Putting Local All-Ages Bicycle Helmet Ordinances in Context

• Published in: The Journal of law, medicine & ethics medicine & ethics, 2019-06, Vol.47 (2), p.291-293
• Main Authors: Bateman-House, Alison, Bachynski, Kathleen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adults; Advocacy; Bicycling; Children; Children & youth; Cycling; Debates; Ethics; Fines & penalties; Freedoms; Head Protective Devices; Health technology assessment; Helmets; Humans; Injury prevention; Law; Motorcycles; Paternalism; Pediatricians; Pediatrics; Public health; States; United States
• ISSN: 1073-1105; 1748-720X
• DOI: 10.1177/1073110519857284

In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Merrill-Francis et al. review national all-ages bicycle helmet laws. Although no US states have mandatory helmet laws applying to cyclists of all ages, the authors identified 47 local ordinances and evaluated the common elements of these laws.1 This is important work because, although the ethics and effectiveness of helmet laws are topics of ongoing debate, there has been little effort to determine the exact provisions of these laws, to whom they apply, and what the penalties are for noncompliance. Our goal in this commentary is to add some additional historical, cultural, and ethical context to the authors' detailed analysis of the content of local laws mandating bike helmets for riders both young and old.In the US, a wave of motorcycle helmet laws preceded the enactment of bike helmet laws. The nation has seen a dramatic rise and fall in the number of mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists.2 By 1975, only one state lacked a mandatory motorcycle helmet law of some sort. Yet a number of these laws foundered under repeated challenges that foregrounded individuals' freedom to choose whether to use protective headgear. From the motorcycle helmet debates, public health advocates learned that seemingly reasonable measures to prevent injury and death could be viewed, and deliberately framed by the laws' opponents, as unwarranted governmental intrusion into individual liberty.In the light of the legislative and judicial battles over motorcycle helmet laws, bicycle helmet law advocates have trod delicately around the idea of mandating adult use. Many bicycle helmet laws apply solely to minors. Indeed, the first helmet mandates for child operators of bicycles (as opposed to passengers), in the early 1990s, were championed by pediatricians, others interested in child safety, and, sometimes, kids themselves. Almost from the start, efforts were made to extend these ordinances to adults, sometimes in the hopes that a backlash would kill any sort of bicycle helmet law but sometimes because proponents believed that helmets could and should protect riders of all ages. Between those who wanted no helmet mandates of any sort and those who wanted universal mandates, the compromise often was helmet laws that applied only to children, a population with a weaker political voice and thus less able to powerfully denounce infringement of their personal liberty. Furthermore, publich health paternalism has typically been viewe