Helmet Use should be a personal choice

[burkbuilds]

Here is another research paper I had to write for English Composition. I went in expecting to make a case for mandatory helmet laws but after all the research I became convinced otherwise. By the way, I do wear a helmet myself, and I would even if it were not mandated but not because I think it is going to save my life, I wear it to keep my head warm in the Winter and to keep those dang big bugs we have around here from hitting me in the face! I've had a few snap my neck back when they hit the faceshield and you can call me a chicken all you want to but I don't want to take that in my face at 55+mph!

Motorcycle Helmet Use Should be a Personal Choice!

During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, federal highway funds were automatically withheld from states that did not pass mandatory helmet laws. As a result every state, except California, passed mandatory helmet use laws by 1975. When legislation changed so that states were no longer financially penalized for lack of compliance, many states chose to repeal or amend those laws. As a result, only 20 states now require mandatory use for all riders. Three states have no helmet use laws, and the remainder have laws applying only to select groups meeting certain criteria, such as being licensed for less than a year, lacking medical insurance, or being younger than a certain age, usually 18 or 21. A reasonable investigation of the facts will confirm that the government should not mandate motorcycle helmet use. Mandatory helmet laws deprive bikers of their constitutional rights, increase the likelihood of becoming involved in an accident, offer a false sense of security to the rider, and distract from the actual causes of motorcycle traffic fatalities.

According to Jones and Bayer (2007, p. 216) “…the state has a role in protecting vulnerable members of society from misjudgments about motorcycle safety.” They go on to say “…motorcyclists have not been able to make sound safety decisions on their own and that mandatory helmet laws are needed to ensure their own safety.” However, Bikers argue that helmet laws violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, are an infringement on the motorcyclist’s liberty, and an excessive use of the state’s police power. This argument was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court when they ruled that “…the helmet laws constituted an infringement on motorcyclists’ rights” (Jones, et al. 2007, p. 210). Much of what makes this country great is the willingness of people to take risks for various reasons, some patriotic, some self serving. Where would we be without the great explorers who risked their very lives daily to blaze trails across the continent, settle new frontiers, or go into outer space? What if the Wright brothers had been forbidden to attempt flight because it was too dangerous? If the government tried to protect citizens from all their risky behavior, where would it end? There is no question that motorcycling is more dangerous than riding in a car. Bikers wearing the best protective equipment available still have a much greater risk of serious injury in a crash than occupants riding in an automobile. The important question becomes, who should decide what risks are acceptable, the individual taking them or the state? The implication of helmet advocates is that helmets will keep riders safer and that bikers are not intelligent enough to make the decision to wear one on their own, so they must be forced to wear a helmet for their own safety.

Researchers Houston and Richardson (2004) support that view by insisting that the repeal of Florida’s mandatory helmet law in July of 2000 caused the number of monthly fatalities to increase by 21%. However, a much more extensive study of the statistical evidence by Stolzenberg and D’Alessio (2003) criticized many other studies as being myopic because they looked at extremely small samples to acquire the statistics they quoted, such as the fatality rates using only one hospital’s records, over a three month period, before and after repeal of the law. They also exposed other studies that failed to take into account the significant number of new motorcycle registrations that almost always follow the repeal of helmet laws. Apparently a lot of people just won’t ride if they are forced to wear a helmet. Registrations of new motorcycles typically increase by over 20% each year for several years after the repeal of mandatory helmet laws. Those registrations contribute to the increase in both the number of riders on the road, and the number of miles traveled each year. Stolzenberg, et al. indicated that researchers often focused only on the increase in the number of fatalities per year while neglecting to take into account the increase in ridership and the total increase in miles traveled per year once those laws are repealed. Stolzenberg, et al. studied all the fatal motorcycle accidents in Florida over the period 1986 to the end of 2001 in an attempt to determine the truth relating to helmet use and motorcycle injuries. This study indicated that fatality rates peaked in 1997, were already falling before the law was repealed in 2000, and continued to decline at a similar rate for the remaining two years of the study. Interestingly, the crash rate for riders actually decreased by approximately 21%, and the fatality rate declined by 7% following the repeal of the helmet-use law in Florida. They concluded that the repeal of Florida’s helmet use law had little observable effect on serious injury and fatality rates. They also stated “…that policy makers should probably consider revising or repealing these types of laws” (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio, 2003, p. 147). Even though mandatory helmet laws are usually popular with the general public, that popularity may be based on assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.

