No Helmets?

[akima]

Chris: I think this thread is more about the act of a government forcing you to wear a helmet, as opposed to it being about how sensible it is to wear a helmet. I doubt anyone who has posted in this thread believes that you don't need a good helmet while riding a motorcycle on public roads.

In England I suspect that only a very small minority of motorcycle street riders would consider riding without a helmet, law or no law. Despite the fact that there is no legal requirement to have any other protective gear than a helmet and eye protection, I'm yet to see a rider out without at least protective gloves and a protective jacket. Most riders I see -- like me -- wear full body protective gear... with the exception of moped riders, because they're so much safer than motorcycles

[n4mwd]

Good point about mopeds. I hardly ever see a guy on a scooter with a helmet. True, its harder to be a proper squid when you only have a 49cc scooter, but it also makes it harder to get out of the way of oncoming traffic.

[evi1joe]

While I'd hate for my insurance to go up if the insured didn't wear helmets and got in wrecks (or my taxes to go up if they didn't have insurance and the gov't had to foot the bill), the same argument could be made for smoking. I see smokers as raising my insurance and/or taxes...I don't think they should be allowed to smoke unless they sign an affidavit that says they agreed to die at home, coughing up blood and not wasting taxpayers' and/or insurance payers' money. Though it could be said for obesity too...maybe we need a twinkie-affidavit.


CONFESSION: if I'm just going to the Walgreens, Lowes or 7/11 at the end of my street, which I do a lot, I tend not to wear my helmet. I like to be able to see everything around me with no peripheral restrictions and extra weight, etc...sometimes I circle the neighborhood a bit on the way home since I like the wind on my face (oddly, a helmet makes me drive faster since I don't have that sensory input of wind hitting my face). THAT SAID, anything further than a mile, or if I'm even crossing a four-lane road, I wear my helmet. It's Florida and hot, and my rides are short and slow, so I'm no ATGATT person--IF I commuted to work or drove further than 2 miles or faster than 40mph, I'd do more than a helmet.

[cbdallas]

I guess in all insurance fairness, the insurance companies need to charge the anti-helmet people higher premiums. The smokers under my company's health plan pay 66% more in monthly premiums than I do. So if you enjoy cancer sticks, riding without a helmet, or playing Russian Roulette, you should have to pay for it. Seems like a helmet would be cheaper in the long run.

I know, I know..it's not about the money, it's about the freedom, and frankly I have no desire to express my opinion directly to people who ride helmetless. But I will talk about them behind their backs. ;-) STUPID.

Speaking for myself, I feel like I'm riding naked if I get on anything busier than a neighborhood street without a helmet on. I rode my current 250 home (about 20 miles) before I had bought my helmet, and I was admittedly a little freaked out and was really ready to get home.

Being in a wreck will really change your perspective about helmets. If I hadn't been wearing one, I'd be seriously scarred, if I'd lived through it at all. But if other riders have no problem facing that very real possibility, more power to them.

[akima]

Originally Posted by evi1joe

CONFESSION: if I'm just going to the Walgreens, Lowes or 7/11 at the end of my street, which I do a lot, I tend not to wear my helmet. I like to be able to see everything around me with no peripheral restrictions and extra weight, etc...sometimes I circle the neighborhood a bit on the way home since I like the wind on my face (oddly, a helmet makes me drive faster since I don't have that sensory input of wind hitting my face). THAT SAID, anything further than a mile, or if I'm even crossing a four-lane road, I wear my helmet. It's Florida and hot, and my rides are short and slow, so I'm no ATGATT person--IF I commuted to work or drove further than 2 miles or faster than 40mph, I'd do more than a helmet.

imho... that's incredibly dangerous.

Here's one reason why you should always wear all your gear on every ride.

Very recently, Ryan on this site was wearing everything but his protective trousers. Went for a 3 mile ride, low sided and guess what, poor fella now has a badly scraped up knee and a fractured left foot. Could've been a lot worse too. He's now decided to wear all his gear on every ride. I'll be sad if another Ninjette member has to learn the same thing the hard way.

