Motorcycles and helmet laws [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Johnny L.A.

05-10-2003, 09:50 AM

I can't even contemplate how anyone could get on a motorcycle with no helmet.
It's a matter of risk-assessment. If I still lived in my old neighbourhood (up in the desert), there would be very little risk if I wanted to ride my old Enduro around the block. Speeds were low, there was very little traffic, and the block was only eight houses long. It was about a mile to the corner gas station. 20th Street West was not exceptionally busy at the time (it's busier now), so I suppose I would have felt safe enough to ride down with a bare head for some gas. (But I can't recall ever doing that without a helmet.)

On the other hand, I have to ride over 40 miles to work on the crowded 405 and 22 freeways. I suspect my speedometer reads high, but in any case it frequently indicates 80 mph or more. There is no way I would ride that fast and under those conditions without a helmet -- preferably a full-face one.

There are people who ride Harleys. Not my style, as I like speed, accelleration and maneuverability. Harleys are more like Cadillacs than Porsches, and are ridden differently from non-cruiser bikes. If someone wants to ride a Harley on a sunny day along a two-lane country road, I see no problem with them not wearing a helmet. Speeds are low and traffic would generally be light. But it's certainly more risky than riding helmetless. A patch of gravel or oil on a curve can cause the inattentive rider to slide off the side of a mountain or into a tree. The rider needs to think about that.

It comes down to how much risk you are willing to accept. For the type of riding I did and do, I wear a helmet. I don't need the government to tell me it's the smart thing to do. Others might be assess risk differently. The key is that they must assess the risk. If they don't, then your friend is correct in saying that it's "evolution in action". Not that I wish harm on stupid people; but people should accept the consequences if they fail to understand the risk.

sailor

05-10-2003, 09:53 AM

I can argue this round or flat and, since everybody is arguing round, I am going to argue flat. Why is it the business of the government to tell me what risks I can or cannot take? I thought one of the premises of living in a free country is that people have the freedom to do stupid things because it is not the job of the government to protect us from our own stupidity. It is my body and no one should tell me what to do with it.

Eva Luna

05-10-2003, 09:55 AM

Well, I live in Chicago, a densely populated city with some really pothole-filled side streets, so even a ride of a few blocks could be an adventure. Even two-lane country roads can have potholes, bumps, and wandering deer. I guess I'm just more conservative with my risk assessments than some people.

Johnny L.A.

05-10-2003, 10:04 AM

The usual argument is that not all helmetless motorcyclists are killed. They might be permanently crippled. When this happens it is up to society to take care of them, either through higher insurance premiums that everyone must pay or through direct expenditure by the government (which, again, comes from taxpayers). Why should motorcyclists be allowed to exercise their "freedom to be stupid" at the expense of everyone else?

Personally, I agree with you, sailor. I don't think that the government should require helmets, because I think that motorcyclists should be free to assess the risks and make their own decisions. Yes, insurance companies or Medicare or Social Security will have to shell out some money to support some stupid people who have damaged their brain pans; but I don't believe that the numbers of people who would be injured in that way is great enough to justify the removal of their freedom of choice. What number would justify it? I don't know.

Compared to the population, motorcyclists are few in number. I think that only a minority of motorcyclists would routinely ride withoug a helmet. Of those, only a small portion would crash. Fewer still would be killed or injured, as not all crashes result in injuries. Yes, there will be dead and injured motorcyclists; and there will be more of them if there were no helmet laws. But I still think the numbers are relatively small and would not cost society a great deal. So I think that we should "Let those who ride decide."

Johnny L.A.

05-10-2003, 10:07 AM

I guess I'm just more conservative with my risk assessments than some people.
Nothing wrong with that. As I said, I wore a helmet by choice long before they were required by law. I also wore seat belts before they were required to be worn. (Admittedly, I didn't wear them for safety, but because they kept me from sliding around in the seat when I cornered fast -- as I was wont to do.)

I think people should wear helmets when riding motorcycles. But I also think they should have the choice.

tanookie

05-10-2003, 10:15 AM

I'll chime in too that while I think you are a moron not to wear a helmet ... especially on the highway... that should be your choice.
I remember the gouge in my father's helmet after being rearended on his motorcycle. If that was his head he would certainly have been dead.

My take though is that should you make yourself road pizza and you weren't wearing a helmet... insurance shouldn't have to pony up the cash for your treatment.

sailor

05-10-2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
[B]The usual argument is that not all helmetless motorcyclists are killed. They might be permanently crippled. When this happens it is up to society to take care of them, either through higher insurance premiums that everyone must pay or through direct expenditure by the government (which, again, comes from taxpayers). Why should motorcyclists be allowed to exercise their "freedom to be stupid" at the expense of everyone else? Well, if that argument is valid then all you have to do is require motorcyclists to have insurance that will take care of the consequences of any accidents. But we don't do that with any other risky activity, do we? People are free to go skiing, mountain climbing, sailing, driving a car, crossing the street, etc, and we do not require them to be covered by insurance, only, in some cases like driving a car, to have liability insurance. So requiring insurance for helmet-less motorcyclists would be an exception to the rule.

Also, helmet or no helmet, a motorcycle is inherently a lot more dangerous than a car so it would make sense to just prohibit motorcycles entirely rather than diminishing the risk a bit with a helmet.

And, if we are going to admit the government has the power to control our actions when they have consequences for the public, then we should forbid smoking and other many unhealthy things. Not to mention that having an abortion or not is a matter which has definite monetary consequences as the government is expected to pay for schools etc.

Taking all this into account, I cannot see where the government has any right to tell people they should wear helmets.

Coldfire

05-10-2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Eva Luna
Having seen a friend in the hospital after a bicycle accident (it took several plastic surgeries before he no longer looked like a package of hamburger meat, and he was wearing a helmet, or he definitely would have been dead), I can't even contemplate how anyone could get on a motorcycle with no helmet. I won't even go half a mile on my bike without one. Wild guess: your friend was wearing an open-face helmet?

They're only a marginal step up from not wearing one.

I've riden without a helmet a few times, usually down my street after push-starting my bike (before I got a new battery for it ;)). It feels... strange. I certainly wouldn't take it out on the open road without a helmet, ever. I'll ride in jeans if it's a little ride in the city, but as soon as I know I'm gonna clear city limits, the full bike gear is on. Leather pants, Gore-tex jacket with protective materials (back protector, elbows, shoulders). Gloves, and a full-face helmet. Lots of reflective patches on all items.

Riding a bike is one of the biggest thrills in the world, but it's stupid to assume it is safe. It's not. And to a considerable extent, you don't control all the dangers that are along your path.

Like a car turning in front of you.

Helmets are mandatory over here. Should the government decide about the risks I can or cannot take? Maybe not, but in this case, it wouldn't make a difference. Not wearing a helmet on a bike is about ten times as stupid as not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Margo

05-10-2003, 11:39 AM

Exactly Coldfire...the car turned in front of them...so they could have thought they were as safe as could be, but you can't predict other people. This is a rural road, the posted speed limit is 45, and I typically go about 50 (I don't care how close you get to my bumper, I will not speed up), this road is full of twists and turns, hills and blind spots (though the wreck happened on a straight, flat area) and I am surprised more accidents don't happen. I have had people pass me on a hill on a double yellow line.
As for only going a short distance without one, don't allot of accidents happen 5 miles from home or less? I just don't understand it I guess, going that fast on two wheels on a hard surface and wearing no protection on your head. I am sorry to ramble, this just upset me so much, those people died and left behind families and friends and *maybe* they could have been saved. They had helmets with them...but were not wearing them, a decision that might have cost them their lives? Margo

whiterabbit

05-10-2003, 12:31 PM

I moved here in January and see a couple of motorcyclists a week. If I am remembering right, exactly THREE of said riders, sine January, had helmets on. There's no helmet law here.

You would think that even without a law people would think, "Hey, if I'm going 65 MPH, and my head hits the ground, the BEST scenario is that I'll be dead," and wear one. But no, they don't. Idiots. I have been a passenger on a motorcycle a few times and it's a helluva lot of fun, but I was VERY aware that there wasn't much between me and the ground.

The "accidents happen close to home" statistic came from the fact that MOST of our driving is close to home. It's not common for me to go more htan 20 miles from the house, so if I were to be in an accident, it'd be close to home. But things can happen ANYWHERE.

Mama Tiger

05-10-2003, 12:38 PM

The brilliant state of Louisiana had a helmet law but repealed it last year. (They also passed an open container law that was so idiotic it prohibited even open water bottles, so repealed that, too....now they've got a "no glass in the French Quarter" law, which at least makes sense.) They're talking about reinstating it -- but making helmets mandatory only for riders under 18.

Personally, I think if anyone is stupid enough to ride without a helmet, they deserve what they get. But considering the lifetime costs of caring for a seriously brain-injured person -- easily in the millions, considering the level of care that's required -- why on earth should my insurance premiums go up or my tax dollars go to pay for the care of people who aren't bright enough to realize that uncovered-head-meeting-pavement-at-70-mph = brain pizza???

Johnny L.A.

05-10-2003, 01:20 PM

don't [a lot] of accidents happen 5 miles from home or less?
Yes. That's why I moved!

:D
But considering the lifetime costs of caring for a seriously brain-injured person -- easily in the millions, considering the level of care that's required -- why on earth should my insurance premiums go up or my tax dollars go to pay for the care of people who aren't bright enough to realize that uncovered-head-meeting-pavement-at-70-mph = brain pizza???
I think I'll let sailor answer that one. ;)

Eva Luna

05-10-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Coldfire
Wild guess: your friend was wearing an open-face helmet?

They're only a marginal step up from not wearing one...

Riding a bike is one of the biggest thrills in the world, but it's stupid to assume it is safe. It's not. And to a considerable extent, you don't control all the dangers that are along your path.

Like a car turning in front of you.

I should clarify that my injured friend was riding a bicycle, not a motorcyle. This was in high school; he wasn't old enough to get a motorcycle license, in any case. I've never seen a non-open-faced bicylce helmet. This was about 1984-85 or so, when hardly anyone wore bike helmets for fear of looking like ageek; the only reason my friend was wearing one was that he was at special risk for head injuries, as he had a shunt implanted at the base of his skull to treat hydrocephalus. He was damn lucky that things tunred out as well as they did; it could have been much, much worse than just severe facial abrasions. (He had gone through the back windshield of a car when the driver stopped suddenly right in front of him. The spot where he was riding is rather awkward; the road stripes move around in that area a lot, and on your right side you have the cement embankment next to the railroad tracks.)

Coldfire

05-10-2003, 07:14 PM

Ah, OK, that does make a difference.

