Around here, one of the radio personalities is an empassioned motorcyclist. So he tells us about “biker rights rallies” and such as they occur. One of the main bones of contention seems to be that bikers don’t want lawmakers to pass a law requiring them (the bikers) to wear helmets when they ride. This, to me, seems like a pretty good safety measure, but surely there’s more to the debate than that?
Not much to add here, except that Gary Busey used to be vehmently anti-helmet.
Then he went head-first into a curb. Changed his way of thinking, in more ways than one. 
What do you call a motorcycle rider who doesn’t wear a helmet?
An organ donor
I would have thought that the insurance companies would lobby pretty hard for there to be helmet laws. It’s gotta be expensive for them to pick up the costs of the kinds of injuries that helmets prevent.
My contribution to the debate is this:
Usually, the people who don’t want the government to tell them to wear helmets, fasten seatbelts, etc., are the same folks who want that same government to pay them disability when they cripple themselves due to ignoring the safety rules.
A mitigating factor for insurance companies is that funerals don’t cost as much as rehab.
Wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is not required in South Carolina if the operator is more than 21 years of age.
Every year it seems the Legislature tries to pass a law making helmets mandatory, but it doesn’t get very far.
It seems most bikers in the South don’t want the government telling them what to do. They like having the freedom to choose to wear a helmet. A lot of it is the Southern mindset. Also, Myrtle Beach, S.C., has major bike rallies and there is a concern that if helmets were mandatory, the state would lose some biker tourism money.
If federal highways fund weren’t tied to seat belts laws, I would guess South Carolina wouldn’t have those either.
It’s not that bikers don’t want to wear helmets. It’s that they don’t want to be compelled to wear them.
Naturally you have a cite to back that up. :dubious:
Mal, who would no more bike without a helmet than without his trousers on. Except that one time when a friend forgot I’d stowed it in the boot (trunk) of his car… and if a policeman had seen me on my way home, I’d’ve been nailed.
It’s not so much about whether or not helmets are a good idea, it’s whether or not the government should be passing laws to regulate personal safety. I’m against helmet AND seatbelt laws, but that doesn’t mean I don’t wear a helmet or a seatbelt. I value my dashing good looks, I don’t want to smear them along I-70.
Don’t yell at me about it! I understand the standard responses “My insurance rates go up” or “my taxes pay their medical bills”. The percentage of people injured in motorcycle accidents without a helmet has got to be trivial compared to the numbers messed up in car crashes.
Also, some people like the wind in their face or something. Gives me a headache, but whatever.
I mean, yeah, what he said!
How’d I miss that post? :smack:
I don’t want a law *telling *me to wear my helmet. And like Mal, I wear my helmet all the time - on any road where I can be near a moving car. (I don’t wear it when I’m riding at the park, say, where it’s only little paved paths and I can’t get hit by a car as there are no cars.)
I suppose you could pass a law that says “Helmets only required on major roads” or something but then you have to get someone to quantify every bit of it, and make sure it’s all air-tight. I think bikers *should *wear helmets but we have enough laws already.
Erm…that should be qualify, not quantify. I think.
Did you stow your helmet or your trousers in his car?
This is going to end up as a debate.
Here is why common sense needs to be legislated.
There are no shortage of studies by googling helmet laws.
First, let me say I ride and do not wear a helmet here in Florida now that the law was repealed. The doomsayers said fatalities and head injuries would sky rocket but from what I’ve heard in TV commentaries and the like, they have gone down. The Bike Week following the law change had the lowest number of injuries during a year of record attendance. Sorry, no cite.
Second, I have always held the position that if the issue is safety and insurance problems, why not require them in all vehicles. The number of head injuries in vehicles annually must be very high. If safety is the sole concern, everyone should wear one. You know why this isn’t the case? Because the first time a Senators wife has to put her new doo in a brain bucket, the law will be repealled the next day.
Lastly, as to the studies done on helmet-law effects I don’t accept the numbers as given. Everytime a motorcyclist is killed I hear the talking-head give the standard phrase “And he wasn’t wearing a helmet”. When they are dead but were wearing one, nothing is said. Also, I have read accident reports were the victim was crushed beneath the wheels of a semi-tractor trailer and they add “…too bad he wasn’t wearing his helmet” as if that would have made a difference. The mind-set lately has been that the lack of helmet = cause of death. No… he was CRUSHED under the wheels of a truck! But the accident report will dutifully note the absence of a helmet and the number will be added to the statistics.
Also, I remember reading in the anti-helmet papers that the biggest lobby for helments is not the insurance companies, it was the helmet manufacturers… Harley being one of the biggest spenders.
If your heart-felt concern is motivated by safety or fear of insurance rates, put everyone in a helmet.
Actually this really should be in IMHO. And your cite indicates a reason why ***in your opinion *** helmet laws are needed to protect people from their own bad judgement. Many rational people disagree. I do not ride a motorcycle, and I always wear my seatbelt. Yet I am opposed to seatbelt and helmet laws. It is not the government’s place to protect us from ourselves. I do not mind the government educating us on the risks and putting forth marketting campaigns to attempt socially stigmatize bad behavior.