[Blackwidow]

there was a thread on here somewhere about some motorcyclists were protesting the no helmet law. so a bunch of motorcycles were riding around town not wearing a helmet to prove some worthless point. Well one of the riders got into an accident and hit his head and died. investigators said that he would have survived if he were wearing a helmet. ironic? fo shizzle!

i say let people do anything they want. if they want to risk their head splitting open then so be it.

[setasai]

Originally Posted by Blackwidow

i say let people do anything they want. if they want to risk their head splitting open then so be it.

Problem is that there are people that wont appreciate the helmet until they realized it saved their noggin. It's like a lot of members here that we pretty much say "you're an idiot if you dont wear gear" then they do wear gear and it saves their butt. At that point they understand and wont fight it.

If we dont force people to wear a helmet... either by law or by peer pressure, they may not get that chance to appreciate it.

Of course there are idiots that'll fight you on it all day long but isn't it always about that one life that gets saved? More is better but sometimes just one is good enough to let us survived.

[evi1joe]

Yeah, I won't defend not wearing gear...especially, like that girl, going down highways at speed. I'm sure I'll buy some of the cooler-temperature stuff (if there is such a thing) at some point or some riding pants that have a casual look. But at the moment, 9 out of 10 of my rides are to places I could walk in 10 minutes--at the end of my street. Though there's one stop sign, I slow down at the other two intersections just in case.

The helmets are actually best at protecting during the slow speed and sliding accidents....but won't do anything for blunt force trauma.

I have a bunch of firemen friends and asked them about motorcycle wrecks (since they usually arrive first). Of four, on four different units in 3 cities/counties, none had ever seen a bad accident from someone who wasn't hot-dogging and/or going too fast or was hit by a car. They all seem to agree that if you're just going slow, driving defensively and watching out, that a bike is very safe (two of the four own and ride bikes on occasion).

I'm fine with higher premiums--though I wonder how insurance agencies KNOW if the person's a smoker (maybe he/she checks "no" because he/she is, um, eventually going to quit). ;o)

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by setasai

Problem is that there are people that wont appreciate the helmet until they realized it saved their noggin. It's like a lot of members here that we pretty much say "you're an idiot if you dont wear gear" then they do wear gear and it saves their butt. At that point they understand and wont fight it.

If we dont force people to wear a helmet... either by law or by peer pressure, they may not get that chance to appreciate it.

Of course there are idiots that'll fight you on it all day long but isn't it always about that one life that gets saved? More is better but sometimes just one is good enough to let us survived.

It really all comes down to natural selection. We shouldn't force people to be safe, we should inform them of the dangers and allow them to make their own choices (smoking, helmets, seatbelts, etc.) If someone understand the dangers of riding without a helmet and chooses to do so anyway, well I say let them. There are people in the ICU at hospitals who are more deserving of said squid's kidneys.

I prefer to make choices for myself rather than have government make them for me.

[akima]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

It really all comes down to natural selection. We shouldn't force people to be safe, we should inform them of the dangers and allow them to make their own choices (smoking, helmets, seatbelts, etc.) If someone understand the dangers of riding without a helmet and chooses to do so anyway, well I say let them. There are people in the ICU at hospitals who are more deserving of said squid's kidneys.

I prefer to make choices for myself rather than have government make them for me.

+1

Would be nice if more people realised that when they call for laws to be made to force people to wear helmets, what they're really calling for is for people to be forced to wear helmets using threats of violence. If laws weren't backed by violence and threats of violence then no one would be concerned about them. If you're goal really is to help keep people safe, then doing it with violence is a kind of strange way to go about it.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by akima

+1

Would be nice if more people realised that when they call for laws to be made to force people to wear helmets, what they're really calling for is for people to be forced to wear helmets using threats of violence. If laws weren't backed by violence and threats of violence then no one would be concerned about them. If you're goal really is to help keep people safe, then doing it with violence is a kind of strange way to go about it.

In england you get beat by the police if you don't wear a helmet!? WTF?

Here you only get shot.

[akima]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

In england you get beat by the police if you don't wear a helmet!? WTF?

Here you only get shot.

