The Case Against Helmet Laws

[dandolfn]

The case against motorcycle helmet laws
Saving lives by sacrificing freedom

If you have a strong disregard for your own health and safety, you are free to express it in all sorts of ways. You can smoke cigarettes. You can gorge on fast food five times a day. You can go live among bears in Alaska.

You can stagger through the worst part of town at 2 a.m. You can become a trapeze artist. You can join the Marine Corps. But if federal regulators get their way, you will not be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

That's already the law for all riders in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Other states require head protection only for minors or passengers. Here in Illinois, as in Iowa and New Hampshire all riders are free to feel the sun on their scalps and the wind in their hair.

This small zone of personal autonomy causes great annoyance at the National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency. Last week, it urged that "everyone aboard a motorcycle be required to wear a helmet." Polls indicate most Americans agree.

The reasons are obvious enough. From 1997 to 2008, NTSB reports, motorcycle fatalities more than doubled, while total traffic deaths were falling. Two out of every three bikers killed were not wearing a helmet. Said NTSB Vice Chairman Christopher Hart, "It's a public health issue."

Oh, no, it's not. A public health issue arises when masses of people are exposed to illness or injury by dangers beyond their control — contaminated water, sooty air, natural disaster, marauding bands of hyenas — or when I get a serious disease that I may pass on to you against your will.

In these cases, government action is necessary. It's perfectly legitimate for governments to regulate pollution, build levees and require people to get vaccinations.

But riding a motorcycle without a cranial cushion poses no danger to anyone except the rider. Skull fractures are not contagious. The public is not at risk if I decide to mount a Harley with nothing but a pinwheel hat on my head.

The mandatory helmet crowd, however, insists there is a threat to the public: the threat of being forced to cover the medical costs of bikers who are injured or disabled. Notes the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."

Under the new health care law, of course, everyone will have to obtain coverage. But even then, the premiums of healthy people will have to cover the costs of motorcyclists' injuries.

The complaint has a point, but it considers only the costs of motorcycle accidents, not the — yes — benefits. At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.

Besides, the argument on safety and medical costs is one that proves too much. Brain buckets reduce the chance of being killed in a wreck, but federal data indicate that most of those who die in motorcycle accidents would be killed even with a helmet. So it's safe to assume that most of those seriously injured would be laid up in the hospital either way.

The real danger is not from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but from riding, period. If you crash a hog at 70 mph, your head is only one of the body parts that will come out much worse for wear. If we're justified in requiring helmets to save medical expenses, why not simply outlaw motorcycles entirely? That would prevent a lot more death and injury.

It's also hard to see why we single out motorcyclists for the sin of saddling everyone with higher health care costs. Plenty of patients suffer from self-inflicted ailments — lung cancer from smoking, liver damage from drinking, diabetes from eating unhealthy foods, AIDS from unprotected sex. Yet we don't ban these activities.

Why not? Because we retain a respect for individual freedom and choice — even in matters of life and death, even when individual choices have collective costs. Motorcycle helmet laws are an unwarranted exception to our normal, sound approach, which can be summarized: It's your life, and it's your funeral.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-25/news/ct-oped-1125-chapman-20101125_1_helmet-motorcycle-medical-costs

[cactusjack]

I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of those pushing for helmet laws have never even been on a bike. Common sense tells me to wear a helmet, I don't need or want the government to do it.

[Loafer]

I will respond.
Motorcycles are singled out, because they are associated with the "dark side" (another great use for that word). We have always performed stunts for others to see, sometimes right next to your window. Making you think we will crash for sure and take you out with us. Wheelies, burnouts, racing and a large assortment of new brave tricks in front of a unwilling audience. We create our own demise by not being active and vocal at controlling where these things should happen. If we do not want regulations imposed on us, we need to clean it up. Helmet laws are a small part in the freedom of two wheels. There are bigger things to go after. Off-roading trails being closed, someone once wanted to put a safety cage around your MC frame.
We are being run over all the time, because the general public is not instructed about MC's while they go thru driver training. Want to save money? Educate the people you are on the roads with.
I don't have an option about wearing a helmet in Vermont, but when I'm in neighboring N.H. where,( BTW, they do have a helmet law for people under 18) I do not have to wear a helmet, I still do. I crashed in 1967 with no helmet, I crashed in 2000 with a helmet. Huge difference. I don't care what you do, but I wear a helmet for me and my family. If the worse comes about, maybe they can still say goodbye to an open casket.
Whenever any Fed, agency wants to go after your group, they will find or make up numbers, to prove their point. And when we stand by and say nothing to the youngster who thinks, motorcycling is "hazardous maneuvers in with the soccer Moms" we will not have a friend in the voting booths. I really wish we didn't have to worry about things like this. Because I love to ride. And I think riding would be more fun then trying to convince a Congress person to vote our way. Now I'm babbling...
Just saying...................................

