Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Proposed California law would make helmets compulsory for all cyclists

Senator Carol Liu's bill would also require riders to wear reflective clothing at night...

California will become the first state in the US to require adult cyclists to wear cycle helmets if a bill introduced by a state senator, which would also require all riders to wear reflective clothing at night, becomes law.

Currently, 21 states as well as the District of Columbia have laws requiring children to wear helmets while riding a bike.

The upper age limit varies by jurisdiction, but in California, currently bike riders aged under 18 have been required to wear one.

State senator Carol Liu, a Democrat who represents District 25, which includes Burbank, Pasadena and – one for the Bill and Ted fans out there – San Dimas, wants the law extended to adults too.

Liu, chair of the senate education committee, said in a statement: “Any responsible bicycle rider should wear a helmet,” said Liu, Chair of the Senate Education Committee.

“This law will help protect more people and make sure all riders benefit from the head protection that a helmet provides.”

Cyclists failing to wear a helmet, or reflective at night, would face a fine of $25 under the proposed legislation.

Liu’s statement claimed: “Bicyclists who don’t wear helmets are far more likely to be hurt or killed in accidents.

“Ninety-one percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported.”

She did not say what proportion of those fatalities were due to head injuries.

Opponents of compulsory helmet laws point out that in countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where helmets are mandatory for riders of all ages, cycling levels dropped when the legislation was introduced.

They maintain that the wider health benefits of cycling for the population as a whole outweigh any claimed reduction in casualties among bike riders as a result of helmet compulsion.

Cycling campaigners also say that focusing on helmets or high visibility clothing also detracts from focusing on other measures that would reduce casualties, such as 20 mile an hour speed limits or segregated infrastructure.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Liu’s nephew was killed while riding a bike in 2004 by a drunk driver. He had been wearing a helmet.

Dave Snyder of the California Bike Coalition said: “We think she has good intentions.”

But he added: “We know that the most important thing to protect people who ride bikes is to get more people out there riding bikes.

“Forcing people to wear crash helmets when they ride is counter-productive to that goal.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

25 comments

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 9 years ago
0 likes

Never understood why motorists should not wear helmets?

Apart from something I heard about reduced peripheral visibility, but sure you could design a suitable helmet for a road motorist.

I am not a licensed driver, but have spent a good amount of time driving off-road and off-highway vehicles including Honda Pilots, Honda Big Red 4x4 and Yamaha Banshee quads, Land Rovers, various track go-karts or off-road buggys, even Warrior APC, Stollies, AV432 and a Sherman tank!

Would not go anywhere near these vehicles without wearing a suitable helmet, because its not a case of 'if' you crash, but 'when' you crash, or take a hard bump to the noggin.

Need to protect the head when it happens. Try driving a tracked vehicle off-road; its like being put in a cocktail shaker, in this photo below my brains still look scrambled after 2 hours in the turret of a Warrior APC, I am the guy at the front looking a bit dazzled!

//ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb7804439/p4pb7804439.jpg)

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to hampstead_bandit | 9 years ago
0 likes
hampstead_bandit wrote:

Never understood why motorists should not wear helmets?

Apart from something I heard about reduced peripheral visibility, but sure you could design a suitable helmet for a road motorist.

I am not a licensed driver, but have spent a good amount of time driving off-road and off-highway vehicles including Honda Pilots, Honda Big Red 4x4 and Yamaha Banshee quads, Land Rovers, various track go-karts or off-road buggys, even Warrior APC, Stollies, AV432 and a Sherman tank!

Would not go anywhere near these vehicles without wearing a suitable helmet, because its not a case of 'if' you crash, but 'when' you crash, or take a hard bump to the noggin.

Need to protect the head when it happens. Try driving a tracked vehicle off-road; its like being put in a cocktail shaker, in this photo below my brains still look scrambled after 2 hours in the turret of a Warrior APC, I am the guy at the front looking a bit dazzled!

//ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb7804439/p4pb7804439.jpg)

I'm not convinced that make-up regime really works for you
 1

As for helmets, they certainly have their uses but that doesn't necessarily include commuter cycling:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=44

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 9 years ago
0 likes

Would the woman killed in the crash that involved reality star Bruce Jenner have survived had she been wearing a helmet? Perhaps the authorities in CA should be pushing for all motor vehicle occupants to wear helmets.

Avatar
mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

@spen, the fundamental problem with those statistics is reporting. I know from personal experience many accidents are unreported. The ones that make it on to the statistics are biased to the serious injuries, ie the ones where head injury is more likely.

I have been hit on a few occasions by cars, a few bruises is all I have suffered. No need to waste A&Es time. I also know someone who was doored, they went to hospital with concussion, I know someone else who lost a leg and was left in a coma for a few weeks, someone else who broke his pelvis. These are the accidents that will make it to hospital and into the statistics. Are they really representative though?