It doesn't happen straight away. Example scenario:
You go out for a ride without a helmet (because your a bit stupid ). You get pulled over by a policeman and he says he's taking points of your license and giving you a fine. You decide this is unreasonable because it's your right to make both good and bad decisions when they can only harm your own body. As such you decide to ignore the silly man in the fluorescent jacket and you hop onto your bike and go about your merry way . The police man wasn't quick enough to pull you off the bike there and then, so he initiates a persuit which almost certainly ends in police violence against you. Your day is ruined!!

See what I mean?

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by akima

It doesn't happen straight away. Example scenario:
You go out for a ride without a helmet (because your a bit stupid ). You get pulled over by a policeman and he says he's taking points of your license and giving you a fine. You decide this is unreasonable because it's your right to make both good and bad decisions when they can only harm your own body. As such you decide to ignore the silly man in the fluorescent jacket and you hop onto your bike and go about your merry way. The police man wasn't quick enough to pull you off the bike there and then, so he initiates a persuit which almost certainly ends in police violence against you. Your day is ruined!!

See what I mean?

Ah well, at least the hospital stay is free

[Heed]

Originally Posted by thisismrjones

1. Helmets don't really work, in fact they are More dangerous than no helmet.

rediculous.

2. I am a better rider than anyone who has ever been injured or killed in an accident.

idiotic.

3. I am luckier than other riders who have been injured or killed in an accident.

stupid.

4. Whatever God there is, loves me more than other riders who have been injured or killed in an accident.

wow, you really do think you are special, don't you?

5. Ironic

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Blackwidow

there was a thread on here somewhere about some motorcyclists were protesting the no helmet law. so a bunch of motorcycles were riding around town not wearing a helmet to prove some worthless point. Well one of the riders got into an accident and hit his head and died. investigators said that he would have survived if he were wearing a helmet. ironic? fo shizzle!

i say let people do anything they want. if they want to risk their head splitting open then so be it.

That was an ABATE rally in New York. They were protesting the helmet laws there. It was a bit ironic, but kind of suspicious too. Supposedly, he high sided after his shoelaces got caught in the chain. On a Harley. Granted, there are older Harley's with chains, but they all have your feet way up front. His shoelaces would have to practically be a mile long. In any event, he wouldn't be the first person to die for what he believed in.

But you're right, people who eat twinkies are making my health insurance rates go up and should be forced to not eat them or pay a surcharge to the insurance company.

As far as the "Are you a smoker?" question for the insurance goes, the proof is in pudding. If you try to make a claim and it looks smoker related, then they'll say "Sorry, not covered, read the fine print of your policy."

They could do the same with bikers who ride without a helmet. Ask the question on the application and adjust the premiums accordingly for that one biker.

[Reddoak]

I live in Florida. I support the way the law is written down here. If you are over 21 you have the right to make your own decisions. I think seat belts should be optional for over 21 drivers, as well. It's your life. Make your own informed decisions.

That said, I always buckle up in a car. Why? Because when I was 5 years old, the VW Beetle I was in was sideswiped by a full size van. It spun the car three times in the intersection (according to the skid marks, evidently, I was unconscious by then.) My mother was driving, I was in the front passenger seat, my sister was in the rear. We all had lap belts on, that's what the car had. I regained consciousness in an ambulance. I rapped my head on the dash, bruising my entire face, and had a concussion. My mother said the firemen told her that her and I would have been thrown out of the car and likely killed if not for the lap belts. I don't have the clearest memory, to be honest... but I do remember to put on a seat belt.

When I ride the bike, I wear a helmet. I wear it to go around the block. I wear it on group rides. I wear it when I ride to work. The pavement near my house is exactly as unforgiving as the pavement on the other side of town. It doesn't discriminate as to location, so neither do I. The first time I went to the ground was directly in front of my parents house where I lived. My helmet cracked when it hit the ground. After my father pulled the bike off of me, I walked away. I'll wear the helmet, regardless of the law.

That said... that's my choice. If you don't want to, fine. It's your choice. You can also smoke a cigarette if you want to, or go bungie jumping, or eat uncooked shellfish. Enjoy! Maybe it'll kill you. Maybe it'll make your life worth living for you. But it's not my business poking into yours. If my insurance goes up, tough. I don't need to ride a motorcycle, I choose to. And if I need to pay for that choice, then it's worth it or it's not. I value the freedom more than $100.00 in added cost. I won't sell someone else's right to decide.

