new helmet law

In the most cycling friendly city in the world - Copenhagen - maybe 40-50% of the cyclists wear helmets. Those that want to wear helmets and not mess up their hair use those instant inflatable helmet scarf thingies. The infrastructure there is incredible and keeps people isolated from traffic and very safe. Still - shit happens.
 
I totally agree that everyone should be wearing a helmet. But they are focusing their effort in the wrong direction since is NJ has no cycling infrastructure to begin with. I’d be hard pressed to find a worse place than NJ for riding on the road (Staten Island and western LI are pretty bad too I guess).
 
jimvreeland said:
Unfortunately it's just a bandaid for the bigger issue of having no cycling infrastructure. The higher ups "think" cyclists are dying because they don't have helmets on, and not because they're getting plowed by 12 foot tall 9 million lb 7 seater SUVs being driven by people staring at iPhones.

It's a she got raped? Well, what was she wearing scenario.
Click to expand...

This. What Jim said here. The two times I've been hit by a car, the helmet was of little use other than keeping my scalp intact. Didn't do shit for my legs, back, or arm.

People riding a beach cruiser at little more than walking speed aren't the ones who are measurably going to benefit from a helmet. Helmets don't stop cars from hitting you. Cycling infrastructure does.

Helmet laws are almost always a "see, we care/and are doing something"...that coincidentally costs them nothing and shifts the blame onto the cyclist.

PS: yes, I was wearing a helmet, and do on sport bikes. This is far more nuanced than "helmet good, no helmet bad". Don't be boorish.
 
xc62701 said:
In the most cycling friendly city in the world - Copenhagen - maybe 40-50% of the cyclists wear helmets. Those that want to wear helmets and not mess up their hair use those instant inflatable helmet scarf thingies. The infrastructure there is incredible and keeps people isolated from traffic and very safe. Still - shit happens.
Click to expand...
Amsterdam - The City of Bikes - nobody wears helmets. Bikes have their own lanes, their own traffic lights, etc…..but there’s also like a hundred bikes to every one car.

1670170912750.png
 
Quoted from the article

"State Assemblyman Reginald Atkins, who introduced the bill, says it's not about issuing fines, but enforcement would be similar to something New Jerseyans are already familiar with. "I would say that it should probably mimic the same thing as not having on a seat belt," Atkins said."It's the same principle. It's having a device that's put in place to keep someone safe." The fine for not wearing a seatbelt in a car is $25."

Has nothing to do with making people safe.
 
Karate Monkey said:
The two times I've been hit by a car, the helmet was of little use other than keeping my scalp intact. Didn't do shit for my legs, back, or arm.
Click to expand...
You don’t say! Did you sue the manufacturer for false advertisement?!? Jokes aside, while I would tend to agree in a perfect world you should be able to make decisions on your own, it is also true that you wouldn’t think anybody in their right mind would object to ride wearing an helmet. It has the specific objective to protect your head so expecting it to do anything more sounds a little silly. Head trauma doesn’t only happen when you’re hit by a car. That said, I get where you’re coming from and I agree more should be done in terms of infrastructure (I would love to commute by bike, which is absolutely impossible now), but it has to start somewhere, unfortunately, but predictably) the helmet is the easy and no cost to the state move (even though I would expect somebody will come up with a lucrative media campaign to promote the use of bike helmets). Not that I would expect much more to be done anyway, realistically.
 
UtahJoe said:
My wife's ER is full of people who hurt themselves and have no insurance.... We're paying for them one way or another... So if I'm paying, put your fucking helmet on stupid. Maybe it makes a percentage of the people who are/were unaware that they should be wearing a helmet reconsider.
Click to expand...

This. Talked to an ER nurse here in FL and they get more serious head injuries from cyclists on the paved no vehicles Legacy trail than road accidents. Dopes not wearing helmets.
 
Karate Monkey said:
This. What Jim said here. The two times I've been hit by a car, the helmet was of little use other than keeping my scalp intact. Didn't do shit for my legs, back, or arm.

People riding a beach cruiser at little more than walking speed aren't the ones who are measurably going to benefit from a helmet. Helmets don't stop cars from hitting you. Cycling infrastructure does.

