Okay, let’s eliminate these motorcycle versions of “my freind’s life was saved because he didn’t wear his seatbelt andwas safely thrown from the car” Start with this PubMed search and look up those articles. Many have abstracts available on-line. The short version: several states have had helmet laws and repealed them. Various location across the world have both had and not had helmet laws. In each case mortality from motorcycle accidents has increased without helmet laws at substantial economic impact to the general public.
Helmet laws save lives and save society booku bucks. The only debate is how much the freedom to have the wind in your hair and to not look like a jerk on the prowl (when that is what you are) at a bar is worth.
Aside from the audio-visual impairment and the neck thing, it’s the principle of the thing. I have no problem with making a minor wear a helmet (presumably they’re not fully-baked to the point of making legal decisions) but it’s nobody’s business how much risk I choose to take in my day-to-day life. I can think of a million other things that are more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.
If an insurance company chooses to include stipulations in a policy based on helmet use, that’s one thing. But it certainly isn’t the government’s job to “protect me from myself.”
In a country where the EMT’s would turn up, see that you had no helmet, and drive away unless they could find proof of valid medical coverage (i.e. not nullified by your act of non-helmet-wearage) then I can see your point. However, I believe this does not happen even in the US, so the costs of personal idiocy are still externalised to some extent.
If someone doesn’t want to wear a helmet, maybe their family/friends can clean up their strewn remains, or leave them for the crows. Why should EMT and Police staff have to face the memories of cleaning the mess that bad ass rebels can leave behind
And the obvious reply to this is - why? You can easily get an open face helmet if nothing else where your peripheral vision will not be blocked if you have some kind of unusual face structure where your peripheral vision is significantly impaired by a full face helmet.
Which presumably means you think overall a full face helmet is safer then the minor safety benefit peripheral vision really offers or arent really concerned about the loss of peripheral vision to any real extent. Your behaviour simply doesnt seem to match your implied argument that peripheral vision is significant for riding survival.
The idea that a motorcycle helmet really offers any significant mass to a neck impact, I really cant see it. You can get ones that weigh very little compared to your head mass, I’d need to see a cite that they really do significantly increase the chance of spinal injury rather than ‘might haves’ before I buy this one.
As far as the ‘where do you draw the line’ question goes, it will always be subjective to some extent. At the end of the day getting yourself killed in front of people effects them, and this one is common enough that a minor expectation safety wise to me isnt too unreasonable a price to pay in return to keep having the right to do that as frequently as we do. People will bang on about slippery slopes and the like but I suspect somehow civilisation will soldier on.
If this is the line of reasoning to be pursued then we must in good faith include those that explore caves, scuba divers, mountain climbers, para sail enthusiast, sky divers, water and snow skiing. In fact, these should be first. I recall many times wondering what the cost was to send a helicopter and specially trained crews to repel down to rescue the trapped souls on the side of a mountain/inside a cave/on an overturned sailboat/hung up in power lines/etc…
Now, fix your eyes straight ahead and repeat in a monotone voice:
**IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. **
I understand (but I provide no cite) that requiring people in cars to wear helmets would save buckets and buckets of money and suffering. Would it be a good idea to require helmets of car passengers? Why not?
(Here in Saudi Arabia, I used to have a teacher who did in fact where a helmet while on buses and in cars. He was thought eccentric even by us.)
What I’d love to see is some logical consistency in societal decision making, rather than by who is screaming the loudest.
Clearly American society has decided that the government does have a vested interest in protecting people even from their own stupid choices, if those stupid choices are harmful enough. We have laws regarding traffic safety, seatbelts, what medications are legal to buy, heck codes over whether or not I need a GFI outlet within x distance of my sink! But we implement this vested interest in an extremely inconsistent manner. Some of the the time this vested interest is implemented for very little benefit and sometimes it is not implemented when the benefit is verifiably large.
Clearly society is going to bear the costs of some individual choices. If the economic benefit of regulating personal choice is substantial and the regulation fairly minor, then society has a vested interest in preventing individuals from imposing burden upon society.
What I’d like to see is a discussion that accepts these obvious facts, accepts that the reality is neither that we are neither absolutely libertarian/anarchist nor absolutely authoritarian, and decides how much in years of life saved or morbidity avoided or societal dollars saved per unit of population is worth what kind of regulations and then attempt to implement these decisions with some semblence of logical consistency.