[Reddoak]

And Orlando must be a bit different than West Palm. At least half of every flip flop, wife beater, bemuda shorts wearing jackass on a Gixxer has exactly one more helmet hanging on one helmet hook than they have on their fool heads. It's like a mandatory frame slider around here. Bike gets helmet, rider doesn't.

[ally99]

Originally Posted by evi1joe

CONFESSION: if I'm just going to the Walgreens, Lowes or 7/11 at the end of my street, which I do a lot, I tend not to wear my helmet.

Just remember the proven statistic, most accidents happen within a few miles of home. I can't imagine riding without a helmet. Just doesn't seem smart.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by ally99

Just remember the proven statistic, most accidents happen within a few miles of home. I can't imagine riding without a helmet. Just doesn't seem smart.

Alex pointed out a long time ago that this was just scamtistics. The reason why most accidents happen within a few miles of your home is because you ride there more than anywhere else. On roads you never ride on, the probability of having a wreck there is zero.

The pro-helmet law people play the same game. Here in FL the raw number of motorcycle accident deaths actually increased after the helmet law was repealed. They are quick to point that out. However, they leave out the part where the number of riders has also increased significantly. So while the raw numbers have increased, the deaths per 100,000 riders statistic has actually dropped.

Instead of a law requiring bikers to wear helmets, we need laws to prevent cars from pulling in front of us.

[Indy250r]

Originally Posted by akima

+1

Would be nice if more people realised that when they call for laws to be made to force people to wear helmets, what they're really calling for is for people to be forced to wear helmets using threats of violence. If laws weren't backed by violence and threats of violence then no one would be concerned about them. If you're goal really is to help keep people safe, then doing it with violence is a kind of strange way to go about it.

There's hope for UK yet!

[TBC]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Instead of a law requiring bikers to wear helmets, we need laws to prevent cars from pulling in front of us.

Laws like that exist. The problem is simply that some drivers don't follow them.

[n4mwd]

We need laws that automatically revoke people's driver's license if they hit a biker (in addition to other penalties that may apply). Then give them the option to get a motorcycle-only license and ride a motorcycle themselves. I think the goal is to make sure those people don't hit other bikers again and forcing them to become bikers may make them notice other motorcycles more. I think such a law would work better in the long term rather than (increased) jail time.

If we put people like that in jail, then the only person who learns something is that person. But if we force them to become bikers, everyone they encounter who asks "Why are you riding a motorcycle now?" learns something too.

[onetruevibe]

I may or may not believe any of the following:

Traffic laws don't tell you what to do (obey speed limit). Rather, they tell you what you can't do (break the speed limit).

In other words, they tell you what you can't do on actions they know that you're likely to do anyway - this way they can make money on the transaction.

This is why speed limits are set where they are - not because it is unsafe to drive 75mph in 65mph zone - but because they know you won't obey it and they can make money on our lust for high speeds on open roads.

A state will go helmet-less only if there is are no idiots to bust (everyone wears a helmet on their own initiative), and therefore no money to be made.

[Boom King]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

We need laws that automatically revoke people's driver's license if they hit a biker (in addition to other penalties that may apply).

It's certainly not always a one-sided coin here. In many cases where there are accidents between biker and cager, the cager is not the one at-fault. I see bikers all the time on the highway zipping in and out between cars while going grossly over the speed limit. Automatically placing blame on the cager all the time is just conjecture in advance.

From personal experience, I have been on the highway in my cage numerous times and checked my blind spots and mirrors to see that they were all clear. Then out of nowhere, a supersport will come up flying right past me going 50 km/h faster than anyone else on the road. Had I proceeded to make that lane change, I would have had hardly any time to react. What throws a cager off is how unpredictable a speeding motorcycle is. If you're proposing a law to punish cagers, then why not also propose a law to punish at-fault bikers?

Of course, not all accidents are between biker and cage. Many are also due to rider error, road hazards, animals, etc. This is all certainly an interesting debate. In Canada, it's a mandatory helmet law here so by self-admission, I do not have as much a vested interest in this as many of you. It'd be interesting to see if a cooperative approach would be more progressive rather than one group pointing fingers at the other. Any ways, it's a good conversation and I think everyone has certainly made valid points for both sides.

