Topic: Wear your helmet!

[faux fiddy]

wow.  lemme see if I've got this straight. Your head is so special that big bad gubmint would pass a law to preserve it. my my, what a flattering delusion. someone was taking notes during the self-esteem fad.

Helmet laws aren't about a nanny state jerking with your personal choices. Helmet laws are about your elected representatives paying back the folks who paid for the campaign. Did you think "business friendly" meant a new 7-11 in walking distance??


Give the insurance company salvage rights to your carcass - (sell some organs in a free market economy, perhaps?) - and helmet laws would evaporate like snowflakes in a blast furnace.

How about if the gubmint doesn't balance the budget we render them, for their organs, to make up the difference?

[Radam]

It took getting hit by a truck for me to start wearing a helmet at all times on my bike. I was lucky enough to not hit my head when I got hit, but if I had a helmet on my Ray Bans wouldn't have gone skidding across the road and scratched up beyond repair. Really, after I got hit I started to think about how lucky I was that I didn't get hurt. I also realized how easy it is for some stupid girl to worry more about the pie in her passenger seat than the stop sign she didn't stop for. I agree that you should have a choice, but I think that choice should be an easy one. To me, if you want to ride around with just sunglasses to protect your head, go for it. I mean, you look a lot cooler without a helmet on.

[scrapvalue]

Helmet or no helmet, more lifes would be saved by learning how to operate a motorcycle correctly.
Just because you have the right of way, doesn't mean you are going to get it.
When you approach an intersection, watch for on coming traffic and be ready for them to do the wrong thing.
If it is a blind intersection, treat it like there is a vehicle coming.
Riding motorcycles is dangerous,(at least as dangerous as the person operating it anyway).
The only real way to never get hurt,(or killed), on a motorcycle is to stay off them.
If you are going to expect a helmet, or any other riding gear to save your life, you are living on borrowed time.
Pay attention, make sure your kids wear their helmets when they are riding around in a field with some other clueless punk.
Get a dirt bike and go ride off road. LEARN TO FALL!
Pay attention to road conditions,(sand, gravel, oil, coolant, water, intersections, etc), and don't expect anyone else to do the smart thing.

There have been a a lot of people killed on motorcycles that were wearing their helmets.
LEARN TO USE YOUR BRAKES,(front and rear).
LEARN TO LOOK AROUND FOR POOR ROAD CONDITIONS. 
RIDE LIKE YOU ARE INVISIBLE! (this just means they can't see you, it doesn't mean you aren't there).

Accidents are caused by someone not paying attention. Most of the time it is 2 people not paying attention.
You need to be paying attention for the ones who aren't.

 

[japscrap]

all these reasons listed are the reasons I wear a halfshell helmet.
three quarter or full face helmets dont let me hear well enough what traffic is doing around me.and full face helmets give me claustrophobia,not good on a bike.

[Gordon]

If you are going to expect a helmet, or any other riding gear to save your life, you are living on borrowed time.

I don't depend on my gear to save my life, but it's a good back-up plan for when everything else goes wrong. 

[Retro Rocket]

If you are going to expect a helmet, or any other riding gear to save your life, you are living on borrowed time.

Thats a strange statement, of course a helmet or good riding could save your life, there are some very good examples here already. The guy on the Harley that died recently would still have his life if he had worn a helmet. I had a serious accident years ago and my helmet saved my life, it was totally trashed when my head hit a tree and i can say without any doubt that if i wasn't wearing a helmet i wouldn't be here now....For all you freedom advocates, why pick helmets, you have thousands of laws, why is this any different.? Seems almost the same as seatbelt laws....

[dave500]

weve all done it on dirt bikes when camping or similar,fanged around with no helmet,our laws in aus have always been you must wear a helmet in all states since i dont know when,im not complaining.

[Skunk Stripe]

Scrap, NONE of us are saying to not learn how to ride the bike right. He are debating the merits of a helmet. Yes more people would live if given better training and maybe a graduated license system. More still will be saved by wearing a helmet.


Japscrap, the ONLY time hearing is going to be affected is when you are sitting at a stop. Once you have movement, the air flow hitting your ears only gets worse and worse. By the time you hit highway speed, that peanut shell you call a helmet isnt protecting your hearing at all.

[DJ_AX]

In the rock climbing world we say ... Stack the odds in your favor!

[pknopp]

 My cousin was killed in a slow speed motorcycle accident. He was wearing a helmet. If he had taken the car that day he would still be alive.
 
 I always wear a helmet. It's none of my damn business if anyone else does. The arguement that it decreases risk is all relevant. Or at least my cousin would tell you so if he could.

[Skunk Stripe]

You leave out how he was killed though, making it sound like the helmet may have been the cause. And what is low speed?
Yes, a helmet is not a forcefield or shield but if you need to know the use of a helmet, fall backwards and hit your head on the ground with one, and then without. While it may not always save your life, it will greatly increase your chances.

[pknopp]

You leave out how he was killed though, making it sound like the helmet may have been the cause. And what is low speed?

 
 No, he most likely would have died anyway everything else being equal. The helmet wasn't the cause. Riding his motorcycle was the cause. The point being, some say increase your odds, wear a helmet (I agree with that). Others argue we must force others to wear a helmet.
 
 Others will then argue that motorcycles are more dangerous than driving a car (again, agreed) from there it's only a small step for others to feel they know what is best for you and that is keeping you off your bike.
 

Yes, a helmet is not a forcefield or shield but if you need to know the use of a helmet, fall backwards and hit your head on the ground with one, and then without. While it may not always save your life, it will greatly increase your chances.

 Sure. It's none of my business though if someone else wants to take the risk just as it's not anyone's elses business to decide I'm taking too big of a risk riding. It's far more risky riding in the rain. I rarely do. Should I be preaching to those that do how much more of a risk they are taking by riding in the rain?

[Skunk Stripe]

I get where you are coming from. I do not think it should be mandated either, my stance though, is that if you are not going to wear one, you should carry extra insurance to compensate. Down side of that though is people could say we should carry extra for being on a bike.  It is all common sense stuff but since when did we have common sense people making laws?

Well preaching is 1 thing, forcing is another. 

[Gordon]

Others will then argue that motorcycles are more dangerous than driving a car (again, agreed) from there it's only a small step for others to feel they know what is best for you and that is keeping you off your bike.
 

That's exactly why I can't understand why anybody that chooses to ride a motorcycle would support any laws that tell them what they have to wear for their own safety.  I guess they just don't see the path that laws like that are leading them down. 

The exact same argument that has been used again and again in favor of helmet laws could easily be used to make riding your motorcycle on public roads illegal. 

[petercb750]

I had intentionally bowed out of this "debate" because of some of the brick wall attitudes and so lost interest, but I can't help myself.......
To suggest that this law is a stepping stone to banning bikes is ludicrous, and nothing but desperate straw clutching. Do the freedom fighters turned fear mongers really think that if eg Obama one day said "ok guys, enough motorcycle deaths...lets ban motorcycles" that it would only apply to the states that DO currently have mandatory helmet use? I think not, so how then did the helmet laws become a stepping stone to the banning of bikes? Given the numbers of motorcyclists in each state, do you think a governor candidate (called premiers here) would risk the political backlash and loss of votes (or protest votes) that would come with the decision to ban bikes? I think not. They have successfully introduced mandatory helmet use in most countries and US states, because right minded people see it as a sensible and inevitable move, regardless of their personal opinion. Some laws are actually good for us.....believe it or not.

I haven't seen one of the anti law protaganists give any reason why they think the laws were introduced in the first place (I'd be interested to know what they think)....it's all about me me me, my rights, my decisions, my.....Perhaps more thought should be given about the costs and impact on society in general - the society in which you live and pay taxes in and, oh hang on, obey laws in - not just their own little precious worlds. The laws were introduced for a reason, not just because some politician thought it up one day to just piss off some bikers.

