Can we talk seriously about No Helmet?

[TheDude]

Thanks for the rick roll great way to start the morning.

Interesting conversion I am not sure I have much to add. I can tell you the reason I wear a helmet is not because of my actions on a bicycle. All it takes is a fucking squirrel to put you on your ass. I don't care if you are only moving 8mph when you fall there is chance you will hit your head.

But hell its your head so cheers to all with or without a helmet.

[Jamesqf]

Then James you will need to explain to me why my doctors only seem to care if I am wearing a helmet when riding and not when doing any of the other activities you mention.  I'll venture it has to do with the amount of risk involved and the severity of the injuries.  Or are you arguing that doctors have bought into an urban myth?

I wouldn't call it an urban myth, exactly, but doctors are no less subject to fads than we mere mortals are.  As for instance (personal experience here) the tendency a couple of decades ago to diagnose any malaise as depression and prescribe Prozac.  (In my case, it was a sinus infection.)

You also need to remember that doctors see a biased view of things: they only see the few injuries that come to the emergency room, not the millions of uninjured who don't.

[hybrid]

Then James you will need to explain to me why my doctors only seem to care if I am wearing a helmet when riding and not when doing any of the other activities you mention.  I'll venture it has to do with the amount of risk involved and the severity of the injuries.  Or are you arguing that doctors have bought into an urban myth?

I wouldn't call it an urban myth, exactly, but doctors are no less subject to fads than we mere mortals are.  As for instance (personal experience here) the tendency a couple of decades ago to diagnose any malaise as depression and prescribe Prozac.  (In my case, it was a sinus infection.)

You also need to remember that doctors see a biased view of things: they only see the few injuries that come to the emergency room, not the millions of uninjured who don't.

What you are calling it, in effect, is that SMEs conventional wisdom shouldn't be trusted.  This is pretty much the same argument the climate change deniers have been using for years now.  From my experience when people go against the consensus of SMEs they usually have their own biased reasons for doing so (like, I just hate wearing this $%^& helmet....  ;-)  ).

I will agree with you in that the conventional wisdom of SMEs isn't 100% accurate and can be subject to correction, but where do you go with that argument?  Here is where I go with it.  If I am going to go against the grain of people who specialize in something that I don't, I'd better have a pretty compelling and unbiased reason for doing so.  I don't like wearing a helmet doesn't meet that bar.  Neither does I've never been hurt on a bike.  And maybe you do.  But I sure don't.  Next time I see my GP in six months I hope I remember to ask her about bike helmets.

[Owl]

Doctors are not experts in accident statistics.

[Insanity]

It isn't about injured versus uninjured.  It is severity of injury with versus severity of injury without.  That is how you determine whether using a helmet is worth it or not.

Similar to seat belts, airbags, and other safety devices. 

[dragoncar]

Doctors are not experts in accident statistics.

They are experts in the difference between a head injury and scraped knees

[Jamesqf]

What you are calling it, in effect, is that SMEs conventional wisdom shouldn't be trusted.

No, I'm saying that they have different values, and that quite often they are not willing to look beyond those values. 

If I am going to go against the grain of people who specialize in something that I don't, I'd better have a pretty compelling and unbiased reason for doing so.  I don't like wearing a helmet doesn't meet that bar.

Why not?  That really is the whole argument.  I bike for pleasure (just as I do many other supposedly risky things for pleasure).  If I have to do something that significantly detracts from the pleasure, I won't be riding.  The risk of injury or death simply does not matter to me - if it did, I wouldn't be riding either.

[Albert]

Would it?  A $5-$20 helmet is going to "significantly enhance" the risk of it being stolen?

I'm thinking bike thieves look much more at the bike itself (both what they can get for it and how easy it would be to steal) rather than a plastic helmet attached to it.  But I could be wrong.

Maybe it's just my perception or perhaps the fact that I hardly ever see someone doing it. By the way thieves sometimes steal them just to go somewhere and then trash or abandon them.

[Sebastian]

Mr. Money Mustache not wearing a helmet in his 4 minute video SERIOUSLY DISTURBED ME. Think about children, who will now carelessly not where a helmet and suffer severe brain damage.