[tombstone]

Helmet Laws Suck.

[jestephens]

Loafer,
I agree with the difference in driver's training for car vs. motorcycle.

I got my driver's licence and motorcycle endorsment at the same time in Missouri. It was plain as day when studying the books side-by-side. The "car" book only taught what traffic signs look like and how long you'll lose your license if you get too many DUI's.
HOWEVER, the motorcycle book taught things EVERY driver should know, like how to be seen and foresee/avoid dangerous situations.

Our [typical] newest drivers aren't being taught how to watch out for themselves, let alone watch our for others. And we know their parents aren't teaching by example either.

I had great teachers (love you, Mom and Dad).
Even though I live in Illinois now, I'm glad I got my habbit for helmets in a state where it was required. It feels good to go lid-free, but the guiltly concience can most often get me to wear it anyhow.

[cajun2wheels]

I agree that helmet laws suck but so does splitting your head open when you smash into the pavement.I have always wore a helmet and will continue to do so,law or no law.Personal choice is slowly going away thanks to Big Brother.

[tonik]

Motorcycles are singled out, because they are associated with the "dark side"....

This is an excellent point. A good case in point are the ape hanger laws. There is no safety reason for limiting their height, or the outright bans on them. The common opinion seems to be they were made specifically in the late 60's to target the 1%'ers who at the time were about the only folks rolling with them.

I wear a helmet, and I smoke. Both my choices. One good and one bad. But unless I am hurting someone else they are my choices. I respect other peoples right to make their own choices.

[skiman]

The real danger is not from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but from riding, period. If you crash a hog at 70 mph, your head is only one of the body parts that will come out much worse for wear. If we're justified in requiring helmets to save medical expenses, why not simply outlaw motorcycles entirely? That would prevent a lot more death and injury.

Just give them time many think motorcycles are simply for pleasure and have no real use as transportation and pleasure have no place on the pubic highway system.
They would have all the public support they could use since many think motorcycle are too loud and too reckless since that's what they see and hear when they encounter a motorcycle.

[Top Cat]

Just give them time many think motorcycles are simply for pleasure and have no real use as transportation and pleasure have no place on the pubic highway system.
They would have all the public support they could use since many think motorcycle are too loud and too reckless since that's what they see and hear when they encounter a motorcycle.

If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times.
If we don't police ourselves, the government will do it for us.
Untill a lot of us wake up to that fact you will see more and more laws against us.
That being said, I am required to wear a helmet here in NY State. It doesn't bother me at all. I wear a fullface helmet at all times while riding.
If you want to go lidless and fall off your bike at 10 miles an hour and die from the fall when a helmet would have saved you go for it. But excuse me if , in my opinion, you are an idiot.
Pass the popcorn.

[redjay]

I would never ride without a helmet, period. That much I owe my family. I dont want anyone to say "if only he had been wearing a helmet ".

[rickyboy]

I've said it before but what the hell I'll say it again. I wear a helmet every time I ride a motorcycle, or an ATV. I'd wear a helmet in a car if it was the law. And I'm not sure we shouldn't when I drive down the freeway , or rush hour anywhere.
Those who don't want to wear a helmet .....OK but let your insurance pay the price for you. Don't let it effect my insurance and/or my health care costs. It just doesn't make sense to NOT wear a helmet. Does it feel good to ride helmet-less??? No doubt, but how good can it continue to feel as your skull kisses the pavement....... at any speed. having come off a motorcycle a couple of times, I can only say I'm glad I had it on. One time the helmet was smashed pretty good and the gouges were significant. The other the scrapes were minimal.... but from looking at those "scrapes", I know it would have hurt a lot. All the gear, all the time is what I live by and ride by.

[cactusjack]

And I'll say it again, if the government is truly concerned about the well being of its citizens, then outlaw all activities/things that can cause injury. Outlaw ladders, power tools, kitchen knives, firearms, booze, cigarettes, skateboards, skis, jetskis, bicycles, spray paint (harmful if you inhale the fumes), roller skates, Whoppers/Big Macs, baseball bats, the list is endless!!! Don't single out one group of people. Why don't they ban the use of CELL PHONES while driving? That would make our lives safer as motorcycle enthusiasts.

When they have got everybody wearing helmets, what group will they single out next?