The odd thing is, over here NO ONE wears helmets when riding a bicycle, unless they're riding a race bike or mountainbike. The everyday riding (there are more bicycles than people here) is done without a helmet. Of course, people are used to cyclists as well, so the real danger may actually not be as high in the US, where a person on a bicycle is an alien in traffic, and where the roads are not suitable for them (over here, there's tons of bicycle paths and such).

I've hit a couple of cars on my bicycle, but never got serious injuries. And I've riden a mountainbike for years on end, without a helmet, without seriously harming myself either.

But on a motorbike? No frickin' way.

Eva Luna

05-10-2003, 07:29 PM

I agree 100% about drivers in the U.S. not paying attention to bicyclists. I broke my wrist that way, and that was on a residential street that had been specially designated as a bike route; stupid driver didn't see me and nearly ran me into a tree. My bike was my primary mode of transportation until I graduated college; I didn't own a car until I was 26. More people should ride bikes!

I always wear a helmet now, even on bikepaths or for short rides of a few blocks to the grocery store. I wish it weren't that way, but oh well.

(Hijack: I've never been on a motorcycle, but a friend - well, actually a guy I've had the major hots for for the past 9 months - has a bunch of motorcycles, and has promised to take me for a ride now that it's warm again. He's not an insane risk-taker, which is the only reason I'd even consider it, and he has a spare helmet for me and all, and has promised to be gentle with me. Any tips for a slightly terrified first-timer?)

Coldfire

05-10-2003, 07:52 PM

Sure!

First off, don't be scared. Unless he gives you warning signals that he's not, your friend is probably a decent rider if he owns "a bunch of motorcycles". Ask him to take a bike with a comfy back seat, and not too much power.

Alrighty then, that's the prep work. On to the real stuff.

Wrap your arms around the rider at all times. Yes, I realise this is a bonus in your scenario. ;) But it applies to guys riding pillion with other guys as well, even if they're not gay, OK? Hang on to the rider.
When the rider brakes, place one of your hands on the bike's fuel tank to get some leverage. If you don't, the rider is supporting your full weight as the bike slows down.
Balance. Balance is the #1 thing on a motorbike. Well, balance and grip. Sit straight up, don't attempt to "correct" yourself when the bike leans over in the corners: a shifting passenger makes for a very nervous motorbike. Sit still, like a sack of potatoes. If you want to look past the rider in a curve, do so on the inside of the curve, as it minimizes the weight shift.

Wear that helmet, and be sure to wear at LEAST decent jeans, and if possible, leather. Wear boots rather than shoes: most likely, your ankles will be close to the exhausts, and these things get hot.

And relax, it's gonna be great. :)

GusNSpot

05-10-2003, 09:37 PM

Show cites of all the motorcyclist that are on state funded life support. In the US please. This argument is so untrue and unproven that those that use it should be ashamed. The number of veggies from motorcycles against the number for cars against the number form bath tubs against the number form bicycles. Those that make those statements are operating on antidotal evidence in their little world, are just passing on incorrect supposition that supports their point of view or are just deliberately using false info and don’t care.

Tell me how insurance rates go up for everybody when all insurance is based on what you do, not what I do. Your insurance only pays for me when you are the one who is responsible. (warning sarcasm) So, you want to restrict my freedom for your connivance and pocket book? Will you require all pedestrians to wear helmets in case you might hit them and they might get a head injury and if your lawyer is good nuff to get you off, taxpayers will have to cover all the heroic measures that will be taken on them? (/warning sarcasm)The motorcycle is not much of a danger to a car comparatively speaking. Liability rates reflect that...

What has been your experience with hospital stays that were uninsured? You go to county ASAP and there are NO heroic measures taken. Show me all these vegetables that everyone is always talking about. Where are they?

Proven fact, helmets save lives. Why are car divers exempt but still have the right to FORCE motorcyclist to wear them? They save live in cars also.....

The number one cause of motorcycle accidents out side of sporting events are car drivers.

All mountain climbing should be curtailed. (see story about self amputee, it is scary. That can not be allowed to ever happen again. It is just too much for me to bear ever hearing about again. And Oh My Gawd if I have to see him walking down the street. (::: shudder :: )and what about the children? --(This paragraph contains sarcasm for those impaired.)

All private flying should be outlawed because it is scary. It is safer than driving a car the same seat miles but it is scary to many so it should be outlawed. My Gawd, did you ever see the bodies on TV?

To all of you that say ANYONE who does not wear a helmet as you do is a fool and WRONG, you are the scary ones IMO. You are what needs to be outlawed, IMO.

If the scared could, they would outlaw everything except what is ok in their mind and not think a thing about it.

More head injuries are caused by bicycles in the US than any other thing and their is an almost nation wide requirement for the under aged to hear helmets and still... So, why are they not the ones singled out with so much rhetoric? Why not work on the place that will do the most good? Freedom is so outdated anymore......

Because you are not scared of them? You like to ride a bicycle with out but your fears require YOU to wear a helmet? :: shaking head:: so everyone else is stupid?

If you will pass the helmet law for everyone who moves in mechanical conveyances, then fine, majority rules that safety is above freedom. We ALL wear them.

Those that only want helmets in those activities that they are afraid of or don't like or use are hypocrites, IMO.

YMMV

amarone

05-10-2003, 10:15 PM

It should not be the government's role to restrict your freedoms for your own good. People should be allowed to make their own decisions. While it seems very, very sensible to wear a helmet, if someone feels that the enjoyment of not doing so is worth the risk, then they should be allowed to make that decision.

Although much less dangerous than motor cycling, I have been mountain biking in the mountains once. I found wearing a helmet so unpleasant (hot, itchy head) that my choices were: wear a helmet and have a thoroughly miserably day, or remove the helmet and enjoy myself, but at greater risk. I removed the helmet. People should be allowed to make that sort of decision.

MLS

05-10-2003, 10:44 PM

A co-worker of mine is an EMT. He is of the opinion that anyone who chooses to not wear a helmet while motorcycling should merely be required to post a large cash bond in advance: one that is sufficient to cover the mental health rehabilitation for all of the people who have to clean his brains up off the road when he wipes out.

Eva Luna

05-11-2003, 01:39 AM

Coldfire, thanks for the info. I sure as hell don't need an excuse to wrap my arms around this guy! although I wouldn't even be considering the idea of riding at all if I didn't trust him to be sensible. It wasn't his riding ability that worried me so much as the driving skills of the other morons out there on the road. (Although the reason he has "a bunch of bikes" is really more a combination of his love for taking things part and putting them together again, combined with his inability to resist a bargain, especially on E-bay.)

It's just that, as I put it to a good friend, I want my first time to be slow and gentle. (My friend's response: "I don't think your first time in this situation would be slow and gentle, given the amount of buildup. The sixth time a few hours later, maybe.")

And yes, I did know about the boots. My left ankle, especially, has a lot of hardware in it, so I try to be nice to it. Does it matter how high up they go, or so they just need to cover the ankle?

chopper

05-11-2003, 02:54 AM

Our state decided to requre helmet laws a while back. I have yet seen a headline stating how many lives have been saved and you know if they were they'd tell us loud and clear. I prefer no hemet unless it's cool then only to keep my ears warm. I have been in bike wrecks and have had friends in wrecks and we still choose not to wear them. Also my insurance would only cover about 10% of bills so I paid the rest thats how that works... personal resposibility.

tanookie

05-11-2003, 07:39 AM

I don't have a cite for this so flame me away... It is too early and I am too flipping tired to look it up.

You pay your insurance rates based on what demographic you and your vehicle fall into. So 17 year old boys trying to insure a "high risk" car would pay much higher rates than a 20 year old boy with a "safe car" Sure the rates go up and down based on accidents and tickets and how many claims you make but the actions of others in the past do influence how much you pay for insurance in the present.

chopper

05-11-2003, 11:20 AM

So by the insurance logic bikes should pay a much higher premium but last time I paid bike insurance it was 1/2 of auto.

Broomstick

05-11-2003, 04:34 PM

Can a helmet save your life on a motorcycle (or bicycle, for that matter)? You bet.

Will is always save your life? No way.

My biggest problem with bikes and bikes (in other words, both kinds) is not MY riding but the other idjits on the road.

In the past few years I've taken to wearing a bicycle helmet. My husband thinks this is nutty, and some of his arguments make sense - the fiberglass and styrofoam ain't going to do squat if I'm run over by a steel-hauling truck, or even some of the big SUV's and pickups around here. Truthfully, I'm not too sure how well I'd do in a full size car in scenarios like that. What I think the darn bike helmet is for is to keep my from one of those annoying brain injuries that come when you have to bail off your bike to keep from getting run over and hit your head landing in the roadside ditch, whacking into a tree, and so forth. You know - the dumb reasons for becoming permanently injured.

I think helmets (of any sort) give some folks a false sense of security. They will not prevent all death and brain injuries. The only thing the do is decrease the total number of such injuries and, in some cases, make an open-casket funeral possible. It is also quite possible to wear a helmet, protect your brain, and be left with a permanently wrecked and useless body.

When I ride the back of motorcycles (not being an owner/driver of such) I wear a helmet. It's not just the other nuts on the road in that case, but also the higher speed. Falling off anything at 40 or 50 mph is going to cause more damage than falling off at 15 or 20 mph. Just basic physics. The only regret I have is that my motorcycle helmet (yeah, I own one even if I don't own a bike) is not full-face - but it was the only one that fit me that was in stock in the store that day and I though it better than no helmet at all.

For that matter, I wear a helmet when I ride horses, too. I have these wonderful recollections of being bucked off a horse and my trajectory ending with me crashing head-first into the side of a barn. No injury (well, bruised a few limbs). That's all it took to convinced me.

And sometimes I wear one when flying airplanes, especially ultralights. Too much possibility of crap getting kicked up from the ground on take-off or landing, and there's a surprising number of bugs to slam into at altitutde. Same reason I wear a seat belt in an airplane - no, it won't save your life every time, but it puts the odds more in your favor.

All that said - I'd prefer the government stay out of dictating safety equipment. It's too easy to adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach (look at the combination of mandatory airbags and small children - that was messy). And there's no allowance for exceptional circumstances. As an example - car seat belt laws are written with no exceptions - you need to be belted in at all times. On the other hand, aviation regs dictate the seat belt is on while on the ground, taking off, or landing unless they interfere with necessary procedures required for the safety of the flight. Here's the examples: in a car, if a kid riding in the back seat gets loose and opens a door while you're going down the road I'd say it's a good time for the right-seat front passenger to unstrap and save the rug-rat - but strictly speaking that's illegal. On the other hand, in an airplane, if I'm flying along and the door pops open it would be legal for me to unhook the belts, lean over, and pull it closed IF I felt that doing so was a reasonable action to take.