Avatar
FreeeWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes

I accept that helmets reduce injury in the event of an accident, but there is good evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, due to risk compensation by themselves and passing motorists, which may cancel out much, if not all, of the protective effects.

I can't see how else to explain that the benefits seen in hospital based studies dont seem to translate into the population level accident statistics.

The real downside of helmets is that they discourage cycling, leading to even more obesity, heart disease, stroke and cancer.

I hope we can keep helmet wearing a personal choice until the picture is completely shaken up by self-driving cars and trucks.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

How many of the 91% were drinking alcohol? What proportion of cyclist-kilometres are with a helmet worn, and without?

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

@spen - not sure what those statistics are meant to indicate. That 100% of reported casualties suffered some kind of injury?

If governments, voluntary bodies etc want to make people safer while cycling they should be looking at the big risk factors.

Meanwhile the owners of any cyclist-focussed business in California should be concerned about their future income and ensuring this law is not passed.

Avatar
spen | 9 years ago
0 likes

RoSpa has figures for accidents with a section on types of injury

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur...

"Injury Patterns

Limb Injuries
Limb injuries are common in cyclist casualties, with over 40% suffering arm injuries and around 25% suffering leg injuries.

Chest/Abdomen Injuries
Chest and abdomen injuries occur much less frequently (5%), but are often serious. When they do occur they are often accompanied by head injuries.

Head Injuries
Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and 45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries. A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads. "

No comment on how many were wearing helmets

Avatar
ribena | 9 years ago
0 likes

100% of people killed whilst driving weren't wearing helmets

Avatar
Stumps replied to ribena | 9 years ago
0 likes
ribena wrote:

100% of people killed whilst driving weren't wearing helmets

Ayrton Senna ?

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet replied to Stumps | 9 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:
ribena wrote:

100% of people killed whilst driving weren't wearing helmets

Ayrton Senna ?

IIRC Jeff Gordon died of a basal skull fracture in NASCAR a few year ago. I've been on a rally stage in Dalby where there was a fatality.

Avatar
rjfrussell replied to Stumps | 9 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:
ribena wrote:

100% of people killed whilst driving weren't wearing helmets

Ayrton Senna ?

I know it is a very serious issue, and Senna's death a tragedy, but top comment.

Avatar
levermonkey replied to Stumps | 9 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:
ribena wrote:

100% of people killed whilst driving weren't wearing helmets

Ayrton Senna ?

Ayrton Senna died from brain-stem death brought on by trauma and shock (blood loss estimated to be 4.5l).

It is believed that the right-front wheel and suspension was sent back into the cockpit, striking Senna on the right side of his helmet and forcing his head back against the headrest. In addition, a piece of the suspension assembly (a tie rod possibly) penetrated the helmet visor above his right eye. Senna sustained fatal skull fractures, brain injuries and a ruptured temporal artery.

Senna's car had slammed into a wall at 145mph and the Italian Authorities ruled that his time of death was 1417 (the time of impact).

100% of people killed whilst driving on open public roads weren't wearing helmets. Arton Senna didn't die on an open public road.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to levermonkey | 9 years ago
0 likes
levermonkey wrote:

100% of people killed whilst driving on open public roads weren't wearing helmets. Arton Senna didn't die on an open public road.

Almost certainly true, or as near as makes no difference, but i'd wager than a lot less than 100% of them died through injuries other than head injuries and that that percentage is increasing. Most modern cars have a head (and chest and often side) protection fitted in a way that is impossible on bikes. A three-point harness, along with a decent, mandatory air-bag, system, might be a more realistic move to help with in car injuries.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to fukawitribe | 9 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
levermonkey wrote:

100% of people killed whilst driving on open public roads weren't wearing helmets. Arton Senna didn't die on an open public road.

Almost certainly true, or as near as makes no difference, but i'd wager than a lot less than 100% of them died through injuries other than head injuries and that that percentage is increasing. Most modern cars have a head (and chest and often side) protection fitted in a way that is impossible on bikes. A three-point harness, along with a decent, mandatory air-bag, system, might be a more realistic move to help with in car injuries.

But head injuries are amongst the most common serious injury in car accidents (according to Professor Google). So I'm not sure you are wise to make that wager. Though obviously neither of us have the necessary data to be sure.
As for 'more realistic move' - by the same token, one could equally point out that dealing with the danger created by cars (and car-centric road design) is a 'more realistic move' to help with cycling injuries.

Avatar
crikey | 9 years ago
0 likes

Hurrah, another helmet debate....

Avatar
Stumps | 9 years ago
0 likes

I think its a great idea, mainly because it pee's off so many people who "obviously" know a hell of a lot more than her.....or so they claim lol.

