Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[grc]

I thought the only difference in wearing a helmet versus not wearing a helmet. Is open casket versus closed casket. If you chose cremation why care!

      You make a good point, if you only consider fatal crashes.  If a guy on a bike pulls out to pass at 70 mph and flattens himself on the front of that oncoming tractor-trailer, odds are pretty certain a helmet isn't going to save his life.  Depending on how fast the truck is going, it's quite likely the helmet won't survive the impact either, and it will be a closed casket either way.  Helmets can make a huge difference in the lower speed crashes that are much more common, however. 

I can't count the number of fatalities reported just in my little corner of Indiana and Illinois (no helmet states) over the past 15 years where the other injuries were easily survivable but the rider died because he banged his head when he went down.  Is a helmet a guarantee you won't die in an otherwise survivable crash?  Nope, there are no guarantee's.  That doesn't mean we should all just throw caution to the wind and spit in the face of danger.  That stuff might make for cool action flicks, but it isn't the brightest way to live a real life.  Let's see, maybe I'll cut off the seatbelts in my car, pull the fuses on the airbags and the ABS, and excercise my "right" to fly in the face of danger.  Give me a break.

BTW, if it's a basic right to not wear a helmet, don't you think those guys in NASCAR or Formula 1 or NHRA should be raising all kinds of hell and filing discrimination lawsuits?  I mean, those organizations require all sorts of safety equipment, and I don't see a single driver bitching about it or refusing to use it, or claiming some inalienable right.  I don't remember seeing John Force making practice runs in a baseball cap, shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops, but now that I think about it I do see idiots on motorcycles dressed that way all summer long.


Jerry

[TIF2]

BTW, if it's a basic right to not wear a helmet, don't you think those guys in NASCAR or Formula 1 or NHRA should be raising all kinds of hell and filing discrimination lawsuits?  I mean, those organizations require all sorts of safety equipment, and I don't see a single driver bitching about it or refusing to use it, or claiming some inalienable right.  I don't remember seeing John Force making practice runs in a baseball cap, shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops, but now that I think about it I do see idiots on motorcycles dressed that way all summer long.


Jerry

NASCAR is a regulated sport and therefore is subject to rules, provisions, and mandates required by the regulating board in order to participate. It is not a good or accurate analogy.

This is not an "all or nothing" thing, if you choose to wear one then fine. For those that don't that is fine as well. I appreciate your opinions and viewpoints right up to the point where it has influence to regulate or control another individual's actions - so long as their actions present no threat to you directly. However, if you are being threatened then it is no longer supported by opinion, but evidence that can be presented in a factual manner with supported cause. The problem remains that for all the studies and worthless statistics ( and money of course) that has been spent around this isuue, it has never been shown that helmet laws protect the safety of others (public safety - thereby allowing for legislative regulation). A helmet is, was, and always will be a personal safety tool that may, or may not be, utilized by the individual.

The only interest in helmet laws lay in the hands of insurance companies and (of course) pay-outs to politicians that regulate for personal interest.

[grc]

I respect your opinions, and unfortunately it is true that until recently law enforcement and hospitals didn't keep good records that could help prove or disprove the benefits of helmets.  Without good data, the statistics can be and are constantly manipulated to serve the purpose of the one's doing the manipulating.  As the old saying goes, "figures don't lie, but liars figure".  I'm reminded of all the credit folks were taking recently when highway fatality numbers were released for last year, showing another significant reduction.  The governor took credit because of his directives to the state police to increase highway patrols.  Local governments took credit for their safe driving classes.  The list of credit takers was extensive, so I won't list them all.  Unfortunately, very few in the media saw through all the BS and came up with the real answers.  Drivers aren't any better than they were before, the number of incidents keeps going up.  Fatalities are down because cars and trucks have gotten exponentially safer over the past couple decades due to mandated safety features, with things like airbags, seatbelts, stability control, crush zone design, etc., making what used to be unsurvivable crashes very survivable.  If everyone fought as hard against all of those safety improvements as motorcycle riders do against helmets, I'm quite sure we wouldn't be celebrating reduced fatalities on the highways.