And finally, yes, riding without helmets may increase the number of deaths and long-term brain injuries. But riding with helmets tends to drop the number of organs available for transplants. Which doesn't mean we should eliminate helmets to increase organ donations of course. But it's to point out that those saying "good of society" conveniently ignore certain statistics. Yes, "society" may pay for a few more folks' long term care - but other lives may be saved by those whose organs now become available for the use of others. Once you consider both factors the good/bad ratio probably balances out.

And, by the way - in MOST cases insurance does NOT pay for the long-term, lifetime care of the brain-injured in the US. Unless someone has the forethought to buy long-term care insurance (doubtful in the no-helmet crowd if you ask me). And that would have to be insurance that doesn't exclude injuries from certain activities. For instance, most insurance will not cover you for injuries suffered in small planes, especially if you're the pilot. I've also seen exclusions (being in the health care industry) for hanggliding, skydiving, scuba, foreign travel, motorcycles, horses, football, gymnastics, and even cheer-leading. So read that policy folks - you might be surprised.

GusNSpot

05-11-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by chopper
So by the insurance logic bikes should pay a much higher premium but last time I paid bike insurance it was 1/2 of auto.
Liability is less......
Collision is less because the bike is cheaper overall.
Medical is usually higher regardless of age. In accidents overall, bikers are more likely to be hurt. They are less likely to be killed. This is about national insurance numbers, they do not care what you think or have seen. They look at it this way and that is why you pay....... Git over it.....

Got a BIL in the industry at upper levels.

The Insurance companies won't publish it but they have it broken down a million different ways.

Safety first With a big jump for ridding courses...
40+ on Honda Goldwings.
40+ on HD's and HD clones. :D
40 + on street bikes.
40+ on Sport bikes
Sportbikes
Under 20 on crotch rockets :mad: are already dead and should not have medical insurance, just a burial policy, because it that section is a total loss for the INS Company... (alright the last one is not 100% true but real close.)

Dirt bikers are :cool: in-between the HD's and the street bikes. They usually started earlier and by the time the are old nuff to need insurance, they are past the criminally stupid phase of their ridding careers. Now 14 year olds in general-- :eek: all you can do is pray...

Bawahahahah

Coldfire

05-11-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Eva Luna
And yes, I did know about the boots. My left ankle, especially, has a lot of hardware in it, so I try to be nice to it. Does it matter how high up they go, or so they just need to cover the ankle? Well, the higher up the better (what with the exhaust), but most importantly, a stiff structure matters. Think Timberland boots. Don't go overboard buying anything new now, though. If you like riding enough (and if he likes you enough ;)), you'll end up buying your own full gear anyway.

Gus said:Medical is usually higher regardless of age. In accidents overall, bikers are more likely to be hurt. They are less likely to be killed. This is about national insurance numbers, they do not care what you think or have seen. They look at it this way and that is why you pay....... Git over it.....All right, I'm going to have to take issue with this. I read an article in a Dutch newspaper last week, which stated that per kilometer riden/driven, a biker's chance of dying on Dutch roads is about 15 times as high as the same chance for the driver of a car. My country has about 1300 traffic fatalities per year, 100 of whom are bikers. There are 7 million cars in this country, and 600,000 motorbikes. However, the cars on average make a lot more kilometers than the bikes do. Ergo, the chance a biker has to get killed is a lot higher.

Other European countries show similar patterns. What makes an American biker less likely to be killed than an American driver, exactly? In other words, cite, if you please? :)

Eva Luna

05-11-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Coldfire
Well, the higher up the better (what with the exhaust), but most importantly, a stiff structure matters. Think Timberland boots. Don't go overboard buying anything new now, though. If you like riding enough (and if he likes you enough ;)), you'll end up buying your own full gear anyway.

I certainly wouldn't buy anything new until I see if I can even deal with the whole motorcycle-riding concept. It's just that I busted my left leg really badly a few years back (smashed both tibula and fibula into various shards, requiring so far 4 surgeries, a plate, screws, and basically every orthopedic appliance known to mankind), so I basically have 2 sets of footwear: pre- and post-injury. The pre-injury ones are basically comfy (although I've given away a lot to my mom, who wears the same size), but I've got a pair or two of boots that go to mid-calf.

The post-injury ones are also comfy, but are at least a full size bigger to accomodate the orthotics that make my life much less painful if I'm on my feet for any length of time. But I've got much fewer of these, and no boots that go higher than ankle height. One of these, though, is a nice sturdy pair of leather Timberland hiking boots, and my orthotics fit into them. It sounds like this is the way to go, then, huh?

So pray for nice weather next weekend, willya? I know in spring a young man's fancy (OK, this particular young man's fancy) turns to motorcycles, but I'm hoping to distract at least a portion of his fancy...

:D

GusNSpot

05-12-2003, 01:22 AM

Coldfire.

I made no claims about other countries.

I said the stats were from the Insurace Industry and were not public. ( Yet you get to demand cites, when I said I didn't have any, thanks big guy, was big of you.)

:::Since I can't get the BIL to blow his job by giving me stats to publish, I'll just have to stand here as a liar,,,,, :::: ;j

Oh, and when are you going to have to install the seat belts there in Europe? You been hearing about that? Big news here.

Coldfire

05-12-2003, 03:27 AM

Gus, I didn't call you a liar. And on the Straight Dope, everybody always gets to demand a cite.

As it is, I don't buy your story. It would indicate that insurance companies believe that motorcyclists are less likely to get killed than drivers, per mile driven, right? At least, insurance policies over here tend to work that way: you get a policy for a certain number of miles per year, paying more as you do more miles. Correct me if that's somehow different in the US.

How is that possible? Are no insurance claims filed for most dead bikers in the US? Because the US Department of Transportation (PDF file) (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/5.pdf) provides a 1999 fatality rate for motorcyclists of 23.5 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. When you look at the same number for all traffic combined, the 1999 rate by the same definition is 1.6 (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/). That means that compared to an average motorist, a biker's chance of dying given the same amount of distance covered is 14.69 times as high. I fail to see how a slight skew in insurance numbers would be big enough for your brother in law to conclude that bikers are less likely to die than drivers: they're a LOT more likely to die.

See this UK source for the risk comparison between motorbikes and other forms of transport (scroll down to the second graph). (http://www.bikedirect.net/RTA%20Statistics.htm)

The odds are staggering.

As for your seat belts comment, I'm assuming that's some sort of sarcasm. I don't particularly get it, so I'll just say that seat belt laws have been effect in Europe since the early 70's, some countries even sooner. No idea how that compares to the US.

Jervoise

05-12-2003, 07:54 AM

My Australian state requires both motorcycle riders AND bicycle riders to wear approved helmets.* While "intellectually" I side with the argument that there should be minimal state interference with personal freedoms, I'm pleased that we have such a law.

Because if a school kid ever swerves out in front of my car, I'll be hoping he or she is wearing a helmet. For their safety and for my state of mind.

Barbarian

05-12-2003, 08:57 AM

Governments always make regulations to protect people from their own stupidity. See prohibition, war on drugs, speed limits, etc...

Personally, I think mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. Many people who get into motorcycling are young, stupid, and reckless, such as the guy I spotted last summer doing standees on a major highway... Officially, our society cares about protecting people from themselves, while trying to maximize their free choice. If that means mandatory helmets while letting people ride, so be it.

Margo

05-12-2003, 11:20 AM

I appreciate everyone's input and opinions. I guess I still can't help but ask why people don't choose to wear helmets (even if no law is in affect) when they ride their motorcycles. My boys (age 4 and 6) wear helmets while on their bikes, every single time, I know they are just plastic and styrofoam, but it is some protection if they should fall and hit their precious heads. They are not bothered by wearing them, we just bought new cool ones (Rescue Heroes) so they think they are amazing. I guess when they are adults they will have to choose if they ride motorcycles and if they wear helmets. Thanks everyone! Margo

Stephi

05-12-2003, 11:39 AM

Eva Luna

Also, you'll want to wear a thick jacket, leather if you have one, make sure it's long sleeved. And dress a little warmer than you normally would, there's a lot of windchill on the back of a bike.

Nowadays, I wouldn't get on a bike with anything less than a full helmet and full leathers. I got into a minor accident a couple years ago, (The road went from asphalt, to gravel, back to asphalt, the driver dropped the bike.) and the driver managed to scrape up his butt a bit. We weren't going that fast, but it was still scary.

GusNSpot

05-12-2003, 11:57 AM

To all who want helmet laws. All proof says they save lives, right? So why will you not wear them in a car?

To Barbarian: So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? If proof says that helmets are safer, then you will wear them in all cases, cars, bathtubs, or only in those places YOU are afraid of?

In General: Using any underage people rule to shift the same requirements on to adults is so smarmy as to be unreal.

Coldfire: You are missing what I am saying. If the Insurance has stats that say they should not charge more for something, you say they will voluntarily reduce prices even if there is no competitive reason to do so? You will sell your services at the lowest possible price no matter what people are willing to pay? Why should the INS companies say anything that might make them lose profit?

Okay, motorcycles are 14 times more dangerous. How do you justify letting them exist? Why are you not for banning them? Apparently, even with helmet laws in your country they die like flies. So why are they allowed? Public pressure maybe? It is not about safety, it’s about fear.

I am wrong about insurance. You win. You are right. :)

Oh, were are those cites of all the bikers on the dole from head injuries

End of address to Coldfire.

Why are you not asking for mandatory medical insurance for the bicyclists which have the majority of head injuries, with or without helmets? Come on. This picking on Motor bikes is about fear, not about saving life's of people you don't know? Much easier to make a much bigger impact on the real issue with going after the bicycles and motor car drivers. Put helmets on them. No, why not? They don't want them. They are a proven safety device. But they DON”T want to wear them and there are too many to out vote so....... motorcycles are next? Why?

Always go for the few and the stuff that scars you. Being for mandatory safety for adults in only some areas is intellectually dishonest if touted to be for the good of all. Keep you safe from me, fine, but your right to keep me safe from me SHOULD have limits and those for mandatory helmets on only SOME forms of transportation, not all, even if proven to be a good safety device, well that is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. It is about your control of others and not about safety at all.
YMMV

Coldfire

05-12-2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by GusNSpot
Coldfire: You are missing what I am saying. If the Insurance has stats that say they should not charge more for something, you say they will voluntarily reduce prices even if there is no competitive reason to do so? You will sell your services at the lowest possible price no matter what people are willing to pay? Why should the INS companies say anything that might make them lose profit?As already stated by others, the reasons motorcycle insurance tends to be cheaper than car insurance is influenced by many factors. I'll try and list a few: A motorbike is less likely to kill another motorist than a car: if a bike slams into a car, chances are the driver of the car will be unharmed, or have minor injuries at most. Since the insurance policy will have to cover payments for injured motorists caused by the biker, this component makes the bike insurance cheaper than a car insurance. Bikes are cheaper than cars, and repairs are cheaper as well (generally speaking, of course). Bikes tend to crash more often too, so this might actually be a tie. When a biker crashes, he has a bigger chance of dying than a driver. Check your insurance policy. The maximum payout for injuries to the driver/rider is a lot more than the maximum payout for death. That's why bike insurance is cheaper than car insurance. Oddly enough, the fact that a biker is more likely to die on the road lowers the possibly payout risk for the insurance companies, thus making the policies cheaper for the consumer.Okay, motorcycles are 14 times more dangerous. How do you justify letting them exist? Why are you not for banning them? Apparently, even with helmet laws in your country they die like flies. So why are they allowed? Public pressure maybe? It is not about safety, it’s about fear.Motorbikes are allowed because they are a valid and, yes, fun form of transportation. They're economical compared to a car, take up less space, and are less likely to injure innocent bystanders than cars. I fail to see how bikes are a bigger nuisance to the general public than cars, mostly because reckless bikers take risks primarily concerning themselves, whereas reckless drivers take risks that are more likely to affect others as well. I am wrong about insurance. You win. You are right. :)Thank you. :)Oh, were are those cites of all the bikers on the dole from head injuriesI never argued this point, so I'm not addressing it either.

