Motorcycle Helmets Save Lives? Who'da thunk?

[flatsixes]

Quiet today, and nothing quite stirs the pot like a helmet law study (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6123a1.htm?s_cid=mm6123a1_w)....

During 2008–2010, a total of 14,283 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, among whom 6,057 (42%) were not wearing a helmet. In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet, compared with 4,814 motorcyclists (64%) in the 27 states with partial helmet laws and 504 (79%) motorcyclists in the three states without a helmet law.

I rode motorcycles for more than thirty years before I finally hung up my pegs about 10 years ago. Came around a blind curve on a country road and found myself staring into the panicked faces of 3 teenagers in a Ford pickup - in my lane. Luck was with me that day. I beat the devil with only a busted collar bone and whole lotta road rash. It wasn't even my worst wreck, but I promised the wife that it would be my last. Funny thing is that, although I started my combo Flying Wallenda/Chinese Tumbler act down the asphalt at about 65 m.p.h., there wasn't a<i>scratch</i> to be found on my helmet when I rolled to shambling heap some 30-40 yards later. Like I said: Lucky.

I liked to ride hard, and I hated bugs in my teeth, so yeah, I would have worn the lid whether or not the law required. But I'd prefer to have a choice - even if I never use it.

What say you?

[Sailor Steve]

The same. I think anyone who rides without a helmet is a fool. I also think anyone trying to legislate someone else's safety is a tyrant. Here in Utah we have a law requiring helmets for anyone under 18. As an adult you get to make your own decisions, smart or foolish. I always wear a helmet, but I like Utah.

[Jimbuna]

Never had the option in the UK because wearing a helmet is mandatory and if I had the choice I would still wear one......been to too many serious injury and deaths involvong bikes during my time as a police officer.

[em2nought]

People that choose not to wear helmets really need to stop making "me" see those "look twice for motorcycles" bumper stickers. :D Take care of yourself, and I'll take care of myself.

[Stealhead]

People that choose not to wear helmets really need to stop making "me" see those "look twice for motorcycles" bumper stickers. :D Take care of yourself, and I'll take care of myself.

The smart motorcycle rider should be the epitome of defensive driving/riding and should expect other vehicles not to see them.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Hitting a bee with a helmet on (the person, not the bee) at 70 mph is bad enough, imagine hitting one without!

[Catfish]

You got it all wrong.
Imagine, you are standing on a high tower, and you have a stocking cap (bobble hat?) and a helmet, in your hands.
Throw it both over the guard railing and guess which one breaks ..

And don't come up with reasonable answers, i am knee-deep in conspiracy theories :O:

[Sailor Steve]

The smart motorcycle rider should be the epitome of defensive driving/riding and should expect other vehicles not to see them.
Absolutely. Whether on a bicycle or a motorcycle I live by the rule that I'm invisible. Nobody ever sees you, and if someone does it's probably because he's out to get you anyway. If anyone really things drivers should be better at watching out for bikes, just look at how many people pull out in front of a bus or semi without noticing something that big bearing down on them.

Many years ago I was riding in the middle lane of a street that was three lanes each way. Up ahead I noticed a car waiting to pull out into traffic, and a car in the slow lane just ahead of me. Thinking I might be screwed if the waiting car pulled out and the guy just ahead suddenly dodged right into me. So I signalled and pulled over into the fast lane - just a second before the car ahead and to the right did exactly the same thing, obviously taking exactly the same precaution. At the next light the guy who had been behind me pulled up alongside and said "Man, you're good! How did you know that guy was going to change lanes before he did?"

I shook my head and said "I didn't. I just imagined what would happen if he did." You have to do that if you're going to drive a two-wheeled vehicle with no armor at all in traffic filled with steel monsters weighing a ton or more.

[Ducimus]

The same. I think anyone who rides without a helmet is a fool. I also think anyone trying to legislate someone else's safety is a tyrant. Here in Utah we have a law requiring helmets for anyone under 18. As an adult you get to make your own decisions, smart or foolish. I always wear a helmet, but I like Utah.

Yeah i've noticed that. No helmet law. Took me by surprise really, i couldn't beleive there wasn't one. Im fine with that, like some old flag/banner i saw in a bar many years ago, "Let those who ride decide".

That said, i think not wearing a helmet is incredibly stupid. I think about the rider, "what, you think your special or something? You think It wont happen to you?" I'll wager that if every motorcyclist was made to view as many accident scene photo's as I have, they'd think twice about not wearing a helmet.

Concrete and steel do not give. Spill your bike, and your head can crack open like and egg, throwing the contents of said metaphorical egg all over the road. Serious as a heart attack, if anyone wants to see what their head will look like, just throw an egg at a street like your trying to skip a stone across a pond.