As for the cost to society, if you really believe that everyone has gold plated insurance that will cover that lifetime of care and the lost income to support the family, I respectfully submit that you are living in a fantasy world.  There is a large and growing percentage of the population that has no medical coverage whatsoever, and another even larger percentage that has fairly basic coverage that tends to be cancelled at the whim of employer's and insurance companies.  As in, file a claim, lose your coverage.  And many of those policies have upper limits on lifetime benefits, they don't just agree to pay forever.  And then you have the actual motorcycle insurance policy.  Read your policy, I don't think the medical cost coverage on most policies would cover a week in the hospital, much less a lifetime.  And that's on the good policies, not the ones that young folks on a tight budget tend to have.  Minimum coverage requirements in many states are laughably low, and there are a lot of folks who opt for that minimum coverage.

If the available evidence, statistically shaky or not, doesn't convince you, or if common sense doesn't convince you, and you still don't want to wear a helmet, then don't wear one.  When, and I'm convinced it will just be a matter of time, the Fed's force all the states to require helmets, don't be surprised when you get pulled over and ticketed, or when you lose the privilege to drive on public roads after several tickets don't convince you.  Note, you won't be losing any rights, you will still have the right to not wear a helmet.  You will just lose the privilege of doing so on public roads.


Jerry

[greglyon]

Although I believe in the value of a helmet, I can see an exception to when someone would be able to ride a bike without a helmet. A license has been interpreted as a privilege by  the courts not a legal right guaranteed by the constitution.  Therefore states and the feds do have a right to regulate.  Having said that I see no problem with someone not wearing a helmet so long as their choice does not impact anyone else.  That is, have such people be exempt from helmet laws when they provide proof of health insurance coverage that will take care of them for the rest of their lives should such coverage be required due to a motorcycle accident. That way, a catastrophic injury will effect no one but the individual involved and the rest of society will not have to pay for that person's decision not to wear a helmet.

 

[TIF2]

As for the cost to society, if you really believe that everyone has gold plated insurance that will cover that lifetime of care and the lost income to support the family, I respectfully submit that you are living in a fantasy world.  


Jerry

You are trying to shift points around - my point is  that it doesn't matter if a person has insurance or does not have insurance, the cost of ALL claims against insurance comapnies is what raises rates on insurance. Injuries resulting from accidents in which a rider was helmet-less is so miniscule to the total amount of claims submitted it simply does not have an impact.

It is not my opinion that insurance rates go up, for all insured people, based on the total amount of claims against any one company. It is plain and simple fact. Insurance rates are based on many, many factors ( a lot of which are not based on anything more than credit rating) not related to helmet laws. In fact, there is simply no evidence that suggests that states without helmet laws have any more or less medical expenses or claims than states that have helmet laws. Again, this is not an opinion.

Lastly, since you cannot prove that a person who does not wear a helmet places anyone but themselves in jeopardy (financially or otherwise) - why is it so important to you that you absolutley feel the need to be Big Daddy and FORCE people to do so? Do you feel you have some control over others? I just don't get why you care so much about forcing others to do your will.

Incidently, while I completely and wholeheartedly support a rider's ability to choose, I have never stated whether I do, or do not wear a helmet when I ride.  

Good debate, grc ... keepem' coming!

[TIF2]

When, and I'm convinced it will just be a matter of time, the Fed's force all the states to require helmets, don't be surprised when you get pulled over and ticketed, or when you lose the privilege to drive on public roads after several tickets don't convince you.  

The Feds cannot force the States to do anything, they can only extort them into action by with-holding funds. This is one of the problems with Big Government and how they skirt the Constitution. States are starting to come around which is why we are not under the Federal Helmet Law (for lack of a better term) that was enacted in the '70s.

Note, you won't be losing any rights, you will still have the right to not wear a helmet.  You will just lose the privilege of doing so on public roads.

This primarily points to what may be regulated and what may not. The seat belt law is analogous to a helmet law, but it IS slightly different. In order to regulate the public, the act that is to be regulated must place the general public in harm's way. Consider a speed limit, It has been easily proven that an operator of a vehicle can drive at a faster speed than their ability to control said vehicle. This places the general public in direct harm of the vehicle that is out of control - hence the ability to regulate under public safety laws.