I called the Colorado State Police but was rudely hung up on. They were not interested in my complaint.

Instead, I've called and wrote (CERTIFIED!) all Colorado congressmen(woman) and senators and linked them to my petition. We need to change the law now and make reckless and dangerous behavior like "NO HELMET" illegal!

Please sign my petition at Change.org

lol are you kidding me? maybe you just have no sense of balance and randomly fall off your bike from time to time. me on the other hand... been riding a bike since i was a little kid with no helmet (save for when i used to bmx at skate parks) and i've never as you say "severe brain damage"

people are so pretentious about wearing bike helmets it makes me sick.

[Sebastian]

also lol at the fact that people are getting so rustled about wearing helmets with a bicycle. how about all the motorcyclists that don't wear helmets? really people if you want to wear them wear them. i'm sure if you get hit by a car you are still going to be seriously fucked up either way.

[arebelspy]

Mr. Money Mustache not wearing a helmet in his 4 minute video SERIOUSLY DISTURBED ME. Think about children, who will now carelessly not where a helmet and suffer severe brain damage.

I called the Colorado State Police but was rudely hung up on. They were not interested in my complaint.

Instead, I've called and wrote (CERTIFIED!) all Colorado congressmen(woman) and senators and linked them to my petition. We need to change the law now and make reckless and dangerous behavior like "NO HELMET" illegal!

Please sign my petition at Change.org

lol are you kidding me? maybe you just have no sense of balance and randomly fall off your bike from time to time. me on the other hand... been riding a bike since i was a little kid with no helmet (save for when i used to bmx at skate parks) and i've never as you say "severe brain damage"

people are so pretentious about wearing bike helmets it makes me sick.

I don't know, his petition makes some pretty strong arguments.  Did you read it?

[Sebastian]

Mr. Money Mustache not wearing a helmet in his 4 minute video SERIOUSLY DISTURBED ME. Think about children, who will now carelessly not where a helmet and suffer severe brain damage.

I called the Colorado State Police but was rudely hung up on. They were not interested in my complaint.

Instead, I've called and wrote (CERTIFIED!) all Colorado congressmen(woman) and senators and linked them to my petition. We need to change the law now and make reckless and dangerous behavior like "NO HELMET" illegal!

Please sign my petition at Change.org

lol are you kidding me? maybe you just have no sense of balance and randomly fall off your bike from time to time. me on the other hand... been riding a bike since i was a little kid with no helmet (save for when i used to bmx at skate parks) and i've never as you say "severe brain damage"

people are so pretentious about wearing bike helmets it makes me sick.

I don't know, his petition makes some pretty strong arguments.  Did you read it?

block by big brother unfortunately. either way, my 2nd post should /thread. motorcyclists aren't forced to wear helmets by law (at least from what i know) so why should bicyclists have to?

[jambongris]

I don't know, his petition makes some pretty strong arguments.  Did you read it?

Despite having read the beginnings of this thread a while ago I forgot about the petition and clicked on the link.

[Samsam]

I don't know, his petition makes some pretty strong arguments.  Did you read it?

Despite having read the beginnings of this thread a while ago I forgot about the petition and clicked on the link.

made my day :) 

[AlmostIndependent]

motorcyclists aren't forced to wear helmets by law (at least from what i know) so why should bicyclists have to?

There are plenty of states the require motorcycle helmets.

[arebelspy]

motorcyclists aren't forced to wear helmets by law (at least from what i know) so why should bicyclists have to?

There are plenty of states the require motorcycle helmets.

This.  Only 3 states have no laws regarding motorcycle helmets (and a mix of the rest have laws regarding everyone or people under a certain age).

It's also irrelevant to this thread, and I'm not sure what point it proves either, as I'd bet anyone who says someone should wear a bike helmet ought to wear a motorcycle one as well. 

So telling them "don't get upset about bike helmets when some people don't wear motorcycle ones" doesn't help, as they'd just say "well people should wear them in both situations, so what's your point?"