One of the reasons popular opinion favors the use of helmets is the false belief about the protective abilities of the helmet itself. Although it may seem logical that a helmet would protect your head in an accident, the actual statistics of the Department Of Transportation (DOT), show almost no difference in the fatality rates of helmeted vs. unhelmeted riders (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). The actual requirements for a helmet to receive DOT certification are not very stringent. The main test requires the helmets to be dropped from a height of six feet onto a solid steel anvil. If the helmets don’t break, they pass the test (Teresi, 1999). This test replicates an impact speed of 13.7 miles per hour. Very few motorcycle accidents happen at low speeds and the ones that do would rarely result in serious injury. Another seldom published statistic is that head injuries account for only 20% of serious injuries in motorcycle accidents. The majority of serious, life threatening injuries are to the chest and abdominal areas of riders (Teresi, 1999). Understanding these facts may lead to the question, “What can be done to improve the safety of motorcycle riders?”

Those wanting to have the greatest impact on motorcycle safety should focus on driver education as the key to reducing serious injuries and fatalities. An overemphasis on protective equipment will never have as much impact as educating bikers about the main contributing factors to accidents: alcohol use, speeding, and a lack of operator training. Teaching bikers to avoid behavior that often leads to accidents is the best course of action to save lives. In fact, focusing on helmet use may actually be undermining the concept of safe driving. Teresi (1999, p. 43) states that “…helmet wearing can lead to excessive risk taking due to an unrealistic sense of invulnerability….” The plain truth is a motorcyclist involved in a high speed accident is unlikely to escape serious injury or fatality. If the goal is to save lives, the focus should be on accident avoidance, not injury prevention.

Helmet law advocates may have the best of intentions, but their insistence that mandatory helmet laws save lives is not supported by the facts and may actually be counterproductive to their stated goal of saving lives. The decision to wear or not wear a helmet should be left to the individual taking the risk, not the government!

References

Houston, D. J., & Richardson, L.E. (2004). Motorcycle safety and the repeal of universal helmet laws. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2063-2069.

Jones, M. M., & Bayer, R. (2007). Paternalism & its discontents. American Journal of Public Health, 97(2), 208-217.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2008). Traffic safety facts 2006. DOT-HS-810-818. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/ncsa

Stolzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. J. (2003). Born to be wild. Evaluation Review 27(2), 131-150.
Teresi, D. (1999). The wild one. Forbes, 163(9), 41-44. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

[mrlmd1]

FYI - The helmets are tested from a 6' drop because that is how far you will fall when you hit the pavement with your head, to try and protect you from injury. They are not designed for and are not certified for hitting a wall or tree or any other object at 30-40-50-60-70mph or whatever. Stating that that equates to a 13.7 mph crash and that slow speed crashes rarely result in serious injury is totally misleading and not the point. Would you like to fall over sideways from a head height of 6' and hit the concrete with your bare head, or would you rather have a helmet on and try and protect you from a fractured skull, concussion or other serious brain injury? Helmets protect your head in a FALL, and a full face helmet, from severe road rash or tissue loss when sliding on the road. If for no other reason, a helmet and face shield will protect you from getting hit in the face by flying debris, much better than with just sunglasses or goggles on. It makes sense to use it, the benefits have been demonstrated in other studies other than the ones you have referred to. Like you said, most of the fatalities are from chest and abdominal injuries, so helmets/no helmets have little effect on the overall mortality rate. But they do have an effect on head and facial injury rates which you don't address. And fatality rates are not the only end point - why don't you compare brain injury rates or reconstructive plastic surgery rates in helmets vs. non-helmets? You can glean what you want from any report, some are misdirected or poorly executed, many are biased in some way to prove their preconceived conclusions. I really don't want to rehash this all again, but many "bikers" think their "freedom" is violated if they have to wear a helmet, after all, they ride the bike enjoying "freedom", and don't want a sissy helmet interfering with the macho-ness of their motorcycle. It's part of the rebellious nature and culture surrounding motorcycles that makes some people resist the helmet to this degree. The "it's my choice" argument to me sounds stupid.
Why do many people go ATGATT? There no laws mandating armored jackets or wearing gloves or boots. It's because it makes sense, that's why, and the benefit has been demonstrated. There was a problem and it was fairly easy to solve.
In other cases, the statistical studies have proven a benefit to the laws that have been enacted, with the same arguments you present above. For example:
Why were seatbelts in cars and trucks mandated to be used all over the country? Is that not also a freedom of choice question? Doesn't that also deprive a driver of his constitutional rights not to wear one? (That whole argument, to me, still. is stupid). It doesn't cost anything, it's part of the conditions to drive.
If the benefit has been demonstrated in reducing death and injury, then in that instance the individual can give up a tiny bit of his perceived "rights" for the common good, even his own good. Why did they put airbags in all cars today? Again, it makes sense because the benefit has been demonstrated.

