Motorcycles and helmet laws

Great Debates
21

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.

22

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.

23

**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?

24

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.

25

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.

26

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.

27

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.

28

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. :smiley:
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

29

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:

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? :slight_smile:

30

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…

:smiley:

31

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.

32

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) 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. 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).

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.

33

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.

34

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.

35

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

36

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.

37

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. :slight_smile:

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

38

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:[ul][li]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. [/ul]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.[/li][quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.

Thank you. :slight_smile:

I 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. :slight_smile:

39

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.

40

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?