Why do we have seatbelt laws in some states in the U.S. but there's never any rule for bikers to have to wear helmets?

This has been on my mind for awhile since I am in college and I see tons of students that bike, but hardly any wear helmets.

In my mind I think it's their choice if they want to risk head injury or not, but at the same time, isn't a seat belt a choice? Why do we fine people if they don't wear one? Sure I understand parents for not buckling up their kids, but if they're over 18, why don't they have a choice to wear or not wear one?

I think it's a good idea to wear seatbelts and helmets, but I'm just curious as to what you guys think.

Key Questions:

Should there be a seat belt law? Why, Why not?

Should there be a helmet law? Why, Why not?

Why are there seat belt laws and not helmet laws? Vise Versa?

Anything else?

*By bike I mean the one you peddle with your feet, not a motorbike.

That is an inconsistency which I find quite puzzling. Where I live we have both helmet and seatbelt laws in place.

I never really understood that either. I get why the laws would be in place but on the other hand it really should be up to the individual as to whether they want to protect themselves or not. I think the seat belt laws also have something to do with insurance agencies. You're more likely to get severely injured or killed in a minor accident if you are not wearing a seat belt and that would make health insurance agencies have to pay for more severe injuries. In the same accident with a seat belt you might just walk away with whiplash or something minor like that.

As for helmet laws, if you are talking about normal bikes then I have no idea why it's not a law. I mean I know whenever I've fallen, I've mostly fallen on my knees or had some kind of leg injury but there was a few times where I did hit my head. I'm not too sure why it's not a law since it is easy to prevent major injury by simply wearing a well fitted helmet.

Motor bikes on the other hand, most the time a helmet is not going to make that much of a difference. I mean, yes there are going to be times where a helmet does save a life but a lot of accidents are when a car hits a bike. In that case most the time a helmet is not going to make too much of a difference. I've seen three motor bike accidents on the road and two out of the three the rider was run over by the car. In the other one, I nearly ran over the biker that fell and had to slam my breaks on. He was pretty badly hurt despite wearing a helmet but in his case I do believe that a helmet saved his life. In the motor biker's case I do think that they have a right to choose if they want to wear one or not.

from a site about motorcycle fatalities:

MOTORCYCLIST FACTS

In 2006, 65% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws, compared with only 13% in states with all-rider helmet laws. (NHTSA, 2007)

Helmets reduce the risk of death by 29% and are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders. (NHTSA, 2001)

NHTSA is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Now I have to say I don't support these laws because I don't support any. In matters of personal safety I think a person has the right to do what they want at mimimum even within the context of a government. But I just wanted to show that helmets do make a difference on motorcycles.

I'm just going to say that my state is one that does require helmets, so your assumption that there are no helmet laws is incorrect.

Well where I live we have both seatbelt and helmet laws (seatbelt for all, helmet for all 15 or younger).
Works just fine as far as I know...

Originally Posted by Keyori

I'm just going to say that my state is one that does require helmets, so your assumption that there are no helmet laws is incorrect.

My home state did was well, I'm not familiar with helmet laws in NC though. :sweat:

But I don't even ride a bicycle, so.

I'm not sure what the laws are for bicycles, but it's required for any motorcycle or any scooter with an engine larger than 49cc in my state.

I don't think they should make seatbelt or helmet laws (for adults). If someone wants to jeopardize their own life, why should we make it illegal? It's really no one else's business. I DO believe it should stay a law that small children need a carseat and that parents need to buckle in their small children, but I think if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to decide whether or not you want to be safe.

Well when I'm talking about bike, I don't mean motorbike, I mean the one you peddle. I have never heard of there being a law to wear a helmet for a bike that you use to go around campus, and I've lived in 3 states.

Well, seeing that most casual bicycle users don't often exceed 25mph, I wouldn't say require a helmet by law. You'll notice that professional bikers (Tour de France, for example) will wear them since they go so much faster, and a wreck at those speeds can be much more dangerous without proper protection.

Originally Posted by Keyori

Well, seeing that most casual bicycle users don't often exceed 25mph, I wouldn't say require a helmet by law. You'll notice that professional bikers (Tour de France, for example) will wear them since they go so much faster, and a wreck at those speeds can be much more dangerous without proper protection.

True, but what if a car going say 50 hits them?

