Helmet Head

So I will reveal a little about myself in this posting.  Yes, I live in King county in Washington State.  No big surprise there...

So most that know me would be unsurprised that I am against bicycle helmet laws.  I think it should be my choice whether I should or not wear a helmet.  Well in King County the department of health (no idea what they actual do) enforce a helmet law.  Now let me say I think it is a good idea to wear a helmet and I do, however I feel like it should be a personal choice.  I also 100% support health insurance company's option to not pay medical expenses on a bicycle if you are NOT wearing a helmet.  I think that is fair because it allows you to craft a policy which covers your lifestyle but I digress.

So anyway the booklet they give you when you buy your bike says there are 1000 injuries on a bike this year (way under the actual number based on the shittiness of drivers around here) and that 750 of them are head injuries (a claim I set out to prove wrong).  For reference here is the organization that puts out the booklet.

(Ok, first of all why does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have a section on bicycles?  You can't even ride a bike on the highway.  This is another example of government bloat.  If I was elected president I would at least make sure all of this shit was in the correct places.)  So the NHTSA has a booklet on helmet laws, one of the things it says is that helmets are the best way to avoid head injuries.  Really no shit.  Do apples fall down or up?  Please don't keep me on the edge of my seat.  What would do better (no cycling?) putting a huge foam #1 hand on your head.  Come on we pay for this shit?  (Again I completely encourage people to wear helmets, including children but making it required is stupid.)  Well they conducted a study which included statistics on helmet use, summary here (really who pays for this stuff?).  Basically a lot of people don't wear  them.  Which is interesting to me given how many people use them around here.  Also interesting is that helmets cost too much was a major factor for a lot of people (maybe if the government stopped legislating this the cost would go down or make it optional).  Here comes the bicycle helmet tax break (I am sure it already exists ).  (I am glad we have tax code for bicycle tires by the way too.  Does anyone think the cost of applying this portion of the tax code outweighs the benefits?)

There is a couple of interesting links on this site about helmets and various other bike laws.  I have to say to Seattle, 'There are other preventable injuries why single out this one to legislate on.  For instance, use cameras to ensure safe driving speeds, outlaw the sale of tobacco and alcohol, etc.  Why pick on one, it seems stupid.'

Anyway I finally found the law (it took forever).  What is frustrating is that all of the research is on child deaths and injuries yet the law applies to all people.  Why should someone else put their morality on me?  What if I want to live on the edge?  People can still sky-dive can they not.

Now let me summarize the other side of the coin because the intent has value and I don't want to trivialize that.  Basically the law is meant to protect people from themselves.  If they decide not to wear a helmet the city has stepped in and said that it is important enough that everyone be safe that they have a law.  I mean who wants their neighbor to be a vegetable because of brain damage.  Most accidents with bicycles happen because of bad drivers (in cars).  And since the city acknowledges that it will not properly regulate the drivers in the area they are trying to mitigate the risks when they do hit bicyclists.  The law also affects emergency rooms because that is where you will be taken once hit and the helmet is seen as a required cost to prevent the city from picking up the bill for putting your head back together.

I have already stated my thoughts on this.  I would wear one anyway but I don't feel like I should be forced to do it.