetuated by insurance companies to mitigate claims and damages in event of accidents. $1M claim on a motorist hit-and-run on a cyclist who was in the hospital for a month? Hmm....weren't wearing a helmet as required by state law, so lets knock off a few zeros...

Exactly. It's just setting themselves up to be able to deny more claims in the future for liability exclusions. That's what ALL safety legislation is. I've gotten into this argument with many o' insurance-selling family members.

[malbecman]

Well, we do have a helmet law for motorcyclists in CA (and 19 other states, if I recall correctly).

Just to play devil's advocate.....If we want drivers to share the road with us and treat us with equal respect, shouldn't we also need to be subject to similar laws and have to wear a helmet?

(ducks head)

[r_mutt]

call me crazy, but if every cyclist wore a helmet, the world's drivers aren't going to turn on a dime and all of a sudden give cyclists more respect on the road. why should cyclists have similar laws to cars? are these 2 similar at all? should pedestrians who cross streets be required to wear reflective material?

[oldpotatoe]

Well, we do have a helmet law for motorcyclists in CA (and 19 other states, if I recall correctly).

Just to play devil's advocate.....If we want drivers to share the road with us and treat us with equal respect, shouldn't we also need to be subject to similar laws and have to wear a helmet?

(ducks head)

Hmmm. This is going to be interesting.

[aramis]

Well, we do have a helmet law for motorcyclists in CA (and 19 other states, if I recall correctly).

Just to play devil's advocate.....If we want drivers to share the road with us and treat us with equal respect, shouldn't we also need to be subject to similar laws and have to wear a helmet?

(ducks head)

It's not about the typical paceliner. It's about the homeless dudes that use bikes to get around, or the people without cars or the guy that wants to grab a bike share to get to the store. Bicycles are great options for people without means for other transportation and adding more barriers will reduce usage, which is a shame.

[oldpotatoe]

It's not about the typical paceliner. It's about the homeless dudes that use bikes to get around, or the people without cars or the guy that wants to grab a bike share to get to the store. Bicycles are great options for people without means for other transportation and adding more barriers will reduce usage, which is a shame.

So, if I was homeless, had an old POS Honda 50 to 'get around' in CA I shouldn't have to wear a helmet?

[Dead Man]

So, if I was homeless, had an old POS Honda 50 to 'get around' in CA I shouldn't have to wear a helmet?

You shouldnt have to wear a helmet anywhere.

[JAllen]

If we were really interested in saving lives, we'd lower speed limits, aggressively penalize moving violations, make it easier to revoke drivers' licenses and set a higher bar for getting them back, increase criminal penalties for driving without one, periodically re-test drivers, etc. Some of those things cost money, but they're generally cheaper per life saved than lots of other things we think are worth spending money on to save lives.
We are able to find the money and the political will for all kinds of intrusions and expenses in the name of addressing petty street crime; but lowering speed limits and seriously penalizing bad driving is politically untenable.
Amen.

[russ46]

I have two areas on my commute home that frequently have walkers, walkers w/dogs, runners & cyclists. Their "safety" equipment varies from nothing to reflective clothing, lights and both. With the exception of one cyclist, I can spot all of them soon enough to avoid hitting them. This all changes when I'm looking through the glare of an on-coming vehicle (especially one with the new super bright lamps). With the on-coming vehicle in the picture and even if I already know the walkers, etc. are there, they disappear from view.

Now, back to the one cyclist. I've passed this guy several times at night and when I do I see him at least a 1/4 mile away (even w/an on-coming car) and I know he's a cyclist. He has head and tail lights but what makes him standout is his reflective kit, which is very bright. I can easily see his legs pumping and can tell there is a body and head above the legs. Every time I see him I think there is one smart cyclist!!!

My point.....Laws or no laws, I personally do everything I can to be seen and standout - to me that's just common sense and we really can't legislate that.

[Dead Man]

I have two areas on my commute home that frequently have walkers, walkers w/dogs, runners & cyclists. Their "safety" equipment varies from nothing to reflective clothing, lights and both. With the exception of one cyclist, I can spot all of them soon enough to avoid hitting them. This all changes when I'm looking through the glare of an on-coming vehicle (especially one with the new super bright lamps). With the on-coming vehicle in the picture and even if I already know the walkers, etc. are there, they disappear from view.

Now, back to the one cyclist. I've passed this guy several times at night and when I do I see him at least a 1/4 mile away (even w/an on-coming car) and I know he's a cyclist. He has head and tail lights but what makes him standout is his reflective kit, which is very bright. I can easily see his legs pumping and can tell there is a body and head above the legs. Every time I see him I think there is one smart cyclist!!!

My point.....Laws or no laws, I personally do everything I can to be seen and standout - to me that's just common sense and we really can't legislate that.
I'd like to see some kind of data that supports the belief that all that crazy crap actually makes a difference. Such data probably doesn't exist.