Incidently, this thread is off to Great Debates, since that's what it looks like all of a sudden. :)

Coldfire

05-12-2003, 12:41 PM

Oh, and to add: I have worn my bike helmet in my car, whilst driving it around a race track. You assess the risk, and decide - it wasn't mandatory.

The fact that I HAVE to wear my helmet when riding my bike doesn't bother me the least: I would have done so anyway.

MeanJoe

05-12-2003, 02:06 PM

But do I think there should be laws that require helmets? No. People are supposed to be intelligent. They should be able to figure out for themselves that helmets should be worn on motorcycles.

I agree with this sentiment but I also wonder why it is law that I must then wear a seat-belt inside my vehicle? Seems contrary, no?

patchbunny

05-12-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Margo
I appreciate everyone's input and opinions. I guess I still can't help but ask why people don't choose to wear helmets (even if no law is in affect) when they ride their motorcycles.

I can only give you the statement of a college roommate who didn't wear a hemlet when riding his motorcycle:

"If I wear a helmet, chicks won't get to see my hair."

--Patch

Barbarian

05-12-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by GusNSpot
To all who want helmet laws. All proof says they save lives, right? So why will you not wear them in a car?

To Barbarian: So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? If proof says that helmets are safer, then you will wear them in all cases, cars, bathtubs, or only in those places YOU are afraid of?

I don't wear a helmet in my car because under normal operating conditions, it's not necessary. I've already got a head rest, seat belt, and a reinforced cage around me to keep me safe in an accident. I may also have an airbag installed. The odds are that anything that gets through that is unlikely to be stopped by a helmet. But we've already regulated the need for seatbelts etc...

In fact, we could have had this same argument three decades ago about legally imposing seatbelt use in cars, and the safety people won that round too.

It's different on a bike-- even the slightest mishap-- say, dropping the bike while coming to a stop-- can smash someone's head into the ground and cause a serious injury. Ergo, I'm wearing a helmet on two wheels (motorized or not). And it's valid for the law to enforce that.

Bathtubs can be pretty nasty too, but I'm not going to wear a helmet there. Instead I'm going to replace that frictionless surface with a non-slip one ;) Most people are sane enough to do the same, and so legislation isn't needed. This is also an activity that takes place in the home, where legislators are typically reluctant to intrude. You can be sure that if there was a severe increase in bathtub-related accidents (as very well may happen as the population ages) there will be calls for legislation-- probably in public places only, though.

DocJCS

05-12-2003, 02:56 PM

I am new to this board, first post. As a lifelong motorcyclist from California, I have very definite feelings about helmet laws. While I was growing up CA had no helmet laws, they did not take effect until I was grown and living abroad. When the law was enacted while I was away, there was apparently a lot of lobbying on both sides. Those opposed felt that "Let those who ride decide" was appropriate, those in favor felt that there was a significant cost to the public in terms of medical expenses.

A couple of things many do not realize that apply to the invocation of the CA law are relevant. First, CA has had a mandatory insurance law since long before the helmet law took effect. Therefore, most motorcyclists were insured; if they weren't, making a helmet mandatory would not change that, not would it lessen societies burden in the event that rider suffered injuries in a collision. Second, the pro-helmet law lobby used a lot of figures to support their claims of the cost to society for treating injured cyclists. A close look at those figures showed they were seriously skewed. If one takes a close look at the figures, many of those killed or seriously injured in motorcycle accidents were so severely injured that their injuriesw would not have been affected by the wearing of a helmet. Whether you wear a helmet or not, if you are traveling at 45 mph and hit a car or truck making a left turn in front of you broadside, you are probably going to be either very seriously injured or killed, and a helmet won't change that.

Taken one step further, what about the concept of reduced visability when wearing a helmet, especially the most protective of helmets, the full-face models? Having been a cyclist for almost 40 years, I am of the opinion that any increased safety accredited to wearing helmets is more than offset by the reduction in a rider's field of view. Peripheral vision is reduced to some extent, adding to an already somewhat dangerous proposition. Of course not all helmets are full-face, many choose to wear much smaller, less restrictive "protection". The helmets which cover only the area above a rider's ears are quite popular these days, but the reality is that they provide very little protection in the event of a collision. They are mostly just a way to comply with the law, rather than to afford protection.

I think that when the government starts to legislate proper attire for it's citizens without really taking a hard look at both sides, we have entered dangerous territory. Each citizen has a right to make certain decisions about what they will do and how they will do it, and removing or subrogating these decisions is, in my opinion, both wrong and dangerous.

"LET THOSE WHO RIDE DECIDE"

minty green

05-12-2003, 03:52 PM

As Coldfire's data demonstrates, it is foolish not to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Foolishness, however, is never in short supply.

But is this a case where the societal consequences of the particular foolishness at issue are large enough to warrant legislation? Maybe, maybe not. This isn't entirely like mandatory seatbelt laws, which promised to save thousands of lives a year, and almost certainly have done so. By comparison, we're probably talking about a couple hundred lives per year saved by mandatory helmet laws, maybe even less than that. Small potatoes, overall.

So how's this for a compromise position? First, since inexperienced riders are more likely to be involved in accidents, make helmets mandatory for (say) the first two years after the rider is licensed. Second, significantly increase insurance requirements for riders who choose to go without a helmet. Third, create a tort defense for anyone involved in an accident with an unhelmeted rider, providing that the other party is not liable for any injuries that would have been prevented by use of a helmet.

With those caveats in place, let those who ride decide whether to splatter their brains all over the pavement.

Johnny L.A.

05-12-2003, 04:12 PM

First, since inexperienced riders are more likely to be involved in accidents, make helmets mandatory for (say) the first two years after the rider is licensed.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Second, significantly increase insurance requirements for riders who choose to go without a helmet.
I don't think this would be practical. Assuming I wanted to ride sans[i] helmet, what would keep me from telling the insurance company that I [i]always wear a helmet, getting the reduced (or not-inflated, depending on how you look at it) rate, and then riding around without a helmet anyway?
Third, create a tort defense for anyone involved in an accident with an unhelmeted rider, providing that the other party is not liable for any injuries that would have been prevented by use of a helmet.
Even when that driver is at fault? I don't have much sympathy for people who are injured when they ride without a helmet -- that's just the chance they take. But should a motorcyclist be penalized -- even if he's not helmeted -- if an inattentive bozo turns left in front of him? It doesn't sound fair to me.

minty green

05-12-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
Assuming I wanted to ride sans[i] helmet, what would keep me from telling the insurance company that I [i]always wear a helmet, getting the reduced (or not-inflated, depending on how you look at it) rate, and then riding around without a helmet anyway?I was thinking about fines, similar to those imposed on uninsured drivers in states where liability insurance is mandatory. If a rider gets pulled over without a helmet, he either proves that he has the higher level of insurance or gets fined $200-$500, plus he has to prove to court that he has subsequently obtained the proper insurance. That also pretty effectively puts the insurer on notice that the policyholder is a big fat fibber, with obvious results to the unhelmeted rider's insurance rates.

It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it would certainly be at least somewhat effective.
Even when that driver is at fault? I don't have much sympathy for people who are injured when they ride without a helmet -- that's just the chance they take. But should a motorcyclist be penalized -- even if he's not helmeted -- if an inattentive bozo turns left in front of him? It doesn't sound fair to me. Yes, even if the driver is at fault. A driver should bear the liability of his own negligence, but should not bear the liability-related consequences of the rider's decision not to utilize basic safety equipment. Thus, a negligent driver would be responsible for the motorcyclist's broken arms and legs, but not his fractured skull and permanent vegetative state (assuming that said injuries would have been prevented by a helmet).

I would, incidentally, also extend that rule to drivers who don't wear their seatbelts. I'm equal-opportunity when it comes to forcing risk-takers to bear the consequences of their risk-taking.

Eva Luna

05-12-2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.

I don't think this would be practical. Assuming I wanted to ride sans[i] helmet, what would keep me from telling the insurance company that I [i]always wear a helmet, getting the reduced (or not-inflated, depending on how you look at it) rate, and then riding around without a helmet anyway?

Insurance companies already deal with this issue when they ask people whether they smoke for purposes of life insurance quotes. Why would this situation be any different? They still basically have to take your word for it, and rely on fraud investigation if you make a false claim.

Coldfire

05-12-2003, 06:07 PM

GusNSpot

05-13-2003, 02:15 AM

Safety and personal responsibility......

A)When in a car, as passenger, the driver and other drivers can affect my safety, provide a seat belt please.

B)As a driver, other drivers can affect my safety, please provide a sear belt.

C)When as a passenger, by law I should be buckled in because I have no control over the actions of the driver. And I could affect the driver in a corner by sliding around.

D)AS a driver, my having a seat belt on affects on one’s safety except my own. Why should law decide that I have to wear one.?

E) Penalties of $$$ of insurance is fine by me. Refusal for emergency treatment if I have an head injury during an accident, fine. What I don’t understand is the need on others parts to force me not to go mountain climbing.

F)Does anyone in the world wear a helmet full time on a motorcycle and yet also engage in free climbing? Yes there are, so why are they allowed to free climb?

G)Government control of my ability to affect your safety is one thing, but using government to selectively enforce safety rules on people that only affect themselves seem wrong to me. Yes, drivers seat belts should be provided just as passengers under 18 should be required to wear helmets, I would even go along with mandatory passenger helmet laws as they are at another’s mercy, but for the driver of a car to be forced to use a seatbelt and a motorcyclist be forced to wear an helmet if considered an adult ( pick the age) to be wrong and just one of the many ways the erosion of freedom is snowballing on people everywhere. It is because we can not stand the thought that others don’t think as we do and so must be forced to do it our way. The social support of hurt bikers has been shown false for a long time. So what else can it be but a desire to make all people conform to one idea. Do you know who one of the safest pilots is? The on sitting at the controls of a “Breezy”.

http://www.ultralightnews.ca/sunfun02/lilbreezy.html

The most careful biker is the one who need for some reason to be out in swimming shoes, shorts and tanktop without helmet or eye protection.