[AJ]

I feel like this should go without saying, but there is a world of difference between saying people should wear helmets and saying they must wear helmets. Are all the pro-helmet folks here really arguing that wearing helmets ought to be mandated by law? Or, are you just arguing that wearing them is a wise choice. Because those are two very, very different animals.

My doctor would tell me to wear condoms when I have casual sex, but that doesn't mean we need a condom law. My doctor would tell me not to be obese, but that doesn't mean we should have a fat law. My dentist would tell me to floss, but that doesn't mean we need a flossing law. Just because a thing is healthy and wise does not mean it should be mandated by law.

[Samsam]

AJ, I think that is very well put. 

[mpbaker22]

This thread does have a good point despite the trolling.  Certainly helmets should not be mandatory for those over 18, but I'm for laws that put more fault on the cyclist in the event of a death caused by an accident where the driver has some fault.  If the driver is at fault the driver is at fault.  However, you can't very well seek the damages for an accidental death if the cyclist would have lived with a helmet on.

Not sure how I feel about helmet laws for those under 18.

[AJ]

If the driver is at fault the driver is at fault.  However, you can't very well seek the damages for an accidental death if the cyclist would have lived with a helmet on.

I guess my question for this is: If a drunk driver kills another motorist, can one seek damages in that person's accidental death if they could have been saved by wearing a seat belt? I'm guessing yes, and in that case I'm in favor of consistency. If the victim is considered partially at fault for not wearing their seat belt, then I agree with the above.

[hybrid]

Mr. Money Mustache not wearing a helmet in his 4 minute video SERIOUSLY DISTURBED ME. Think about children, who will now carelessly not where a helmet and suffer severe brain damage.

I called the Colorado State Police but was rudely hung up on. They were not interested in my complaint.

Instead, I've called and wrote (CERTIFIED!) all Colorado congressmen(woman) and senators and linked them to my petition. We need to change the law now and make reckless and dangerous behavior like "NO HELMET" illegal!

Please sign my petition at Change.org

lol are you kidding me? maybe you just have no sense of balance and randomly fall off your bike from time to time. me on the other hand... been riding a bike since i was a little kid with no helmet (save for when i used to bmx at skate parks) and i've never as you say "severe brain damage"

people are so pretentious about wearing bike helmets it makes me sick.

Ahhhhh, to be young and invincible again.  Perhaps when you've had another 20 years to think about it and met a few folks who got seriously messed up in bike accidents you will change your tune.

[mpbaker22]

I guess my question for this is: If a drunk driver kills another motorist, can one seek damages in that person's accidental death if they could have been saved by wearing a seat belt? I'm guessing yes, and in that case I'm in favor of consistency. If the victim is considered partially at fault for not wearing their seat belt, then I agree with the above.

But a drunk driver is clearly doing something illegal that brings about more fault, though I would still say they are as not AS culpable as if the other driver is wearing a seat-belt.
Let's look at a scenario where the driver isn't overly aggressive, but they accidentally hit you ... accidents do happen even when everyone is being considerate.  Should that person/their insurance have to pay for the lawsuit, when the cyclist would not have died if they had a helmet on?  I imagine it would be hard to unequivocally prove the helmet would have 100% saved the cyclist's life ... but that's not exactly the point.

[Jamesqf]

Ahhhhh, to be young and invincible again.  Perhaps when you've had another 20 years to think about it and met a few folks who got seriously messed up in bike accidents you will change your tune.

And perhaps not.  I've been riding since the days when touring bikes were "10 speeds" (and nobody'd ever dreamed of wearing helmets to ride), and haven't changed my tune yet.

[grantmeaname]

but I'm for laws that put more fault on the cyclist in the event of a death caused by an accident where the driver has some fault.  If the driver is at fault the driver is at fault.

Is there a typo here, do these two sentences contradict, or am I missing something?

