Utah bike helmet law

[LockH]

Anybuddy?

In the news currently: Utah Senate passes bill to raise age of helmet wearers:
http://universe.byu.edu/2017/02/27/utah-senate-passes-bill-to-raise-age-of-helmet-wearers/

The bill passed in the Utah Senate Tuesday, Feb. 21.

Currently, riders under 18 years old must wear a helmet. This bill would legally require riders under the age of 21 to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle, a motor-driven cycle, a class 3 electric assisted bicycle or an autocycle that is not fully enclosed.

Other stuff:ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLE AMENDMENTS
http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/sbillenr/SB0121.pdf

HELMET REQUIREMENT AMENDMENTS:
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/sbillint/SB0159.htm

Utah Senate Bill 121 May Fix Electric Bike Issues and May Introduce New Issues – News and Commentary
http://www.cyclingutah.com/advocacy/utah-senate-bill-121-may-fix-electric-bike-issues/

WATTS UP, UTAH?

 

[Izits]

I'll bite.

This one is dead obvious, just follow the money. The helmet makers lobby the government to create laws to force people to buy helmets against their will. A higher age requirement means people buy even more helmets. This creates a partially protected market where people are now forced at gunpoint to buy something against their will.

The police love it too. They love that more silly things are illegal so they can harass/arrest more people whenever the choose to. Also, they can claim to be busier now that there are more things to enforce so they'll need more money and more people. This makes the police bureaucracy more powerful and wealthier.

There is no moral argument here. The government simply has no business playing nanny state and protecting us from ourselves. The ultimate end point of that thinking is zero freedom both personal and economic.
This is most of what government power to meddle in economics does; sell power, abuse power and pervert markets. The government should be banned from interfering in any economic activities.

People don't realize how much economic harm protected markets and partial monopolies cause. Just using helmets as an example, since 1999 they are required to be certified by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This kind of law creates a barrier to entry that reduces competition. Reduced competition in turn means fewer jobs and lower wages. Everyone suffers at the hands of government regulations.

 

[fechter]

But they seem to be on the right track for electric bikes. Their new laws are much like California's

Section 2. Section 41-6a-1115.5 is enacted to read:
386 41-6a-1115.5. Electric assisted bicycles -- Restrictions -- Penalties.
387 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an electric assisted bicycle is subject
388 to the provisions under this chapter for a bicycle.
389 (2) An individual may operate an electric assisted bicycle on a path or trail designated
390 for the use of a bicycle.
391 (3) A local authority or state agency may adopt an ordinance or rule to regulate or
392 restrict the use of an electric assisted bicycle, or a specific classification of an electric assisted
393 bicycle, on a sidewalk, path, or trail within the jurisdiction of the local authority or state

 

[Chalo]

Utah legislation must be cheaper than most states'. The helmet lobby is like a penny ante version of the insurance industry, in that their favorite tactic is to enact laws requiring people to buy the thing they're selling for profit. Bell Sports, which also owns the Giro brand, is the worst offender in this regard. But their budget is modest compared to lots of other corrupt businesses.

In the USA, bicycle helmet manufacturers are allowed to self-certify to the published CPSC standard. It's not difficult or expensive to conduct in-house testing, so it doesn't constitute a significant barrier to entry. Up-front tooling costs are probably the biggest hurdle to clear.

Just to be clear, if bicycle helmets were worth using, they'd have made a significant difference in total fatality rates among cyclists during the last 30 years during which helmet usage has escalated from approximately zero percent to approximately 50 percent. But they're not, and they haven't. Fatalities as a percentage of total cyclist numbers or miles ridden have changed hardly at all during that time.

So if it pleases you to wear a helmet, go ahead and wear one. But understand that if it's a bicycle helmet, the change it causes in your behavior and motorists' behavior probably cancels out the benefit of whatever physical protection the helmet offers. And while you're getting a net zero benefit from your magic hat, you're doing your part to portray cycling as a dangerous activity, when it's really cars and car drivers that are dangerous.