You wrote that the crash rate in Florida decreased after the helmet law was repealed - do you honestly think there is a direct correlation between those two events? Like it had nothing to do with having to pass an MSF course prior to getting a license or better training for bikers? What did it have to do with no helmets? Better visibility, cooler heads, less weight on your neck? It is one of those true/true/unrelated scenarios, but someone links the 2 events together in order to prove their point.
Again, don't believe everything in print, look at the study, analyze it, the motive, the methods, the results, and draw your own conclusions.

I appreciate your writing, but I don't agree with your conclusions for a variety of reasons.


I know this will start the whole helmet/no helmet dialog here again, so here we go. :whistle:

[Easy Rider]

I know this will start the whole helmet/no helmet dialog here again, so here we go. :whistle:

Or we could go in an slightly different direction:

I think everyone should have a right to be stupid.
Excessive safety legislation interferes with Darwin's theory of natural selection. :shocked:

Having said that, I put seat belts in my first car, a 1957 Chevy and I never start a vehicle without fastening the buckle. I do, however, not always wear my helmet when I go out for a leisurely ride to the store and back.....and I live in a state where I can make that choice.

If we are going to start a debate, how about we make it about "Nanny" government in general. That should be MUCH more interesting than limiting it to just helmets. :popcorn:

[adrianinflorida]

Florida's law is pretty fair, you want to ride without a helmet? Then you need to be 21 or over and carry medical insurance ($100,000, iirc)

[burkbuilds]

Mrlmd1: You have several excellent points. I was not able to address all of them in this paper for a variety of reasons. One major reason, if it went over 1000 words the professor started deducting points, and I wanted an A not an argument.
Point of the paper was not that a helmet didn't offer you some protection in a wreck, it was a paper about FATALITIES, and I stand by the statistical evidence that shows no major differences in fatality rates, one reason for this is that, yes, there is a certain percentage drop in fatalities from head injuries when wearing a helmet, but there is an equal percentage of increase from broken necks of those wearing a helmet, so it's a statistical wash. Do you prefer to die from head injuries, which might take a few days, or quickly from having your neck snapped by the extra force generated by wearing a helmet? Either way, you die, so the point is, wearing a helmet doesn't give you a better chance of survival, it only changes the way you die.
As I stated in the paragraph previous to the paper, I do wear a helmet for different reasons, but I no longer think it's going to save me in a bad crash.
I also agree with you that mandatory seat belt laws are a violation of personal choice, but that wasn't the point of my paper, which tried to stay on subject.
I also agree with you that protective gear does give you a benefit in non fatal wrecks, less hide off your body if nothing else, but I sure hope no one goes out and mandates that we HAVE to wear everything made in body armor, or we can't ride.
The number one cause of death in automobile accidents IS head injury, do you think we should pass laws mandating that everyone riding or driving a car should wear a helmet? Those car drivers are just too stupid to realize how dangerous it is to drive a car without wearing a helmet, they are more concerned with how they look in their cars than for their own safety! They should be forced to wear helmets for their own protection and that of the families that they will leave behind if they don't wear them! (Sound familiar?)

