I'm not sure if it's unfortunate at all. Seatbelt and helmet laws save like 15,000 lives every year. There's a very good reason they were legislated.

I'm all for reducing government overhead and overreach, but I don't think helmet laws are a good example.

One of the things that makes cyclists safer is having more other cyclists on the road. I'm happy to wear my helmet, but if others don't, I just want them on the road. In aggregate, we'll all be safer, even though some will choose not to wear helmets.

Specifically: Even those that choose not to wear helmets will be safer due to the increase in ridership. The comparison to seat-belts isn't appropriate because my not wearing a seat-belt in a car accident increases risk for others (specifically others in the same car as me).

There is also fairly conflicted evidence that helmets are effective. There is a fairly narrow treatment range where they work well. Be hit by something going faster or slower than that range, and they don't matter much. They are nothing like full-face motorcycle helmets.

There is also evidence (although not well replicated?) that drivers treat helmeted cyclists worse than unhelmeted ones.

I think if you want these programs at all, you have to make difficult decisions. The fact is, nobody is going to carry a helmet around on the off chance they are going to use a rideshare. If they have one at all, they're using their own vehicle. I've used Seattle's bikeshares a few dozen times now, and I love it a great deal, but I never would've bothered if I had to wear a helmet - I would've just taken an Uber or something.

I have even seen some people claim that, measured in QALYs other such utilitarian metrics, helmet laws make people unhealthier on average in that they discourage riding bicycles and that the net effect of this is worse than the increased risk, but I don't know how reliable that result is.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, I think you're making valid points. Paternalistic laws definitely have upsides and downsides (upside of safety, downside of lacking autonomy).

I think your idea might work in cities that have designated bike lanes or bike-only roads. For example, in Santa Monica, we have some bike-only lanes, so it might work here, but like in downtown LA, it would be a shitshow and I can basically guarantee that people will die at some point. And then you have to deal with that mess.

Looking at the bike riding and safety rates in the Netherlands, Denmark, or even Germany compared to the USA, there are obviously other better and safer ways to deal with biking than helmet laws. Of course, it would require actually prioritizing bicyclist infrastructure over cars.

I'd be interested to know where you got such a stat? The combining of seatbelt and helmet law lives seem a bit weird. Can't find any exact figures using google, but it looks like in 2016[1] 424 people died not wearing helmets, 137 with helmets and 274 died and it was not recorded if they were wearing a helmet. How to determine how many, if any lives are saved by bicycle helmets is not very clear,[2] especially if one tries to factor in the loss of exercise (and decrease in health) that helmet laws cause.

In such an non-clear cut case, I would suggest letting people decide for themselves, if they want to wear a helmet or not, would be the best option.

[1] https://helmets.org/stats.htm [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/do-bi...

I researched this a few years ago for a law class. I remember the number was around 15,000[1].

> In such an non-clear cut case, I would suggest letting people decide for themselves,

I think it's pretty clear-cut in the case of seat-belts and helmets. Paternalistic laws do work.

[1] http://www.youthforroadsafety.org/news-blog/news-blog-item/t...

I don't see anything here about helmets. Not sure how to wear a seat belt on a scooter or a bicycle. Did you read my comment? Safety first "works" if you don't want to do anything.