Helmet laws are almost always a "see, we care/and are doing something"...that coincidentally costs them nothing and shifts the blame onto the cyclist.

PS: yes, I was wearing a helmet, and do on sport bikes. This is far more nuanced than "helmet good, no helmet bad". Don't be boorish.
Click to expand...

Disagree on both examples. The one time I was hit by a car my head bounced off the road like a basketball. Suffered a minor concussion. Would have been much worse without a helmet.

And there are casual cyclists not wearing helmets who, barely moving, simply fall over onto a sidewalk and suffer head injuries.
 
serviceguy said:
You don’t say! Did you sue the manufacturer for false advertisement?!? Jokes aside, while I would tend to agree in a perfect world you should be able to make decisions on your own, it is also true that you wouldn’t think anybody in their right mind would object to ride wearing an helmet. It has the specific objective to protect your head so expecting it to do anything more sounds a little silly. Head trauma doesn’t only happen when you’re hit by a car. That said, I get where you’re coming from and I agree more should be done in terms of infrastructure (I would love to commute by bike, which is absolutely impossible now), but it has to start somewhere, unfortunately, but predictably) the helmet is the easy and no cost to the state move (even though I would expect somebody will come up with a lucrative media campaign to promote the use of bike helmets). Not that I would expect much more to be done anyway, realistically.
Click to expand...

My point, is that it doesn't do anything but let the insurance company point at you and say, "contributory negligence! We don't need to pay out!"

NJ (At least around NY/Philly) is one of the most densely populated areas of the country, and a major thoroughfare for the East Coast. It's not surprising that it's difficult to get across a 6 lane highway, nor that it's difficult to travel 25-30 miles on a bike without intersecting one.* The helmet doesn't fix the "problem" of all those people getting hit on the head [read: hit by cars].

The mandatory helmet law smacks of the same reasoning as jaywalking.** It's intentionally shifting the blame of the monster that they created [allowed to exist, may be more accurate].

BTW, in case you're curious: Australia enacted a country-wide helmet law. Bicycle ridership dropped noticeably, and has not recovered. The safest thing for cyclists is simply that people expect you to be there. If there are more cyclists, there is more expectation to see them.

I commuted in the greater Trenton area, by bike/car, for 4 years. Despite all the hate Trenton gets, it is eminently bikeable. The D&R runs right next to the highway, and there aren't random 4-lane roads bisecting the city "to better serve motorists". If you need to ride to Lawrenceville, Princeton, or even Plainsboro--no problem. I live in Colts Neck now...and this area is a living hell to cycle to anywhere else--not as bad as North Jersey, but I digress--to ride to Red Bank, I either need to ride a main thoroughfare, or go 8 miles out of my way to enter the town on back roads.

*Incidentally: That Parkway? For most of it, there's a protected strip of land in the middle. It would take little effort for much of the span to install a cycling path. There's no interest, because there's "no money" in it. Cycling projects in this country are largely about patting yourself on the back. Consider how long it took them to install the Lawrence Hopewell Trail (that largely goes nowhere, and serves [almost] nobody who needs it for transport). The D&R canal path gets literal hundreds of riders from Kingston through Trenton using it almost every day to get into Princeton. Next to no funding for repairs/improvements. Need to get somewhere in the Ironbound on a bike? Screw you, get a car.

**You ever tried to cross Ocean Ave anywhere down the coast, on foot? Why is the pedestrian punished for walking--the car can make up lost time just fine, but you might need to walk 1/4 mile in some spots to cross the highway legally.

rick81721 said:
Disagree on both examples. The one time I was hit by a car my head bounced off the road like a basketball. Suffered a minor concussion. Would have been much worse without a helmet.

And there are casual cyclists not wearing helmets who, barely moving, simply fall over onto a sidewalk and suffer head injuries.
Click to expand...

There are people who trip on the sidewalk and end up in the hospital, too. I tripped on flat ground when I was 10, and wound up in a cast; if I had been wearing a brace, it wouldn't have happened. Merits of protection aside, that's not my problem with the assembly doing this.