However, not wearing a helmet does not in any way place the general public in harm's way and is therefore, beyond regulation under public safety (by definition). Of course, this does not mean that they do not get passed anyway - but whether or not they are legally passed under proper authority is something altogether different. This is known as "color of law" where it all looks good, but really doesn't apply. The last staement is my educated opinion  

EDIT: No longer my educated opinion ... a factual statement:

"Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)"


I think the choice to wear a lid or not is personal, and whether I do or do not should remain my choice.
Everyone keep it upright and we won't have to worry either way!!  

Peace ...

[RedDevil]

NASCAR is a regulated sport and therefore is subject to rules, provisions, and mandates required by the regulating board in order to participate. It is not a good or accurate analogy.

This is not an "all or nothing" thing, if you choose to wear one then fine. For those that don't that is fine as well. I appreciate your opinions and viewpoints right up to the point where it has influence to regulate or control another individual's actions - so long as their actions present no threat to you directly. However, if you are being threatened then it is no longer supported by opinion, but evidence that can be presented in a factual manner with supported cause. The problem remains that for all the studies and worthless statistics ( and money of course) that has been spent around this isuue, it has never been shown that helmet laws protect the safety of others (public safety - thereby allowing for legislative regulation). A helmet is, was, and always will be a personal safety tool that may, or may not be, utilized by the individual.
The only interest in helmet laws lay in the hands of insurance companies and (of course) pay-outs to politicians that regulate for personal interest.

Unfortunately, this is where you are misinformed...me, you, us, them, whether it's singular or collective, are the public.  Whether you are riding a motorcycle or a car, laws are enacted to protect you, the public's safety.  We are the public, so theyrore the government has the right to mandate helmet laws, just like they had the right to mandate seat belt laws.  It's just a matter of time.  

[TIF2]

Unfortunately, this is where you are misinformed...me, you, us, them, whether it's singular or collective, are the public.  Whether you are riding a motorcycle or a car, laws are enacted to protect you, the public's safety.  We are the public, so theyrore the government has the right to mandate helmet laws, just like they had the right to mandate seat belt laws.  It's just a matter of time.  

Hmmm ... I will agree that these laws get passed. Where I will respectfully disagree is whether or not they are correct in the passing of the laws, and the ability to regulate. Just because the government DOES do things, doesn't mean they are RIGHT in doing so. It could be argued (using your definition of public safety) that almost any act - such as getting out of the bath-tub, would be considered hazardous and therefore subject to regulation under "public safety".

I am correct in what allows regulation under public safety ... whether or not the government adheres to that definition is clearly a gray area. I read a court decision once wherein the judge CLEARLY manipulated the term "public safety" ... even trying painfully to make the leap in his decision stating that a motorcyclist may be thrown from the vehicle thereby causing a threat to the public in order to uphold the North Carolina helmet law against the challenge. This allowed for the enforcement of the statute but was probably the most ludicrous thing I had read. I mean ... one wearing a helmet and thrown off would do a LOT more damage to another than the same person lid-less (lol).

Anyway ... good debate on the issue. I appreciate it.

[cyril]

Unfortunately, this is where you are misinformed...me, you, us, them, whether it's singular or collective, are the public.  Whether you are riding a motorcycle or a car, laws are enacted to protect you, the public's safety.  We are the public, so theyrore the government has the right to mandate helmet laws, just like they had the right to mandate seat belt laws.  It's just a matter of time. 

Our laws changed back in the seventies it sucked for a while , don`t even think about nowdays & it keeps the rain off. Happy Debating

[skreminegul07]

Believe it when I say, I HATE it when the government tells us what we can and can not do. And I do believe in "accountability" . The problem with helmet laws are they're two fold. One it should be my choice to wear a helmet or not. But two, as we all know people do have accidents and have major injuries.(head injuries the most)  The problem for me is the riders that don't have insurance  and get into accidents, still get medical treatment, that you and I pay for. I guess when it comes down to it, if you wear a helmet or not, it's your choice to carry insurance , but if you don't, and get hurt, you should pay for your injuries. It should not be my responsibility to pay for some idiot that won't carry there own. So be accountable for your own actions so the government does not have to decide for you.               

Guess what, how many crippled bikers need support in one year?
How about now paying for 31 million people to have insurance?
12 million illiegals?

Be serious, that argument doesn't hold water.

[skreminegul07]

Another thought.