[Herr-Berbunch]

The smart motorcycle rider should be the epitome of defensive driving/riding and should expect other vehicles not to see them.

Not just bikes, but cars too. I don't know what the cars are like in A Merica, but here in Europe they're all striving to get a good rating in crash testing. This means the A-pillar (between windscreen and door) is becoming thicker with each new model. In my seven year old car already I can not see a whole car about 15 metres away at a certain angle. People just don't know to move their head to double-check what's hiding behind it as they are so set in their ways. :stare:

[Stealhead]

Not just bikes, but cars too. I don't know what the cars are like in A Merica, but here in Europe they're all striving to get a good rating in crash testing. This means the A-pillar (between windscreen and door) is becoming thicker with each new model. In my seven year old car already I can not see a whole car about 15 metres away at a certain angle. People just don't know to move their head to double-check what's hiding behind it as they are so set in their ways. :stare:


Oh no matter what vehicle I happen to be operating I assume that others "sharing" the road are under the control of Chimpanzees(that is actually insulting to real chimpanzees) and plan accordingly.The newest vehicle that I own is from 2000 so I don't have much trouble with the A-pillars well I have work truck that has tool boxes on the sides so that has lots of blind spots I have had several people drive into that truck usually at stop lights where they where not paying attention and my truck stopped them before their cars brakes did the job.That being said most every four or more wheeled vehicle has a blind spot.I personally question the true safety of newer vehicles sure they might be very "safe" in a single crash but what happens when you get hit more than once? Your screwed because all the crumple zones have been crumpled by the first crash and pile ups are very common ask any cop or first responder all will have seen many pile up crashes.

I turn my head to look if I change lanes my daughter calls it "fighter pilot check six".

Another thing that really bugs me is how poorly many people drive during poor weather at least half of people do not turn on their head lights during rainy conditions even though it is the law in many states and many people just keep going 70 or 80 MPH though they can only see a few hundred feet down the road in a hurry to the morgue and foot tag I recon.With the reduction in the margin of error that you get with every MPH and the increase in attention that many drivers pay to their 4G smart phone walking into a mine field is safer.You know they could play Angry Birds by not wearing their seat belt and crashing.

[Madox58]

I've always been called 'Stupid' or a 'fool' for jumping out of aircraft while serving in the 82nd AirBorne.

I served my time to protect freedom of choice.
Now if I exercise those rights ?
Again, I'm called a fool or stupid.
:nope:

I ride without a helmet when the whim stikes me.
I also ride with a helmet when I see fit to do so.

How many proclaiming me a dolt are probably texting or on the Cell phone disregarding those they are about to kill?

I'd tell you all to compress your insights to bullet size and shoot them up the backside of your anatomy in a more expressive way but I'd get some brig time if not worse.

Your opinion is like an arse hole. Everyone has one.
Freedom of choice must be protected even if the choice made could cost your life.

Grow up and stop protecting me!

Or do you want to out law climbing mountains, hang gliding, surfing, and other such dangerous past times?
:nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Or do you want to out law climbing mountains, hang gliding, surfing, and other such dangerous past times?
:nope:
I believe that everyone should wear a helmet when driving in a car. I also believe cars should have roll cages. I also believe bathtubs should have little plastic doodads and we should have inspectors come around and give us tickets if we don't have them. We should not be allowed to make any choices. Someone else always knows what's best for us. :D

[Herr-Berbunch]

If it was just you on the road I wouldn't complain, all those sports you mentioned would be either on your own or with a handful of like-minded people, when you go out on the road on your bike in sixty minutes you could pass hundreds if not thousands of blind, self-centred, safe-in-their-cages pricks!

I think the only easy to educate these towards bike safety is to get everyone on two wheels for a couple of years before four.

[mapuc]

It probably comes as no surprise when I say that more research results
show that we are not geared for today's high speed and intensity.
Our mental part of us can not handle it.
As a psychiatrist once said in a Swedish TV program "traffic department"
Our brains are still in the time where we rode the horse and cab.

A person who bicycling may show contempt for motorists and the applicable traffic rules. This same person may ride in a car later, and may show contempt for cyclists

A little funny story about double morale In a Swedish newspaper, you could a few days ago, read that 3 out of 4 drivers would like to see a strong increase of the fine rate, to drive to fast for road works and schools
Another study by the Swedish Road Directorate (Vägverket) showed that 8 out of 10 drove too fast for road works and by the country's schools

Markus

[Rockstar]

T. E. Lawrence (also known as Lawrence of Arabia) had a crash on a Brough Superior SS100 on a narrow road near his cottage near Wareham. The accident occurred because a dip in the road obstructed his view of two boys on bicycles. Swerving to avoid them, Lawrence lost control and was thrown over the handlebars. He was not wearing a helmet, and suffered serious head injuries which left him in a coma; he died after six days in hospital
One of the doctors attending him was the neurosurgeon Hugh Cairns, who consequently began a long study of what he saw as the unnecessary loss of life by motorcycle despatch riders through head injuries. Cairns research led to the use of crash helmets by both military and civilian motorcyclists.