Avatar
OnTheRopes | 9 years ago
0 likes

As Car crashes are the leading cause of fatal head Trauma, perhaps State senator Carol Liu should propose all car drivers be forced to wear a helmet in this new law. After all it would definitely save lives so it would be irresponsible not to wouldn't it?

Avatar
Mike T. | 9 years ago
0 likes

Stick a glorified egg carton on everyone's head and the problem is solved, State senator Carol Liu gets her 15 minutes of fame and she thinks she'd saved the world from itself. That saves her from the really hard work MUCH more complicated problem of preventing crashes in the first place.
The helmet-nannies make me laugh.

Avatar
Beefy | 9 years ago
0 likes

IMO helmets protect ones head under impact, I know many disagree but that's your right, just like it is my right to wear a helmet and yours not too.

I don't however believe that the quantitative evidence for wearing helmets to prevent injury is strong enough to support the enforced wearing of helmets. If you take seat belts as an example the evidence to support them was quite strong.

I also agree with Chris Boardmen, too much enfasis is placed on blaming none helmet or lack of lights, or reflective clothing for cycle injury and not enough is placed on driver behaviour and infrastructure to support riders.

I make no bones about this, I am pro helmet but not pro compulsion. Unfortunatly I think there is a lot of nonsense from both the pro and anti helmet camps which I think prevents reasoned debate.

Perhaps one day there will be evidence which clearly shows helmets as infective and no one will Wear them. At that point, I will be happy too put my helmet in the bin! alternatively it may be proven that helmets save life's and I would then support compulsion, until the evidence is clear however, I believe that helmets compulsion would be foolhardy.

I think that some polititians see cyclist bashing as a vote winner with some petrol heads, this is possible a bigger vote winner in the land of the free  4

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Beefy | 9 years ago
0 likes

Beefy, much of what you say sounds reasonable, but most of it is wrong.

"IMO helmets protect ones head under impact..." There is no doubt that helmets protect against minor injuries. Most helmet propaganda and laws are based on the misconception that helmets save lives in collisions with motor vehicles. They don't.

" If you take seat belts as an example the evidence to support them was quite strong." The evidence that seat belts saved lives was almost identical to that about cycle helmets i.e. assumption, myth and bad science. Before the UK govt introduced the seat belt law, it commissioned research, the Isles Report, to find out what had happened in countries which already had such a law, but although it was completed before the vote in Parliament, it was never issued. It was never issued because it showed that the death rate increased overall, and while some drivers would be saved, more pedestrians and cyclists would die. Cynical?

"Unfortunatly I think there is a lot of nonsense from both the pro and anti helmet camps which I think prevents reasoned debate." The pro compulsion camp base their arguments on emotion, myths and disproved research. The anti compulsion camp base their arguments on hard data and robust research. I have offered several times to debate the issue with the pro camp, but they always decline. Several websites appear to have banned me and removed my comments because I didn't agree with the stance that helmets should be mandatory, so it isn't the antis that won't engage in debate, it's the pro compulsionists.

"Perhaps one day there will be evidence which clearly shows helmets as infective and no one will Wear them." It already exists and has existed for many years, but people still continue to wear helmets because there has been a thirty year propaganda campaign to promote them, ably fronted by that guaranteed free from bias organisation, the BBC. Once a myth becomes established, it is incredibly difficult to change people's minds.

You might like to look at the evidence cyclehelmets.org

I look forward to you posting that you've put your helmet in the bin.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 9 years ago
0 likes

100% of politicians who spouted uninformed shit in 2009 reportedly were not wearing large pieces of duct tape over their mouths. One or two have their careers ruined by what they say, and all contribute to a constant prattle which annoys others, such as myself. But, as a cyclist and not a politician, I rightly have no ability to force another group in society to wear something just because I think it would save them from themselves, and would spare me some minor inconvenience. Even if a few people upvote this comment, and despite the fact that my proposal would be 100% effective. Ms. Liu and her colleagues might like to think on that before proceeding with such legislation.

Avatar
bikebot | 9 years ago
0 likes

The funny thing about American politics is that there'll probably be more resistance to this on the right than the left. If this appeared in the British press, the usual Daily Fail nutters would pile in with more demands in order to make cycling as onerous as possible.

In the US, there is always opposition first from libertarians who basically think it's none of the governments damn business. The requirement for motorcyclists to wear a helmet is law in less than half of US states, with state senators also occasionally proposing they be abolished.

Avatar
thx1138 | 9 years ago
0 likes

Ninety-one percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets

Yes, but how many died from head injuries?  102

Avatar
Leviathan replied to thx1138 | 9 years ago
0 likes
thx1138 wrote:

Ninety-one percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets

Yes, but how many died from head injuries?  102

It is important that we ensure that 100% of cyclists killed are wearing helmets. Or
ensure that 0% of killed cyclists are wearing helmets to prove their effectivement. Or kill 100% of cyclists. Wait, what!?

Latest Comments