My bright ass mini-blinky in the back and pretty bright white mini blinky up front are pretty doggon visible when it's dark, and I just don't see how you could possibly miss them in the black of night. I pass a lot of guys wearing what looks like 10-15 lbs of reflective material and vests and lights and helmets and crap, and the fast-and-light risk-mitigation alpinist in me just wonders if ditching all that crap and getting home faster, thereby exposing yourself to the objective hazard of the road less, wouldn't do you better.

[Mark McM]

Well, we do have a helmet law for motorcyclists in CA (and 19 other states, if I recall correctly).

Just to play devil's advocate.....If we want drivers to share the road with us and treat us with equal respect, shouldn't we also need to be subject to similar laws and have to wear a helmet?

(ducks head)

But cyclists already are subject to the same laws regarding the rules of the road - and in most places, that includes laws regarding helmet usage (motorists aren't required to wear helmets, either).

[oldpotatoe]

You shouldnt have to wear a helmet anywhere.

Not the point. If motorcycles have to wear helmets, why not people on bikes? Sake of argument. I think motorcycle helmets essential but don't like to be told to wear one( no M/C helmet law in CO, BTW).

[Dave Ferris]

SB 192, authored by Senator Carol Liu of Glendale, introduced yesterday. .

We are consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in the US to drive, along with pedestrian fatalities. Bikes have been the mix as of late adding fuel to the fire.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/09/24/study-glendale-drivers-ranked-most-dangerous-in-california/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/safest-and-most-dangerous-u-s-cities-to-drive/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/09/04/safest-least-safe-driving-cities/15063991/

Yes, Liu is just trying to appear pro-active. Ok well then hire more cops and get serious about cracking down on the certain ethnic group (some of my closest and most trusted friends are from this group , but sorry, generally speaking, they are at the root of the problem here in Glendale, it's no big secret) that blow stop signs & lights. And view speed limit signs only as a suggestion. They feel owning a Mercedes or Beemer gives them the right to do 60 in a 35 zone.

Why do you think I chose to drop the big bucks (to me) on a Potts mountain bike as opposed to a Vamoots or Pegoretti Duende ? Verdugo Mountains are much safer then the streets here..:bike:

[CunegoFan]

If we were really interested in saving lives, we'd lower speed limits, aggressively penalize moving violations, make it easier to revoke drivers' licenses and set a higher bar for getting them back, increase criminal penalties for driving without one, periodically re-test drivers, etc. Some of those things cost money, but they're generally cheaper per life saved than lots of other things we think are worth spending money on to save lives.

How about we start with aggressive laws and enforcement against texting while driving.

[Dead Man]

Not the point. If motorcycles have to wear helmets, why not people on bikes? Sake of argument. I think motorcycle helmets essential but don't like to be told to wear one( no M/C helmet law in CO, BTW).

It is the point - this is like so many arguments where people seem to think the problem of inequality is to make everyone equally LESS FREE.

I don't think I've ever heard an argument for a decrease in civil liberty for sake of equality that I've ever been OK with. I can't argue from that perspective - incompatible with my ideologies.

[malbecman]

But when we live in a society/civilization, we implicitly agree to curtail certain liberties for the overall greater good....here in crazy California, we have almost 39 million people now, all rubbing shoulders and bumping into one another (hopefully not on the bike).

From a public health perspective, maybe a helmet law would be good in reducing some injuries and fatalities. (although I totally agree with what other people have said about there being far more important enforcements such as texting & driving).


It is the point - this is like so many arguments where people seem to think the problem of inequality is to make everyone equally LESS FREE.

I don't think I've ever heard an argument for a decrease in civil liberty for sake of equality that I've ever been OK with. I can't argue from that perspective - incompatible with my ideologies.

[Dead Man]

But when we live in a society/civilization, we implicitly agree to curtail certain liberties for the overall greater good....here in crazy California, we have almost 39 million people now, all rubbing shoulders and bumping into one another (hopefully not on the bike).

From a public health perspective, maybe a helmet law would be good in reducing some injuries and fatalities. (although I totally agree with what other people have said about there being far more important enforcements such as texting & driving).

Curbing personal injury for the "greater good" is a contrivance of ethics.

See the comments about insurance companies above - helmet have nothing to do with public health or the greater good. It's $$$

[oldpotatoe]

It is the point - this is like so many arguments where people seem to think the problem of inequality is to make everyone equally LESS FREE.

I don't think I've ever heard an argument for a decrease in civil liberty for sake of equality that I've ever been OK with. I can't argue from that perspective - incompatible with my ideologies.

How about smoking in restaurants?

[Dead Man]

How about smoking in restaurants?

Now we're not talking about civil liberty. Businesses aren't individuals.

But if you want to go off on that side trail; sure, why not? Individuals, possessing the liberty to do, work, and spend when/where/how they chose, can chose to eat there or not, or work there or not. Smoking laws are kind of the penultimate expression of putting peoples' comfort above everyone elses' liberty. Smoking is is super annoying, and I can't stand it or the stink on the people who do it, but having to smell someone's cigarette while I eat my 2500 calorie meal is doing substantially less damage to my heath than the food, and breathing ambient city air in general.

Smoking bugs people, so people made it illegal. Yay laws! Moar!