But the cry goes up, “Increased insurance rates!”. I ask where that avenue ends. Ice cream leading to obesity brings up my insurance rates. People with bad hearts raise my insurance rates. It’s not a matter of fact, it is a matter of philosophy.
(I don’t wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle, and I have removed the safety guard from my table saw. I’m a grownup, and I choose my own risks with full knowledge.)
It’s not just a southern thing, as bikers in Michigan routinely rally at the Capital for the repeal of helmet laws. I work across the street from the Capital. They like gunning all their bikes at the same time to make lots of noise. (Yeah, they’re assholes - big shock!)
I wish someone could explain to me why the right to do something that people shouldn’t do and that is manifestly stupid to do is so important. Aren’t there real issues to worry about? (And what the hell does “too many laws on the book” mean, anyhow?)
If I had to guess, I’d hazard that motorcyclists seem to be part of a rather anti-authoritarian subculture. It smacks - to me at least - of a bit of “You can’t tell me what to do! You’re not the boss of me!” And, as Bobtheoptimist pointed out above, it does cost the rest of us when helmetless idiots get in accidents. Plenty of bikers do ride without helmets, and they cost the rest of us money. I don’t know the exact amount - but since we don’t live in a libertarian state, it costs me money. That’s how society works: the rest of us get a certain amount of say in what you do, since the rest of us are helping you out.
If indeed head injuries increase when helmet laws are repealed, then it’s clear that some motorcyclists, at least, do need the nanny state to take care of them, as they are quite apparently not capable of making reasonable decisions on their own.
On a totally different angle, I had a friend who disliked the helmet law because it made it hard to pick up women. Go to the bars with an extra helmet and you look like a jerk on the prowl. Go without one and you can’t take a girl home with you. What’s a biker to do?
Also, there was one time where my boyfriend and I ended up stranded without the keys to my car, which I had accidently left in his car parked something like 15 or 20 miles away. We were on a remote little road and it was getting to be dusk, and the only person who drove by and stopped was a motorcyclist. He didn’t have an extra helmet so I rode on his bike without a helmet to get the car and pick my boyfriend up. It kind of sucks that he could have been in serious trouble if we were caught. But if he hadn’t stopped, we’d have had one hell of a long walk back, in the dark, along the side of a road that had a rock wall on one side and a cliff on the other. So I say screw helmet laws.
Reading this article I have to say “What a load of crap”. All they can say is there was increase in the number of injuries.
.
As I read this they are saying there was only an 83% helmet usage prior to 2000 and a 56% after. Do they know the number of motorcycle riders on the road in those respective years? If the number of riders increased (which it has risen steadily in the past few years) and the number of hours on the road average per rider and the number of other vehicles on the road at the same time then the totals would be naturally skewed. Also, were there no increases in the years prior to the law changing. Was there a consistant number of similar injuries each year, kept in balance by the law and they only showed an increase of any size once the law changed?
I have doubts as to the validity of a study conducted by hospital staff driven largely by empirical evidence.
I settle total losses on vehicles for an insurance company. The VAST majority of motorcycle cases I have to settle go very smoothly. Because the principle operator of the vehicle is not available…or able…to discuss the vehicle settlement. Granted, I’m dealing with relatively nasty hits to begin with.
And while I have to admit to noticing a dramatic increase of survived motorcycle wrecks when the rider is helmeted, I would be remiss in pointing out that lots of times the helemt simply pops off the rider’s head when he flies into a telephone pole, parked car, or pavement after a 50-yard flight & tumble.
Personally I’d like to see a study exploring how many helmet wearers have accidents as opposed to “organ donors.” Coming from a safety consciousness perspective, I would expect those who are more tuned in to the perils of biking take it a little more seriously and protect themselves with proper gear and better traffic philosophy.
Very well.
In my opinion, a motorcyclist is better protected from head injuries while wearing a helmet.
In my opinion, head injuries will decline in any given jurisdiction if more motorcyclists wear helmets.
In my opinion, more motorcyclists will wear helmets if it is legislated that they need to do so.
In my opinion, motorcyclists with 0 blood alcohol level will sustain fewer injuries.
Nic - I appreciate your concerns about the possible anecdotal indications of the study in my previous post. This one more specifically addresses your points.
One more thing. I respect your opinion. I do not agree with it. I do not belittle it. I ask the same of you. Facts please.
Regards.
Actually, Ive heard the interesting numbers are those showing the length of time riding. The numbers were signifigantly higher for:
Riders under under the age of 21
Older riders within the first 18 months of beginning to ride for the first time.
Often the “organ donors” have riden for many, many years without serious incident and are fully aware of serious riding practices and not the largest number of those driving the numbers; kids and new riders are.
Ghanima- We alwaays carried a spare helmet. My friend Dave used to say “At closing time I tie a rope to my spare helmet and the other end to my sissy bar and ride around the parking lot a couple of times. I call it Trolling For Tramps”
He was a funny guy and was just kidding around. He was killed on Thanksgiving four years ago on his bike. He was wearing a helmet.