[BlueMR2]

Love the RickRoll!  :-)

On the helmet thing, I'm of mixed feelings.  It's really a risk analysis that each person has to make.  I understand the concern about an otherwise easily survivable collision turning into a death/permanent disability and the impact (no pun intended) that has on bystanders/others involved.  I'm also not a fan of having to pay for other people's medical bills (which we all do in the end).  However, I believe first and foremost in personal freedom (even if it does cost me some) and I think that's where common sense has to take over (and honestly, some people really need to grow up and stop feeling so violated every time something bad happens.  Nature is not kind, get used to it.).  Ultimately, I'm against helmet laws, but do my best to convince people to wear helmets.

In practice, I wear a helmet when riding my road bike and motorcycles, but NOT on my mountain bike.  Here's the risk analysis I've gone through:

- Road bike = Moving pretty fast on a very light, fragile (potential for breakage/catastrophic failure), unstable machine.  Mostly not on roads with cars, but when I am, I'm very limited in avoidance (road bike is not rut/stone friendly and transitions onto grass, etc are bad news).  Low chance of crash, but if it happens it'll probably be very bad.  Helmet.

- Motorcycle = On the road the entire time with SUVs piloted by soccer moms with mochachino in hand who are looking at the back seat yelling at kids instead of watching where they're driving.  Ability to avoid getting rear-ended at a light is much lower than on an easy to move bike.  Awareness of surroundings is decreased by the noise of the motorcycle.  Head on collisions are much more likely and at much higher speeds.  Moderate chance of a crash and if it happens it's likely to be extremely bad.  Helmet.

- Mountain bike = I'm on side streets with low (and slow) traffic or on trails, on a very sturdy bike.  Chance of collision with car is low.  Easy to dive on/off the road as necessary.  My speed is very low.  Personal experience is that nobody my age wore helmets as kids and I dumped/was launched from the bike at those speeds numerous times without any injuries of note (road rash was really all that ever happened).  Very low chance of crash and if it happens it's likely to be a complete non-event.  No helmet.

Side note: I've got a lot of doctors/nurses in my family and they freak out whenever they see someone without a helmet.  For good reason, they see a closed head injury crash at least once a week.  However, what they don't see is the eleventy bazillion other people that didn't crash...  It's like the guy that will never fly on an airplane after seeing a crash, completely ignoring that overall it's statistically very safe.  A single bad personal experience can eliminate one's ability to accurately assess risk.

[Daleth]

I wear a helmet.  My wife does not. 

One should educate themselves, then make a personal decision.

It's not a strictly personal decision, unless you have so much disability insurance and so much life insurance that your traumatic brain injury will not impose a financial burden on your family or on society. If you're that rich, be my guest, but most of us aren't--including the mustachians. That $2 million we could easily live on for the rest of our lives would evaporate if a spouse or child suffered permanent brain damage.

[arebelspy]

I wear a helmet.  My wife does not. 

One should educate themselves, then make a personal decision.

It's not a strictly personal decision, unless you have so much disability insurance and so much life insurance that your traumatic brain injury will not impose a financial burden on your family or on society. If you're that rich, be my guest, but most of us aren't--including the mustachians. That $2 million we could easily live on for the rest of our lives would evaporate if a spouse or child suffered permanent brain damage.

This is true of ANY activity and every type of insurance.

We all weigh the risks and decide what to insure against and how to live our lives.  It's no different with a bicycle helmet.

[impaire]

I feel like this should go without saying, but there is a world of difference between saying people should wear helmets and saying they must wear helmets. Are all the pro-helmet folks here really arguing that wearing helmets ought to be mandated by law? Or, are you just arguing that wearing them is a wise choice. Because those are two very, very different animals.

Well, for my own part I'm not arguing for laws. I just cannot stand the "well it's my decision because it only just impacts ME" line of thought. I guess when I do something stupid (like smoking, which I did for 10 years), I prefer to do it with a modicum of self-awareness, and some attention to the ways in which I might manage the inconvenience on others.

[arebelspy]

Everything we do affects other people.  Even breathing.

That doesn't mean we ought to - or even have any right to - take away people's ability to live their lives.

[dragoncar]

Everything we do affects other people.  Even breathing.

That doesn't mean we ought to - or even have any right to - take away people's ability to live their lives.

If you could just stop breathing, that would be great mkay?