When I broke my ankle months into first learning to ride, the nurse at the ER asked me if I was wearing a helmet?  On my foot?  I told her it was none of her business unless it somehow affected my treatment.
If I answered yes, then the statisticians could say that because I was wearing a helmet, the injury was minor.  If I answered no, then the same jokers could say that if I was wearing a helmet, injuries could have been avoided.

It's a personal choice IMHO.  After all, we need organ donors.

Dale Earnhardt was wearing a helmet and all the best safety devices available at the time.  Helmets stop the physical contact, but can't stop your brain from bouncing around your skull when you go from 60 to zero.

[RedDevil]

Another thought.

When I broke my ankle months into first learning to ride, the nurse at the ER asked me if I was wearing a helmet?  On my foot?  I told her it was none of her business unless it somehow affected my treatment.
If I answered yes, then the statisticians could say that because I was wearing a helmet, the injury was minor.  If I answered no, then the same jokers could say that if I was wearing a helmet, injuries could have been avoided.

It's a personal choice IMHO.  After all, we need organ donors.

Dale Earnhardt was wearing a helmet and all the best safety devices available at the time.  Helmets stop the physical contact, but can't stop your brain from bouncing around your skull when you go from 60 to zero.

No, you're right, but a helmet does give you a better chance to survive.  I wish it was all about personal choice, because then I would choose to stop paying taxes, stop wearing my seat belt, not bother about speed limits, etc, etc, etc.   All I know is I'm still here because I had a helmet on when some yahoo not paying attention and going 35 mph, t-boned me.  It's not me and my abilities that I worry about in my feelings about helmets and the necessity for them, it's the bozos in their cages that either don't see us or just don't give a rat's behind about motorcycles.

[Cvostu]

I totally agree with Red Devel.  I feel what we do is a little bit, or alot a bit crazy, and we do it anyway. We do it beacuse we love it and enjoy it a wole lot. It's the other guy, most of the time and we really don't have a whole lot around us to protect us from those enemies. I ride with a helmet because I feel a lttle more comfortable just knowing that my head has a little something around it. This arguement is never going away ya know..  No matter what.   My .02 tossed into the act.   Now I feel better.

[spydglide]

At least it keeps my bald spot from getting sunburned.  har.  spyder

[grc]

No, you're right, but a helmet does give you a better chance to survive.  I wish it was all about personal choice, because then I would choose to stop paying taxes, stop wearing my seat belt, not bother about speed limits, etc, etc, etc.   All I know is I'm still here because I had a helmet on when some yahoo not paying attention and going 35 mph, t-boned me.  It's not me and my abilities that I worry about in my feelings about helmets and the necessity for them, it's the bozos in their cages that either don't see us or just don't give a rat's behind about motorcycles.

      Hear Hear.   

Personal choice is the catch phrase that really winds me up when I hear or see arguments for why someone should have the "right" to do something that is likely to result in a negative outcome.  My personal choice back when I was 16 years old was to start smoking cigarettes.  Forty years later, I had a heart attack that was most likely caused by that smoking habit, and between that and the lung damage my quality of life is not what I had envisioned for my "golden years".  Bust your butt to be able to retire early, and 3 weeks after you retire you find yourself flat on your back in the hospital and looking forward to a diminished lifestyle IF you survive.  So much for my supposed "right" to choose.

I've had several occasions over the years where my helmet has been struck by rocks or other debris thrown up by other vehicles, and on a couple of those occasions I was damned near knocked silly by the impact.  Without the helmet, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have been incapacitated to the point that a crash would have resulted.  I've also been run off the road and had lot's of skin removed from my knees, but my pretty (?) face was still intact even though the helmet and faceshield were pretty well used up.  So even though I haven't run into a tractor-trailer to test the effectiveness of my helmets, I have had enough first hand experience to know that I will always wear a full face helmet, and I will always promote the use of helmets to others.  I really don't want to be a dictator, but I am one of those old fashioned folks who believes he has a duty to share his experiences with the hope that maybe a few will be swayed, and possibly spared.  The unfortunate truth is that waiting for each individual to have his own experiences that eventually lead him to embrace safety is a strategy that will never succeed.  Too many don't survive long enough to make that decision on their own.  I often wish our government had outlawed cigarettes back in the '60's; I wonder how many family members wish the government had mandated helmets before their loved ones went for that last ride.


Jerry