In this country, and all over the world, seat belt wearing in cars is mandatory - does anybody think the introduction of that law (back in the early 70s here) was a stepping stone to banning cars? I think not. It was introduced to help prevent death and serious debilatating injury - it also reduces serious brain injury resulting in once happy and fulfilled people spending the rest of their lives being spoon fed by their children. It has worked. Yes of course, there are still rehab centres full of brain injured drivers, but one can't imagine where'd we be if people were allowed to choose whether or not they wear their belts. There just wouldn't be enough beds.
The same principle applies to helmets - it would be a hard stat to derive, but the fact that wearing a helmet decreases the risk of brain injury is irrefutable. I, and many others, would not be here today if we didn't wear a helmet. If people are given the choice of not wearing one, the clowns of the world will then ride on public roads with no helmet because they can - they are then increasing their risk of acquiring a serious brain injury - that also can't be refuted. This is why governments introduced mandatory helmet laws - to help reduce that risk and save the lives of people who should (or don't) know better, and thus help keep a few empty beds in our rehab centres. The cost of brain injury to society is huge - not just in ongoing health care and the cost of support workers needed to feed, wipe bums, wash and dress these poor unfortunates, but in what it does to families and loved ones. If you had respect for these people you'd understand why some people need to be TOLD to wear a helmet. We can't have laws for some and not others, so we all need to live by this law, we are not all reduced to the lowest common denominator as has been suggested - the naysayers are actually elevated to a safer way of living.

For the record, I am a motorcycle instructor and part of what I do is preach the wearing of helmets and protective gear to learner riders, and praise the fact that we have laws to enforce helmet use. None of them, in my experience, have ever argued with that.

[pknopp]

I had intentionally bowed out of this "debate" because of some of the brick wall attitudes and so lost interest, but I can't help myself.......
To suggest that this law is a stepping stone to banning bikes is ludicrous, and nothing but desperate straw clutching. Do the freedom fighters turned fear mongers really think that if eg Obama one day said "ok guys, enough motorcycle deaths...lets ban motorcycles" that it would only apply to the states that DO currently have mandatory helmet use? I think not, so how then did the helmet laws become a stepping stone to the banning of bikes? Given the numbers of motorcyclists in each state, do you think a governor candidate (called premiers here) would risk the political backlash and loss of votes (or protest votes) that would come with the decision to ban bikes? I think not. They have successfully introduced mandatory helmet use in most countries and US states, because right minded people see it as a sensible and inevitable move, regardless of their personal opinion. Some laws are actually good for us.....believe it or not.

 Not that they are going to ban bikes but using your logic, would it not decrease the costs to society? Are you not safer not riding a bike? Would we not decrease our costs if we banned all risky actions? Mountain Climbing? Eh, swimming. What are the costs for life gaurds?
 
 As I stated above, riding in the rain is far more dangerous than not. How many (including you) ride in the rain? You are increasing your odds of getting into an accident.
 
 If you do ride in the rain and know it's more risky, why do you still do it?

[petercb750]

I had intentionally bowed out of this "debate" because of some of the brick wall attitudes and so lost interest, but I can't help myself.......
To suggest that this law is a stepping stone to banning bikes is ludicrous, and nothing but desperate straw clutching. Do the freedom fighters turned fear mongers really think that if eg Obama one day said "ok guys, enough motorcycle deaths...lets ban motorcycles" that it would only apply to the states that DO currently have mandatory helmet use? I think not, so how then did the helmet laws become a stepping stone to the banning of bikes? Given the numbers of motorcyclists in each state, do you think a governor candidate (called premiers here) would risk the political backlash and loss of votes (or protest votes) that would come with the decision to ban bikes? I think not. They have successfully introduced mandatory helmet use in most countries and US states, because right minded people see it as a sensible and inevitable move, regardless of their personal opinion. Some laws are actually good for us.....believe it or not.

