11 ms·

King county Washington[1]. [1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prevention/traffic-safety/bicycle-safety.aspx#:~:text=It's%20the%20law!,

by blang 6y ago

King county Washington[1]. [1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prevention/traffic-safety/bicycle-safety.aspx#:~:text=It's%20the%20law!,age)%20must%20wear%20a%20helmet.&text=Avoid%20fines%2C%20fees%2C%20and%20injuries%20by%20wearing%20a%20bike%20helmet https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prev...!

Analemma_ 6y ago
It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.
- sneak 6y ago
  Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    Because they do not improve outcomes when a driver runs you over, the speeds involved are simply too high. When you do mountainbiking, a helmet protects you, speeds are lower, but not on the public roads.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      But it protects you if you fall off your bike.
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        That happens almost never.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        Just like getting hit by a car happens almost never? Anecdotally, I have never been hit by a car, but have fallen off my bike multiple times for a variety of reasons: bike entered the lane without warning while I was going downhill, I hit a rock on the road, front tire got caught in a groove in the road, …
        HarryHirsch 6y ago
        Falling off because of gravel on the road, grooved surface or other road hazards sounds too much like inattentive riding or speed unsuited to road conditions. A helmet would help in those cases, but better attention to the road would also be a good idea.
    - dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
      I cycle in a city and a know several people who have been hit by cars. None of them went under the car’s wheels. Half of them believe their helmet saved their life. It’s not as though you automatically die upon contact with a car, and of course it helps to have your head protected.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      In cities many accidents actually happen at relatively low speeds, e.g. the right hook, or dooring, or slipping on oil or wet leaves.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Helmets are big unwieldy things. They're not easy to carry, and are shaped such that even if you had a bag big enough for one, it would probably crowd out a lot of things that might also go in the bag (e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet) It is inconvenient to take spontaneous or quick bike rides if you have to lug a helmet around everywhere. Also, there is at least some debate about whether or not wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around you, since it looks like you're better protected. https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether-bike-helmets-are-actually-safe/ https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether...
    - angst_ridden 6y ago
      Personal anecdote, probably irrelevant. When we were kids in the 80s, we bicycled to school. My parents heard about bike helmets (which were pretty new at that time) and bought them for us. I kept mine on the back rack, because I thought they were utterly uncool. Then one day, a guy wasn't paying attention, ran a stop-sign at high speed when we were still in the intersection, and hit my sister's bike's front wheel. There was no way she could have gotten out of his way. I can still hear the THWACK of her helmet hitting the pavement. The helmet did its job, and absorbed the impact by cracking. She got out of the experience with a few days of pain. I've always worn a helmet after that.
      - bobthepanda 6y ago
        I don't think anyone argues that in specific incidents helmets are safer. The question is whether or not the second order effects of compulsory helmets outweigh the benefits for the individual, namely; - helmets make biking more inconvenient and compulsory usage of helmets suppresses cycling rates. In addition to the argument that is is a net negative because people get less exercise, there is also a second argument; because cyclists are less common, drivers are less familiar with how to interact with them, which leads to poorer judgement and more accidents per capita for the people still cycling. (In some cases, unfamiliarity also breeds anger and resentment; many a cyclist has a story of getting run off the road, drivers rolling coal at them, etc.) - drivers are generally overestimating confidence and safety when it comes to cycling. They may generally act more dangerously around people who look like they know what they're doing (e.g. the stereotype of the Lycra-clad road biker), which leads to more and deadlier accidents. As far as your sister's accident goes, there are two modes of thinking about it. One is to create more regulation, which generally tends to encumber the more vulnerable user (e.g. mandatory helmets), and depends on pretty much constant, vigilant enforcment; the other is to physically engineer a road environment where a high-speed intersection collision is less likely, if at all possible. (This may involve things like a tight roundabout to force slow speeds and paying attention; raising the crosswalks or even the entire intersection; narrowing the road and installing chicanes so that one cannot speed in a straight line down a road; or creating a shared space by removing all curbs and road markings so that one must pay attention because the environment is so uncertain and confusing.)