It's the constant erosion of our personal rights, one at a time that I object to.

[coacha]

I wish they would outlaw circus clowns that make those annoying balloon animals...and mimes. Then and only then can they dictate if everyone should wear helmets.

[Loafer]

I wish they would outlaw circus clowns that make those annoying balloon animals...and mimes.

I agree.. http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

[Loafer]

Whether you wear a helmet or not. Or even a helmet law where you live.

I have a question.

"Is it fair to make laws that only a minority of the population is expected to follow"?

[Top Cat]

And I'll say it again, if the government is truly concerned about the well being of its citizens, then outlaw all activities/things that can cause injury. Outlaw ladders, power tools, kitchen knives, firearms, booze, cigarettes, skateboards, skis, jetskis, bicycles, spray paint (harmful if you inhale the fumes), roller skates, Whoppers/Big Macs, baseball bats, the list is endless!!! Don't single out one group of people. Why don't they ban the use of CELL PHONES while driving? That would make our lives safer as motorcycle enthusiasts.
When they have got everybody wearing helmets, what group will they single out next?

It's the constant erosion of our personal rights, one at a time that I object to.
I don't even know where to start. http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif
OK, I will start with cell phones because you know the other stuff you mention is never going to be banned.
Here in NY State cell phone use while driving is against the law.
It makes no difference, I see people talking on them all the time.
Sure it seems as though one group is being singled out, because we belong to that group.
There are other groups who are singled out. Smokers, gun owners, drinkers, bicyclists, would you like a society where everyone is free to do what ever the hell they want? I don't think so.
As far as personal rights, where do you draw the line ???

[ringadingh]

Id draw the line on cell phones. They are far worse than drunk drivers. If your driving you shouldn't be allowed to use a phone whether its handsfree or not, period!

[skiman]

Well the hard truth be known you don't have any rights, just ask the American's born of Japanese decent that were herded into camps during ww2 and when the war was over and they were released they returned to find people living in their homes that were taken away from them.

[dandolfn]

If you want to go lidless and fall off your bike at 10 miles an hour and die from the fall when a helmet would have saved you go for it. But excuse me if , in my opinion, you are an idiot.

From the original article:

Brain buckets reduce the chance of being killed in a wreck, but federal data indicate that most of those who die in motorcycle accidents would be killed even with a helmet.

What is at issue here is not whether a rider is wiser to wear a helmet.

What is at issue is whether the government has the right to tell you that you can't make your own decisions.

[ponch]

The only case I could come up with for helmet laws is if it protects a rider from debris and other objects that might strike them and make them lose control. Not at all that much different than the cell phone laws. That said, I wear one, but don't think the government should prescribe their usage.

[Kawhead]

I wish they would outlaw circus clowns that make those annoying balloon animals...and mimes. Then and only then can they dictate if everyone should wear helmets. There you go Coach..........piss the balloon animal making clowns and mimes off. ::)

Heck! I love helmet laws and and making people wear 'em. http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

[AlabamaNomadRider]

It isn't a minority for the people that ride motorcycles. Might be a minority of the population but it is a majority for the people that ride.

I don't like being told what to do by the government but I do always ride with a helmet. There are two reasons I do so. One, my state requires me to do it. Two, my head requires me to do it.

[rickyboy]

People can/will live with a partial democracy, but to cover Outlaw ladders, power tools, kitchen knives, firearms, <s>booze</s>, <s>cigarettes</s>, <s>skateboards</s>, <s>skis</s>, <s>jetskis</s>, <s>bicycles</s>, spray paint (harmful if you inhale the fumes), <s>roller skates</s>, <s>Whoppers/Big Macs</s>, baseball bats {???}" would be too much to stick down everyone"s throats. And really, how many McD's hamburgers do you have to eat before it kills you. ....smoking cigarettes, drinking booze, can take your whole life to kill you.......maybe, How much spray painting is everyone doing???
I wear a helmet and it is the thing to do, and is this close ............when you're skiing here where I am.{ Mt. Baker is WA,} Riding a bicycle ?? you are by law required to wear a helmet, and jet skis require you to take a course and a license and a life jacket. Skaters are also wearing helmets because they let them use the roadways. Go figure. But really it only makes sense. It only takes a moment for your bean to to hit the pavement and could easily happen each time you take to the road,.....given the car drivers out there.