Imagine that? First those Brits claim the Jack Daniels recipe. Now we find out it was a Brit who started helmet laws. Next they'll try to claim they once ruled over us Americuns.

http://cman.cx/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/te_lawrence_of_arabia-282x300.jpg

[gimpy117]

and Michigan just repealed it helmet law :shifty:

[McBeck]

I agree that adults have the experience to make the choice for themselves.

However, you are also rolemodels.
Imagine that its your own son who has the choice and half the adults do not wear helmets. Wouldn't you wish that all bikers wore helmets?

[Sailor Steve]

I agree that adults have the experience to make the choice for themselves.

However, you are also rolemodels.
Imagine that its your own son who has the choice and half the adults do not wear helmets. Wouldn't you wish that all bikers wore helmets?
I do wish that all bikers wore helmets. I also wish that all drivers wore seatbelts. That doesn't give me the right to force them to.

I also agree about the "role models" part. But parents have always said "Do as I say, not as I do", and always will. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The problem is that there are many lines, and very few people can agree on where any of them should be.

[McBeck]

I also agree about the "role models" part. But parents have always said "Do as I say, not as I do", and always will.
If that will not change, then we will not learn.
Kids are imitating us and we have to set the bar high, so they also do so.
The whole "Do as I say, not as I do" is just another way of not taking responsibility for your job as parrent.

[nonverba]

i dont get it, how can a law that protects the safety the general public who drives motorcycles impair the freedom of choice?

you can not interpretate your rights to the extreme, its like saying a speed limit near a school impaires your freedom of choice.

freedom of choice is about being able to plan your life as an individual

[Sailor Steve]

i dont get it, how can a law that protects the safety the general public who drives motorcycles impair the freedom of choice?

you can not interpretate your rights to the extreme, its like saying a speed limit near a school impaires your freedom of choice.

freedom of choice is about being able to plan your life as an individual
Totally wrong. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. The school speed limits protects our children from other drivers. The helmet law attempts to protect us from ourselves. You're right: Where freedom is concerned, you don't get it.

You also don't understand rights. I have the right to do anything I want, as long is it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same.

[nonverba]

Totally wrong. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. The school speed limits protects our children from other drivers. The helmet law attempts to protect us from ourselves. You're right: Where freedom is concerned, you don't get it.

You also don't understand rights. I have the right to do anything I want, as long is it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same.


when you read my post again , and compare to yours i say exact the same thing. My language is not english , so the sentence may not be as fluid but it implies the same thing. try to read and understand the meaning of a sentence before attacking people

ow yeah , you talk about how you are "forced" in an earlier post. Lawmaking bodys in states have that authority in a democrasy. As long as certain basic principles are folowed. these principles protect us ,but we have to give up some freedom. that is called the "social contract" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


also i live in western europe, not the uk. We have continental law, where us and commonwealth have the common law system. There are some differences, but the basis is the same.

[Sailor Steve]

I guess I'm still not understanding. Do you think helmet laws are good; that people should be forced to wear helmets?

[nonverba]

I guess I'm still not understanding. Do you think helmet laws are good; that people should be forced to wear helmets?

jes i think that law is good.

You are a grandpa, someone with life experience and wisdom. So you must understand that the lawmakers do not intend to attack your freedom of choice, but to protect the general public. you included. and that goal (general publics healt)"outdoes" your individual choice, as described in the social contract.

so why do you feel forced?Maybe you are thinking " yeah but first helmets and what else is next!"

and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.

so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.

i must add that my knowledge of common law is more restricted then continental law, but i do know the basics are in every western country the same,common or continental law.

[Sailor Steve]

jes i think that law is good.
Okay, then my comments still stand.