So demonstrate to me how many lives would be saved by wearing a helmet in the shower and how many dollars society would save. Or quit arguing from the point of absurdity.
Is the reduction of fatalities from motorcycle crashes by 20 to 40%, and a societal cost savings of over $250 million, worth imposing a restriction on motorcyclists such that they are impeded in not looking like they on the prowl in bars and can feel the wind in their hair if they so desire?
If such a reduction in mortality and in societal costs was documented for, say, regulating not using certain kinds of electrical fuse boxes in your house, then we’d have no problem with it. This level of mortality reduction and of cost savings seems like it should be enough to trigger society’s vested interest button over “the right to do stupid things.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I believe this is first on the list of things due to happen once Ignorance is Defeated, and is provisionally scheduled for implementation sometime in the 3087.
I own a couple of half shell helmets I used to wear when we had a helmet law. I felt significantly safer wearing them. I only use a full face helmet in bad weather because even though they increase the risk of you getting into an accident so does getting hit in the face by rain or sleet, or begin exceptionally cold. I ride every day, year round.
As for unusual facial structure…I know several people who experiance the same thing. It’s not just me.
You could assume that. But you would be wrong. There are a lot of factors that go into motorcycle accident statistics and if they are standard then increase compared to what?
“If this is the line of reasoning to be pursued then we must in good faith include those that explore caves, scuba divers, mountain climbers, para sail enthusiast, sky divers, water and snow skiing.”
I used to use that argument. As I said obviously subjectivity is part of it. I suspect the main issue is driving a motorcycle and getting yourself squished happens in front of people on a very common basis and most of those other activities only happen in front of other similar participants. By and large people are willing to let other people get themselves killed however they prefer as long as they dont have to participate too directly in it themselves.
They’re also just less enforceable from a practical perspective, involve sports where compliance rates for safety are quite high, eg with caving, or involve sports where helmets are really of little benefit in normal use as far as Im aware, ie scuba.
I’ve survived a 45mph lowside and a 70-80mph highside(both on a closed track). I wore an Aria Quantum/F in both. I got up from both. In the highside, I faceplanted, slid down the track, and rolled a few times. If any of you could see pics of the helmet gouges from the pavement, and could apply that to your face, I doubt you would ever question the benefit of a full face helmet again
While I do not agree that all of life should be assigned a monetary value, even if we did think that was right, currently society DOES rely on kneejerk reactions to decide things. Since we are making decisions based on emotion and not objective fact, the slippery slope argument is entirely valid. Groups that are not in power have a valid fear that their chosen lifestyle is at risk from “safety first” legislation.
The argument of “They just want wind in their hair and to pick up chicks” serves only to belittle what for some people is a very real and very important part of their life. Who are you to decide that this aspect of their life is not important enough to protect? What if this feeling of freedom is all that keeps them relaxed enough to be a good father? And before you say “No-one cares that much about helmets” I can assure you that I have met such people. I have my own sanity savers that may seem worthless to other people, but are a vtal part of my life.
Oh sure, society will soldier on. It soldiered on during prohibition, it soldiered on during the Salem witch trials, it soldiered on during the Inquisition. I think that what you are really saying is “It won’t affect what I care about in life, so no biggie.”
Notice how I cleverly avoided invoking Godwn’s Law in my comparions! And the idea that motorcycles accidents happen willy nilly in front of the children every day is ludicrous.
This is why I wear a full face helmet whenever I ride. What I dislike most about it is that I find I’m shut off from the world/road around me while riding (can be quite trance-like in a quiet helmet). Without a helmet I hear everything, feel more connected, and find I’m more ‘in the zone’. However, the thought of landing on my face makes me keep the helmet on despite all that! So as an aside, I have to ask why different helmets aren’t produced. The ‘brain bucket’ is pointless, and the half face does nothing for the chin/face. Why does a full face motorcycle helmet have to be a sealed container, versus something like a bycicle helmet that’s skeletonized and allows a bit more awareness, while also providing a structure around the entire head? Just asking.
Personally I am against a helmet law. For those that think motorcyclists not wearing helmets ups the insurance costs: look around at all the other risky things people do that society then has to bear the cost of. Like unprotected sex, driving with a cell phone glued to your ear, buying a bottle of liquor, etc, etc, etc (as many other posters have already pointed out). It all comes down to the fact that there are those who do not motorcycle and thus feel fime levying laws because in the end it won’t affect them.