  - rags2riches 6y ago
    If one leaves it up to the law, it's easy. If not, it's basically an expression of personal weights assigned to a whole lot of fuzzy things. Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity? Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in between riding a car a car, climbing a tree, playing soccer with the kids, having a shower, walking up a staircase, cooking in your kitchen, walking near a pool, hiking in the hills... Your head can be hurt in so many ways. Wearing a helmet might save you. So why don't you do it more often?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      At least among certain demographics in the US, a very clear orthodoxy has emerged between uses where you must wear helmets vs. where helmet use would seem pretty silly for the most part. There's some logic in the categorization but almost certainly not the clear line that some people would like to think exists.
    - shreyansj 6y ago
      That sounds like a strawman argument. If you don't wear a helment while doing activity A, why wear it while doing activity B. To answer your question, perhaps because the common factor in all of these activities is that I am moving relatively slowly and my surroundings are basically stationary. These factors are void if I am riding a bike (or a motorcycle), where I might be moving at a few mph and there could be vehicles around me that might be moving even faster.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelt 6y ago
    Philosophically, I believe that personal responsibility cannot exist without without the freedom to make bad decisions; and that freedom cannot exist without at least sometimes being exercised. I think a person should have the right to cycle without a helmet regardless of the fact it may be inadvisable - just like they should have the right to take up skateboarding or skiing or boxing or cheerleading, even if that's even less advisable. And because I think it's an important right I'm going to exercise it, because a right that exists in theory but not in practice is a right that does not exist.
  - dmm 6y ago
    Do you wear a helmet while driving a car? Head injuries are a top cause of death in vehicle accidents something that helmets would significantly reduce. The truth is that you never even considered wearing a helmet while drivi g because driving is an ordinary activity that doesn't seem to require special equipment. In places where cycling is an ordinary activity people feel the same. It's not about statistics or the actual effectiveness of safety equipment. If it were you would start wearing a driving helmet tomorrow.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Your comment seems to presuppose that I am advocating for helmet-wearing, when I have done no such thing.
  - analog31 6y ago
    In my case, it's because the store is a few blocks away along a carefully chosen route. Otherwise, I wear one. It's saved me a couple times.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Because I have a narrow head and they make me look like a dork.
- imperio59 6y ago
  Like most laws in Seattle, they are rarely enforced, and if you do get arrested or cited, current prosecutors aren't actually interested in doing their job very much either.
- tiew9Vii 6y ago
  A stark difference to Sydney, Australia. I regularly see commuters getting fined cycling without helmets. The police favorite one is fining all the tourists on rental bikes. Most of the rental bikes don't have helmets as they go missing and as a tourist they are oblivious it's law to need a helmet while cycling in Australia. A big fine to! Most get tricked in to the relaxed tourism marketing image portrayed without realising Australia is one of the most litigious places in the world and bit of a nanny country.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  It's like the law where if you ride your bike on the road or sidewalk. It's 100% up to how busy the cop is that day and if he REALLY wants to write you a ticket.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Also, because this is the US, and Seattle in particular, police discretion means that some populations get the brunt of enforcement. Nearly half of helmet citations in Seattle are against homeless people. And that was where they could corroborate homelessness using easily identifiable records (noted in press, police reports, or the address on file was a homeless shelter) https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helmet-citations-go-homeless-people https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  It seems to be selectively enforced against certain demographics. There was a discussion[1] in /r/Seattle earlier 1. https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half_of_seattles_helmet_citations_go_to/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half...