[jestephens]

Believe me, the slow fade to gray concerning our rights and liberties has me just as upset as the next guy. But for sake of <s>argument</s> discussion, consider this:

Almost no one nowadays would argue that seatbelts will save lives. But how many of us who grew up without seatbelt laws would have started wearing one so quickly without the fear of a ticket. - I'm still under 30 years old, and that statement includes me! But I had only been driving a few years. Many other Americans had been driving for 40 or 50 years already, and had a deep seeded habit to change.

Concerning children is a different matter, but what about car-seats? I used to ride in a baby carrier, bungee corded to the engine compartment of a '69 Dodge van! Who would have guessed that was dangerous? ::)

The helmet law is a fine line and deserves discussion. I'm definitely off center on the side of having no law, at least less of one. However, I'll say it again, that I'm glad I got my habit from Missouri, where it's all riders, all the time.

[ponch]

sort of a joke:

--
A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

[Loafer]

sort of a joke:

--
A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

I Agree.

[ringadingh]

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Its just that someone always thinks they are smarter than you, even if they have no idea of what they are doing.

[ponch]

Someone had that in a signature and I thought it was funny.



A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Its just that someone always thinks they are smarter than you, even if they have no idea of what they are doing.

[rickyboy]

Believe me, the slow fade to gray concerning our rights and liberties has me just as upset as the next guy. But for sake of <s>argument</s> discussion, consider this:

Almost no one nowadays would argue that seatbelts will save lives. But how many of us who grew up without seatbelt laws would have started wearing one so quickly without the fear of a ticket. - I'm still under 30 years old, and that statement includes me! But I had only been driving a few years. Many other Americans had been driving for 40 or 50 years already, and had a deep seeded habit to change.

Concerning children is a different matter, but what about car-seats? I used to ride in a baby carrier, bungee corded to the engine compartment of a '69 Dodge van! Who would have guessed that was dangerous? ::)

The helmet law is a fine line and deserves discussion. I'm definitely off center on the side of having no law, at least less of one. However, I'll say it again, that I'm glad I got my habit from Missouri, where it's all riders, all the time.






good points Jess,....Almost no one nowadays would argue that seatbelts will save lives. But how many of us who grew up without seatbelt laws would have started wearing one so quickly without the fear of a ticket. - I'm still under 30 years old, and that statement includes me! But I had only been driving a few years. Many other Americans had been driving for 40 or 50 years already, and had a deep seeded habit to change.
I'm now 56 soon to be 57 and started wearing "the seat belt" in 1969/70 and never thought once about it being a P.I.T.A. or an infringement of my rights. All this during a time when there was a ton of unrest in North America at least. And in those times I was pretty active voicing my concerns of "kids" being forced to go to war. And the war in general.
Peoples opinions seem a lot different in the U.S. when it comes to feeling like their "rights" are being tramped on. I don't think that feeling is as strong up here. We are a complacent bunch in general but will/do stand up to be counted/noticed when we've been pushed far enough. I think there comes a time when people need to be told {sometimes} what is good for them if they don't or won't open their minds to change. Just my socialist http://s2.images.proboards.com/shocked.gif way of thinking.

[macmac]

The info on NH is incorrect, and I see this alot. Those 18 and under must wear lids by law.

The law, all laws reduce freedom.

I own 3 lids now and choose, get to choose by law which of them or none i will wear. That idea works for me.

My beef is the law creates infractions, and then a fee if you create the infraction. The fee is a tax, which I dis agree with, but pretty much you can pay that fee as much as you want and ride with no lid if that is your choice. You just have to pay the fee. http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

If you drive/ ride with no regii there is a fee, the same goes for a inspection sticker, and the police enforce the tax, or fee. Pretty much that is what the police are for, to enforce the law and to enforce the fees.

The police don't make the law, so I have no problem with them enforcing law.

Some of the law is wrong, perhaps the lid law is, but if it is seat belt laws are also wrong.

NH has no seat belt law either.

Another law I disagree with is Estate Tax, which is a tax on top of all the other taxes we pay. But this tax is on top of earnings saved, which were already paid taxes directly and are at 55%.

Then there are all sorts of gun law, and it seems to me the law makers are breaking the law and causing infringment. I personally break these laws all the time. I carry 24/7 any places i go, in any times I go. I simply will not be infringed.

I think the law makers should be charged, arrested and tried in a court of law.

So many things infringe of Freedom. The latest is search and seziure with no cause, which the TSA is doing. The cops can't even get away with that.

People will say 'We' are free to not fly, but this is just step 1 ad will soon cover all forms of public travel. That will be step 2. Step 3 will be walking on the street in the USA, a papers Please thing as was done in several Euro countries pre WW-2.

Step 4 and there will be a step 4 will be in your homes, which you don't really own in the first place, and if you think I am wrong, just stop paying property taxes.

