Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

144

tldr; Bicycle helmets increase the risk of neck injury and more pedestrians get hit than bicyclists.

If we used the stone cold math to back up policy, pedestrians would be wearing helmets.

The same goes for hamburgers. Hamburgers kill more people than just about anything. We spend trillions fighting terrorists.

This is the heart of the problem with society. This is a facsimile of the absurdity in regards to SARS COV 2, face mask, vaccines, signage, etc.

Money to be made. Rules to be made. At your expense. For their profit.

How has the facemask industry done, recently? Despite the fact that facemasks are worse than useless.

tldr; Bicycle helmets increase the risk of neck injury and more pedestrians get hit than bicyclists. If we used the stone cold math to back up policy, pedestrians would be wearing helmets. The same goes for hamburgers. Hamburgers kill more people than just about anything. We spend trillions fighting terrorists. This is the heart of the problem with society. This is a facsimile of the absurdity in regards to SARS COV 2, face mask, vaccines, signage, etc. Money to be made. Rules to be made. At your expense. For their profit. How has the facemask industry done, recently? Despite the fact that facemasks are worse than useless.

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

Years ago, motorcycle sales were down. Thus, helmet sales were down. What do? Start a fear campaign to push helmets onto bicyclists. It worked. In some places, it is illegal for a kid under 18 to ride a bike without a helmet, even on private property.

[–] • 2 pts

Had bike helmet law in my town.I told my son he didn't have to wear one his choice. The cops kept giving new ones to him.I used them at proud boy rallies and such. Got 8 of them

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

You would have to be stupid as dirt to not wear a bike helmet. As a cyclist, I can say they are 100% effective in preventing some pain in ordinary accidents. This isn’t a good correlation about the “other” Moderna problem.

[–] • 3 pts

No. No. No.

25%

Max.

2% according to some studies.

[–] • 2 pts

How fucking gay. When you fall off a bike, you land on your FACE, not the top of your head. See also 'hands, knees, and elbows'.

[–] • 0 pt

When you get hit by a nigger driving like you don't have a right ro commute you go flying through the air and land in whatever is closest to the fround when you make impact.

This coming frim a guy who hasnt worn a helmet since he forgot his last one on the bus years ago.

[–] • 0 pt

Helmets have nothing to do with the "helmet industry" and everything to do with the "insurance industry" and liability.

If you are driving and you accidentally brake too late and crumple a guy's bumper, then you owe the cost to replace the bumper. Makes sense, right? $100 for some scrap metal or whatever

But what if the guy is some rich art freak who has a highly decorated antique custom bumper worth $1,000,000? Should you then be liable for $1,000,000 for the same mistake? Doesn't seem right. If a guy wants to drive around with stupid risks that's his own business, but when the guy expects me to be liable for the full cost of damages in an accident then that becomes my business.

It's great that 90% of bicyclists are sane but all it takes is that one asshole weaving around traffic with no lights at night and one tiny bump from my car causes him to break his neck and hold me liable for millions of dollars of medical expenses and lost income. Therefore I have no choice but to support laws to require bicyclists to take worst-case safety precuations all the time ---- not because I want cops running arount ticketing bicyclists doing perfectly safe things on their own property, but because when that one idiot bicyclist that gets his neck broken tries to sue me for millions I can point out in court - this dumbass was breaking 5 different laws regarding bicycle safety therefore I'm not liable.

[–] • 1 pt

Pedestrians have a higher likelihood of being hit.

Cyclists without helmets are actually less likely to get hit.

Deductible is the same to the insured whether you hit a thousand dollar bumper or a million dollar bumper.

Insurance company goes to court, not you, generally.

If you hit someone and it was your fault... well, it was your fault. You take your life into your hands whenever you get behind the wheel..

Know who gets killed in car accidents more than cyclists? Other drivers who aren't wearing helmets. Court is the same result with another driver or a pedestrian, negating your hypothetical.

We don't need bicycle helmet laws.

[–] • 0 pt

Deductible is the same to the insured whether you hit a thousand dollar bumper or a million dollar bumper. Insurance company goes to court, not you, generally.

These internal details do not change the overarching fact that whatever court fees and judgements insurance companies pay will be reflected in the premiums that I pay.

Pedestrians have a higher likelihood of being hit. If you hit someone and it was your fault... well, it was your fault.

If I run my car on a sidewalk and I hit someone then yes, it is my fault. If some asshole with no lights is weaving around in the middle of the road at night and I hit the brakes too late, then no it's not my fault.

Know who gets killed in car accidents more than cyclists? Other drivers who aren't wearing helmets.

Yes if I straight up slam into somebody at 60MPH then they are dying regardless of if they are in a car or on a bicycle. But a little 5MPH bump won't do jack to somebody in a car but is half-likely to break the neck of a bicyclist.

We don't need bicycle helmet laws.

Sign away your right to hold others liable in an accident and you can ride your bicycle however you please, my man. It's no different than the illegality of driving without a tail light or a seatbelt.

[–] • 1 pt

If it's not your fault you don't pay, once again rendering your argument moot.

If it's not my fault, I'm not liable.

Tail lights are an interesting example. You know why they raised the brake lights on all cars closer to eye level? Because it saves lives. By your logic, all tail lights should be eye level to reduce liability. Right? Either way, we don't need to pay cops to ticket for broken tail lights. If harm is caused for lack of tail light, you pay.

Showers in hotel rooms are another liability example. Many hotels are no longer installing bathtubs, just showers because they are safer. By your logic, nobody should have bathtubs... which are more dangerous, by far, than bicycle riding.

In fact, bathroom falls are very deadly. By your logic, this whole country should be required to have handle bars and no bathtubs. You see the slippery slope?

You, ultimately, justify wanting more rules for me because you don't want to pay a higher insurance premium. It's laughable, honestly. Do you listen to yoursrlf?

You're exactly the problem. The CDC, a non elected body, makes bullshit ultimatums for the whole country, circumventing laws, legislation and common sense. Just like you're doing now.

You are justifying more bullshit laws and you haven't articulated a single good reason why.

Insurance companies are more affected by fraud than actual accidents, which... again, if it isn't your fault, your premiums aren't going up.

So... aside from your desire to massage your insurance company's prostate, I can't really see that you've successfully justified forcing people to wear pointless accessories sold at a premium.

[–] • -1 pt

helmets, elbow pads and knee pads for kids are a good thing

[–] • 1 pt

For crossing the street? Statistically speaking, they would do more good if all children were forced to wear them to cross the street.

For scooters? For bicycles?

For what?

Knee pads on bike? Meh.

For some situations, these items are great. However, at what point does government and corporations crawling up your ass and forcing you to wear stupid shit cross a line?

They are not making these rules to help you, as they do not give a fuck about you. The policies are specifically enforced to enrich the friends of the policy makers.

If the cabal was really interested in helping you, they'd ban fast food because it kills more people than just about anything.

You should be able to wear or not wear superfluous safety gear at your discretion. It is not the government's place to force you.

[–] • 2 pts

You are correct, Grand Pubah