by blang 6y ago

Analemma_ 6y ago

It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.

sneak 6y ago
Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  Because they do not improve outcomes when a driver runs you over, the speeds involved are simply too high. When you do mountainbiking, a helmet protects you, speeds are lower, but not on the public roads.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    But it protects you if you fall off your bike.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      That happens almost never.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Just like getting hit by a car happens almost never? Anecdotally, I have never been hit by a car, but have fallen off my bike multiple times for a variety of reasons: bike entered the lane without warning while I was going downhill, I hit a rock on the road, front tire got caught in a groove in the road, …
        HarryHirsch 6y ago
        Falling off because of gravel on the road, grooved surface or other road hazards sounds too much like inattentive riding or speed unsuited to road conditions. A helmet would help in those cases, but better attention to the road would also be a good idea.
  - dhnajsjdnd 6y ago
    I cycle in a city and a know several people who have been hit by cars. None of them went under the car’s wheels. Half of them believe their helmet saved their life. It’s not as though you automatically die upon contact with a car, and of course it helps to have your head protected.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    In cities many accidents actually happen at relatively low speeds, e.g. the right hook, or dooring, or slipping on oil or wet leaves.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Helmets are big unwieldy things. They're not easy to carry, and are shaped such that even if you had a bag big enough for one, it would probably crowd out a lot of things that might also go in the bag (e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet) It is inconvenient to take spontaneous or quick bike rides if you have to lug a helmet around everywhere. Also, there is at least some debate about whether or not wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around you, since it looks like you're better protected. https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether-bike-helmets-are-actually-safe/ https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether...
  - angst_ridden 6y ago
    Personal anecdote, probably irrelevant. When we were kids in the 80s, we bicycled to school. My parents heard about bike helmets (which were pretty new at that time) and bought them for us. I kept mine on the back rack, because I thought they were utterly uncool. Then one day, a guy wasn't paying attention, ran a stop-sign at high speed when we were still in the intersection, and hit my sister's bike's front wheel. There was no way she could have gotten out of his way. I can still hear the THWACK of her helmet hitting the pavement. The helmet did its job, and absorbed the impact by cracking. She got out of the experience with a few days of pain. I've always worn a helmet after that.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      I don't think anyone argues that in specific incidents helmets are safer. The question is whether or not the second order effects of compulsory helmets outweigh the benefits for the individual, namely; - helmets make biking more inconvenient and compulsory usage of helmets suppresses cycling rates. In addition to the argument that is is a net negative because people get less exercise, there is also a second argument; because cyclists are less common, drivers are less familiar with how to interact with them, which leads to poorer judgement and more accidents per capita for the people still cycling. (In some cases, unfamiliarity also breeds anger and resentment; many a cyclist has a story of getting run off the road, drivers rolling coal at them, etc.) - drivers are generally overestimating confidence and safety when it comes to cycling. They may generally act more dangerously around people who look like they know what they're doing (e.g. the stereotype of the Lycra-clad road biker), which leads to more and deadlier accidents. As far as your sister's accident goes, there are two modes of thinking about it. One is to create more regulation, which generally tends to encumber the more vulnerable user (e.g. mandatory helmets), and depends on pretty much constant, vigilant enforcment; the other is to physically engineer a road environment where a high-speed intersection collision is less likely, if at all possible. (This may involve things like a tight roundabout to force slow speeds and paying attention; raising the crosswalks or even the entire intersection; narrowing the road and installing chicanes so that one cannot speed in a straight line down a road; or creating a shared space by removing all curbs and road markings so that one must pay attention because the environment is so uncertain and confusing.)
- rags2riches 6y ago
  If one leaves it up to the law, it's easy. If not, it's basically an expression of personal weights assigned to a whole lot of fuzzy things. Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity? Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in between riding a car a car, climbing a tree, playing soccer with the kids, having a shower, walking up a staircase, cooking in your kitchen, walking near a pool, hiking in the hills... Your head can be hurt in so many ways. Wearing a helmet might save you. So why don't you do it more often?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    At least among certain demographics in the US, a very clear orthodoxy has emerged between uses where you must wear helmets vs. where helmet use would seem pretty silly for the most part. There's some logic in the categorization but almost certainly not the clear line that some people would like to think exists.
  - shreyansj 6y ago
    That sounds like a strawman argument. If you don't wear a helment while doing activity A, why wear it while doing activity B. To answer your question, perhaps because the common factor in all of these activities is that I am moving relatively slowly and my surroundings are basically stationary. These factors are void if I am riding a bike (or a motorcycle), where I might be moving at a few mph and there could be vehicles around me that might be moving even faster.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelt 6y ago
  Philosophically, I believe that personal responsibility cannot exist without without the freedom to make bad decisions; and that freedom cannot exist without at least sometimes being exercised. I think a person should have the right to cycle without a helmet regardless of the fact it may be inadvisable - just like they should have the right to take up skateboarding or skiing or boxing or cheerleading, even if that's even less advisable. And because I think it's an important right I'm going to exercise it, because a right that exists in theory but not in practice is a right that does not exist.
- dmm 6y ago
  Do you wear a helmet while driving a car? Head injuries are a top cause of death in vehicle accidents something that helmets would significantly reduce. The truth is that you never even considered wearing a helmet while drivi g because driving is an ordinary activity that doesn't seem to require special equipment. In places where cycling is an ordinary activity people feel the same. It's not about statistics or the actual effectiveness of safety equipment. If it were you would start wearing a driving helmet tomorrow.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Your comment seems to presuppose that I am advocating for helmet-wearing, when I have done no such thing.
- analog31 6y ago
  In my case, it's because the store is a few blocks away along a carefully chosen route. Otherwise, I wear one. It's saved me a couple times.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Because I have a narrow head and they make me look like a dork.
imperio59 6y ago
Like most laws in Seattle, they are rarely enforced, and if you do get arrested or cited, current prosecutors aren't actually interested in doing their job very much either.
tiew9Vii 6y ago
A stark difference to Sydney, Australia. I regularly see commuters getting fined cycling without helmets. The police favorite one is fining all the tourists on rental bikes. Most of the rental bikes don't have helmets as they go missing and as a tourist they are oblivious it's law to need a helmet while cycling in Australia. A big fine to! Most get tricked in to the relaxed tourism marketing image portrayed without realising Australia is one of the most litigious places in the world and bit of a nanny country.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
It's like the law where if you ride your bike on the road or sidewalk. It's 100% up to how busy the cop is that day and if he REALLY wants to write you a ticket.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Also, because this is the US, and Seattle in particular, police discretion means that some populations get the brunt of enforcement. Nearly half of helmet citations in Seattle are against homeless people. And that was where they could corroborate homelessness using easily identifiable records (noted in press, police reports, or the address on file was a homeless shelter) https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helmet-citations-go-homeless-people https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
diebeforei485 6y ago
It seems to be selectively enforced against certain demographics. There was a discussion[1] in /r/Seattle earlier 1. https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half_of_seattles_helmet_citations_go_to/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half...