My problem is I have no idea How To end the corruption in the system, and right now is the worst I have ever seen in my life so far.

Everyone says to look at Euro for the right way to live. Well I for one think the Euro way to live sucks.

[ponch]

If everyone followed the law o the letter, the people in charge would find it necessary to enact more laws or further restrict what we have. It's a control issue on their part and I agree with you on a lot of what you say...You sound like a libertarian. As far as Europe goes, they are like Farm Animals® and we aren't as far behind them as I would like.



The info on NH is incorrect, and I see this alot. Those 18 and under must wear lids by law.

The law, all laws reduce freedom.

I own 3 lids now and choose, get to choose by law which of them or none i will wear. That idea works for me.

My beef is the law creates infractions, and then a fee if you create the infraction. The fee is a tax, which I dis agree with, but pretty much you can pay that fee as much as you want and ride with no lid if that is your choice. You just have to pay the fee. http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

If you drive/ ride with no regii there is a fee, the same goes for a inspection sticker, and the police enforce the tax, or fee. Pretty much that is what the police are for, to enforce the law and to enforce the fees.

The police don't make the law, so I have no problem with them enforcing law.

Some of the law is wrong, perhaps the lid law is, but if it is seat belt laws are also wrong.

NH has no seat belt law either.

Another law I disagree with is Estate Tax, which is a tax on top of all the other taxes we pay. But this tax is on top of earnings saved, which were already paid taxes directly and are at 55%.

Then there are all sorts of gun law, and it seems to me the law makers are breaking the law and causing infringment. I personally break these laws all the time. I carry 24/7 any places i go, in any times I go. I simply will not be infringed.

I think the law makers should be charged, arrested and tried in a court of law.

So many things infringe of Freedom. The latest is search and seziure with no cause, which the TSA is doing. The cops can't even get away with that.

People will say 'We' are free to not fly, but this is just step 1 ad will soon cover all forms of public travel. That will be step 2. Step 3 will be walking on the street in the USA, a papers Please thing as was done in several Euro countries pre WW-2.

Step 4 and there will be a step 4 will be in your homes, which you don't really own in the first place, and if you think I am wrong, just stop paying property taxes.

My problem is I have no idea How To end the corruption in the system, and right now is the worst I have ever seen in my life so far.

Everyone says to look at Euro for the right way to live. Well I for one think the Euro way to live sucks.

[macmac]

On the Govt list for party alinements I am called Independant. I live by the CONS, and only the Cons, the rest of these laws I break with wild abandon. Just don't care.

I feel poorly about paying the $10.00 fee for a carry permit, because paying it makes me a hipocrate, but I can afford the $10.00. When the day comes that fee is $10.01 I will refuse, but not stop carry.

As it is my cc permit is good in 18 states, and I havew been in 40. If i get to do it again I will be as armed as I was in all 40, and it's just to bad.

If I want to ride in any state with no lid and that state has lids laws, I will just pay the fee for the infraction every day I get caught.

At least there is no law that says I have to be self busting, but i bet one comes along as soon the the Democrates tear off the 5th.

The way the democrates act, you would thing the CONS and th Bill of Rights were printed on toliet paper.

I think the likeness of Obama should be required on all toliet papers. I will be very unhappy when papers with G Washingtons, face are worth less than toliet paper, but that is happening too.

As for me I am going to live as a free man untill it kills me. And it might. This seems to be a problem that is common in NH USA, Live Free or Die. I am good with both.

[dougster]

This is another issue of those in power assuming they must do our thinking for us (because we are all too stupid to think for ourselves) When the government starts doing all our thinking (i.e. common sense thinking) FOR us, the outcome is that we all stop thinking for ourselves. There is a fast dwindling of common sense in our country. Brought on by arrogance in government, and greed in the populace.

[ponch]

That's because politicians figured out they could bribe us with our own money.


This is another issue of those in power assuming they must do our thinking for us (because we are all too stupid to think for ourselves) When the government starts doing all our thinking (i.e. common sense thinking) FOR us, the outcome is that we all stop thinking for ourselves. There is a fast dwindling of common sense in our country. Brought on by arrogance in government, and greed in the populace.

[Loafer]

There has to be an enormous amount of money in D.C. We stand little chance of having our way on a national helmet law. The insurance companys are spending money in an effort to squash our rights just a little more. The problem, I feel is that they say it will lower cost, it might lower their cost, but they never pass it along to us. They keep the difference. I know, its the American way of doing business.
The original post, I think, was about losing rights.
So, why should we lose the right to choose?