[patrick_777]

If we are going to start a debate, how about we make it about "Nanny" government in general. That should be MUCH more interesting than limiting it to just helmets. :popcorn:

...And a good topic for the Hot Topics (http://www.gz250bike.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=35) forum.

[mrlmd1]

The increase in broken neck fatalities from wearing a helmet is something I have never heard of before and is probably more related to the magnitude of the trauma from excessive speed and force rather than the weight of the helmet. Helmets themselves don't cause neck injuries, they may prevent some of the massive trauma to the skull so the neck bears the brunt of it. Maybe if that victim had no helmet, he would have died of a smashed head, so that kind of a statistic is meaningless. With the kind if trauma you sustain with those kind of injuries, you're dead from any number of causes, take your pick.
The head injuries from car accidents is why air bags and restraints are mandatory and there are side air bags also in some cars, as an option in others, but most people don't want too pay extra for those.
I don't want to perpetuate this discussion as it can go on forever - I just wanted to point out that statistical studies can be manipulated, are often biased to prove the point they set out to prove, can be misleading, can have false conclusions, and have to be carefully analyzed and taken with a grain of salt. Even if there was a law about helmets, or seat belts, or anything else, some people will disregard it anyway and do what they want, it's their choice to take the increased risk and they must bear the consequences. Unfortunately, the rest of us may have to bear the cost.

Soapbox alert! (Don't say I didn't warn you)

Okay, I can't resist putting in my two cents.

You know how people say that motorcycle riding is a matter of how much risk people are willing to take (I've seen many say it on here)? Well, if that's true for individuals, it is also true for governments (not just with motorcycle riding, but with many things - seat belts, gun ownership, having insurance, etc., etc.).

The government (local, state, and federal) has to calculate the cost of "risk" to the society. No one would argue that the government has a right to tell you what style pants to wear (no risk to society), but how about wearing seat belts? Unquestionably, the laws mandating seat belt use have saved tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. However you feel about your individual choice whether or not to wear a seat belt, it must be weighed against the larger interests of society. And this example does not even factor in the cost of hospitalization, etc. involved in injuries/deaths to those in traffic accidents who may have gone uninjured/less injured if they had been wearing seat belts.

I know it's a cliche, but the government is us, or those who we give up our sovereignty to in order to represent us. I know that's difficult to see sometimes, but if we don't like "the government", we get regular chances to vote them out (admittedly, bureaucracies are a different matter). And if we get really pissed about our government, we can have a revolution, which we have done before. My point is, "the government" makes laws like mandatory seat belt use because it has a responsibility to weigh risk for the larger society. Just like many of you wear more gear than you used to, for example, our government also views this risk differently at different times.

Last, should it be an individual choice as to whether or not you have auto insurance, for example? I'm glad the government mandates that, because I just know the asshole who runs a red light and slams into my car won't "choose" to have it, and that will impact my ability to recover from the injuries, get physical therapy, etc. We are going to argue about what the government has a "right" to mandate, and we always will (which is fine, that's part of the process). Hell, I can't get four members of my family to agree on where to go for dinner.

Thanks for your patience if you got this far,

Keith

[burkbuilds]

I see your point, my point is, the actual statistics don't prove that helmets save lives. I have read them and studied them intensely, instead of just taking the word of someone who wrote an article with the preconceived idea that helmets do save lives, and then tells us that the statistics back that up, which they do NOT! So, if helmets do NOT save lives, then why should the government force anyone to wear one? I think you are assuming that the statistics confirm that they do save lives, go read them, the statistics are on the web free for you and me to read, so go read the actual statistics and see what they actually show instead of what somebody tells you they show! Most of the articles saying that the statistics show helmets save lives pull one set of stats from one chart and one from a totally unrelated chart (apples to oranges) and then say the statistics prove such and such. If you look at how many million miles traveled verses fatalities or number of bikes on the road verses fatalities then you have apples to apples comparisons, but most of these guys who quote the stats will take a stat where one year (made up numbers here) 100 people died in motorcycle crashes in Florida, then they passed mandatory helmet laws and only 78 people died the next year so it dropped 22%. However, they fail to mention that when helmet laws are passed, ridership, registration and million miles traveled stats drop by over 20% too. So, if 20%+ fewer bikes are registered, driven and driven less, then yes guess what, an equal number of fatalities occur. Then they come along and say, but when Florida repealed the mandatory helmet laws fatalities went up 22%, but they fail to mention that when helmet laws are repealed, guess what, registrations,sales of new bikes, and million miles traveled each year all go up by over 20%. So it is a wash statistically. The mandatory helmet laws just make a lot of people decide not to ride, so if your goal is to get rid of motorcycle riders on the road, then keep passing mandatory helmet laws, because a lot of people just refuse to ride if they have to wear a helmet. But statistically speaking, for an equal number of bikes on the road and miles traveled by those bikes the fatality rate is flat whether you wear helmets or not. If you want to save bikers lives then convince them of the three things that do contribute most to fatalities in motorcycle accidents, 1. Alcohol (over 60% of biker fatalities involve an elevated blood alcohol level in the biker that was killed!) 2. Excessive speed and 3. Unlicense (thus usually untrained) bikers, people who only have a license to drive a car, probably never took a safety course and certainly never even passed their states requirements to get a motorcycle license. Wearing a helmet or not isn't even in the top 5! Go read the statistics yourself!

[alanmcorcoran]

...And a good topic for the Hot Topics (http://www.gz250bike.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=35) forum.

:plus1:

For the record, I wear one, but don't care if everyone else wears one or not. I do think that the whole "personal choice" thing is one of those things where some folks want to have it both ways: they want to have a personal choice about wearing a helmet (which I am all for) but they also expect society to take care of them if something bad happens and they can't take care of themselves. I don't think the states with no helmet laws is going leave helmetless riders to die in the street. Similarly, they are going to try and cut you out of your pole wrapped vehicle with the Jaws of Life whether you wear a seat belt or not. It's this expectation that "America is a rich society" and there will be safety nets, that lead the legislators to pass laws "for our own good." I think Easy mentioned the nanny state, and that's where it starts.

I also wear a helmet on a bicycle (not mandatory if you are over 18 in California) and skiing (not mandatory anywhere.) I respect people who say they don't wear a helmet because they don't want to wear one or they don't like to wear one, but I have a hard time with the argument that helmets are somehow a bad thing. Someone else on here likened them to condoms, which I think is a decent analogy - nobody really wants to wear those, they don't work ALL of the time, but they DO work most of the time.

Maybe a good tradeoff is, you don't have to wear a helmet, but if you crash and die, you are automatically an organ donor. Seems like a win-win to me.

[Easy Rider]

The government (local, state, and federal) has to calculate the cost of "risk" to the society.

There you go. That pretty much sums up the "nanny state".
Alas, I think it is crap. That is NOT a function of government in a so-called free socitey.

The government should have only TWO functions:

1) Doing things that are not practical for individuals to do like building roads and providing for a national defense.
2) Preventing individuals from being victimized by other people or groups.

That's it.......per the Constitution, in the US at least. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government shall protect us from ourselves; quite to the contrary, in fact.

Is wearing seatbelts a good idea? Is wearing a helmet a good idea? Is not eating too many Big Macs a good idea? Is walking at least 30 minutes a day a good idea? ON and on and on.........
YES, no question about it but it is NOT a proper function of our Constitutional government to FORCE any of those things on anybody.

I used to think that the "cost to society" was a somewhat reasonable arguement for mandating helmet use........until I saw a study done by, I think, the National Insurance Inst. which concluded that the "tremendous additional insurance cost" of treating the additional injuries if NOBODY wore a helmet would be something like 5 CENTS per year for each policy holder. So much for that arguement.

Unlike helmet use, coronary disease in this country costs multi-billions of dollars and is the leading cause of death (or right near the top, not sure of the most recent counts). The "cost to society" is tremendous. Do you think the government should mandate a maximum weight for everyone in the country......and make it illegal to sell red meat........and limit the amount of sugar that foods can contain ????

Maybe YOU don't but some people DO believe that. It is a VERY slippery slope.

The government needs to take better care of IT'S business......which has been woefully neglected for at least 20 years or so, allowing big business and big finance to rape the economy.......and leave you and me the F*** alone.

[alantf]

That pretty much sums up the "nanny state".
Do you think the government should mandate a maximum weight for everyone in the country......and make it illegal to sell red meat........and limit the amount of sugar that foods can contain ????


Never thought I'd do it, but I agree 150% with easy - except for one thing!

England is a much bigger nanny state than America. Apart from the total ban on handguns (i.e. nobody but criminals can own one) we're being bombarded on every side by government propaganda about eating habits. Every chance they get ,they chant their mantras. "you MUST eat 5 portions of green vegetables a day" "you MUST NOT add salt to your food" "you MUST change to a lower fat diet" The list goes on & on. The capitals I've used stress the way these self rightious buffoons speak to us - as though we're all half wits.

I seriously think that a lot of the legislation is just so that the government officials can justify their own jobs, or to get their names up in lights as the saviours of the masses. I mean, everyone in the world remembers McCarthy, & look what an idiot he made of himself. Another thing I've noticed, is that when they're up for election they promise us everything we ask for, but as soon as they're in office, those promises are out the window.

[Easy Rider]

Never thought I'd do it, but I agree 150% with easy


:jawdrop: :crackup

Re: England. It is contagious. I think the infection is accelerating as we have more influence, via immigration, from cultures where being told when and where you can take a leak is the norm.

I have no problem with the government PROMOTING things that are safer and healthier; I don't even mind them using a tiny bit of my money to do it. It is when they try to force it upon me with the rule of law that I have a BIG problem. :tup:

P.S. And consider for a moment that many of the laws that are passed get the support that they do not because of some moral imperative but because some powerful special interest group with money pushes it ........to their own advantage. I wonder how much lobbying $$$ is spent by helmet manufacturers.

[alanmcorcoran]

I also don't really understand this obsession with maximizing one's life span. Yes, most days I don't want to die, but I'm pretty sure it's going to happen sooner or later regardless of what I eat. I exercise moderately and, to a certain extent, I watch what I eat, but mainly to feel good while I *am* alive, not to stave off the inevitable. Not that I'm planning on this afternoon, but I got to figure a motorcycle accident or a heart attack are some of your best exit options (compared to say, cancer or MS.) The downside is the possibility of paralysis. Not so good.

You'd think, living in such a religious society, with all this talk about the value of "faith" and such, that people would be in a hurry to die and go to their so-called "reward." But it seems like it is the opposite, praying not to die.

I don't think we have ever really come to grips with the knowlege that we are temporary.

[music man]

1.Why do many people go ATGATT? There no laws mandating armored jackets or wearing gloves or boots. It's because it makes sense, that's why, and the benefit has been demonstrated. There was a problem and it was fairly easy to solve.


2.You wrote that the crash rate in Florida decreased after the helmet law was repealed - do you honestly think there is a direct correlation between those two events? Like it had nothing to do with having to pass an MSF course prior to getting a license or better training for bikers? What did it have to do with no helmets? Better visibility, cooler heads, less weight on your neck? It is one of those true/true/unrelated scenarios, but someone links the 2 events together in order to prove their point.



On the first part of this, you actually made a point for NOT having mandatory helmet laws, your average person (including me) who lives in a state where there is no helmet law, will wear a helmet anyways (I do) whether the government tells them to or not, why, because it makes sense to wear one. The people that don't wear one because there is no law will go without one every chance they get in a state that does have that law.


On your second point, I think it is "Safer" RIDING without a helmet as far as visibility, less weight and fatigue on your neck, blah, blah, blah..... but it is not safer CRASHING without a helmet, so I wear one.


In closing, you are just not going to save people who do not want to be saved, you can't force safety on someone because they will circumvent that safety any chance they get, Just like if people want to do heroin they will, legal or illegal just doesn't make a damn. But if they made heroin legal and available at every local grocery store and gas station tomorrow, I would be no closer to doing heroin then than I am now, Plain and Simple.