[TBC]

Originally Posted by Boom King

It's certainly not always a one-sided coin here. In many cases where there are accidents between biker and cager, the cager is not the one at-fault....If you're proposing a law to punish cagers, then why not also propose a law to punish at-fault bikers?

I think you're right, but missing a crucial element. In these types of accidents, it's rarely the car driver that suffers more. An at-fault car driver in a motorcycle accident suffers very little, and a law revoking a license evens the playing field (so-to-speak). An at-fault motorcycle rider in an accident with a car is far more likely to suffer life-and-limb injuries, and revoking their license seems excessive...

I'm not for more legislation to that effect, but I understand the point.

[Boom King]

Originally Posted by TBC

...and a law revoking a license evens the playing field (so-to-speak)

No, I was fully aware that in terms of personal injury, a motorcyclists is always at more risk and I'm not certainly arguing for more laws. Nonetheless, the higher risk of injury does not excuse a rider from riding excessively and being wreckless. What it does is create a dangerous situation for him/her -self but also for other drivers, cagers or motorcyclists, around. Futhermore, while a cager may not suffer any significant physical injuries, what about the mental anguish and suffering? How would you feel knowing that were part of an accident where a motorcyclist was killed even if it wasn't your fault? Perhaps some wouldn't care but I for one would not sleep easy. There's also the social cost and disruption that these accidents cause. Everyone pays, one way or another. Again, I emphasize that laws that aim to "level the playing field" are the wrong way to go about this and I'm not necessarily sure that was the intended purpose any ways.

I don't think there's anything excessive about revoking someone's license who obviously doesn't understand the concept of being a responsible motorcyclist. I don't think there should be any special treatment here just because we're more at risk. Out on the road, where it matters, there is no special treatment. If we as a group don't take these type of actions more seriously, how do we expect the public or lawmakers to take us seriously and side with our cause?

[TBC]

Thanks for clarifying that, it makes a lot of sense.

[n4mwd]

In my research, it runs about 60-70% the fault of the cager. Even single vehicle accidents are sometimes the fault of cagers.

When you are going down the road, would it kill you to put on your blinkers before changing lanes? If you don't, it might kill a biker.

I was witness (after the fact) to two motorcycle accidents in the last 6 months that were the DIRECT result of cagers failing to properly signal when turning or changing lanes. Those accidents happened within a mile of my house. In both cases, the cage abruptly turned into the path of the biker as the biker was trying to pass. One biker T-boned the car and the other layed the bike down and missed the truck all together. Both bikers were seriously injured. No one has claimed that either biker was speeding not that it would make a difference.

[Boom King]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

In my research, it runs about 60-70% the fault of the cager.

I don't doubt that cagers are at fault certainly in many cases and I don't have any numbers so I will take yours as correct. Now, you propose a law to punish cagers, the at-fault ones. A law that revokes their license and for them get a motorcycle license so that by your reasoning, this will force them to notice motorcycles more. Now what say you of the 30-40% where the motorcyclist is at-fault? If they are fortunate enough to walk away from the accident, should we say "well let's just hope he learns his lesson"? I mean if the goal here is more awareness, then should it not go for both sides? Should we not make him go through some type of re-training and revoke his license in the meantime? I'm not putting down anyone's opinions or suggestions here but these are the type of questions that the public may ask when you start throwing the book at them.

[n4mwd]

I think I understand what you are saying, but I know that a high percentage of that 30-40% not the cager's fault category are motorcycle only accidents. I don't know the exact numbers, but its a high percentage. So what I'm saying is that bike-cage accidents are very rarely the fault of the biker.

So I think you are saying that it should work both ways in that if a cager causes a wreck with a biker and loses his license or is forced to become a biker, then if a biker causes a wreck with a cage then he should also lose his license and be forced to retake the MSF course to get it back - as soon as he gets out of the hospital. Sounds fair to me.

[Cuongism]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

So I think you are saying that it should work both ways in that if a cager causes a wreck with a biker and loses his license or is forced to become a biker, then if a biker causes a wreck with a cage then he should also lose his license and be forced to retake the MSF course to get it back - as soon as he gets out of the hospital. Sounds fair to me.