A regular bicycle helmet wouldn't help. Traditionally, they're only effective for an impact of up to 20mph before they fail, and even if you assume that the cyclist is going in the same direction as the vehicle, at 20mph, the impact speed is still 30mph, which still exceeds the safety specs for most helmets. (You can buy helmets that are stronger, but to survive a crash at 50mph you may as well be wearing a motorcycle helmet; additionally, typical helmets, such as those made for children, will fail after only 12mph, so even the 20mph figure I used is rather optimistic)

TLDR; Bicycle helmets are designed for bicycle collisions with stationary or other low-inertia objects (such as other cyclists), not with vehicles.

And by that logic, you'd have to require pedestrians to wear helmets as well.

Originally Posted by Keyori

A traditional bicycle helmet wouldn't help.

And by that logic, you'd have to require pedestrians to wear helmets as well.

Considering bicycles are on the road, the logic doesn't dictate that pedestrians should wear helmets. When you're literally riding in front of a car, you're more likely to be hit than when walking on a sidewalk.

And a bicycle helmet would help. Try smashing your head on a road with a helmet, then try it without one. It's not a fail safe by any means but it could be the difference between life and death. Your skull needs all the protection it can get when it's being smashed around.

There are laws here - or at least in the province I used to live it - saying that you have to wear a helmet (or turban - which honestly makes me laugh. There isn't much protection there compared to a helmet) if you're on a bicycle since, unless you're a minor, it's illegal to ride your bicycle on the sidewalk.

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

Considering bicycles are on the road, the logic doesn't dictate that pedestrians should wear helmets. When you're literally riding in front of a car, you're more likely to be hit than when walking on a sidewalk.

And a bicycle helmet would help. Try smashing your head on a road with a helmet, then try it without one. It's not a fail safe by any means but it could be the difference between life and death. Your skull needs all the protection it can get when it's being smashed around.

There are laws here - or at least in the province I used to live it - saying that you have to wear a helmet (or turban - which honestly makes me laugh. There isn't much protection there compared to a helmet) if you're on a bicycle since, unless you're a minor, it's illegal to ride your bicycle on the sidewalk.

You really have some misconceptions about this issue.

1) Getting hit by a vehicle from behind going in the same direction as you are riding is extremely unlikely (it accounts for less than 2% of cycling accidents). Most collisions with cyclists involve a vehicle turning and cutting off a cyclist, or otherwise failing to yield to a cyclist with the right-of-way. This doesn't really change your point, but it's still an important part of the issue.

2) Like I said when I edited my post, the helmet will fail at 12.5mph, maybe 20mph if you have a really good helmet. That still has your head colliding with the vehicle or pavement at a net 30mph provided the cyclist isn't moving (which is unlikely, so the net speed would actually be much higher). Not to mention that the rest of your body is unprotected, and is taking the full 50mph impact. At a speed that high, it is extremely unlikely that a helmet will make a difference--any 'protection' you get is more related to plain luck. Bicycle helmets are simply not designed for collisions with vehicles.

3) Pedestrians are on roadways any time they have to cross a street, and I've seen cyclists ride on sidewalks to avoid vehicle traffic, so I think the comparison is still valid. Just because it's "not likely" that a pedestrian will be hit doesn't change the fact that the situation is still a car hitting a person who isn't in a car (and such an assertion is actually patently false). If anything, the actual statistics of cyclist vs. pedestrian collisions with vehicles are stronger evidence that pedestrians have a greater need for helmets than cyclists. (813 deaths and 58,000 injuries per year for cyclists; 5,307 deaths and 77,000 injuries per year for pedestrians; data from NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 1997, retrieved from source)

Edit: I found more recent data, from 2008, which is very similar to the 1997 data I provided. Although pedestrian fatalities have been declining in recent years, their occurrence is still several magnitudes more frequent than cyclist fatalities. Source and source.

Just a little input.... I have heard that cyclists wearing helmet is more likely to get into accidents than cyclists without. That because they are less careful and other people in traffic are less careful of them.
I will try to get some information on this which I don't have now.

Originally Posted by Keyori

You really have some misconceptions about this issue.

1) Getting hit by a vehicle from behind going in the same direction as you are riding is extremely unlikely (it accounts for less than 2% of cycling accidents). Most collisions with cyclists involve a vehicle turning and cutting off a cyclist, or otherwise failing to yield to a cyclist with the right-of-way. This doesn't really change your point, but it's still an important part of the issue.

2) Like I said when I edited my post, the helmet will fail at 12.5mph, maybe 20mph if you have a really good helmet. That still has your head colliding with the vehicle or pavement at a net 30mph provided the cyclist isn't moving (which is unlikely, so the net speed would actually be much higher). Not to mention that the rest of your body is unprotected, and is taking the full 50mph impact. At a speed that high, it is extremely unlikely that a helmet will make a difference--any 'protection' you get is more related to plain luck. Bicycle helmets are simply not designed for collisions with vehicles.

3) Pedestrians are on roadways any time they have to cross a street, and I've seen cyclists ride on sidewalks to avoid vehicle traffic, so I think the comparison is still valid. Just because it's "not likely" that a pedestrian will be hit doesn't change the fact that the situation is still a car hitting a person who isn't in a car (and such an assertion is actually patently false). If anything, the actual statistics of cyclist vs. pedestrian collisions with vehicles are stronger evidence that pedestrians have a greater need for helmets than cyclists. (813 deaths and 58,000 injuries per year for cyclists; 5,307 deaths and 77,000 injuries per year for pedestrians; data from NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 1997, retrieved from source)

Edit: I found more recent data, from 2008, which is very similar to the 1997 data I provided. Although pedestrian fatalities have been declining in recent years, their occurrence is still several magnitudes more frequent than cyclist fatalities. Source and source.

You shouldn't be riding your bike on the sidewalk though. It pisses off many pedestrians and so where I live, they don't allow it. People on bikes can be really rude. Bikes belong on the rode since they are given a designated lane.

There's always the chance you can fall off your bike and get hit. I'm sure a helment would protect you somewhat. It can be a matter between life and death. My friend new someone who was hit and the doctor said that if they had been wearing a helmet, they might have been alive to this day.

Just cause you get hit buy a car doesn't mean you're instantly screwed and are going to die.

Originally Posted by catloverd

My friend new someone who was hit and the doctor said that if they had been wearing a helmet, they might have been alive to this day.

Just cause you get hit buy a car doesn't mean you're instantly screwed and are going to die.

And just because you wear a helmet doesn't mean you are magically invincible.

Also, I like how you keep changing the scenario to fit your argument, instead of the other way around. It's very amusing.

Aspinou: I've heard that about seatbelts, but not helmets.

I can help with that :heart: Well, sort of.

Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists: Scientific American

Also, the Peltzman effect plays a role. Humans like to operate at the same threat level at all times. This is why, should a situation become more dangerous, we become more careful, but if we feel safer, we'll take bigger risks. With bike helmets and similar safety gear, we overestimate how well they protect us and do things we'd never do otherwise.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I can help with that :heart: Well, sort of.

Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists: Scientific American

Also, the Peltzman effect plays a role. Humans like to operate at the same threat level at all times. This is why, should a situation become more dangerous, we become more careful, but if we feel safer, we'll take bigger risks. With bike helmets and similar safety gear, we overestimate how well they protect us and do things we'd never do otherwise.

Then why have a seatbelt law? It's the same thing isn't it? Do people driver "riskier"when wearing seatbelts?

@Keyori
I'm just making a point. I'm not for or against it. I'm just showing how someone could argue against it.

And true, I said it would only provide some protection, I never said you'd become superman if you wore one.

My debate is why seatbelts and not helmets or the other way around? Why not both?

Yes, yes they do. They do it with things we can't legislate against, like car safety (SmartCars vs, say, SUVs). I'm not a fan of seatbelt laws, either, I simply was providing a source.

I think both laws are/would be stupid. I believe that if you are not harming anyone else, you have the right to do absolutely any stupid fucking thing your little heart desires. Now, is it smart to not wear safety devices? Of course not. But it is, in fact, the individual's right to choose whether to take that risk. And I can't condone the government cutting into people's personal choices, since you really should be able to do what you want with your body.

Originally Posted by Fabby

I think both laws are/would be stupid. I believe that if you are not harming anyone else, you have the right to do absolutely any stupid fucking thing your little heart desires. Now, is it smart to not wear safety devices? Of course not. But it is, in fact, the individual's right to choose whether to take that risk. And I can't condone the government cutting into people's personal choices, since you really should be able to do what you want with your body.

Well at the same time what about younger kids?
Parents are responsible for them, so should it be the parents choice or should the law intervene and say that anyone under 18 has to wear a seatbelt or helmet?

It's a parent's responsibility to teach their children why wearing a helmet is important, and actually make them wear one. Not really something the government needs to be involved in. The government also does not need to be involved in one's personal parenting decisions.

Originally Posted by Fabby

It's a parent's responsibility to teach their children why wearing a helmet is important, and actually make them wear one. Not really something the government needs to be involved in. The government also does not need to be involved in one's personal parenting decisions.

But then would the parent be charged a fine if their child is injured or dies because they weren't wearing a seatbelt/helmet? Should they pay if their kid is hurt? Couldn't they use that it wasn't law against the court? Is this ethical/humane?