[oldbikers]

Believe me, the slow fade to gray concerning our rights and liberties has me just as upset as the next guy. But for sake of <s>argument</s> discussion, consider this:

Almost no one nowadays would argue that seat belts will save lives. But how many of us who grew up without seatbelt laws would have started wearing one so quickly without the fear of a ticket. - I'm still under 30 years old, and that statement includes me! But I had only been driving a few years. Many other Americans had been driving for 40 or 50 years already, and had a deep seeded habit to change.

Concerning children is a different matter, but what about car-seats? I used to ride in a baby carrier, bungee corded to the engine compartment of a '69 Dodge van! Who would have guessed that was dangerous? ::)

The helmet law is a fine line and deserves discussion. I'm definitely off center on the side of having no law, at least less of one. However, I'll say it again, that I'm glad I got my habit from Missouri, where it's all riders, all the time.





I agree with what you have said but as one of the people you were talking about not having an easy time with the seat belt law I started driving in 1960 and still have trouble today putting on a seat belt, I know everyone says that wearing one saves lives but I have asked the Mississippi law makers if they save lives then why is it that a 70 passenger school bus only has one seat belt?

As for the helmet I lost a good friend in 1961 when several of us went down because of bricks scattered on the road my friend hit one with his head and died on the spot so I have worn one every since. But if anyone doesn't want to wear one it is OK with me it is not my head.

[socwkbiker]

This is a very interesting subject and i think it deserves it's space here but let's please keep it to helmets. I fully understand the connection of ideas. Forcing people to wear seatbelts being compared to forcing people to wear helmets. Don't forget, more people drive cars and do more stupid things behind the wheel then the average motorcycle rider. Drinking, eating, cell phone use, etc. Also, there are more auto wrecks and fatalities simply based on the number of auto drivers. All that is known, but the subject is about the helmet law.

TC, I disagree with you on calling anyone who chooses to ride as they wish an idiot. That's not a nice statement towards those who choose how they want to ride. I understand it's your opinion, but you wouldn't want me calling you an idiot for doing something I disagree with, would you?

The idea behind freedom is having a choice. Having the freedom to choose how one lives is part of the foundation of this country, but all too often, that choice is put in the hands of elected officials who are influenced by constituents. People who don't ride motorcycles and think they (the bikes) are dangerous. These people think they need to protect us from ourselves and infringe on our right of self-determination. In Texas, there is a special helmet law for those under a certain age. The rest of us have the freedom to choose how they wish to ride. As you all know, I wear a "special" helmet. That is my choice. It is also my choice whether I want to wear a helmet or not. The definition of freedom. Being able to choose.

Now, not long ago, a well known burn doctor in Dallas was killed at 7:30 am when he was out on a motorcycle ride. He was wearing a full helmet and padded gear. He was plowed by a drunk driver and knocked through a fence and killed. As was originally stated, the helmet didn't matter at all. He would have died regardless of whether he was wearing a helmet or not. So that is an example that contradicts the statements of those saying how vital it is to wear a helmet. Sometimes folks, it just doesn't matter what you're wearing on your noggin. For those fairly new to this forum, if you look on the In Memorium page, you will see a man there, Chuck Burt, who passed away while riding his Nomad. I'm not going into details, but those who know will recall that this was another case of his helmet not mattering one bit when he crashed.

But let's examine helmet laws, shall we? In Missouri, they have a helmet law. But what is classified as a helmet? Is it DOT and Snell? Yes. But it's also NON-DOT or novelty helmets! Yes, you can put a plain piece of painted plastic on your head and it passes as a helmet! So what's the point?? Is that novelty lid going to do anything in a wreck? Hell no! But it looks like a helmet, so it passes. Is it like this in other states? If the lawmakers are going to permit novelty helmets, then why mandate them at all?

Part of the desire to put a helmet on us is control by those who don't ride but feel they must control this rowdy part of society that refuses to conform to the rules of society by riding that damn loud, scary, invisible 2-wheeled death trap and not driving a safe car like the rest of the responsible adults. I personally don't believe any biker should be forced to wear a helmet. If TC chooses to wear one, then that's great. I have no problem with that at all. That's his choice. If I ride beside him and don't wear a helmet, than that's my choice. But it's one made by the individual, not some overzealous group of idiots (sorry TC, had to do it).

By the way, if there was a nationwide push to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving, how successful do you think it would be? Obviously it hasn't worked with drinking and driving. But wait, aren't the 4 wheel cagers the responsible ones? Hmmm, something to think about.

[taranis]

Interesting posts, all the way around. Very thought provoking. Macmac, if I'm ever up in New Hampster, I want to shake your hand, and buy you a beer. By the way, how's that book coming? http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

Staying on topic though: The argument can be made that wearing a helmet can help reduce the risk of head trauma suffered during a wreck.

Now I believe the government doesn't give a rat's hind end what becomes of my noggin, but what they do care about is the cost of the accident to the community infrastructure, and where they can redirect that cost. Especially when the injured isn't adequately covered by medical insurance. What then? The hospital, their benefactors, and the city/county/state/federal coffers end up paying the bill or the hospital just writes it off as a loss on their balance sheet. Either way, it's a loss to the municipality.

I disagree with the notion that it's simply the government exerting Orwellian control over it citizens for the simple reason of being able to do so. No, I think it's more about money. In fact, I think it's all about money. It's about making money and deferring cost, just like a business is run.

If I may digress off-topic for just a sec: think about your taxes and fees: Your marriage license fee, registration fee, property tax, estate tax, sales tax, gas tax, road tax, booze tax, cigarette tax, income tax, school levies.. all of that. Now throw in variable income from parking tickets, traffic fines, court-ordered fees and restitution. That's government income. It's how they make a large sum of their money.

In my opinion, government long ago ceased to be a governing body by definition and transformed into a business run from taxes, fines and levies made to keep large and small business afloat on the backs of the populace in exchange for needed goods and services. It's a decent system, except the rich are getting greedy and the ordinary citizen is left to suffer diminishing returns on their tax/fee/levy investment. Don't believe me? Take a look at WA state's projected budget shortfall this year and next. It's scary.

In the end, they want you to save them money by wearing a helmet. It reduces their cost. The problem is, the cost savings is never passed along to you, the people paying it. That money is diverted, and your costs remain the same, except for the cost of that new helmet. So, either way you slice it, your cost went up, and you also lose a little bit more of your freedom.

Try floating the idea that you'll vote for a helmet law for a $30/year discount on your bike registration. Even with that meager savings, there's no way that idea would ever pass. And it's because the state has less to gain monetarily.

As for me, I wear a 1/2 helmet <sometimes>. Mostly, because of comfort, safety and the fact that I have a comm system installed. I wore a full face during my first year or two of riding, but found the field of view much more restrictive than a 1/2 helmet. So I chose to give up greater protection for increased perepheral sight ability. I think it wa a wise choice, but that's just me. Anyway, if it's a quick run to the grocery store or around the lake, well you just never know - I might leave the gear at home. ;) Personal freedom. It's great.

[Top Cat]

Some good points there Jeff.
TC, I disagree with you on calling anyone who chooses to ride as they wish an idiot. That's not a nice statement towards those who choose how they want to ride. I understand it's your opinion, but you wouldn't want me calling you an idiot for doing something I disagree with, would you?
Actually Jeff, it wouldn't bother me as I have been called worse.
But if I offended anyone on this forum I apologize. Sometimes I am a little over zealous in my opinions. ;)
I also agree that a helmet is not going to keep one from being killed in all situations. If it would, I would hope everyone would choose to wear one. I have never heard of a helmet causing anyones death. A very good friend of mine went down this last March and I am very glad he had a helmet on. The helmet was beat up pretty bad but his head , not a scratch.
If TC chooses to wear one, then that's great. I have no problem with that at all. That's his choice. If I ride beside him and don't wear a helmet, than that's my choice. But it's one made by the individual, not some overzealous group of idiots (sorry TC, had to do it).
I would ride with you Jeff even if you chose to go lidless. I wouldn't even call you an idiot. I would be very nervous and concerned however. http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif
Here is my opinion;
I wear a fullface helmet all the time I ride. I wear my leather jacket if it is not to hot out and my padded mesh jacket if it is. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous and I believe in protecting myself at least this much.
The original thought of this thread was should we be forced to wear a helmet. I will say no, but I don't know why anyone chooses not to.

[tombstone]

It's all about personal choice as opposed to big brother choosing for you.

Helmet laws suck.

[taranis]

The original thought of this thread was should we be forced to wear a helmet. I will say no, but I don't know why anyone chooses not to.

While I happen to agree with you, there was a time in my life when I would've said, yeah, I'm okay with helmet laws. I had my mind changed for me.

Some simply like to make the choice for themselves, and prefer the feel of the ride without a lid. It makes sense to me - once you get over the initial "weird, naked feeling", it's not bad at all. Rather pleasant.

Others I think, simply want to hang on to that personal freedom, regardless of the risk.