[burkbuilds]

Easy brought up a good point when he talked about money. I've always found that if you follow the "money trail" you'll probably find out a lot about any issue. While doing this research I did find one pretty big money trail. It seems that Insurance companies are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns for mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. Why, well, basically they'd like to see fewer motorcyclists on the road because they insure car owners who get sued and usually loose enormous amounts of money when they cause an accident with a motorcycle like failure to yield right of way. When the court day comes, the plaintiff is often pretty badly injured, he's had months of rehab, often lost his job and may have permanent disabilities, whereas the driver of the car usually has no injuries and some body damage to his car. Juries feel sorry for the biker and he gets a big settlement and the insurance company has to pay up, they don't like that, and they figure the less bikers on the road equals millions of dollars they won't have to pay out. They also know that ridership goes way down every time mandatory helmet laws are passed, so they support mandatory helmet laws as a way to get more bikers off the roads and lower their exposure to lawsuits.

[Easy Rider]

They also know that ridership goes way down every time mandatory helmet laws are passed, so they support mandatory helmet laws as a way to get more bikers off the roads and lower their exposure to lawsuits.

AH HA !! I knew it. I almost mentioned insurance companies before but wasn't able to make a solid connection.

[patrick_777]

On your second point, I think it is "Safer" RIDING without a helmet as far as visibility, less weight and fatigue on your neck, blah, blah, blah..... but it is not safer CRASHING without a helmet, so I wear one.

This is one of the best points I've heard made on this discussion, and in this thread.

:plus1:

[mrlmd1]

Again - helmets saving lives is not the only endpoint in the debate. Everyone agrees they reduce the severity of facial and cranial injury. You don't have to be among the undead to benefit from a helmet. There is a cost other than death to not wearing one.

I really don't care about what anyone else does or even thinks about this issue. If we can get away with it, we'll all do what we want. Don't wear a helmet, don't go ATGATT, don't take an MSF course. I don't care. But when you don't try and minimize your injuries and limit your risk somewhat, don't ask me or my neighbor, John Q. Public, to pay for or subsidize your ER and hospital bill. Is that fair enough?
I should have taken a picture with my cell phone a few days ago while waiting for friends to show up outside a movie theater in town. The guy could be the poster boy for the Darwin Awards. He's maybe 40 ?, real cool standing there on the ticket line line after getting off a sport bike, wearing a 3/4 jacket and carrying a helmet, with shorts and flip-flops on. Bright, real bright. Sure you can do what you want, it's your freedom, it's also your skin, and don't come running to me for aid when you scrape it off.

[burkbuilds]

Politically speaking: I'm basically a Libertarian, I do NOT think the government should be responsible to take care of everybody and that includes paying for everybody's health care and food and housing and everything else. I'm with Easy Rider on this one, the governments role in our lives should be minimized to things individuals can NOT do for themselves. Where does it stop? One day they say, "Gotta wear a helmet", that's not far from saying, "gee, motorcyclists are more likely to die than automobile drivers per million miles traveled, so we better outlaw motorcycle riding." Then it goes to anything else you might want to do, skiing, hang gliding, sky diving, mountain climbing . . . then one day somebody notices that automobile drivers are more likely to die than pick up truck drivers per million miles traveled, so they outlaw cars, and then they notice that 18 wheeler drivers are less likely to die than pickup truck drivers, so. . . . where does it end? It's not the governments job to meddle in my personal choices, even if they can say they are doing it for my good or the good of society because of financial situations! By the way, I think it's stupid that the government "outlaws" those little cars from Europe that get great gas mileage because they aren't as safe as the bigger cars. Aren't any of those cars safer to be in in an accident than we are on our bikes? Probably, so why can't I choose to drive one and get great gas mileage? At most, the government needs to test those cars and give them a "safety rating" and let us make the choice about what we want to drive!
Well, I guess I'm getting pretty off topic now, but to bring it back to my point, the government shouldn't be "forcing" anybody to wear a helmet! If they want to promote wearing a helmet, or give "rating" to helmets so we as individuals can make a more informed choice, I'm okay with that, but it should be my choice. And I'll personally chose to wear one whether it's a law or not, but that is and should be my choice not the governments mandate!