You are a grandpa, someone with life experience and wisdom. So you must understand that the lawmakers do not intend to attack your freedom of choice, but to protect the general public. you included. and that goal (general publics healt)"outdoes" your individual choice, as described in the social contract.
So, as I've said before, we would all be safer if we had little plastic mats in our bathtubs. Should we pass a law that says we have to have those, and send inspectors around to give us tickets if we don't?

so why do you feel forced?Maybe you are thinking " yeah but first helmets and what else is next!"
I'm thinking that if you really want us to be safe on the road then we should also make all cars have roll-cages like race cars do, and then five-point racing seat belts, and everyone in every car should also have to wear helmets.

and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.
True, but mostly we just enforce our will by electing somebody different next time.

so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

This is what freedom is about. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. We do not make laws to protect us from ourselves.

i must add that my knowledge of common law is more restricted then continental law, but i do know the basics are in every western country the same,common or continental law.
How individual laws differ is not the problem. The problem is people who think they can make people give up freedom for their own good. That is where tyrrany starts.

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion

[nonverba]

nevermind

[sidslotm]

I used to ride my bikes without a helmet in the sixties, that was before they changed the law in the UK, dam I was reckless. I even rode around Europe without wearing a helmet one year. But looking back, I was mad, crazy even. I cringe when I think back at those moments of youthfull lunacy and holding the throttle wide open alone the country lanes

Anyone riding without a lid today is mad. The bikes are PDQ nowadays, so quick I'm not sure a lid will help at the high end speeds that a modern machine can achieve. Lets face it, if you got a 961 duke your going to want to wind that throttle back at some point, right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8qWhVfNM8Q

Dam I used to love riding my Norton :wah: on a nice day, especialy with a helmet on.

[Sailor Steve]

IThe bikes are PDQ nowadays, so quick I'm not sure a lid will help at the high end speeds that a modern machine can achieve.
You're absolutely right, except bikes have always been that fast. Aviation pioneer Glenn Hammond Curtiss first achieved fame as a motorcycle builder. He set a world record that stood for 23 years - 136.36 mph (219.45 km/h)...in 1907!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Curtiss

[Penguin]

I think we had thid discussion a few weeks ago and a key question is still how much the individual choice not to wear a helmet infringes on others rights. For example the rights of a patient who wants to undergo surgery but gets postponed because an emergency surgery has to be done on a helmless biker. The ambulance team who prefers to treat some broken bones over scrapping brains from the road. In the case of an accident you use public resources.
The question is also how much it differs from sports accidents. People who go skiing, mountain climbing, etc: no protection is required there. We pay for accidents of those individuals too. And hands on the heart: who of us never hurt himself by doing something stupid and was happy that we were taken care of?



and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.

so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.


The idea of the social contract is a theory, not a law set in stone. To me personally the concept of individual freedom trumps other laws.
Coming from Germany might have something to do with the fact that I have "Alaaaarm" ringing through my inner submarine when a entity wants to step on my freedom for the greater good.

Coming to separation of power: some years ago the number of laws which Germany passed and which originate from the EU was about 40%, today's numbers are probably even higher. So for unpopular laws it's always: "sorry, we can't do much about it, it was passed in Brussels...."
Please tell me how the power is separated when the legislative body in the EU is not democratically elected but derives from the members governments. I do not recognize the authority of the "European Council", as I have no possibility to participate, nor a right to vote for it - the EU parliament is also a sad joke, but at least we are granted to make our cross for them every 5 years...
What last instance do we have: the judicative, here in Germany the supreme court is often the last refugium of liberty, revoking idiotic laws. Oh yeah, in the EU we have the European court of justice, which is more occupied in controlling that EU laws are followed than defending the Europeans from an erosion of the individual rights.

Maybe I am too dumb to understand that it is all the best for me, maybe I am uncapable to decide on my own what's good for me, like a child. However if it is all for the better: why the hell aren't we asked? If something is hard to understand: explain it to us peasants. If we are asked to give up liberty, explain what the greater good is.

All this erosion of liberties and civil rights in the past years was always explained to us that it protects us for our own good. :-? I don't buy it.

[Madox58]

You can read the stats anyway you want.
If your for helmet laws, you can stake the figures to what you want.
Against helmet laws, again you can stake the figures.
Having been involved in A.B.A.T.E. for over 12 years, I've seen it all.

One figure I've seen over and over is that nearly 3/4 of all accidents involve another vehicle INFRINGING our right of way!!

The rider then becomes a statistic in an accident he did not instigate.
The 'I didn't see him' usually buys the one causeing the accident a walk!!

And God forbid anyone supports a Law to forbid texting or cell phone use while driveing!!
That could get you voted out of office in many areas.
:nope:

Ohio is a leader in the Freedom of Choice area.
We're also fighting for a Right of Way Bill that will change the old 'I didn't see him' get out of jail free card!

[Sailor Steve]

The 'I didn't see him' usually buys the one causeing the accident a walk!!
The driver usually doesn't see the bike he cuts off or hits. On the other hand there are a great many people who don't notice the tractor-trailor they pull right in front of either. :dead:

[AirHippo]

Using the phone while driving has been illegal here for... two or three years. It has achieved bugger-all, as anyone who's spotted the large number of cretins still driving and texting will attest.

Personally I'm all for freedom of choice - if you want not to wear a helmet, fair enough. But the question should then be, if you have an accident, "was he/she wearing a helmet?" And when the hospital personnel are told "no", it's to the back of the queue for you, then, chum. Contributory negligence, I believe, is the actuarial term.

I agree, we are being poked and prodded and shoved into doing absolutely nothing even remotely dangerous (or expressing an opinion the ruling classes don't like!), but I frankly have little sympathy for people who do dangerous things and get hurt by them. I've done daft things like climing up railings when under the influence (considerably... 'hem :D) and the inevitable results of torn-off skin, cuts and bruises are just the price you pay for acting a bit daft. Refusing to wear any protection while tearing down the road on an unstable two-wheeled plastic death rocket counts as a pretty daft thing to do, IMO.

[Sailor Steve]

Personally I'm all for freedom of choice - if you want not to wear a helmet, fair enough. But the question should then be, if you have an accident, "was he/she wearing a helmet?" And when the hospital personnel are told "no", it's to the back of the queue for you, then, chum. Contributory negligence, I believe, is the actuarial term.
That's actually something I can agree with. I stand squarely against seatbelt laws as well. I always wear one, but I defend the right to choose. Of course if an insurance company wanted to set a policy that says if it can be proven that you weren't wearing a belt when the accident happened they don't have to pay, I say good. That's not a law coercing us to protect ourselves, that's a private company setting the terms of the contract. I see a big difference.

Refusing to wear any protection while tearing down the road on an unstable two-wheeled plastic death rocket counts as a pretty daft thing to do, IMO.
I agree. Of course having an opinion about the intelligence involved in one act or another is not the same as forcing someone to act in accordance with our opinions. :sunny:

[AirHippo]

Weirdly, hereabouts, if you own a legally "antique" car, you don't need (AFAIK) to get seatbelts fitted to it; presumably the logic is that old cars are slower, but the counterpoint is that old cars are also much less able to withstand damage than new ones, and provide much less driver protection. Plus, it means that you can be screeching around without one in, say, a Merc 300SL, without a belt. Go figure. :hmm2:

[Madox58]

Insinuating I'm an Idiot for exercising my rights to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet in States that allow freedom of choice is an insult.

I jumped out of perfectly good AirCraft to defend rights.
It did not matter that I agreed with the Laws or not.
I still risked my Life to defend YOUR rights.

I FULLY understand that I may die each and everytime I hit the road.
I also carry full insurance to CMA.
That's not cheap by the way!

I would rather die, with no head gear, then allow peons to demand I protect thier misguided thoughts that they can make me wear gear.

You are way out of bounds to think you have that right!

[Sailor Steve]

Insinuating I'm an Idiot for exercising my rights to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet in States that allow freedom of choice is an insult.
Of course it is. It's also just an opinion, and worth exactly nothing. Trying to actually force you to? Now that's an insult.

[MaddogK]

Absolutely. Whether on a bicycle or a motorcycle I live by the rule that I'm invisible. Nobody ever sees you, and if someone does it's probably because he's out to get you anyway. If anyone really things drivers should be better at watching out for bikes, just look at how many people pull out in front of a bus or semi without noticing something that big bearing down on them.

Many years ago I was riding in the middle lane of a street that was three lanes each way. Up ahead I noticed a car waiting to pull out into traffic, and a car in the slow lane just ahead of me. Thinking I might be screwed if the waiting car pulled out and the guy just ahead suddenly dodged right into me. So I signalled and pulled over into the fast lane - just a second before the car ahead and to the right did exactly the same thing, obviously taking exactly the same precaution. At the next light the guy who had been behind me pulled up alongside and said "Man, you're good! How did you know that guy was going to change lanes before he did?"

I shook my head and said "I didn't. I just imagined what would happen if he did." You have to do that if you're going to drive a two-wheeled vehicle with no armor at all in traffic filled with steel monsters weighing a ton or more.

Good story, had many experiences similar to that myself, have ended up on sidewalk on oncoming traffic side of the road a few times- sometimes it's the ONLY place left to go. Learned to ride from a lifetime biker who echoed many of the lessons I learned from bicycling- ride offensively, watch 2 cars ahead, and be situationally aware of your surroundings. Those are some of the biggest reasons I don't like to wear a helmet around town- can't hear anything and limited vision. I won't go on the highway without a helmet tho.

I wear one by choice, and would resent anyone telling me I must wear one.

[Madox58]

When a large group are misguided by Insurance Companies claims?
All pay the price in increased fees.
Then the stupid stuff starts with Laws that increase Insurance Companies profits!!

They use scare tactics that most will just buy into.
Why do Insurance Companies scare you with what a Biker does but not raise your rates for having a cell and texting while driveing?
Cause you ARE texting and on the cell and probably don't ride a Bike!

Better for them I'm the bad Guy then You!!
You'll be the arse that forces me to be a true OutLaw while you text just how good a job you did protecting me from myself guided attempt to protect my rights.


Good on you that do so.
I'll be the one to tell you just how misguided you truely are.

I wanted to see a 90 day jail term for ROW violators no matter what.
That would be the lest amount of time you MUST serve.
If a death is involved?
I wanted to see Manslaughter charges brought.

The suggestion that My kin could seek revenge was quickly ruled out.
But I really feel sorry for the person that might take out my Wife while she rides.

Everytime Nancy goes for a ride? I treat it as the last time I may ever see her alive.
But I would never deny her the right to ride her Triumph with or without a Helmet.
You that don't ride will never understand that side of things.
To Love Freedom of Choice so much that you can risk loseing the most important person in your life!

[sidslotm]

to wear or not to wear, this is the question. I was always against compulsory crash helmet law, and in some small way I still am. But a few years ago while at work I was speaking to a friend about his (quite serious) weekend auto racing and the fact that he only just returned to work after a crash which put him on sick for several months. I felt he should have taken out a private insurance deal to cover the event of an accident and that it was not the company that should bare the cost of his accident.

The advances of machine guards have come a long way since I started work in the sixties, a time when men without a finger or two was quite common in engineering. But it's all wasted effort when this guy crashed and the company has to pick up the tab, after all the saftey measures that have been installed are for his protection at work, and individuals are responsable for their own saftey when at home, or on a bike.

Skid lids work, and while I would not want to force a man to wear a lid, I would most definitly insist, if you don't want to wear a lid, then you should accept your responsibilties in the event of an accident involving serious hear injury, ie: extra insurance.

The throttle works both ways, Mike Hailwood.

[Onkel Neal]

Riding a motorcycle is a pretty dangerous affair by itself, riding without a helmet is...hmm, well, we don't want to call names, let's just say it's the same thing as riding on the roof of our car in a lawn chair while our teenage son drives, on the way to a beer run, with cute girls waiting back at the party. Yeah, it's that.:cool:

It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. Serious motorcycle riders wear helmets, it's that simple. But if you insist on riding without the proper head gear, you have a moral obligation to be an active organ donor. After all, the kind of guy who thinks it's great to ride helmetless is very unlikely to the able to pay his medical bills.

Helmetless biking is good -- for organ recipients (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/18/2856134/helmetless-biking-is-good-for.html#storylink=cpy). :up:

The CDC seemed to presume that everyone accepts the obvious; that it's safer to ride with a helmet than without. But in 2000, Florida biker groups argued just the opposite; that helmets were actually hazardous, despite the actual evidence, not to mention common sense.


Back in 2000, bikers cited an obscure study claiming that helmets increased the risk of spinal injuries. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine beg to differ.
"We are debunking a popular myth that wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle can be detrimental during a motorcycle crash" said Professor Adil H. Haider, who led the 2011 study that found helmeted riders were 22 percent less likely to suffer cervical spine injury. "Using this new evidence, legislators should revisit the need for mandatory helmet laws", Haider said. There is no doubt that helmets save lives and reduce head injury. And now we know they are also associated with a decreased risk of cervical spine injury. Apparently the notion of personal freedom trumps all that medical stuff. Unhappily, taxpayers also get the bill when brain-damaged bikers end up in public hospitals. One California study found the public paid 72 percent of the medical costs of biker smash-ups. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, figuring the medical costs, estimated that we could save $1.3 billion a year if bikers could only be persuaded to don protective head gear.

[MaddogK]

Perhaps I could drive my car with my full-face helmet on to make my journey even safer. It wouldn't be MY fault if I ran over some pedestrian because I couldn't hear him or he was in that 40% vision zone I lost when I put the helmet on.
:arrgh!:

[Carthaginian]

22% less likely... this will be the only time that anyone uses a number that low in a safety debate. If a parachute only worked 22% of the time, a pilot wouldn't bother carrying around the extra weight- we know this because they didn't wear them in WWI and they were even more reliable than that at the time.