//

This argument, like religion, is going to have really firmly entrenched ideas (check out bikeforums if you want to get into a swinging match). I'm personally all for wearing a helmet for the type of riding I do. I am not stoked that, instead of lowering speed limits in towns, ditching on-street parking in town centers, or making areas actually accessible by bikes, my representatives are deciding to fix the problem with cyclists...by making them wear helmets. Nor are they enacting any laws to make helmets safer, or engaging researchers to actually test how effective helmets are in real conditions. The marketing departments of various companies are all about telling us how they've improved their designs, or created a new standard...but as far as the CPSC is concerned, it is either a PASS or FAIL. It's left up to me to go look for university studies, other country certification studies, and word of mouth/[groan] professional reviews of helmets, to see how they actually fare in the situations I will be using them.

TLDR: I'm more concerned with getting hit by a car, than falling off the bike.
 
All they have to do is start banging out the tickets on the 98% of people on the Columbia Trail without helmets and it will take care of NJ's deficit :popcorn:
Oh, and stopping distracted driving which they seem to be doing nothing about.
 
Karate Monkey said:
TLDR: I'm more concerned with getting hit by a car, than falling off the bike.
Click to expand...
Bingo!! That sums this all up. You have a better chance getting hit by a car (by a distracted driver or by someone who shouldn't be driving to begin with) than falling off your bike.
BUT, with the new helmet law, when you get hit by the distracted driver you will at least have a helmet on! :thumbsup:
 
In my corner of Bergen county, I’ve seen an uptick of peeps on throttle e-bikes and motorized scooters. Very few, if any, wearing helmets.
SMH every time.

I’m assuming the majority (all?) are newbs to 2 wheels, and can now propel themselves 20-30mph with no experience of doing so under their own power.

Much like when they rolled out e-CitiBikes, you have peeps able to shoot themselves down congested NYC roadways (cars and jaywalkers) at 20mph, also without the experience that comes with doing this under their own power.

That said, I am not aware of carnage on the levels I would expect.
 
Karate Monkey said:
My point, is that it doesn't do anything but let the insurance company point at you and say, "contributory negligence! We don't need to pay out!"

NJ (At least around NY/Philly) is one of the most densely populated areas of the country, and a major thoroughfare for the East Coast. It's not surprising that it's difficult to get across a 6 lane highway, nor that it's difficult to travel 25-30 miles on a bike without intersecting one.* The helmet doesn't fix the "problem" of all those people getting hit on the head [read: hit by cars].

The mandatory helmet law smacks of the same reasoning as jaywalking.** It's intentionally shifting the blame of the monster that they created [allowed to exist, may be more accurate].

BTW, in case you're curious: Australia enacted a country-wide helmet law. Bicycle ridership dropped noticeably, and has not recovered. The safest thing for cyclists is simply that people expect you to be there. If there are more cyclists, there is more expectation to see them.

I commuted in the greater Trenton area, by bike/car, for 4 years. Despite all the hate Trenton gets, it is eminently bikeable. The D&R runs right next to the highway, and there aren't random 4-lane roads bisecting the city "to better serve motorists". If you need to ride to Lawrenceville, Princeton, or even Plainsboro--no problem. I live in Colts Neck now...and this area is a living hell to cycle to anywhere else--not as bad as North Jersey, but I digress--to ride to Red Bank, I either need to ride a main thoroughfare, or go 8 miles out of my way to enter the town on back roads.

*Incidentally: That Parkway? For most of it, there's a protected strip of land in the middle. It would take little effort for much of the span to install a cycling path. There's no interest, because there's "no money" in it. Cycling projects in this country are largely about patting yourself on the back. Consider how long it took them to install the Lawrence Hopewell Trail (that largely goes nowhere, and serves [almost] nobody who needs it for transport). The D&R canal path gets literal hundreds of riders from Kingston through Trenton using it almost every day to get into Princeton. Next to no funding for repairs/improvements. Need to get somewhere in the Ironbound on a bike? Screw you, get a car.

**You ever tried to cross Ocean Ave anywhere down the coast, on foot? Why is the pedestrian punished for walking--the car can make up lost time just fine, but you might need to walk 1/4 mile in some spots to cross the highway legally.