<bolding mine>
On the first point: In thirty some-odd years of riding I have witnessed about two motorcycle wreaks and I’ve had a lot of exposure to riders. On the other hand, I have watched many rescues of people from caves and mountain climbing or avalanches while skiing but rarley see a video of a motorcycle wreak on the news.
On the second point: I wasn’t suggesting that scuba divers and the rest wear helmets. I was suggesting prohibiting these activites outright in and effort to address the public good if protecting citizens from themselves is the goal.
But do you feel compelled to defend their position?
I mean c’mon.
while they know that
-they also represent over 9% of all traffic fatalities
-that the period of 1990 to 1999 was the period during which many states had helmet laws which they then repealed and that since 1997 fatalities have increased by nearly 90%. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005)
-that of course helmets do nothing to prevent accidents; they substantially reduce the risk of dieing or being brain damaged or requiring as much hospital and rehab service as a result of an accident.
Talk about cherry picking your data and torturing it until it confesses to a crime it did not commit.
BoringDad,
So your response is that you do not like the answer that logical analysis gives and so want to go with knee-jerk emotional, and that only a motorcyclist has the right to be emotional about it and to say if society should spend those resources on their freedoms to not wear helmets? I assume that also goes for speed limits. Some motorcyclists really enjoy going really fast while drunk. I don’t so I should have no say about whether or not that is allowed. It’s a lifestyle choice. I shouldn’t belittle it.
This is for you too, Username… and Nic. Sorry, but society at large has to decide what resources it will spend where. My position remains that the default position is freedom of choice and that anyone who posits limiting those freedoms in any way has the burden of proof on them that the limitation is the least possible for substantial gain. I maintain that in this case that burden of proof has been amply met, and met far beyond the case for many other limitations that society imposes without batting an eyelash. The imposition in this case is not that they cannot engage in motorcycle riding, but only that they do so responsibly. It is a minority of riders who do not use helmets yet they are responsible for a majority of the costs to society. Over $250 million can be saved per year by limiting that choice while still allowing them to engage in every other aspect of their pasttime. Are you arguing that allowing that minority of riders the freedom to ride in an irresponsible manner is worth a societal cost of over a quarter of a billion dollars annually (not even counting the number of lives lost and brain injury caused and putting a dollar value on those)?
What would be involved in implementing behavior change in those other areas? Unprotected sex? Legislating it is unenforcable and any attempt to do so would represent a very sizable imposition on individuals freedoms. In that case reduction in the consequences is best done by attempts at education. Banning liquor has an evidenciary basis as being an extremely ineffective intervention while being a major restriction. Current drug laws are a farce: ineffective for a substantial imposition of choice. Banning caving is a total restriction of a choice for little societal gain. Most cavers cave in a very responsible manner. Such bans do not meet a burden of significant societal benefit for the level of restriction imposed.
We can at least attempt to engage in logical analysis. Benefit versus cost. It is not too hard.
.
Then you ignore the fact that there as been a decrease per capita in motorcycle injuries/fatalities by using the tired
to support your own version of
. So what if the increase over a DECADE is 90%. If the number of motorcycles on the road and hours of time riding have increased markedly this is no indicator at all. If there were 100 at the beginning of the review period and 190 at the end but an increase in bikes of 300% then an improvement is indicated.
I assume that also goes for speed limits. Some motorcyclists really enjoy going really fast while drunk. I don’t so I should have no say about whether or not that is allowed. It’s a lifestyle choice.
Now it is you that argues from the absurd. If a motorcyclist goes really fast while drunk it affects the safety of those around him; not just himself. How exactly do you suggest the lack of helmet puts you at risk? That is simply a ludicrous statement. There are far more killed by drunks in cars than will ever be caused by the riding public. Your prejudice towards the “drunk biker speeding” image affects your viewpoint, IMO.
Can you support this statement to the effect that there will be an immediate savings to someone from somewhere beginning the day the laws are put into place? Are you interested as well in showing the potential savings to the public by requiring helmets being worn in ALL vehicles since
I believe it is you that is cherry-picking the data to support an apparently preconceived notion of motorcycle riders.