As someone who rides, and as a nurse, I'm of two minds about this.
Yes, it is a good thing to reduce the number of people that have TBI's related to riding... but when you get on a bike, you have to accept that it isn't if you are going to have an accident it is really how bad will your accident be. You have to do everything possible to protect yourself.
On the other hand, I have cared for patients who were permanent vegetative due to bike wrecks (only one of these was at fault) and there is one overriding theme among them- all were wearing a helmet. The only thing it did was keep them from dying on impact... it didn't keep them from having a mini-mental score between broccoli and brussel sprouts.

As a nurse - only people who are alive can recover with treatment.
As a rider - I'd bloody well rather die on impact than live as a veggie.

If the rider wants to go helmetless- cool.
There should be a DNR symbol on your license right by the organ donor one, though. If you don't plan on trying to live through the wreck, just don't leave any ambiguity about the issue when the paramedics show up.

[Onkel Neal]

Perhaps I could drive my car with my full-face helmet on to make my journey even safer. It wouldn't be MY fault if I ran over some pedestrian because I couldn't hear him or he was in that 40% vision zone I lost when I put the helmet on.
:arrgh!:

40% vision lost? You say a helmet obscures nearly half your vision? And when did pedestrians make that much sound? :03: Ok, keep the helmet off, it's your head. Yay for pedestrians!

There should be a DNR symbol on your license right by the organ donor one, though. If you don't plan on trying to live through the wreck, just don't leave any ambiguity about the issue when the paramedics show up.

Agreed.

[MaddogK]

40% vision lost? You say a helmet obscures nearly half your vision? And when did pedestrians make that much sound? :03: Ok, keep the helmet off, it's your head. Yay for pedestrians!


The narrowed field of vision tho legal still makes me nervous.

The normal human visual field extends to approximately 60 degrees nasally (toward the nose, or inward) from the vertical meridian in each eye, to 100 degrees temporally (away from the nose, or outwards) from the vertical meridian, and approximately 60 degrees above and 75 below the horizontal meridian.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), the minimum field requirement for driving is 60 degrees either side of the vertical meridian, and 20 degrees above and below horizontal. The macula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macula) corresponds to the central 13 degrees of the visual field; the fovea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea) to the central 3 degrees.

[Sailor Steve]

Personally I think that's malarkey. I wear a helmet and it doesn't hinder peripheral vision at all. As I've said to bikers at rallies here in Salt Lake, all the claims about helmets being more dangerous are fruitless and avoid the real issue, which is letting people control what you do "for your own good."

[Onkel Neal]

The narrowed field of vision tho legal still makes me nervous.

Well, it's a good thing I practice advanced rider techniques, like turning my head frequently.

[McBeck]

So the concern for field of view is greater than having the most important and fragile part of your anatomy unprotected, while driving something as powerful as a motorcycle balancing on 2 wheels?

OK...

[Carthaginian]

Well, it's a good thing I practice advanced rider techniques, like turning my head frequently.
LOL- I was taught that turning your head was a basic technique.
Well, actually I was told: "Have your head on a swivel, or have your [CENSORED] on a slab"- but they both mean pretty much the same thing. :D

I wear a 1/2.
My Dad wears a 3/4.
My cousin wears a full-face with shield.
My Uncle goes bareheaded whenever he can.

I really don't see what the big deal is about people wanting to ride without a helmet. They are grown men and women- or at least old enough to be tried as adults in the event of a felony- and thus able to know a good idea from a bad one (at least in theory). They should have the right to choose: helmet or no helmet, seat belt or no seat belt. I am not a fan of all this 'we know what makes the world safe for you' stuff that comes from the 'Great and Good' under the Dome in DC.

They are now trying to tell us we must by a product offered by private companies. This sets legal precedent for any number of laws that should never be passed... and it started with little 'for your own good' laws like this.

[Onkel Neal]

I don't know, why do they have laws that specify a person must cross a street at a crosswalk, why do bus drivers tell you to sit down before the bus begins moving, why do carnival operators insist you have the lap bar down and locked before the rollercoaster begins...

Like I said, riding a motorcycle in itself could be considered a bad idea, a stupid thing to do when cars are available, but I choose to do it. I guess if a guy insists on upping the risk factor substantially by going helmetless, I won't say anything. Like a lion tamer who sees a fellow lion tamer go into the cage covered with meat, I have to wince when I see it. Buddy, it's gonna be nasty if you ever come off that bike.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't know, why do they have laws that specify a person must cross a street at a crosswalk,
Because they want an orderly traffic flow. That one protects the drivers as much as the pedestrians.

why do bus drivers tell you to sit down before the bus begins moving,
They don't. Buses have grab-handles for standing passengers, and they cram in as many as they can.

why do carnival operators insist you have the lap bar down and locked before the rollercoaster begins...
Because they can be held liable for injuries to riders. They're covering themselves against potential lawsuits.