There are people who trip on the sidewalk and end up in the hospital, too. I tripped on flat ground when I was 10, and wound up in a cast; if I had been wearing a brace, it wouldn't have happened. Merits of protection aside, that's not my problem with the assembly doing this.

//

This argument, like religion, is going to have really firmly entrenched ideas (check out bikeforums if you want to get into a swinging match). I'm personally all for wearing a helmet for the type of riding I do. I am not stoked that, instead of lowering speed limits in towns, ditching on-street parking in town centers, or making areas actually accessible by bikes, my representatives are deciding to fix the problem with cyclists...by making them wear helmets. Nor are they enacting any laws to make helmets safer, or engaging researchers to actually test how effective helmets are in real conditions. The marketing departments of various companies are all about telling us how they've improved their designs, or created a new standard...but as far as the CPSC is concerned, it is either a PASS or FAIL. It's left up to me to go look for university studies, other country certification studies, and word of mouth/[groan] professional reviews of helmets, to see how they actually fare in the situations I will be using them.

TLDR: I'm more concerned with getting hit by a car, than falling off the bike.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not saying that would fix the many problems with riding a bike in NJ, just the ones caused by hitting your head when falling off a bike, whatever the reason, also the only reason helmets were designed in the first place.
 
I'm still personally in favor of letting grown adults decide if they need a helmet or not. It's not even a question of safety to me as much as reducing ridership (as was previously pointed out about Australia). This has similarly been a reason why the Dutch government has left the helmet issue alone, it would reduce ridership significantly. Instead they focus on building safer bike infrastructure and requiring things like bike lights and bells (you can literally get fined for not having them). So I agree with Karate Monkey, this is a easy-sounding solution to a complex issue, and doesn't really solve the issue of placing cyclists next to 3000lb+ vehicles. It's beating around the elephant in the room; cycling infrastructure.


I get both sides of it though, from a purely logical standpoint everyone should wear a helmet for every ride. Realistically I wear one on like 85-90% of all rides I do, and the only time I don't is for short commuter'ish rides to pick up take-out or groceries. But that's not flawless and I'm sure if I got hit by a car or fucked up riding I could seriously hurt myself. I still don't think I need NJ telling me how to ride my bike though.
 
robcleary said:
I'm still personally in favor of letting grown adults decide if they need a helmet or not. It's not even a question of safety to me as much as reducing ridership (as was previously pointed out about Australia). This has similarly been a reason why the Dutch government has left the helmet issue alone, it would reduce ridership significantly.
Click to expand...

People wouldn't ride bikes if they had to wear a helmet? I don't get this at all. It's like saying some people don't drive a car because you legally have to wear a safety belt.
 
rick81721 said:
People wouldn't ride bikes if they had to wear a helmet? I don't get this at all. It's like saying some people don't drive a car because you legally have to wear a safety belt.
Click to expand...
At least in Jersey, there's really not much option but to drive. People will either ignore it and risk the ticket or suck it up and wear it. Biking is an alternative choice to driving. We're all a bunch of cycling nerds and we enjoy it so it doesn't even phase us, but the average person choosing between calling an Uber or using a bike share would probably think twice if they had to bother carrying a helmet along all day.


I'm not saying it's fully logical but it's backed up. Helmet laws can potentially reduce ridership. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-05/why-bike-helmet-laws-don-t-work

In 1993, New South Wales, Australia, commissioned a study to see if a new helmet law for children was increasing helmet uptake. It did—but the researchers also found 30 percent fewer children were riding to school. In New Zealand, where helmet compulsion was introduced in 1994, the number of overall bike trips fell 51 percent between 1989–90 and 2003–6, according to one research paper. The reasons are mixed: Some people simply don’t want to bother with a helmet. For others, helmet laws reinforce the notion that cycling isn’t an everyday way to get about, but rather a specialist pursuit requiring special safety equipment. And if a law does mean fewer cyclists, it could also have a reverse “safety in numbers” effect: Fewer riders on the road could place those remaining at more individual risk.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom