On September 4, 2003, a new ruling went into effect in my home state, Pennsylvania, allowing motorcyclists aged 21 or older to choose whether or not to wear a helmet while riding. This, I gather, follows the precedent of several other states, including Texas, where I live now.
In discussion on this issue, my sister, much quicker on the uptake than I, said “Wait a minute. Everyone pretty much agrees that riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than driving a car, and that one of things that makes it more dangerous is the increased chance of head injuries in a crash. Why are we forced by law to wear seatbelts in our (safer) cars while bikers can ride around with their ears flapping in the breeze? If anything, shouldn’t it be the other way around?”
Now, personally I’ve never needed laws to tell me to wear a seatbelt in a car, or to require my passengers to do the same (in the front at least). I’d do it anyway, and likewise for wearing a brain bucket on a bike. But is there something wrong here? Should the wearing of seatbelts be made equally optional, is the amended PA helmet law bad legislation, or what?
I wonder what would happen to all these safety laws if some system (preferably non-governmental, to appease the libertarians) was developed wherein noninsured motorists who injured themselves due to their own negligence (i.e. not wearing helmet/seatbelts) could be treated without subsequent raises in taxes or insurance premiums for insured motorists.
Wearing seatbelts should also be optional. About the only rationale I’ve ever heard for seatbelt laws is that, if you are injured because you weren’t wearing a seatbelt, the public may have to pick up the tab for your treatment. 'Course, this has no application for the large portion of people with private medical insurance.
But if that is the concern, wouldn’t a better law then be that, if you are injured because you weren’t wearing a seatbelt, you are not eligible for coverage by Medicare/Medicaid/whathaveyou? Better to do that than criminalize a personal choice.
Another reason for the acceptance of a seat belt requirement and the rejection of a helmet statute is the irresolution of my state legislature. My state briefly had a helmet statute. As I recall it never went into effect. Before the effective date and before it got to the governor, the motorcycle clubs bum rushed the legislature and those honest representives could not take the heat. In effect the legislature threw up its hands, said “Oh, screw it,” and repealed the statute.
On the other hand, there was no organized opposition to the seat belt statute. It may have been coerced by the threat of loss of federal highway funds which threatened an interest vital to two very important pressure groups–the highway builders and the liability insurance companies. In time most motorists have accepted the idea that using a seat belt is a smart thing to do. No one, however, has ever convinced the motorcycle types that there is any compelling reason that they should be deprived of the physical pleasure derived from screaming down the partially federally financed highway without a helmet.
If there is an up side to this, a seat belt has saved my life and has certainly saved my daughter from certain serious injury, but thanks to the lack of a helmet law we still have plenty of organ donors. I know two gentlemen with new kidneys thanks to unhelmeted motorcyclists, one man with a biker’s heart and my mother has of an 18 year old’s corneas.
With the up swing in motorcycle-deer collisions I am seeing some bikers who once despised helmets start to wear them. Self preservation? Still, an awful lot of bikers seem to prefer the baseball cap worn visor to the rear, and the do-rag.
We still have a few nut cases writing letters to the editor about the effectiveness of seat belts and the oppression they suffer because they are required to wear them. Within the last year or so the legislature made another half-hearted stab at a helmet law but gave up when the bikers started to howl .
IMO, seatbelt and helmet use actually cause more accidents. They give the driver an unrealistic feeling of safety which can lead him to take risks he might otherwise not take. Granted, the increased risk taking may be slight (and possibly subconscious ), but it’s still an increase.
In my view, the wearing of seatbelts should be optional for adults. I do not agree with laws that limit what you can do “for your own good”. The argument of saving public money or taxes spent on treating the uninsured is weak - if we go down that road we would ban all activities with greater than average danger of injury. No football. Hmm, maybe it’s not such a bad idea.
Are you aware of any studies that show those who wear belts and helmets are more accident prone then those who don’t? Since driving I’ve always worn a seatbelt. I certainly don’t think I take any more risks because of either the belt or my airbag.
A common error with helmet laws versus seatbeat laws are that the two are equal. They are not. Disregarding the amount of accidents users versus nonusers of each are involved in, the two are not comparable. With few exceptions ( being thrown clear in an accident, being trapped underwater, etc) Seatbelts are not comparable to helmets. A seatbelt has no major negative side effects. A helmet, on the other hand, decreases periphrial vision, reduces your hearing, and adds weight (and stress) to the neck in case of an accident. Should they create a helmet that has no negatives, or as few as a as a seatbelt, I would be all in favor of helmet laws. That day has yet to arrive.
DESK summed up what I was going to say. But we have helmet laws here, just no one who defines exactly what constitutes a helmet, as I’ve seen some that looked like a Yarmulka.
Two guys are driving in a car at high speed. The passenger refuses to wear his seat belt; the driver chastises him for not buckling up.
“Oh come on!” the passenger says. “That seatbelt would trap you in here if there were an accident!”
The car suddenly careens out of control and hits a barrier, sending the passenger through the windshield and over a cliff.
The driver thinks, “Heh, that’ll teach him not to wear a seatbelt.” Which was his last thought before the car exploded.
…anyway, I gotta say I’m pretty pro-helmet. I had a buddy in high school who was hit by a semi while riding his motorcycle to class. He still owns the remains of his helmet: it was split in two, straight down the middle, and his doctors swore up and down that it was the only thing that saved his life. (Sadly, he’s paralyzed from the waist down…but his HEAD is ok, at least.)
It still doesn’t track, however, DESK, that adults in enclosed vehicles are treated for all intents and purposes as children who need the heavy hand of government deciding the seatbelt issue for them, while motorcyclists are given freedom to make their own safety decisions.
