Topic: Evolution of motorcycle safety equipment and possible arguments against mandatory use

[Mantree]

Hello I am weighting a paper on motorcycle safety equipment and am looking for views on whether ts use would be mandated.  What I am needing some inspiration on is the pros and cons of laws involving its use.  Pleas feel free to play devils advocate here, what have you heard as reasons not to intact helmet laws what experiences have you had with use or refusal to use safety equipment, are there issues involving rights?

Sent from my ME302KL using Tapatalk

[Duke McDukiedook]

I think a paper such as this would be very light, very light indeed.

[Mantree]

Yes I know that helmet laws save life's but there has to be a reason they haven't been enacted in all states.  That said I just shelled out $150 for not puting on my belt running down the street mcdonalds at 3 am

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[carnivorous chicken]

Briefly, it's a classic case of "personal freedom" versus "public good." Helmets not only save lives (when it's life or death) but can prevent long-term injury such as traumatic brain injuries, which can be a drain on state resources if the person is not privately covered. So I'm guessing there is a cost/benefit analysis done in some places, weighted with "freedom" (to be an idiot) versus "public good." And that's why some states come to different conclusions (AZ, NH, RI, for example). It's an interesting question. When seat belts were made mandatory (after decades of studies showing they saved lives), there wasn't much of a push back from the population (but some from the auto industry). When wearing seat belts became mandatory, there was a little more push back from the population, but now it is accepted as standard. Helmets are similar, only you get more of a gung-ho "FREEDOM" response, I think, in some of those states that lean a little more libertarian. And, let's face it, it's hot as hell in AZ in the 115-degree heat. Didn't stop me from wearing a helmet when I lived there, however.
 

[FrankenFrankenstuff]

Wear a helmet and live. Don't wear a helmet and die. If you smoke you will get cancer and die. If you don't smoke you will get cancer and die. I have never seen a firefighter driving a POS truck. I was told that the Styrofoam liner in a helmet deteriorates (structural integrity wise) in around 7 years and therefore.....don't wear old helmets. If you ever drop your helmet you should replace it. Use only a SNELL rated helmet. Anything just DOT is OK. If you want to die.

We as humans are just blood guts bone and grizzle, if you think you are anything more than that and great hour body like you are a good among men. You will die.

[scrapvalue]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Learn to ride. Make your own decisions. Live long and prosper.

[calj737]

Chicken man hit it pretty accurately and succinctly. Federal law requires seat belts. Helmets are currently left to State law. It won't be long before Federal usurps the State's and helmets are required. It may be an interesting case like marijuana where its Federally prohibited, but some states have legalized. In that situation, it is left to the State to enforce the law... Might occur with helmets too.

There is little logic in the State Helmet law as it does not also apply to bicyclists. Car seats and seat belts, but kids aren't required to wear bike helmets? You do realize, it is among the top 3 causes of unnatural death for children (not wearing a bicycle helmet). And yet the legislators can not provide sound logic to an argument. I always wear one, but I would prefer it to be a choice, not a legal requirement.

Less Federally-mandated regulation on personal freedoms while using our personal property is my stance. I will make my own choices, thank you very much 

[FrankenFrankenstuff]

Please stop texting while driving high and  drunk. Just put your seatbelt and helmet on.

[Gene]

We as humans are just blood guts bone and grizzle gristle, if you think you are anything more than that and great hour body like you are a good among men. You will die.

One never knows when one is going to eat it. 

Before the helmet laws I rode without a helmet, not proud of that - but I did it.  It's the drain on public resources for treatment/care etc. as was stated, but I still feel as though it's an infringement on my rights as an individual to make that (poor) decision.

[ofreen]

It would save way more lives to require car drivers to wear helmets. But that will never happen, will it? So lay off motorcyclists. I favor seat belt laws for one reason. It keeps your butt behind the controls of the car, which may enable you to keep from crashing into someone else.  The "public good" argument was debunked long ago.  Anyway, hasn't the ACA solved the uninsured problem?

[FrankenFrankenstuff]

I am stuck on the fact that this thread is titled "evolution of motorcycle safety"... but the argument is to live free or die (while not wearing a helmet)

I have been riding for 21 years and always wear a helmet....for the simple reason that it is logical. ...you know...as I wrote that out I realized it was a lie. I only wear a helmet when riding on the road. When riding my 4 Wheeler or mini bike in the woods I don't put a lid on. I figure it's the low speed and the fact there are no teenagers driving 2000 lb projectiles around me.

[calj737]

And FFF you deluxe yourself that speed is a great determiner in head injury. Drop a watermelon from your waist on concrete. It cracks, just like your skull.

Thus Endeth the lesson-

[FrankenFrankenstuff]

http://lanesplitter.jalopnik.com/driver-who-swerved-to-hit-a-motorcycle-i-dont-care-1737184460

I am sure you guys have seen this one.