 

[E-geezer]

But they seem to be on the right track for electric bikes. Their new laws are much like California's

Section 2. Section 41-6a-1115.5 is enacted to read:
386 41-6a-1115.5. Electric assisted bicycles -- Restrictions -- Penalties.
387 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an electric assisted bicycle is subject
388 to the provisions under this chapter for a bicycle.
389 (2) An individual may operate an electric assisted bicycle on a path or trail designated
390 for the use of a bicycle.
391 (3) A local authority or state agency may adopt an ordinance or rule to regulate or
392 restrict the use of an electric assisted bicycle, or a specific classification of an electric assisted
393 bicycle, on a sidewalk, path, or trail within the jurisdiction of the local authority or state

Thats because the new ebike laws are all written by the same people.

 

[Izits]

The helmet lobby is like a penny ante version of the insurance industry, in that their favorite tactic is to enact laws requiring people to buy the thing they're selling for profit. Bell Sports ... is the worst offender in this regard. But their budget is modest compared to lots of other corrupt businesses.

There is no logic to this position. You acknowledge that the new law is bad, yet you blame the companies for "enacting" the law it when in fact it is the government who writes, passes and enforces these laws. Villainizing companies won't help, it is the government power that needs to be curtailed.

 

[Chalo]

The helmet lobby is like a penny ante version of the insurance industry, in that their favorite tactic is to enact laws requiring people to buy the thing they're selling for profit. Bell Sports ... is the worst offender in this regard. But their budget is modest compared to lots of other corrupt businesses.

There is no logic to this position. You acknowledge that the new law is bad, yet you blame the companies for "enacting" the law it when in fact it is the government who writes, passes and enforces these laws. Villainizing companies won't help, it is the government power that needs to be curtailed.

The aren't really any good guys in the case of pubic corruption. But consider this: The private sector corporate players in this scenario are formally obligated to cheat if they believe it maximizes profits. They're always going to be bad guys.

 

[Izits]

The aren't really any good guys in the case of pubic corruption. But consider this: The private sector corporate players in this scenario are formally obligated to cheat if they believe it maximizes profits. They're always going to be bad guys.

What? I don't see anyone obligated to "cheat", whatever you mean by cheat. You're saying there's some law or custom obligating companies to leverage corrupt government power?
And it isn't "pubic corruption" (whatever that even means), it's government corruption. Let's not confuse people on that point.
As usual the politicians are behaving corruptly, that's very clear and it's the only source of the trouble. You can't blame companies for "maximizing profit", that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

But I love your opinion of the private sector, you've told us "They're always going to be bad guys." So you're saying anyone who buys or sells anything without government involvement is automatically a bad guy. Lovely.

 

[Lakebod]

Is it not somewhat detrimental to your skull to dismount your ebike unexpectedly at 30+ kph? We're not casually riding our step through push bikes through Amsterdam. Ebikes riders need helmets in Ontario, Canada too. The bike helmet manufacturers are living high on the hog here as well. Not sure if the commonly mentioned behaviour side of the argument applies to ebikes as well, however I do agree that cars are mean.

 

[LewTwo]

A helmet would only protect the softer pavement from damage due to the impact of my much harder head :lol:

 

[AF7JA]

Did anyone happen to notice that this article is almost exactly one year old?

February 15, 2016

 

[Chalo]

The aren't really any good guys in the case of pubic corruption. But consider this: The private sector corporate players in this scenario are formally obligated to cheat if they believe it maximizes profits. They're always going to be bad guys.

What? I don't see anyone obligated to "cheat", whatever you mean by cheat. You're saying there's some law or custom obligating companies to leverage corrupt government power?
And it isn't "pubic corruption" (whatever that even means), it's government corruption. Let's not confuse people on that point.

The word is "public", even if my fone doesn't always see it that way. As in public officials and publicly held corporations.

The executives of a publicly held corporation are sworn to maximize profit-- not to act in the long term interests of the company or to conduct business in an ethical way. So yes, it's their duty to do the wrong thing if they believe it will result in the most profit. They have financial and legal incentives to corrupt the political process, and they do. If you think reducing constraints on corporate behavior will result in something better, you're a fool.

But I don't think you were born a fool. I think you've bought into some fairy tale nonsense about how free markets work, as if there ever were such a thing. You think that in a system based on people acting in their own self-interest, people will respect the integrity of the system above their self-interest? It hasn't happened yet, anywhere.

How old are you again?