It seems to me that it’s one or the other – either adults are capable of making their own choices when it comes to the use of vehicular safety equipment across the board, or they’re not. Pennsylvania and other states are in need of a strong wake up call on this issue – lobbies and loud protests are not sufficient reason to make special allowances for motorcyclists, and “it’s what’s best for everyone” is not sufficient reason to enforce strictures (including the possibility of being stopped and ticketed for no infraction other than failure to use seatbelts) on enclosed vehicle drivers and passengers.
Two issues within the argument:
1.) Seatbelts do not always fit larger and/or taller passengers, especially in older cars. Current federal law requires only that seatbelts fit those who are under 5’10" and 215 pounds. Beyond that, and you’re left at the whim and mercy of the car manufacturer. One woman, Elizabeth Fisher, has been on a crusade to change the law and demand that car manufacturers make some provision for the safety of larger passengers for several years, to little avail. While the obvious answer is “buy a car with seatbelts that fit” that doesn’t help those who are occasional passengers in cars with shorter belts nor those who have “outgrown” their seatbelts and cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. How do we square seatbelt requirement statutes with the fact that not everyone is served by seatbelts because of their body size?
2.) The new Pennsylvania law requires helmets be worn by motorcyclists who are under 21 years of age or have less than 2 years of cycling experience. However, the law has absolutely no provision for how such riders are identified. While police have the discretion to stop a helmetless rider who looks “underage” there is absolutely no way for them to visually enforce the experience requirement of the law and the inexperienced who decide to ride without helmets seem to be most at risk of grave injury due to an accident. How could this enormous loophole jive with the need for a high level of safety for all motorists?
I ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet and always wear my seat belt while driving. I often wondered about the seat belt law/ no helmet law rationale.
Many years ago, before I wore a seatbelt, I was in a relatively minor car accident and was thrown into the passenger seat. If I had been on a busier rode the accident could have been much worse because I lost control of the car for the several seconds it took to climb back behind the wheel. If I get into a motorcycle accident, with or without a helmet, I’m pretty likely to only hurt myself. My helmet use will not influence the direction of the motorcycle after control is lost (not that anyone thought of this reason when deciding what the laws would be).
That’s the only reason I can think that it makes sense to allow no helmets but require seat belts.
I do not feel that wearing a seat belt or a helmet gives me a false sense of security and makes me drive less safely. In the back of my mind, every time I am on the road, is the knowledge that any mistake I or someone else makes could kill me.
This concept is already in most mandatory seat belt laws; it’s called “contributory negligence”, and allows insurance companies to ask the court in any tort action to reduce the compensation awarded.
This is the real reason for mandatory seat belt laws, to reduce insurance company losses. If they succeed in coercing you to buckle up, they incur fewer losses; if you break the law, and are injured, your award will be reduced, and the insurance companies have fewer losses. It’s a win/win for them. Guess who lobbied for the laws in the first place?
No helmet = you kill yourself.[ul]Unless it’s a freak accident that makes me, à la CHiPs flip 11 times or causes your leather-coated ass to fly through my windscreen at 130 and obliterate my amygdala.[/ul]No seatbelt = loss of driver contact with seat.[ul]A frequent loss of driver contact with seat causes erratic operation of vehicle. My car weighs 5,000 pounds* and will definitely make a serious dent in your day should I unnecessarily lose control.[/ul]
Fun fact: 420 pounds of cardboard brings in $1.65 at the Burbank Recycle Center.
I believe that there is no reason the government should get involved in enforcing seat belt laws, as they do not affect general safety on the highway, only the results after the crash.
On the other hand, the insurance companies certainly have an interest in it.
On the third hand, in personal experience as a motorist, amateur racer, touring cyclist, and occasional offroad motorcyclist, my seatbelt is a valuable friend, my helmet has saved my life at least three times, and I would not ride without either, personally.
You want to do it, go ahead. Your neck on the line.
Of course, I also believe that suicide is every person’s right.
One possible explanation is that a driver or passenger not wearing a seatbelt can cause injury to other occupants of the car. This does not arise with the wearing of helmets. In John Stuart Mill speak, we’re into self-regarding and other-regarding actions.
There are also other issues such as the overall cost of insurance and medical costs, which admittedly is less of an issue in the US with its largely privatised healthcare system.
Bolding mine, from here. You should not be able to see much if any of your helmet looking straight forward. Yes if you only move your eyes then you can, but when you do any kind of movement you should turn your head so the vision argument is not correct. I also wear ear plugs when riding and hear just as well, if not better because wind noise is cut down.
Hmm. Having read the discussion, I’d tend to lean toward keeping helmet-wearing mandatory, or toward the wearing of seatbelts (by persons over 21 only) optional, with insurance penalties for those who don’t. Neither solution would be perfect, but at least it owuld be, IMO, equitable.
Coupla comments:
Well, I’d have to disagree that motorcyclists only affect themselves if they choose not wear a helmet (or inadequate protection). I personally know of persons who have suffered severe head injuries in accidents (both automobile and motorcycle), in which relatives end up caring for those persons for the rest of their lives. I think one has to consider the financial and emotional burden placed on others in such cases.
First point, I disagree, having worn full helmets numerous times. Second point, true enough but I can’t consider it much of an excuse. Hell, what about drivers, even some motorcyclists, who play the radio loud enough to drown out everything around them? Third point, maybe so, but I’d need to see stats showing increased overall incidence of neck injuries resulting from the wearing of helmets to be convinced.
The most convincing argument I’ve heard for seatbelt laws (which others have mentioned) is that seatbelts keep the driver in control of a vehicle during the process of an accident, which isn’t always a short duration event. Other passengers in the vehicle can become projectiles and further distract or injure the driver, so it can logically apply to them as well.
In a motorcycle accident, if you’ve hit your head you are unlikely to still be in control of the bike.