Why must he be penalized more for the possibility of being the victim of a car drivers negligence than is a pedestrian? What is the fatality rate of pedestrians hit by cars? OUCH!! So why are they not required to wear protection when within 50 feet of a road way? Try it in one location for a year and see the improvement in fatality rates. Have to go nation wide on that one. Right.

Pretty soon there will only be black cars.

http://www.bikersrights.com/helmets.html

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:zOMdw3F9E8MC:archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v7n1/fpdf/fbf6039.pdf+state+by+stat+comparison+of+head+injuries+between+states+with+helmet+laws+and+those+with out.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:EgIZbEL7Pu8C:www.wemsc.org/Epidem%3DPrevention.pdf+state+by+stat+comparison+of+head+injuries+between+states+with+helmet+laws+an d+those+without.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:WPxBjK8VVEkC:www.wfsgi.org/_wfsgi/new_site/news/Legal/SLJ1002.pdf+state+by+stat+comparison+of+head+injuries+between+states+with+helmet+laws+and+those+with out.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Broomstick

05-13-2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by DocJCS
Taken one step further, what about the concept of reduced visability when wearing a helmet, especially the most protective of helmets, the full-face models? Having been a cyclist for almost 40 years, I am of the opinion that any increased safety accredited to wearing helmets is more than offset by the reduction in a rider's field of view. Peripheral vision is reduced to some extent, adding to an already somewhat dangerous propositionI don't buy this argument. I've been wearing helmets for decades for various activities. I've heard all sorts of arguments about how they restrict vision and are uncomfortable and so on and so forth.

I think folks need to know how to buy the right size helmet for their head. Yeah, it can take some shopping but buying a good brain bucket is worth it. Geez, I've known people who spent a month shopping for just the right pair of boots but goodness, 10 minutes is too long to spend on helmet shopping!

If the helmet restricts vision it's a bad helmet design - so find another. But just because some helmets are badly designed crap doesn't mean all helmets are useless.

Originally posted by GusNSpot
Do you know who one of the safest pilots is? The on sitting at the controls of a “Breezy”.I dunno... changing that steel frame to aluminum... I prefer Carl Unger's version of the Breezy, even if Carl himself is a completely sexist jerkazoid pig.

Originally posted by GusNSpot
The most careful biker is the one who need for some reason to be out in swimming shoes, shorts and tanktop without helmet or eye protection.Two words: "road rash"

Anyone can drop a bike -- I don't know any bikers who haven't, in fact.

Personally, I view that sort of attire on a motorcycle as stupid. Then again, I defend the right of adults to BE stupid. Let adults decide whether or not to wear a helmet. And let's not get around to legislating footwear and jackets on bikes.

Coldfire

05-13-2003, 06:27 PM

Gus, I consider myself a safe rider. Sure, I'll open the throttle when given the room, but I'm no kamikaze pilot. My goal is to have fun, but arrive home in one piece at the same time. Preferably, my bike stays in one piece as well.

Yet, I'm no God. I can't control the actions of others. If some idiot decides to cut in front of me, or if he doesn't see me and pulls into the road while I have the right of way, it is I who has the problem. Being legally right doesn't mean you can't crack your skull in the process.

That's why I wear that helmet. I couldn't care less about the law.

GusNSpot

05-14-2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Broomstick

Personally, I view that sort of attire on a motorcycle as stupid. Then again, I defend the right of adults to BE stupid. Let adults decide whether or not to wear a helmet. And let's not get around to legislating footwear and jackets on bikes.

Well. see that is my gripe, they already have in Europe and it will come here and then it will spread to other things and there is no end in sight.

The government won't go that far? he he he Anyone watching the Fast Food stupidity around this country? Just saw a minute ago a talking head that said, "Hamburgers should be outlawed." I kid you not.

I agree with Coldfire and Broomstick except for their complacency about the MANADATORY helmet laws. They wear one so the law does not affect them so why should they care? Perfectly normal reaction. But I wonder if there became a mandatory helmet law for all transportation, cars, trucks, even ridding in a bus, an airliner? That would save lives, no question about it but then there will be enough people upset over being forced to do something they do not believe in regardless of scientific proof to stop it. It is so easy to pick on the minority.

It will come to pass that we will all have to dress in armor as does many parts of Europe does now. Full approved protective gear in 95 degree + weather now. And HP limits are coming also.

Why is this one thing okay for so many to FORCE on adults and not all the other safety things that will save many more lives?

::::: shrug :::::::

GusNSpot

05-14-2003, 01:38 AM

If I misplace your attitude about helmets Broomstick, sorry. I see you saying it is okay for adults to decide but your comments about that being stupid makes your assertions of their rights moot to the non affected public that gets to vote because those that ride DO NOT get to decide. Everyone gets to pressure the lawmakers. Do you do anything to actively promote the right to decide or do you just say that those who do not do as you do are stupid but :: wink, wink:: let them decide?

If I am wrong, sorry......

Broomstick

05-14-2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by GusNSpot
I agree with Coldfire and Broomstick except for their complacency about the MANADATORY helmet laws. They wear one so the law does not affect them so why should they care? Perfectly normal reaction. But I wonder if there became a mandatory helmet law for all transportation, cars, trucks, even ridding in a bus, an airliner? Just because I'd choose to wear a helmet anyway doesn't make me complacent. And yes, I would wear a helmet whether the law required it or not - I do so in several areas where it isn't required so in my case the choice is consistent.

Yes, the law does affect me. It offends what I believe to be the proper notion of freedom of choice and the ability to be a responsible adult. In some areas, it can affect what sort of helmet I can choose from, further eroding my ability to make my own choices. Given a choice, I'd repeal mandatory helmet laws even though I choose to wear a helmet myself.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was complacent about this.

If I misplace your attitude about helmets Broomstick, sorry. I see you saying it is okay for adults to decide but your comments about that being stupid makes your assertions of their rights moot to the non affected public that gets to vote because those that ride DO NOT get to decide. Everyone gets to pressure the lawmakers. Do you do anything to actively promote the right to decide or do you just say that those who do not do as you do are stupid but :: wink, wink:: let them decide?Not quite sure what you're getting at here.... Yes, I do think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid. But there's no winking in my statement that adults have the right to do things I view as stupid. I also view bungee jumping as stupid, but I wouldn't outlaw that, either. I think body piercing is stupid but I wouldn't outlaw that. There's a LOT of stuff I view as stupid but I recognize that other adults feel differently about it and I respect their right to do what they want with their lives.

And, in fact, in my state the riders DO get to decide - we do not have a mandatory helmet law in this state.

I'm not sure by what you mean "actively promote" the right to decide - I wear a helmet where none is required, so that's my choice. I got friends who don't - and as long as they don't hassle me about my choice I don't hassle them about theirs. We have occassional civilized discussions about the relative merits of our positions, which usually end with agreeing to disagree.

What more do you want me to do?

GusNSpot

05-14-2003, 10:33 AM

Broomstick, just so as to be up front, you know me else where as Dragon just in case you missed it.

I know you are very reasonable about the issue. I have heard you explain why you are pro-helmet for your self.

My point is that when you are speaking in a PUBLIC FORUM, and if you make two statements, the only one the uninformed will hear is the ( they are stupid ) one because MOST people do not care, nor will try to be reasonable, and any statement in the second position about adults and the right to decide is lost. This is a fact of the human condition so when talking about slippery slope items, gun laws, flying restriction ( Meggs field ring a bell? ) There can't be any latitude (See NRA dig in their heels at ANY compromise) ( Women’s rights of days gone by, civil rights, ETC.) Because REASONABLE will not work with the masses. Only fear and greed work. IMO

We agree to disagree and same same with Coldfire. You all be well and warm and as you get to be my age, I hope you are not as disappointed in what "THEY" have cost you for no reason as I have.

IMO, two things are dooming the human existence, intolerance and lack of personal responsibility.

I get cranky about it.

Have a nice day......

DSeid

05-14-2003, 01:20 PM

So, are people in this thread liberterian and believe that government has no role in assuring that members of its population are kept safe? Or does it have a real but limited role in public safety?

Most Americans take the position that the government does have an interest in assuring the safety of its populus. We accept that medications will be approved for use only if safe relative to the benefit and that unsafe medicines will not be allowed even if we wanted to take them. We accept that workplace safety will be regulated even if I as an employee am willing to do without safety requirements in return for extra pay. Seatbelt laws have already been mentioned. The pure liberterian position is rarely taken.

So when does the government's interest in keeping individuals safe outweigh the individual's right to make a stupid decision?

When minors or others not in a position of truly voluntary informed consent are involved, for sure.

When significant cost to society relative to the cost of imposition of the requirement would be incurred. This seems to be the case.

So helmets fit under the second to most non-riders anyway. Wearing a helmet seems to be a small imposition to force upon a few people relative to the expense of a quite a few Neuro ICU and prolonged rehab stays.

No matter how good your hair looks in the wind.

Coldfire

05-14-2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by GusNSpot
It will come to pass that we will all have to dress in armor as does many parts of Europe does now. Full approved protective gear in 95 degree + weather now. And HP limits are coming also.Really, now, Gus. :)

Other than the mandatory helmet, EU laws don't differ all that much from US laws. I can ride in shorts and a t-shirt, without gloves, whatever. The only requirement is the helmet. Hardly a full armor, right? Cars: seatbelt laws. That's it.

As for horse power limits: I can't think of a European country that has them for motorbikes (or cars, for that matter). What DOES happen, is insurance companies rating motorcycles by either their BHP or their engine size in cc's (it's the latter in my country). As a result, manufacturers started producing 600 CC supersports (the limit of one of the UK brackets, IIRC) that produce 140 BHP, et cetera.

In the Netherlands, there are two types of licenses for a motorbike: if you're under 21, you have to get the "light" license first (34 kW or less). With a short test, you upgrade it to "heavy" (34+ kW) when you turn 21. I was 28 when I got my license, so I could get the "heavy" one straightaway. But there's a degree of logic to keeping the youngsters (minimum riding age 18, BTW) away from the 180 BHP Hayabusas.

In Germany, the system is even more layered, IIRC.

amarone

05-14-2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by DSeid
So, are people in this thread liberterian and believe that government has no role in assuring that members of its population are kept safe? Or does it have a real but limited role in public safety?
The government should have a role in keeping you safe from the behavior of others, but no role in keeping you safe from yourself. Once you are an adult, that is.

Read_Neck

05-14-2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by DSeid
So, are people in this thread liberterian and believe that government has no role in assuring that members of its population are kept safe? Or does it have a real but limited role in public safety?