 Not that they are going to ban bikes but using your logic, would it not decrease the costs to society? Are you not safer not riding a bike? Would we not decrease our costs if we banned all risky actions? Mountain Climbing? Eh, swimming. What are the costs for life gaurds?
 
 As I stated above, riding in the rain is far more dangerous than not. How many (including you) ride in the rain? You are increasing your odds of getting into an accident.
 
 If you do ride in the rain and know it's more risky, why do you still do it?

Mate, we're talking about helmet laws here....we could go on for days if we clouded the discussion with other examples.....but for the record, if I ride in the rain, I...er....wear a helmet. And you're right, bikes will never be banned (and nor will cars, well, not in our lifetime), but what can be done (and is being done) are moves to make any accident on a bike less likely to result in acquired brain injurues, and compulsory helmet use is one way of working towards that...I though that point was obvious.

[pknopp]

 So basically you don't want to answer why it's O.K. for you to take greater risks when you want to but not for others.
 
 That's the attitude I really don't care much for.

[petercb750]

So basically you don't want to answer why it's O.K. for you to take greater risks when you want to but not for others.
 
 That's the attitude I really don't care much for.

WHAT?
I said ....."IF I ride in the rain".....I didn't say I did, and IF I did it has nothing to do with helmet laws, which is what this discussion is about....I DO NOT take greater risks when it comes to wearing helmets....And I wasn't the one that said riding in the rain has greater risks...you did mate.

[Gordon]

Mate, we're talking about helmet laws here....we could go on for days if we clouded the discussion with other examples.....

If other examples are "clouding the discussion", then what about bringing up seat belt laws and speed limits? 

I honestly think you don't grasp the concept of a "slippery slope".  Laws that restrict your personal rights to the point of significantly narrowing your day-to-day choices and fundamentally changing your ability to live your life the way you want to without harming anybody else don't happen overnight.  They happen one small step at a time that is hardly noticeable to most people, until it's too late and you no longer have say over your own body and your own life. 

I'm not some fear-monger.  I don't think those who advocate helmet laws have plans of world domination.  I simply think that any civilized society has to allow the individual the freedom to make any decision for him or herself that doesn't cause personal harm to anybody else.  If the choices some people make cause a financial burden (not wearing a helmet has yet to become a significant financial burden on the public as compared to other poor choices), then it's time to look in the mirror.  What choices do the rest of us make that are not in our best interests and could potentially cause a financial burden on the rest of society?  Do we want all of those decisions legislated by our government? 

You didn't respond to my post about poor eating habits and the monetary toll it has taken on society.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on the legislation of diets, as well as the intake of any substance that is less than beneficial to the human body.     

[pknopp]

 The discussion has centered around the greater risks of not wearing a helmet. That's the main reason for wearing one. Reducing risks.
 
 So if you do not ride in the rain the question doesn't apply to you.

[petercb750]

Mate, we're talking about helmet laws here....we could go on for days if we clouded the discussion with other examples.....

If other examples are "clouding the discussion", then what about bringing up seat belt laws and speed limits? 

I honestly think you don't grasp the concept of a "slippery slope".  Laws that restrict your personal rights to the point of significantly narrowing your day-to-day choices and fundamentally changing your ability to live your life the way you want to without harming anybody else don't happen overnight.  They happen one small step at a time that is hardly noticeable to most people, until it's too late and you no longer have say over your own body and your own life. 

I'm not some fear-monger.  I don't think those who advocate helmet laws have plans of world domination.  I simply think that any civilized society has to allow the individual the freedom to make any decision for him or herself that doesn't cause personal harm to anybody else.  If the choices some people make cause a financial burden (not wearing a helmet has yet to become a significant financial burden on the public as compared to other poor choices), then it's time to look in the mirror.  What choices do the rest of us make that are not in our best interests and could potentially cause a financial burden on the rest of society?  Do we want all of those decisions legislated by our government? 