I think forcing anyone to become a biker is a terrible idea. It's a dangerous and expensive hobby that's not meant for everyone. The comparison of punishments also isn't equal. To become a biker, you have to make a huge investment. A better comparison would be to force the biker to get a commercial license and can only drive 18 wheelers.

[Jiggles]

Every biker should be forced to drive a minivan full of kids on a freeway while supersports race past them lanesplitting.

Don't be stupid.

[rosninjet]

Risky. Of course you need a helmet!

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Cuongism

I think forcing anyone to become a biker is a terrible idea. It's a dangerous and expensive hobby that's not meant for everyone. The comparison of punishments also isn't equal. To become a biker, you have to make a huge investment. A better comparison would be to force the biker to get a commercial license and can only drive 18 wheelers.

The point is to make cagers safer drivers around bikers instead of simply locking them up. When a cager commits a traffic infraction that results in a serious injury or death, they are supposed to go to jail. My proposal gives them an alternative that would help them respect bikers more rather than putting them in jail where they will come out with even more disrespect for bikers.

To become a biker (for inexperienced cagers) they need only buy a $200 scooter and go.

Realistically, its pretty hard, although not impossible, for a biker to hurt somebody in a car.

[akima]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Every biker should be forced to drive a minivan full of kids on a freeway while supersports race past them lanesplitting.

Don't be stupid.

You just added a point into my "don't have kids column".

[iluvwhite250r]

If we don't fight for personal freedom
even if we don't agree than it's that much easier to loose major freedom
men and women have laid there lives down for freedom and we just give them away for our own selfishness.
smoking helmets transfats are small but what's Next
we must be willing to fight or we will loose big

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Ren13

Haha - if you don't want to wear a helmet, that's fine. Be a dumbass and suffer for the rest of your life if you crash.

But don't give them extensive lengthy medical care if they suffer brain damage because of the lack of a helmet in a crash. unless they can pay up front in cash or they have insurance that pays every cent of it.

I don't believe in this "protect the right to be a dumbass" attitude. If it is a law to have airbags in your car, to have a seatbelt on, to have proper lights/turnsignals/mirrors on your car, then it should be a god damn law to have to wear a helmet while on a bike. Same exact thing.

You seem to be under the delusion that you wont be hurt or killed if you are wearing your helmet. A helmet improves your odds of surviving a crash, it does not guarantee that you will survive.

Also, in FL anyway, I am not aware of any law that requires cagers to use airbags. The requirement is for cars to have them, not for people to actually use them. In fact, some cars have a factory switch to turn them off.

Anyhow, if I suffer a TBI, helmet or no, I don't want to be kept alive if I am just going to be a veggie. But if a cager pulls in front of me, he's going to pay for my medical care short of that.

In any event, a law requiring you to wear a helmet violates your personal freedoms. I think that is what this thread is about and not whether helmets help or not.

BTW, seat belt and helmet laws are not about safety or heath care. They are about giving the po po a reason to pull you over when you aren't doing anything wrong. They are just ways to violate your rights.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

In fact, some cars have a factory switch to turn them off.

The only cars/trucks with switches to disable an airbag are for the front passenger side of vehicles, in case someone has to put an child seat there. The airbag could hurt more than help, especially if it's a rear-facing seat that places the frame of the seat reasonably close to the dash. The switches are more common in vehicles without a back seat, such as standard pickups, and other 2-seaters.

More modern cars now do have sensors in the front passenger seat (and sometimes other seats) to determine if there is a passenger that weighs at least x pounds in the seat, and if there isn't, to not fire the airbag. This is partially for safety, but also to save repair cost. Every time the airbag fires, it's several hundred dollars, and sometimes much more, to replace both the bag and any of the interior that was damaged by its deployment.

[n4mwd]

I think seat belts have to be replaced too. Like airbags, they have an explosive charge that only works one time. The charge pulls the belt super tight for the instant of the impact.

[akima]

^ It's not enough to have 100s of explosions a second occuring in the engine, we gotta have exploding seat belts and air bags too! The people of the future are going to think we're all crazy