[Luck better Skill]

  I am all for wearing protective gear.  I also appose laws to enforce such use.

  I would like to point to a unintended consequence here.  We have a limited number of law enforcement.  When the PD is too busy enforcing seat belt laws, helmets laws and other nice to have laws it reduces the time they have to protect and investigate other crimes.  Such as rape, murder, assault, battery, theft, etc.  These more severe crimes are traumatic on families costing us billions of dollars.  In an ideal world we could prevent all accidents, crimes, and injuries.  We live on earth. 

[grantmeaname]

[Citation needed]

[Albert]

Side note: I've got a lot of doctors/nurses in my family and they freak out whenever they see someone without a helmet.  For good reason, they see a closed head injury crash at least once a week.  However, what they don't see is the eleventy bazillion other people that didn't crash... It's like the guy that will never fly on an airplane after seeing a crash, completely ignoring that overall it's statistically very safe.  A single bad personal experience can eliminate one's ability to accurately assess risk.

+1

Selection bias is the scientific term for the phenomena. Humans are just not intuitively good at understanding statistics.

[hybrid]

What you are calling it, in effect, is that SMEs conventional wisdom shouldn't be trusted.

No, I'm saying that they have different values, and that quite often they are not willing to look beyond those values. 

I'd love to know how you feel qualified to make that statement.  Are you in a fact a doctor?  Not only do you disagree with doctors, you feel like you can speak to their state of mind as well?  I totally get that you don't want to wear a helmet especially since you've never been hurt (yet), but your arguments scream "rationalization" to me.  Hopefully you'll go your entire life without a head injury (after all, the odds are with you).   That still won't make it a great choice.  I'm sticking with the American College of Emergency Physicians.  They are, after all, folks that end up treating most people that do get hurt in a serious accident.

http://www.acep.org/MobileArticle.aspx?id=29830&coll_id=42&parentid=748   

[Luck better Skill]

[Citation needed]  Grantmeaname was that a question for me?


Also went to read the petition but the link was broke.

[Daleth]

  I am all for wearing protective gear.  I also appose laws to enforce such use.

I'm all for such laws, much like seatbelt laws. We all pay for the consequences of accidents, whether through higher health, car, disability or life insurance premiums and/or through higher taxes needed to fund the public tab for patching up the uninsured and paying them social security disability while they recover (or forever, if they don't). I have no problem with everyone all pitching in together to pay those premiums or taxes as a general principle, but it bugs me that some people don't take care of themselves--i.e., they smoke, ride without helmets, drive without seatbelts, eat a heart attack on a plate every night, make no effort to avoid diabetes, etc. To my mind it's a square deal if we all pitch in to pay those premiums and taxes AND we all pitch in to take reasonably good care of ourselves so as not to waste other people's money.

[Luck better Skill]

  I am all for wearing protective gear.  I also appose laws to enforce such use.

I'm all for such laws, much like seatbelt laws. We all pay for the consequences of accidents, whether through higher health, car, disability or life insurance premiums and/or through higher taxes needed to fund the public tab for patching up the uninsured and paying them social security disability while they recover (or forever, if they don't). I have no problem with everyone all pitching in together to pay those premiums or taxes as a general principle, but it bugs me that some people don't take care of themselves--i.e., they smoke, ride without helmets, drive without seatbelts, eat a heart attack on a plate every night, make no effort to avoid diabetes, etc. To my mind it's a square deal if we all pitch in to pay those premiums and taxes AND we all pitch in to take reasonably good care of ourselves so as not to waste other people's money.

  What about the hidden cost of enforcement?  If it cost more to enforce seat belt laws then society saves $$ then your cost analysis says we should not do it.  Consider looking at the other half.

  The MMM website talks on saving by reducing expenses.  Debt is not just a personal issue.  Cities, states, and Federal Government have ton.  At some point governments will make hard calls on where to cut spending.  There are many more important functions the government does then seat-belt laws.

[hybrid]

  I am all for wearing protective gear.  I also appose laws to enforce such use.