You didn't respond to my post about poor eating habits and the monetary toll it has taken on society.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on the legislation of diets, as well as the intake of any substance that is less than beneficial to the human body.   

Hi again Gordon - your first point is correct, and I guess what i was endeavouring to do was not let the discussion spiral out of control with all sorts of comparisons being drawn into it (it even started to get into rain, mountains etc), even though I am guilty of using a couple myself in an effort to make a point - so I was trying to bring an end to that spiral, at least from my position. I'm endeavouring to not let myself be drawn into side arguments. That is also the reason why I won't be drawn into the food/diet debate and chose to ignore it - this is a thread started by Steve-O about helmet laws, and something ironic that occured in relation to that, and i am trying to be careful to not let it get away from that too much. BUT, the food/diet debate is a biggy, as is smoking, drugs etc etc etc, and not one that I feel qualified or experienced enough in to make any worthwhile comment - I don't like the way some people treat themselves, I don't like the way it costs society billions, I don't like what it does to loved ones, but I have no answer for it, and I don't think government has either. There is debate here in Oz on plain packaging on cig packets - it's a big one and very interesting. Ha, there ya go, I just got drawn into it, doh 
I do understand "slippery slope", but I do not think that helmet laws are on that slope. I think helmet laws are a necessity, for reasons i have already stated. I can never see it going much further, and certainly not to the extreme of banning bikes.
My reference to fear mongering was in relation to the concept of "first helmet laws, then bike banning laws" which is a loose interpretation of your statements earlier. That sort of message will scare some people. If that term offended, my apology.

My stance on helmet laws comes about from 40 years of riding (although I have maintained this stance from day one anyway) and witnessing and hearing of stories of horrific injuries and sad circumstances some riders have found themselves in as a result of not wearing a helmet (and more precisley, a full face helmet, but that's another thread). Injuries (and deaths) that could have been prevented had they simply been wearing the scone protector - I say again, if the law makes people wear a helmet, then in my book that is only a good thing.

[Skunk Stripe]

Peter, I don't know how well you know the US but motorcycles are in no way "mass" transportation and in no way "required".
Motorcycles could easily be banned really and the majority of the population would support as most see no need for motorcycles. Thus, the resistance to helmet laws and such and the slippery slope we reference.
This is why, while we agree that helmets should be worn, most of us feel it should be personal choice.

[Retro Rocket]

Peter, I don't know how well you know the US but motorcycles are in no way "mass" transportation and in no way "required".
Motorcycles could easily be banned really and the majority of the population would support as most see no need for motorcycles. Thus, the resistance to helmet laws and such and the slippery slope we reference.
This is why, while we agree that helmets should be worn, most of us feel it should be personal choice.

Sorry Skunky but that couldn't be further from the truth. Bike sales, due to rising fuel prices, are out stripping sales of new cars here in certain categories, and that has never ever happened  before. There is no way in hell that bikes could be justifiably banned ever. They are cheap,reliable, fuel efficient mode of transport that does virtually no damage to the road at all and in a country with our 12 months of the year riding weather, they are extremely popular. I still find it funny that anyone actually thinks they are free, and that one more traffic law is going to erode their "freedom". Cars are just as dangerous in the wet, virtually 10% of any given population posses  the necessary skill to avoid an accident in the rain, i see it all the time, actually every time it rains, people are idiots in cars generally because they have no understanding of the consequences of their crappy driving habits until its too late. I don't consider bikes more dangerous at all because i am a competent alert rider and understand the limitations of both, myself and my bikes, and the capabilities , or lack there of, of EVERY driver around me on the road, this however may not save my life but driving a car doesn't guarantee that either.  Wear a helmet or you are an idiot, sorry but thats my opinion and NOTHING will ever change that.

[dave500]

amen,if you dont like or wear a helmet,you aint go no repect for your own thoughts,an easy slow crash to the head and you might have no thoughts,you might not be dead but you might not know it.