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.
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.
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.
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.
(post is archived)