Most Americans take the position that the government does have an interest in assuring the safety of its populus. We accept that medications will be approved for use only if safe relative to the benefit and that unsafe medicines will not be allowed even if we wanted to take them. We accept that workplace safety will be regulated even if I as an employee am willing to do without safety requirements in return for extra pay. Seatbelt laws have already been mentioned. The pure liberterian position is rarely taken.

So when does the government's interest in keeping individuals safe outweigh the individual's right to make a stupid decision?

When minors or others not in a position of truly voluntary informed consent are involved, for sure.

When significant cost to society relative to the cost of imposition of the requirement would be incurred. This seems to be the case.

So helmets fit under the second to most non-riders anyway. Wearing a helmet seems to be a small imposition to force upon a few people relative to the expense of a quite a few Neuro ICU and prolonged rehab stays.

No matter how good your hair looks in the wind.

MOST? I gotta see a cite for that. Otherwise it's just your opinion and would you like for Uncle Sugar to tuck you in at night so you can feel all warm and cozy.

DSeid

05-14-2003, 10:01 PM

Well, I've not met many who say that all medications should be available no matter how dangerous and ineffective, for example. And unless one believes that our government is totally unrepresentative of our public's opinion, the fact that we elect legislators who overwhelmingly are not pure liberterian provides a reasonable basis for the statement. Republicans and Democrats alike vote for legislation that involves providing for public safety whether individuals want it or not. They may disagree about exactly where the line should be drawn, about what societal benefit justifies how much curtailment of individual freedom of choice but not about whether or not the government has any obligation to do so ....

Uncle Sugar sounds nice, but how about answering, like amarone did, where you think the line should be drawn as a constant across subjects. How should the balance be found? Or should it be absolute that an adult can make any decision (even if it has societal impact and if the imposition upon them would be minimal)?

amarone

05-14-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by DSeid
Well, I've not met many who say that all medications should be available no matter how dangerous and ineffective, for example. I expect that you are correct, but I believe that all medicines and drugs should be freely available to adults. Any manufacturer, distributor or retailer making false claims can be sued, but as long as information is accurate, the purchasing decision should be the individual's.

After all, I can go out and buy Round-up and ingest it if I want. Why not Oxycontin or Prozac?

Broomstick

05-15-2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by DSeid
So, are people in this thread liberterian and believe that government has no role in assuring that members of its population are kept safe? Or does it have a real but limited role in public safety?I don't see where a politcal party is relevant to where you feel the line should be drawn between individual liberty and "public good".

But, to answer the question - I'd vote for a very limited role for government in this area.

Most Americans take the position that the government does have an interest in assuring the safety of its populus.Is that why speed limit laws are so widely and conscientiously obeyed? :dubious:

Most Americans are happy to have the government legislate other peoples' activities, not their own.

We accept that medications will be approved for use only if safe relative to the benefit and that unsafe medicines will not be allowed even if we wanted to take them.That's quite a simplification of the situation, but since this is about helmet laws and not the pharmaceutical industry I'll pass on the argument now that I've stated I don't think this is a good example for your position.

We accept that workplace safety will be regulated even if I as an employee am willing to do without safety requirements in return for extra pay.Hmmm.... in the past, it's usually been "do without safety equipment for the same pay", not more.

So when does the government's interest in keeping individuals safe outweigh the individual's right to make a stupid decision?That's the big question, isn't it? Who defines "stupid"? Who determines "safe enough"?

One of my big problems with a lot of laws passed for the "public good" in regards to safety is they take a one-size-fits-all approach making no allowances for education, experience, or skill. Nor do they allow for exceptions when reasionable and necessary. Add in the courts and ambulance chasing lawyers and it gets ridiculous.

Airbags (to keep in the transportation theme of things) are a great example. The way the regs were originally written, they had restrain an "average man" - IIRC between 5'8" and 5'10", 180 lbs - in a crash of a given speed (which I can't recall at the moment) and unbelted. Which is all find and good IF you're an "average man". Where's the problem? Well, just for starters, 51% of the population isn't male, meaning they tend to be smaller, lighter, and have less muscle mass to cushion the impact of the airbag when it deploys. As I pointed out to a friend of mine, if an airbag goes off in a car it would hit him in the chest and me in the face. Sure, I'd rather suffer a broken nose and/or cheekbone than die impaled on a steering wheel, but that doesn't mean I'll be happy about the busted face. Although airbags have unquestionably saved lives in serious accidents, they've also decapited children in fender-benders that would have caused no harm whatsoever otherwise. And you can't turn the damn things off in a car (in my pickup you do have the option - for the passenger side only). This "you can't turn it off" situation makes airbags potentially deadly to those with frail bones, dwarves, and the like who have a "safety device" forced on them without exception. Although they eventually did allow for folks to have them deactivated for such reasons, virtually no mechanic will do so because of the potential liability. I find this intolerable. Either design the things so they're adjustable, or give folks the option to turn them off when the situation warrants it. If they're foolish enough to turn them off when they shouldn't... I find that more acceptable than opposite alternative.

The distinction? If you turn it off by your own choice you are volunteering to assume more risk. If you can't turn it off you are having the risk forced upon you.

When significant cost to society relative to the cost of imposition of the requirement would be incurred. This seems to be the case.

So helmets fit under the second to most non-riders anyway. Wearing a helmet seems to be a small imposition to force upon a few people relative to the expense of a quite a few Neuro ICU and prolonged rehab stays.But I (and others) are not convinced that there actually ARE this legion of brain-damaged former motorcycle riders out there. Certainly in children, bicycles are a far greater cause of brain injury than motorcycles, yet there are not nearly as many mandatory helmet laws for bicycles, nor are the penalties for noncompliance as steep in the ones that do exist compared to seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. Far more survivable head injuries occur in cars than on motorcycles, if only because so much more driving is done in cars.

As for the idea that post-head injury rehab drives up insurance costs... MANY insurance policies specifically exclude "cognitive rehab" services, in-home care, and other requirements of the head-injury and longer-term disabled. (I happen to work in the health insurance industry, so that's what I base that on) So that's a bogus argument in my book. Frankly, a lot of that post-head injury rehab has never been proven to work. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Post-brain injury rehab is not as advanced an area as, say, rehab for a lost foot.

See, these days a lot more people survive head injuries than 20 or 30 years ago... so NOW we've got a big population of brain-disabled adults and we're just not sure how to help them because, as I said, it wasn't that long ago they wouldn't have survived at all. But this group arose after the helmet-required laws were passed and are a result of better trauma care, not helmets or lack of them.

Read_Neck

05-15-2003, 11:37 AM

Sorry, DSeid, laws for the "public good" are a sign of a society that refuses to take responsibility for their own actions. The list is endless and the laws basically unenforceable without implementing a police state. But that's another debate.

I was actually lurking in this thread because I was deeply involved in getting the "helmet law" repealed in Texas a few years back. I was wondering if the pro and con positions had changed to any degree. They haven't. When we finally got down to the "nuts and bolts" in Austin it was all about the "bucks" and the power of the insurance lobby.
The compromise added two provisions to the bill.
1. You must pass a driving test to get a motorcycle endorsement.
2. When you register a motorcycle you receive a sticker that shows proof of PIP (Personal Injury Protection) insurance and allows you to ride without a helmet.
One thing about this repeal was that the two opposite extremes of the motorcyclist spectrum. (The 1%ers and the Goldwing riders)
had no intension of taking advantage of the repeal but still actively backed it.
Coldfire,the US insurance lobby does indeed have a plan to require seatbelts on motorcycles. Ludicrous but true.

Johnny L.A.

05-15-2003, 12:19 PM

Coldfire,the US insurance lobby does indeed have a plan to require seatbelts on motorcycles. Ludicrous but true.
I'd have to see a cite for that. I can't believe anyone would be so stupid (or lack the cognitive ability to think things through) as to imagine that seat belts on motorcycles would be a good idea.

Lute Skywatcher

05-15-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by MLS
A co-worker of mine is an EMT. He is of the opinion that anyone who chooses to not wear a helmet while motorcycling should merely be required to post a large cash bond in advance: one that is sufficient to cover the mental health rehabilitation for all of the people who have to clean his brains up off the road when he wipes out. I took the liberty of forwarding this to a talk-radio host in St. Louis and he used it at the end of his program today. I hope you don't mind.

Read_Neck

05-15-2003, 05:16 PM

Johnny L.A.---- I'll see if I can find you one but my source was from a conversation with a lobbyist for the insurance industry. It is possible that he pitched it out to get our reaction. The subject was not brought up again to my knowledge. It would make a good joke but this guy wasn't smiling.

Read_Neck

05-15-2003, 05:21 PM

Broomstick

05-15-2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Johnny L.A.
I'd have to see a cite for that. I can't believe anyone would be so stupid (or lack the cognitive ability to think things through) as to imagine that seat belts on motorcycles would be a good idea. Yo, Johnny - I work in the insurance industry and while I don't know if there's an organized lobby, it IS a statement I hear altogether too often, usually followed by "well, if they save lives in cars think of how many more lives they would save on motorcycles!"

You and I know, of course, this is a statement that can only be based on ignorance, stupidity, or both. Problem is, the world has no shortage of either. The insurance industry is dominated by risk-averse people (we 10% or so who do "dangerous things" on the weekend being a distinct minority) who never experience the things they wish to control, yet feel qualified to render opinions on them nonetheless.

Johnny L.A.

05-15-2003, 07:29 PM

it IS a statement I hear altogether too often
[insert a smiley with its hand over the forehead and eyes and saying, "Aiyiyi."]

Next time someone says that, you should ask them why it's "safe" for a seat-belted motorcyclist to have his leg ground into hamburger down to the bone because it's trapped between the road and the machine as he and it slide together as a unit.

Broomstick

05-15-2003, 07:49 PM

Part of the problem is over-selling "safety".

This leads to stupidity based thoughts like Motorcycle Helmet = No Brain Injury. It doesn't. You can still be killed, maimed, or brain injured while wearing a helmet. It's just less likely you will be brain injured or killed while wearing a helmet. (Note, I did not mention reduced odds of maiming.)

Likewise, folks get the idea drummed into their heads that Seat Belt = Survival to the point that they no longer think. A seat belt does not garauntee survival, lack of maiming, etc. etc. It just changes the odds. Indeed, improperly used seat belts increase the chances of certain types of abdominal and spine injuries.

