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
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.
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”
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.
Sounds reasonable to me.
I don’t think this would be practical. Assuming I wanted to ride sans helmet, what would keep me from telling the insurance company that 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
First off, welcome to the boards.
I’ve never really understood the argument of reduced peripheral vision with full face helmets. Having worn a range of FF helmets, I’ve never quite experienced this phenomenon myself. When I turn my eyes full lock left or right, I can just about make out the edges of the visor.
Check out this picture. It clearly indicates where the helmet starts to interfere with the man’s visibility: with the visor flipped down, he’d have to look sideways all the way to even see the edges. Since your eyes are your most important tool on a bike (don’t trus your ears, you’ll be fooled), you look over your shoulders extensively anyway before, say, changing lanes.
The point is moot, IMHO.
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.
I 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :::::::
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…
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?