I'm all for such laws, much like seatbelt laws. We all pay for the consequences of accidents, whether through higher health, car, disability or life insurance premiums and/or through higher taxes needed to fund the public tab for patching up the uninsured and paying them social security disability while they recover (or forever, if they don't). I have no problem with everyone all pitching in together to pay those premiums or taxes as a general principle, but it bugs me that some people don't take care of themselves--i.e., they smoke, ride without helmets, drive without seatbelts, eat a heart attack on a plate every night, make no effort to avoid diabetes, etc. To my mind it's a square deal if we all pitch in to pay those premiums and taxes AND we all pitch in to take reasonably good care of ourselves so as not to waste other people's money.

At heart I'm something of a Libertarian, but I agree (somewhat) with the notion that if society ultimately picks up the cost for other peoples poor decisions then society gets a say in what is legal and what is not.  It's a very gray area and one can debate both sides of the argument effectively.  It's a line that will probably move a lot over time.  Alcohol has all sorts of hidden costs, for example, and its perfectly legal.  Shall we outlaw beer?

So if you were to pin me down and ask "should states require helmets" I would give you a definitive "not sure".  ;-)

[Luck better Skill]

At heart I'm something of a Libertarian, but I agree (somewhat) with the notion that if society ultimately picks up the cost for other peoples poor decisions then society gets a say in what is legal and what is not.  It's a very gray area and one can debate both sides of the argument effectively.  It's a line that will probably move a lot over time.  Alcohol has all sorts of hidden costs, for example, and its perfectly legal.  Shall we outlaw beer?

So if you were to pin me down and ask "should states require helmets" I would give you a definitive "not sure".  ;-)

  What a can of worms you opened Hybrid.  The Nation tried prohibition.  There was a huge cost in crime, deaths, police effort, courts, jails, moonshine, etc.  In the end the USA thought it was a failed social experiment repealing the law.
  Again I think not wearing a seat-belt or bike helmet is a poor decision. 
 

[MrsHybrid]

I can still vividly recall the poster in my children's pediatrician's office. It showed the photo of a young boy in the aftermath of a biking accident sans helmet. I could not even count the stitches on his head and face.
What you as an adult choose to do is up to you. You throw the dice and take your chances. As a parent you not only have a responsibility to keep yourself healthy for your children but to set an example. Kids generally lack a sense of mortality. They never think anything bad will happen to them.
I guess my point is that I wasn't bothered as much by MMM's lack of wearing a helmet as his lack of wearing one while riding with his son.

[mpbaker22]

but I'm for laws that put more fault on the cyclist in the event of a death caused by an accident where the driver has some fault.  If the driver is at fault the driver is at fault.

Is there a typo here, do these two sentences contradict, or am I missing something?

Definitely a typo of some sort but I don't remember exactly what I was saying.  The overall point was you shouldn't be able to go helmet-less and expect laws to protect you as much as the guy who wears the helmet.  But I'm also against forced helmet laws.

[grantmeaname]

Definitely a typo of some sort but I don't remember exactly what I was saying.  The overall point was you shouldn't be able to go helmet-less and expect laws to protect you as much as the guy who wears the helmet.  But I'm also against forced helmet laws.

Why not? Are you more at fault if you ride without a helmet, everything else equal?

[mpbaker22]

Definitely a typo of some sort but I don't remember exactly what I was saying.  The overall point was you shouldn't be able to go helmet-less and expect laws to protect you as much as the guy who wears the helmet.  But I'm also against forced helmet laws.

Why not? Are you more at fault if you ride without a helmet, everything else equal?

Essentially, Yes.  If you're not wearing a helmet, hitting your head in a crash turns a little scrape into minor brain damage, minor brain damage into major brain damage, major brain damage into death.  Obviously this is a generalization, but I don't think the driver should be as culpable for liability payouts if the cyclist hasn't done anything to protect himself from common accidents.

[grantmeaname]

But if the cyclist didn't cause the accident, it's not the cyclist's fault for the severity, it's the fault of the asshole that sideswiped him. The cyclist, without helmet, and without asshole driver, doesn't have a partial accident. He has an ordinary existence.