True safety (in my mind) requires some basic understanding of the laws of physics and some thought to what you are doing. Basic things, like the faster you go the harder you hit, and the more stuff you can put between you and the point of impact the better. In addition, if you are on the outside of something heavy and fast and you're about to have an accident you're better off departing said heavy, fast object - you yourself will still be a fast-moving object, but a lighter one and therefore will hit whatever you're about to hit with less force. And, of course, there's the leg-ground-off-on-the-road-until-it-looks-like-a-pencil-stub sceanario you mentioned, Johnny. But, as I said, such things are outside the mental universe of some of the folks I work with. If you got them to understand the problem involved their knee-jerk reaction would mostly be to say "Those things are too dangerous, we should just make them illegal" (Again, based on past conversations and experience with these sorts)

I could give a dozen more examples of knee-jerk bad safety opinions based on ignorance of the activity involved.

Read_Neck

05-15-2003, 08:02 PM

I hear you Broomstick. I personally think the only way to make motorcycles safe would be to make electric starters illegal but don't see that happening anytime soon.

minty green

05-15-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Broomstick
Airbags (to keep in the transportation theme of things) are a great example. The way the regs were originally written, they had restrain an "average man" - IIRC between 5'8" and 5'10", 180 lbs - in a crash of a given speed (which I can't recall at the moment) and unbelted. Which is all find and good IF you're an "average man". Where's the problem? Well, just for starters, 51% of the population isn't male, meaning they tend to be smaller, lighter, and have less muscle mass to cushion the impact of the airbag when it deploys.While the NHTSA regs were written to require the vehicle to pass a 30 mph crash test (since lowered to 25 mph) with a 50th percentile male dummy, NHTSA and the manufacturers also ran crash tests using other dummies, including small females, large males, and children. The results of those tests indicated that occupants of pretty much any size would not be injured by airbag deployment unless they were extremely close to the airbag (i.e., just a couple inches away from the dashboard) at the time it went off. This was viewed--quite justifiably--as a reasonable risk to run for the sake of the hundreds and thousands of lives that airbags save every year.

To be sure, current airbag designs are much more sophisticated and significantly less likely to cause injuries from their deployment. It is also indisputable that cars were, on the whole, safer with airbags than without, and there are a whole lot of people alive today solely because of them.

Although airbags have unquestionably saved lives in serious accidents, they've also decapited children in fender-benders that would have caused no harm whatsoever otherwise.I am completely unaware of any evidence that a child has ever been "decapitated" by an air bag. A non-trivial number of children were killed by early airbags, but let's not go all Fangoria where it's not accurate.

DSeid

05-16-2003, 12:30 AM

First off Broomstick, that was "liberterian" not "Liberterian" Only the latter is a political party.

How much public good is served by mandatory helmet laws?

Most studies show that fatalities decrease by up to 40 % when states pass helmet laws. States that repealed helmet laws have seen motorcycle fatality rate increases of over 70% and one increased 183%!

The economic costs to society of helmet law repeals has been estimated at over $180,000,000.

Do these benefits justify the imposition of making people wear helmets? That depends on how much of an imposition you think it is.

Helmets do not assure survival in a crash; they increase the odds substantially though. Decreasing the fatalities by a third seems significant enough to me to mandate helmet use.

Societal benefit vs imposition upon personal freedoms. It is not either or. It is a balance of interests.

Read_Neck

05-16-2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by DSeid
First off Broomstick, that was "liberterian" not "Liberterian" Only the latter is a political party.

How much public good is served by mandatory helmet laws?

Most studies show that fatalities decrease by up to 40 % when states pass helmet laws. States that repealed helmet laws have seen motorcycle fatality rate increases of over 70% and one increased 183%!

The economic costs to society of helmet law repeals has been estimated at over $180,000,000.

Do these benefits justify the imposition of making people wear helmets? That depends on how much of an imposition you think it is.

Helmets do not assure survival in a crash; they increase the odds substantially though. Decreasing the fatalities by a third seems significant enough to me to mandate helmet use.

Societal benefit vs imposition upon personal freedoms. It is not either or. It is a balance of interests.

CITE! CITE! That's pure BS.

Coldfire

05-16-2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Read_Neck
I personally think the only way to make motorcycles safe would be to make electric starters illegal but don't see that happening anytime soon. Are you saying this as an example of stupid unsubstantiated safety reasons (such as seatbelts on a bike), or is there really a logic behind this? :)

By the way, some bikes (http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/cml/images/bmw_c1-1.jpg) DO have seatbelts, you know. Oddly enough, this eradicates the need for a helmet as well, in the legal sense.

Broomstick

05-16-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by minty green
To be sure, current airbag designs are much more sophisticated and significantly less likely to cause injuries from their deployment. Except, of course, that there are still all those unsophisticated older airbags out there on the road.

I am completely unaware of any evidence that a child has ever been "decapitated" by an air bag. A non-trivial number of children were killed by early airbags, but let's not go all Fangoria where it's not accurate. Leaving aside the personal injury lawyer sites...

From NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2605car.html) - you do have to scroll down about 4/5's of the way through site to find the mention of decapitation.

Second letter on this page (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n2-let.html), another scroll-down

Under the header "air bag injuries" (http://www.wtfd.net/pedsems.html)

Yes, my posting is occassionally graphic, but in general not exaggerated

Broomstick

05-16-2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by DSeid
Most studies show that fatalities decrease by up to 40 % when states pass helmet laws. States that repealed helmet laws have seen motorcycle fatality rate increases of over 70% and one increased 183%!Cite, please.

The economic costs to society of helmet law repeals has been estimated at over $180,000,000.Cite, please.

Do these benefits justify the imposition of making people wear helmets? That depends on how much of an imposition you think it is.

Helmets do not assure survival in a crash; they increase the odds substantially though. Decreasing the fatalities by a third seems significant enough to me to mandate helmet use.To you, perhaps. My position is that if people don't want to buckle up or wear motorcycle helmets that's THEIR problem - I've yet to see evidence that this truly costs either society or me any significant sums in relation to the money spent on other items.

Societal benefit vs imposition upon personal freedoms. It is not either or. It is a balance of interests. True - but I tend to lean more towards "personal freedom" than most people. Maybe it's because I don't believe my total purpose in life is to benefit others - yes, it's a good thing (and I do my part to help others when I can), but not my main reason for being.

On a regular basis I engage in activities that carry a definite risk of death or injury - if they were outlawed I would be safer (and considerably wealthier), but a much less happy human being. What good is it to make me "safe" so I live 100 years, but it's a 100 years of misery and depression because I can't do the things that make me happy?

Sort of reminds me of how a poster in another thread told me I should give up my "surplus liberty" for their peace of mind. Um... let's not go there.

I don't think helmet laws will throw anyone into deep, dark, depression, but it's on a slope between total freedom (which is not workable) and total safety (which might as well be prison).

I think there is a role for government regulation of safety equipemnt, including regulations regarding use, but I view any new regulation or mandate with a great deal of suspicion. As I said, I could name a dozen idiotic "safety" ideas I've heard proposed over the years, and not just with motorcycles or cars.

Yes, airbags HAVE saved lives... but they've also killed people who would have otherwise lived. Understandably, any new technology is going to have some problems. I can see that. However, when I went to look at new cars in the late 90's I saw altogether too many instances where, in order for me to reach the pedals, I had to pull the seat up until I was on top of the steering wheel (and the airbag). Whereupon the dealer would say "you should sit at least 14 inches from the steering wheel". Huh? If I did that I couldn't reach all the controls. THAT's not safe, either. And being told "Well, maybe your husband should do the driving" isn't a valid solution, either :rolleyes:

(The correct answer, by the way, is "pedal extensions". Which, of course, the dealer never seems to have on hand. Me, yeah, I'd make the effort to get them - a lot of other folks wouldn't. Which is one reason why the accidents statistics have instances of "properly restrained" (meaning seatbelted) adults being severely injured or killed by airbags)

Likewise, if you mandate helmets, unless it's done properly, you're going to have some problems arising from the helmets themselves. My answer to that (assuming we're in a situation with a helmet law) is better helmets, and teaching people how to choose one that actually fits. (I have a theory/opinion that most helmet "problems" come from a poor fit, but no proof so don't bother asking for a cite on that one) Just like the solution to airbag problems is a better airbag. And pedal extensions offered at the dealership for those who are short. Or an option to turn one off if you do have a physically frail driver. No one should be obligated to put themselves at greater risk because of a "safety" law. That's just wrong.

Back to motorcycles - yeah, you should wear boots and leathers while riding, too. However, if you're riding through Arizona in the summertime I could see a serious risk of heatstroke from that, too - in which case, although the risk IN an accident is greater with lighter clothing, the chances OF an accident are less if the driver isn't about to pass out from the heat. And you're almost always better off avoiding an accident rather than trying to survive one.

That is one of my biggest gripes about the safety laws - they're written with no possibility of exception. It's one-size-fits-all.

DSeid

05-16-2003, 07:17 AM

The cites cites cites:

JAMA 1994 Nov 16;272(19):1506-11

The effect of the 1992 California motorcycle helmet use law on motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries.

Kraus JF, Peek C, McArthur DL, Williams A.

Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90024-1772.

... RESULTS--After implementation of the helmet use law, statewide motorcycle crash fatalities decreased by 37.5%, from 523 fatalities in 1991 to 327 in 1992, more than 37%, and an estimated 92 to 122 fatalities were prevented.
1. J Trauma 2002 Mar;52(3):469-74

The impact of a repealed motorcycle helmet law in Miami-Dade County.
Hotz GA, Cohn SM, Popkin C, Ekeh P, Duncan R, Johnson EW, Pernas F, Selem J.

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
.... Helmet usage decreased from 1999 (83%) to 2000 (56%). The number of brain injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale score > or = 2) during this same time period increased from 18 to 35, and the number of fatalities from 2 to 8. CONCLUSION: The repeal of a motorcycle helmet law significantly increased the number and severity of brain injuries admitted to our trauma center.

Med Care 1992 Sep;30(9):832-45

The impact of the Texas 1989 motorcycle helmet law on total and head-related fatalities, severe injuries, and overall injuries.

Fleming NS, Becker ER.

Department of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa.

The State of Texas implemented a mandatory total motorcycle helmet law for all operators and passengers, effective September 1, 1989. In this study the impact of this intervention on frequency of both total and head-related fatalities, severe injuries, and overall injuries for operators during the subsequent year was quantified. ... declines of 12.6% and 57.0%, respectively, were estimated for total and head-related fatalities during the year after the law was implemented. Declines of 13.1% and 54.6% were estimated for severe injuries for total and head-related accidents. Declines of 12.3% and 52.9% were found for total and head-related injuries overall.
JAMA 1990 Nov 14;264(18):2395-9

Head injury--associated deaths from motorcycle crashes. Relationship to helmet-use laws.

Sosin DM, Sacks JJ, Holmgreen P.

Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga 30333.