[FrankenFrankenstuff]

And FFF you deluxe yourself that speed is a great determiner in head injury. Drop a watermelon from your waist on concrete. It cracks, just like your skull.

Thus Endeth the lesson-

No! But that's where I live! OK. I will now wear a helmet while mini biking... Because it is logical and sane. I have several. Can this thread turn into a pics of your helmets thread?

[Some Dude]

Time and place for everything. I live in a city where no matter how good of a rider you are it is a matter of time before someone decides instagraming their  pumpkin spice latte is more important than the road ergo helmet saving your life. Don't get me wrong I love riding down a country road with nothing but my ray bans on my head,  but time and place.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[carnivorous chicken]

It would save way more lives to require car drivers to wear helmets. But that will never happen, will it? So lay off motorcyclists. I favor seat belt laws for one reason. It keeps your butt behind the controls of the car, which may enable you to keep from crashing into someone else.  The "public good" argument was debunked long ago.  Anyway, hasn't the ACA solved the uninsured problem?

Interesting -- can you post a link to this "debunking"? I'm curious.

As for car drivers wearing helmets -- seatbelts prevent many head injuries. The proportion of head injuries in motorcycle accidents compared to auto accidents is likely much greater.

The ACA hasn't solved the uninsured problem, but it's a step in the right direction. But that doesn't mean that idiots who ride without helmets and get debilitating head injuries don't drain the system -- either through state support or by driving up private insurance rates.

I'm actually a little sympathetic to the no helmet argument, I just think it's outweighed by other considerations. Maybe you sign a form releasing anyone from the responsibility of keeping you alive if you get a traumatic head injury. Maybe insurance companies already do this for people who don't ride with a helmet. If not, they should!

[Bailgang]

At the moment the helmet law here in Indiana requires the rider to wear helmet if the rider is younger than 18 or if rider is riding with only a riders permit. Once you're earned your actual license or endorsement as it's called here then you don't have to wear a helmet. Years ago before I started riding Indiana did require wearing a helmet period but the law changed, I don't know the driving force behind the change but I imagine it had to do with "personal freedom" issues. Doesn't matter to me, I wear a helmet anyhow.

[Mantree]

We as humans are just blood guts bone and grizzle gristle, if you think you are anything more than that and great hour body like you are a good among men. You will die.

One never knows when one is going to eat it. 

Before the helmet laws I rode without a helmet, not proud of that - but I did it.  It's the drain on public resources for treatment/care etc. as was stated, but I still feel as though it's an infringement on my rights as an individual to make that (poor) decision.

I use to ride without a helmet but one day I was tagged by a trunk driver at 2 am riding down the main drag in fortcollins, I had some minor scrapes and a healthy new respect for safety gear, I had a new jacket and helmet before I even started looking for a new bike I haven't gone more than moving the bike in a parking lot without a helmet since then.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Gene]

I had a wreck on the 91 freeway in Orange County circa 1985 . . . and I had my helmet strapped firmly on . . . to my seat.

[Kevin D]

My state recently repealed the helmet law, as we are competing with adjacent states also without helmet laws, for the motorcycle tourism dollar.

I took a demo ride on an FJR1300 at the Yam dealer. At the very time that the demo rides were ongoing, the county sheriff set up a seatbelt enforcement zone immediately in front of the dealer. The Moms in their 3 ton Suburbans with umpteen air bags were getting citations for not being buckled, while the boys on the 160mph sport bikes paraded by, relying on Snell or DOT. Think the Moms might have been pissed?
 I see a fair amount of irony in that, and if somebody ever decides that motorcycles need to pass the same crash test standards as cars, well that would be a sad day for all of us.
 We already have the Airbag GoldWing and inflatable race leathers. There is some evolution for you, but who wants to shell out the big dollars for it? How's the Airbag GoldWing selling?
 We know there is more risk in what we do, and we accept that. Make riding safety expensive and many will be knocked out of the game. If it was svelte and cheap we might use it, but cumbersome and expensive, nope.

[dusterdude]

Chicken man hit it pretty accurately and succinctly. Federal law requires seat belts. Helmets are currently left to State law. It won't be long before Federal usurps the State's and helmets are required. It may be an interesting case like marijuana where its Federally prohibited, but some states have legalized. In that situation, it is left to the State to enforce the law... Might occur with helmets too.

There is little logic in the State Helmet law as it does not also apply to bicyclists. Car seats and seat belts, but kids aren't required to wear bike helmets? You do realize, it is among the top 3 causes of unnatural death for children (not wearing a bicycle helmet). And yet the legislators can not provide sound logic to an argument. I always wear one, but I would prefer it to be a choice, not a legal requirement.

Less Federally-mandated regulation on personal freedoms while using our personal property is my stance. I will make my own choices, thank you very much 

Federal law states seat belts must be installed in cars newer than 1963.usage laws are up to the states.at least for now

[Bailgang]

Chicken man hit it pretty accurately and succinctly. Federal law requires seat belts. Helmets are currently left to State law. It won't be long before Federal usurps the State's and helmets are required. It may be an interesting case like marijuana where its Federally prohibited, but some states have legalized. In that situation, it is left to the State to enforce the law... Might occur with helmets too.