Like I said, riding a motorcycle in itself could be considered a bad idea, a stupid thing to do when cars are available, but I choose to do it. I guess if a guy insists on upping the risk factor substantially by going helmetless, I won't say anything. Like a lion tamer who sees a fellow lion tamer go into the cage covered with meat, I have to wince when I see it. Buddy, it's gonna be nasty if you ever come off that bike.
I feel exactly the same way. I just believe that I don't have the right to force the other guy to see it my way.

[Carthaginian]

I don't know, why do they have laws that specify a person must cross a street at a crosswalk, why do bus drivers tell you to sit down before the bus begins moving, why do carnival operators insist you have the lap bar down and locked before the rollercoaster begins...

These things endanger not only the person doing them, but others as well.
The driver is put at risk by the jaywalker- they must do illegal things in order not to hit him.
The other passengers are put at risk by the standing person- who the driver must devote precious attention to, rather than the road.
The person standing on the coaster puts everyone on the ride in jeopardy, he upsets the balance of the ride.

Riding without a helmet puts no one but yourself in danger- even though you're already in enough danger- so it's not exactly the same.

Like I said, riding a motorcycle in itself could be considered a bad idea, a stupid thing to do when cars are available, but I choose to do it. I guess if a guy insists on upping the risk factor substantially by going helmetless, I won't say anything. Like a lion tamer who sees a fellow lion tamer go into the cage covered with meat, I have to wince when I see it. Buddy, it's gonna be nasty if you ever come off that bike.

Riding a bike IS a stupid thing to do!
There are no two ways around it! :har:
I'm straddling 1100cc's of Honda's finest, able to do 140+ mph on level ground, and all the laws of physics state that I am placing myself in mortal danger just by getting in the saddle. It's a fact that cannot be ignored... only bound, gagged, and tossed off into some dark closet in the back of my mind for the duration of the ride. After that, I have to drag it back out to my conscious mind, loose it, lie to it and tell it that I love it and I'll never do it again and that I'm going to take it to dinner and a movie to make up for the whole thing.:yeah:

I have slid halfway down Red Mountain in B'ham after the back brake locked up on me. Only Almighty God kept me from becoming a greasy spot on 280... but I pulled off at a service station, swilled a bottle of Gator-Aid, smoked only the 6th cig I ever lit in front of my father, and climbed right back on. :doh: We made over 600 miles that day- and more than 500 was after that.

I know just how dangerous that it is when my Uncle crosses the Florida line and takes his skullbucket off... but he's 45 years old and frankly, it ain't nobody's place to tell him he's in the wrong as long as his riding doesn't endanger others.

[MaddogK]

Well, it's a good thing I practice advanced rider techniques, like turning my head frequently.

Rgr that, according to a study you turn your head 18.1 deg MORE to compensate for the lost peripheral vision

http://www.ncrider.com/Truth_About_Helmet_Laws_v1_10-22-04.htm

BTW, I didn't say I don't also "practice advanced rider techniques" like you, I said the lost vision make me nervous.

[Onkel Neal]

Because they want an orderly traffic flow. That one protects the drivers as much as the pedestrians.


They don't. Buses have grab-handles for standing passengers, and they cram in as many as they can.


Because they can be held liable for injuries to riders. They're covering themselves against potential lawsuits.


I feel exactly the same way. I just believe that I don't have the right to force the other guy to see it my way.

I was going to say common sense, but oh well.

[Codz]

I certainly agree that people should wear helmets if on a motorcycle. However, like many others here, I agree that it shouldn't be mandatory, just strongly recommended. I do support any law that protects other drivers or pedestrians though(DUI, speed limits, texting, etc).

[Webster]

Its indeed correct . Wearing a helmet can save your head from a serious injury during ride. But buying one is serious problem, here novelty motorcycle helmets (http://www.noveltyhelmetshop.com/) you can find helmets of your choice.

people should be free to choose to wear a helmet or not to IMO but promoting "novelty" helmets is something i hate and you should not do something so uncaring as to suggest its a good idea for someone to wear "fake" safety equipt and risk thier lives.

there are so many idiots out there who actually think these helmets will protect them yet they may as well wear a baseball cap for all the protection these "novelty" helmets give them.

a novelty helmet cost the same as the average "real" helmet so why be stupid and buy something fake that will kill you.

just my 2 cents

ps- i have survived 7 bike crashes, 3 of them were scarey and in 4 cases the helmet was no longer usable afterwards

[Herr-Berbunch]

He was spamming for a novelty helmet site (I think) and has been dealt with. That aside I'm in total agreement regarding 'novelty' helmets.

Nice to see you keep getting back on.