[adrianinflorida]

At the same time, if a government shouldn't be able to mandate helmet use, they shouldn't be required to pay for the care of a motorcyclist injured through non-helmet use (Medicare/medicaid). Thus the Florida law requiring mandatory health care insurance if you want to ride lid free. This harkens back to the "Government is gonna take our guns away" tinfoil hatters. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, i say lets read it litterally and allow every citizen to have the weapons that existed at the time of writing. Muskets for everyone. :)

[Water Warrior 2]

Something to think about. Many of the riders who suffer a fatality when wearing a helmet probably had many other injuries which would have killed them anyway. Bouncing your head off the pavement with a helmet may not kill you but the fire hydrant your body hits on the way there just might do the deed.

[burkbuilds]

One of the statisticians whose research showed no difference in fatality rates of helmeted verses un-helmeted riders had a pretty good illustration of why he didn't think it made any difference, his example: "Let's say you are flying in an airplane at 30,000 feet and all the engines go out at once, as the plane plummets towards the earth the pilot comes over the intercom and tells all the passengers to buckle their seat belts. Whether you buckle your seat belt or not probably won't make any difference in your survival rate when you hit the ground. In the same way, he said, if you are involved in a high speed motorcycle accident where you strike something large or stationary, whether you wear a helmet or not probably won't increase your odds of survival.
Remember the best chance you have to survive a motorcycle accident is avoiding it in the first place. Don't drink and drive, slow down, and get some training about riding a bike!

[alanmcorcoran]

One day they say, "Gotta wear a helmet", that's not far from saying, "gee, motorcyclists are more likely to die than automobile drivers per million miles traveled, so we better outlaw motorcycle riding." Then it goes to anything else you might want to do, skiing, hang gliding, sky diving, mountain climbing

:plus1:

This is one of my personal soapbox items as well. In fact, I get a little irritated when people tell me to "be safe." If I really want to be "safe" I'd be better off staying at home and catch up on South Park. I prefer, "have fun."

I don't think skiing, bicycle riding or motorcycling are necessary reckless activities, but they are definitely more risky than taking a nap.

[David Bo]

You've obviously never rolled over on a cat while taking a nap... :tongue:

[oneyunguy]

A small example of how things work work in Canada. (please, please know that I am NOT racist), just injecting some info and some general unpleasant taste for our govt. :skeptical:



For decades, Canada has demonstrated a strong motorcycle safety record, mainly due to the many safety regulations the government imposes on its motorcycle riders. Canada enacted mandatory helmet laws for all motorcycle riders as early as the 1960's. As a result, the number of serious injuries resulting from motorcycle accidents has been much less than in other countries without such stringent helmet laws.

However, in recent years, an interesting exemption to these helmet laws has been granted by the Canadian government. Many Sikhs living in Canada have voiced strong objections to the helmet laws, claiming that helmets would prevent them from wearing their turbans while riding their motorcycle. Wearing a turban is a fundamental demonstration of faith for Sikhs.

In the case Dhillon v. British Columbia, the court ruled that defending the religious rights of Sikhs to honor their tradition of wearing turbans trumps any safety precautions that inspired Canada's helmet laws. As a result, Sikhs are now allowed to leave their helmets at home in order to ride their motorcycles with a turban on their head.

Despite strict helmet laws and other safety regulations, motorcycles remain one of the most dangerous types of motor vehicles on the road. The risk of serious injury in a motorcycle accident is far greater than with other vehicles.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

I believe in helmets although at highway speeds or major accidents, they prolly wont do much good 'cept for the viewing.
I wear a full face, and sometimes a slightly larger 'beanie' style on the HOT days for short runs. Not sure if we had a "No helmet law" if i would run around without one.

[Water Warrior 2]

I say let them go for it. No helmet should mean no health care for head injuries and no government sponsored income if they are unable to function normally after a helmetless accident. Riding is a risk. Be willing to accept "ALL the RISKS".
Start a new tradition, paint your helmet to look like a turban.
The Candian Government has bent over backwards too often to satisfy folks from other countries. It treats newcomers far better than lifelong born here citizens who always pay their taxes.
Not picking on East Indians here as individuals but would the Indian Governmemt itself give me any support if I moved there. I have EI friends and they are good folks but some of their benefits that I pay for are just short of criminal.