A review of US mortality data from 1979 to 1986 identified 15,194 deaths and nearly 600,000 years of potential life lost before age 65 years that were associated with head injuries from motorcycle crashes. White males from 15 to 34 years of age accounted for 69% of the deaths. The rate of motorcycle-related deaths associated with head injury declined modestly between 1979 and 1986 (19% using rates based on resident population and 8% based on motorcycle registrations). Population-based rates adjusted for age, sex, and race in states with partial or no motorcycle helmet-use laws were almost twice those in states with comprehensive helmet-use laws. Two states that weakened their helmet-use laws from comprehensive to partial during the study period had increases in motorcycle-related head injury death rates (184% and 73%), and one state that strengthened its law from partial to comprehensive had a decline in its death rate (44%). Head injury death rates based on motorcycle registrations were also lowest in states with comprehensive helmet-use laws. Since helmets reduce the severity of nonfatal head injuries in addition to lowering the rate of fatal injuries, we urge the adoption and enforcement of comprehensive motorcycle helmet-use legislation.
J Health Polit Policy Law 1983 Spring;8(1):76-98

The economics of safety deregulation: lives and dollars lost due to repeal of motorcycle helmet laws.

Hartunian NS, Smart CN, Willemain TR, Zador PL.

Between 1976 and 1980, 28 state legislatures in the United States repealed or weakened their motorcycle helmet-use laws. ... The economic costs to society that are associated with the excess fatalities resulting from the repeals of helmet laws total at least $180 million.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (A CDC publication)

June 17, 1994 / 43(23);423,429-431

Head Injuries Associated with Motorcycle Use -- Wisconsin, 1991
From 1989 through 1991, a total of 9913 persons in the United States died as a result of crashes while operating or riding motorcycles (1). Although use of motorcycle helmets is an effective means for preventing crash-related fatal injuries (2), 25 states and the District of Columbia have not yet enacted laws requiring the universal use of motorcycle helmets (1). This report describes a study by the University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in which linked police reports and hospital discharge records for 1991 were used to assess the risk for head injury for motorcyclists in motor-vehicle crashes, the initial inpatient hospital charges for motorcyclists with head injuries resulting from crashes, and the reduction in injuries and fatalities associated with universal helmet use.
...

Of the 3184 motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes in Wisconsin in 1991, 2015 (63.3%) were unhelmeted and 994 (31.2%) were helmeted at the time of the crash. Helmet use was unknown for 175 (5.5%), four of whom were fatally injured; of 32 who were hospitalized, 13 incurred head injuries. Of those motorcyclists for whom helmet status was known, 545 were hospitalized and 74 died, including 55 who were unhelmeted and 19 who were helmeted. Of the 545 hospitalized, 187 (34.3%) had sustained a head injury (Table_1). Overall, unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a head injury (153 {7.6%}) than were helmeted riders (34 {3.4%}). Brain injury occurred among 97 (4.8%) of those who were unhelmeted and 17 (1.7%) of those who were helmeted (rate ratio {RR}=2.9, 95% confidence interval {CI}=1.7-4.9); the rate for skull fracture among unhelmeted riders (0.9%) was 4.5 times (95% CI=1.0-19.2) that among helmeted riders (0.2%). The rate for concussions among unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes (1.9%) was higher than that for helmeted riders (1.5%) (RR=1.3; 95% CI=0.7-2.3).

Total initial * inpatient hospital charges for the 97 unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries was $2,396,366 -- compared with $333,619 for the 17 helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries (Table_1). Average initial hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries were $24,705, compared with $19,624 for helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries.

Although some crashes will be so severe that a motorcycle helmet will not prevent brain injury or death, the proportion of injuries that could have been prevented if a motorcycle helmet had been worn by all riders was estimated for each category of head injury and death (3). These estimates assume that if unhelmeted motorcyclists wore helmets and experienced a similar distribution of outcomes as helmeted motorcyclists, then universal helmet use by all motorcyclists in Wisconsin during 1991 potentially would have prevented 60 brain injuries, 13 skull fractures with no intra- cranial injury, and eight concussions. In addition, universal helmet use potentially would have prevented 14 (18.9%) deaths. Reported by: TA Karlson, PhD, CA Quade, Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison; Wisconsin Dept of Transportation. Div of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

Editorial Note
Editorial Note: Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect users against injury to the brain and other head injuries. The findings in this report indicate that the use of motorcycle helmets lowers the rate of head injury. Although helmet use is approximately 99% in states with universal requirements, use is substantially less in states with laws that apply only to subgroups of the population (4). For example, in Wisconsin, where the law applies only to riders aged less than 19 years, observed helmet use is 42% for all motorcycle riders (5).

minty green

05-16-2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Broomstick
Except, of course, that there are still all those unsophisticated older airbags out there on the road.Quite true, and those vehicles are significantly safer overall because of it. But like the warning label says, stick the kids in the back seat.

As for decapitation, I certainly won't fault you for making that claim in light of those cites, but I'm still skeptical. The plaintiff's lawyers I've known would have loved to have gotten something like that in front of a jury, but I've never even seen them mention such a thing.

Read_Neck

05-16-2003, 11:23 AM

Some of your stats are here.
http://www.geocities.com/rt_66.geo/helmet.html

Coldfire: I understand that motorcycles are regarded more as a means of transportation than a recreational sport but the skill of the American biker went to hell with the advent of the "button".

Coldfire

05-16-2003, 09:12 PM

So riding skill is connected to (not) having an electric starter on your bike?

Wouldn't you say that a possible reason for the lack of skill of the American biker (IF this is the case, I have too little experience to tell) is more related to the rather scary requirements (or lack thereof) for riding a bike?

I mean, check out this guy (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=182550) over in MPSIMS. Nothing personal against him, but he's able to just buy a V-Rod (hardly a machine for a novice, you'll agree), and ride around with it without doing as much as a course. Not very surprisingly, he's already dropped it once.

THAT's scary to me. Kickstarters, I could care less about. Whether I ride a kickstarted cruiser or my own electrically started Yamaha, I know it took me 25 hours of expensive lessons and a thorough examination (both theory and practice) to get my bike license. It's by no means a guarantee that you'll never crash, but it's a solid start, at least.

Magiver

05-16-2003, 09:58 PM

The insurance angle is valid but I don't understand why insurance companies don't force waivers of liability for helmetless riders.

My aircraft insurance covers all the partners in the plane but is VOID for any of the partners who don't hold a current medical.

Johnny L.A.

05-16-2003, 10:17 PM

I know it took me 25 hours of expensive lessons and a thorough examination
I started riding on mini-bikes when I was six. A Taco 44 with a Briggs & Stratton 4 hp engine. I learned to ride my dad's well-used 1964 Yamaha 80 when I was ten -- my first real motorcycle, as opposed to a motor-driven cycle. I got my own bike, a Yamaha 100 Enduro, when I was 12. I also rode dad's second-hand Honda CB100 and CB750. My next bike was a Yamaha 250 Enduro, four years later. I eventually bought a 1979 Honda CX500 from a co-worker for a dollar. Then I got my 1994 Yamaha XJ600 Seca II, new. I've dropped bikes numerous times (having done my fair share of off-highway riding) and have been hit twice on the freeway (although I kept it under control and didn't fall -- you should have seen the truck!). I was nearly creamed today (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=184582).

I wear a helmet. I wore it before it was required.

On the other hand, I have enough experience to decide whether to wear a helmet. I am able to assess whether a situation requires a helmet. (I mentioned a couple of circumstances earlier where I believe a helmet was not necessary.) Given my knowledge and experience, I feel I am fully capable of making my own decision. I don't think it is the government's place to tell me I have to. I'd wear it anyway. But I have being told to wear it.

Coldfire

05-17-2003, 11:21 AM

Johnny, your bike has an electric starter. You're obviously a crap rider, despite 30 plus years of experience. ;)

JaxBeachBoy

05-17-2003, 06:08 PM

The helmet law here in FL seems to be an effective compromise...if you want to ride without a helmet, you must be over 21, and you must carry at least $10,000 in personal medical insurance, and you must carry proof of that insurance when you ride.

Eva Luna

05-17-2003, 08:10 PM

Jax, $10k won't buy squat in the way of medical care if you're seriously injured. I was uninsured when I broke my leg in FL over 6 years ago; a 10-minute ambulance ride, having the leg set in the E.R., and one night in the hospital cost $4500. I never lost consciousness, and injured nothing except my leg. And we're not even talking about being hooked up to an I.V., let alone any fancy machinery. The only drugs I received were a couple shots of Demerol when they set the leg, and some painkillers overnight which didn't really do squat.

So if you have a head injury of any severity at all, you could run through $10k in care mighty fast. And if that's your only health insurance, the public will likely be paying for your care for a long time to come, unless you have some serious cash that you can lay out. (It took me a long time, but I did eventually pay off my hospital bill.)

Johnny L.A.

05-17-2003, 09:40 PM

And we're not even talking about being hooked up to an I.V., let alone any fancy machinery.
Especially not the machine that goes "BING!" That's the most expensive machine.

DSeid

05-18-2003, 08:29 AM

From the last of my cites:Total initial * inpatient hospital charges for the 97 unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries was $2,396,366 -- compared with $333,619 for the 17 helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries (Table_1). Average initial hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries were $24,705, compared with $19,624 for helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries.BING! (And those are ten year old numbers, medical inflation has been steep; malpractice premiums have greatly driven up the costs for high risk endevours like emergency medicine ... we need tort reform!)

$10K is chicken feed for medical costs.

Johnny and Broomstick, I understand that you do not like the government telling you what to do. Even if it is something that you agreed makes sense for you to do. I understand that even that is a limitation on your personal freedom. Personal freedoms should be limited only with very good cause. Nevertheless in our society we often give some of our freedoms for the greater good; such is the basis for society: we pay taxes even though we resent it; we don't hit someone who makes us angry; we even occasionally follow traffic laws! When society's vested interest is great, and the imposition small, such an imposition is justified. There is reasonable debate about where such a line should be drawn.

Now read-neck, who had called my figures bullshit, meekly responds to my sources with a cite that has the main point that motorcycles are dwarfed as a cause of head injuries by such things as car accidents. Which is true enough. But per mile driven, and per registered vehicle, cars are a much safer way to go ... not as safe as flying but that is another discussion! More to the point, with cars our society has accepted that if used they must be used reasonably safely, mandatory seatbelts, etc. We balance the safety versus the costs of imposition: some safety additions have not been required because they would drive up expenses too much; eliminating cars would clearly be too great of an imposition on personal freedoms; so on. Even for this number one cause of head injury and of death under 18 years of age.

In California alone the helmet law saved about 200 lives in the first year of implementation. Let's put this perspective: about the same number of SARS deaths in all of China (population 1.2 billion plus) has set off a world wide panic with travel restrictions and more. 200 lives saved per year in one state alone. And the impositions are that some people want to show off their hair and be free to take risks if they want to?

Ride your bike with skill. Enjoy it. And wear your dang helmet.