If I get rear-ended in my car, through no fault of my own, should a third of the damages be my problem if the other driver's insurance company's lawyer contends that curtain airbags would have lessened the severity of the accident?

[mpbaker22]

But if the cyclist didn't cause the accident, it's not the cyclist's fault for the severity, it's the fault of the asshole that sideswiped him. The cyclist, without helmet, and without asshole driver, doesn't have a partial accident. He has an ordinary existence.

If I get rear-ended in my car, through no fault of my own, should a third of the damages be my problem if the other driver's insurance company's lawyer contends that curtain airbags would have lessened the severity of the accident?

That might be a bit of a jump on the comparison as curtain airbags are something you can't control quite as much as wearing/not wearing a helmet (a basic helmet with full protection can run as low as $20).  But I do believe the lawyer would have a case that should be heard and considered.  Maybe a better comparison would be the driver not wearing the seat belt.  If the driver isn't wearing a seat built and flies through the windshield, I do not believe they should automatically/necessarily receive a payout for death from the other's insurance.

[arebelspy]

But if the cyclist didn't cause the accident, it's not the cyclist's fault for the severity, it's the fault of the asshole that sideswiped him. The cyclist, without helmet, and without asshole driver, doesn't have a partial accident. He has an ordinary existence.

If I get rear-ended in my car, through no fault of my own, should a third of the damages be my problem if the other driver's insurance company's lawyer contends that curtain airbags would have lessened the severity of the accident?

That might be a bit of a jump on the comparison as curtain airbags are something you can't control quite as much as wearing/not wearing a helmet (a basic helmet with full protection can run as low as $20).  But I do believe the lawyer would have a case that should be heard and considered.  Maybe a better comparison would be the driver not wearing the seat belt.  If the driver isn't wearing a seat built and flies through the windshield, I do not believe they should automatically/necessarily receive a payout for death from the other's insurance.

If there's a law that they had to wear their seatbelt, sure. If there's no law, and they chose not to, why should they get less of their injuries covered?  They weren't doing anything illegal, and it was not their fault at all.

What about a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk who gets hit?  They could have been wearing a helmet.

[Daleth]

But if the cyclist didn't cause the accident, it's not the cyclist's fault for the severity, it's the fault of the asshole that sideswiped him. The cyclist, without helmet, and without asshole driver, doesn't have a partial accident. He has an ordinary existence.

If I get rear-ended in my car, through no fault of my own, should a third of the damages be my problem if the other driver's insurance company's lawyer contends that curtain airbags would have lessened the severity of the accident?

That might be a bit of a jump on the comparison as curtain airbags are something you can't control quite as much as wearing/not wearing a helmet (a basic helmet with full protection can run as low as $20).  But I do believe the lawyer would have a case that should be heard and considered.  Maybe a better comparison would be the driver not wearing the seat belt.  If the driver isn't wearing a seat built and flies through the windshield, I do not believe they should automatically/necessarily receive a payout for death from the other's insurance.

If there's a law that they had to wear their seatbelt, sure. If there's no law, and they chose not to, why should they get less of their injuries covered?  They weren't doing anything illegal, and it was not their fault at all.

Google "contributory negligence."

[arebelspy]

I'm familiar with the concept, thanks.

You didn't answer my questions.

[Luck better Skill]

  Passing the law is the easy part here.  But you are only going to be able to enforce it against adults, not children.  This is a public relations nightmare like closing a child's lemonade stand.  You stop a child biking in a neighborhood without a helmet.  Do you write him a ticket?  What if he does not talk to strangers?  Or smart-ass his name is J.I.Joe?  Put in handcuffs? 
  Good cops will want nothing to do with this law. Bad cops will use it to profile and stop any bicyclist they want.  Judges will not want these cases on their overloaded dockets. 
  I understand the concern for children but in reality I doubt a law will change anything other then make less people want to bicycle.

[Luck better Skill]

  If seat-belt laws saved money, it did not wind up in societies pockets.  Auto and medical insurance did not get cheaper in the years after states passed seat-belt laws.  It may cost us money when people make a poor choice but it did not save us any by taking that choice from them.