There is little logic in the State Helmet law as it does not also apply to bicyclists. Car seats and seat belts, but kids aren't required to wear bike helmets? You do realize, it is among the top 3 causes of unnatural death for children (not wearing a bicycle helmet). And yet the legislators can not provide sound logic to an argument. I always wear one, but I would prefer it to be a choice, not a legal requirement.

Less Federally-mandated regulation on personal freedoms while using our personal property is my stance. I will make my own choices, thank you very much 

Federal law states seat belts must be installed in cars newer than 1963.usage laws are up to the states.at least for now

I had a 70 Pontiac GP that had a lap belt and shoulder belt but the 2 were separate from each other, the shoulder belt didn't retract like the lap belt did and instead the shoulder belt was tucked in clips above the door window. At the time the car was built using a shoulder belt with the lap belt was considered optional rather than mandatory. Using the lap belt was easy but the shoulder belt was a pain because it meant either tucking it back in every time I got out of the car or just let it hang. I asked the local police about it and basically they told me yeah I should wear it anyhow but might get away with just the lap belt depending on the mood of the officer pulling me over.

[seanbarney41]

Chicken man hit it pretty accurately and succinctly. Federal law requires seat belts. Helmets are currently left to State law. It won't be long before Federal usurps the State's and helmets are required. It may be an interesting case like marijuana where its Federally prohibited, but some states have legalized. In that situation, it is left to the State to enforce the law... Might occur with helmets too.

There is little logic in the State Helmet law as it does not also apply to bicyclists. Car seats and seat belts, but kids aren't required to wear bike helmets? You do realize, it is among the top 3 causes of unnatural death for children (not wearing a bicycle helmet). And yet the legislators can not provide sound logic to an argument. I always wear one, but I would prefer it to be a choice, not a legal requirement.

Less Federally-mandated regulation on personal freedoms while using our personal property is my stance. I will make my own choices, thank you very much 

Federal law states seat belts must be installed in cars newer than 1963.usage laws are up to the states.at least for now

I had a 70 Pontiac GP that had a lap belt and shoulder belt but the 2 were separate from each other, the shoulder belt didn't retract like the lap belt did and instead the shoulder belt was tucked in clips above the door window. At the time the car was built using a shoulder belt with the lap belt was considered optional rather than mandatory. Using the lap belt was easy but the shoulder belt was a pain because it meant either tucking it back in every time I got out of the car or just let it hang. I asked the local police about it and basically they told me yeah I should wear it anyhow but might get away with just the lap belt depending on the mood of the officer pulling me over.

had the same deal in the '72 Impala...rarely wear my seatbelt despite laws but always wear helmet...probably just because riding without full face is just too loud, eyes watering, and any semblance of hairstyle is ruined til next shower, really just not enjoyable...I also find it mildly shocking, that on a forum that just lost a prominent member who was not wearing a helmet, this helmet conversation is even taking place

[ofreen]

It would save way more lives to require car drivers to wear helmets. But that will never happen, will it? So lay off motorcyclists. I favor seat belt laws for one reason. It keeps your butt behind the controls of the car, which may enable you to keep from crashing into someone else.  The "public good" argument was debunked long ago.  Anyway, hasn't the ACA solved the uninsured problem?

Interesting -- can you post a link to this "debunking"? I'm curious.

The societal burden baloney started with the 1988 Harborview Medical Center study.  There is plenty of material on the interwebs detailing the problems with that study.  Basically motorcyclists, insured or otherwise, place no more "burden on society" than any other group.

As for car drivers wearing helmets -- seatbelts prevent many head injuries. The proportion of head injuries in motorcycle accidents compared to auto accidents is likely much greater.

Seatbelts and airbags no doubt prevent many injuries. But they don't stop all of them.  The number of head injuries in car accidents exceeds the number of head injuries in bike accidents simply because there are so many more car accidents.  It is the number of injuries that determine costs, not the rate.

The ACA hasn't solved the uninsured problem, but it's a step in the right direction.

I wish I could be as confident of that as you.  ACA has done nothing to control the costs of medical care and has only resulted in premium increases.  And believe me, we have seen nothing yet.

Maybe you sign a form releasing anyone from the responsibility of keeping you alive if you get a traumatic head injury. Maybe insurance companies already do this for people who don't ride with a helmet. If not, they should!

Be careful what you wish for. The AMA has been busy for years fighting insurance company discrimination against motorcyclists, whether they wear a helmet or not.  That discrimination takes the form of increased premiums if you ride, or even denying coverage.  I recommend membership in the AMA, which makes it easier to keep up on threats to motorcycling.

[754]

I tend to agree with ofreen..

 To the OP...you may want to search abate public burden,  or helmet laws public burden...for further information.