I fall somewhere in between the two. It sort of goes along with my philosophy behind riding in general: My life is full of rules and obligations. Riding is MY time. Go where I want, when I want, how I want, for as long as I want. Sounds pretty stupid if you really think about it, but it's why I love to be on two wheels. So I want that choice, and I want to exercise it once in awhile.

[ken]

My two cents. Whether you like it or not, life is governed by laws, some we may like and some we may not. Can you imagine driving in town if there were no traffic lights, stop signs, speed limits, lane lines or any other controls? Chaos. I live in Germany where helmets are required but I have no problem with the law. If I die while wearing a helmet, I’m dead, period. But what I don’t want is to wind up a vegetable caused by a brain injury because of a lack of head protection. Sure, I can wind up that way in an accident from falling off a ladder or other non vehicle incidents, but as long as I have a choice, I will opt for the helmet. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous and I accept that, but what is wrong with trying to make it as safe as possible? Thanks for your time.

[ponch]

The question is, do your, my, our action infringe on the rights of others? Liberty requires responsibility. You are mistaking libertine mentality versus a libertarian one. Thomas Jefferson put it best:


--
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson


My two cents. Whether you like it or not, life is governed by laws, some we may like and some we may not. Can you imagine driving in town if there were no traffic lights, stop signs, speed limits, lane lines or any other controls? Chaos. I live in Germany where helmets are required but I have no problem with the law. If I die while wearing a helmet, I’m dead, period. But what I don’t want is to wind up a vegetable caused by a brain injury because of a lack of head protection. Sure, I can wind up that way in an accident from falling off a ladder or other non vehicle incidents, but as long as I have a choice, I will opt for the helmet. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous and I accept that, but what is wrong with trying to make it as safe as possible? Thanks for your time.

[cactusjack]

Traffic and civil laws exist to provide order in a society. Not wearing a helmet is not dangerous to others. This is the problem I have with this asinine legislation. If a person wants to ride without a helmet, it should be legal to do so. It should be their choice. Motorcycling is a dangerous activity, with or without a helmet. Unfortunately, the push for mandatory helmet laws isn't about safety for motorcyclists, it's about money. It's also about control.

As I stated before, the government isn't interested in our safety. If they were, there are other things that could be done to make motorcycling less dangerous. Forcing people to wear a helmet isn't going to make it safer. Wearing a helmet just makes it hurt less in some cases.

What I think would make motorcycling safer is better education of drivers, stiff penalties for injuring or killing a motorcyclist, and better enforcement of distracted driving laws. A driver saying "I didn't see the motorcycle" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Loafer]

What I think would make motorcycling safer is better education of drivers, stiff penalties for injuring or killing a motorcyclist, and better enforcement of distracted driving laws. A driver saying "I didn't see the motorcycle" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I Agree.

[macmac]

I am neither for or against the use of helmets for riding. I am against any laws that demand one or the other.

In my experience riders with helmets are often times more aggressive riders, taking more risks than need be. Somehow it appears as these riders have the idea they are bullet proof for the fact they wear a lid.

In the event of a National helment Law i will still choose whether or not on a given day of my choosing to wear a lid or not. The worst that can happen if i don't have a crash is get busted and pay the Govt fee for the infraction. So what?

I have been in a crash personally where the full face helmet broke my neck, that was just a smaller part of the problems incurred in that crash. I no longer have a spleen for that, so i needed a much bigger helment.

I have been in a crash wearing a lid that saved my face, but not my life.

I have been in a crash with no helmet at all and suffered no injury what so ever, other than stiff shoulders, which passed in a days time. This was a crash not a drop.

I don't hear well in the first place. But I do hear better with no lid than with any. I can see parts on my lids with them on so they do hinder vision. With no lid on I can see best.

If i wear a rag on my head and can see it I move it so i can't so it will not hinder vision.

There are days and places I choose to not wear any lid and don't bother to bring one. There are other days wear I bring a lid and don't wear it. There are days I start off wearing it and then pack it away. There are days I have it packed away and dig it out to wear.

These are my personal choices, no one has the Right to Create a Law on what I do with in reason.

I am sure there are those who simply can't stand the idea I go armed 24/7. But no one has the right to infringe me, that counts states like Mass and NY. It's just too bad.

If the Big They are so interested in my safety, then why is there NOT a law that says we ALL over age 18 MUST be ARMED 24/7?

I happen to 'FEEL' much more secure out of state if I am aware others with me are armed. I still will be but won't say so, or make a big deal of being armed, more so in the soviet replublics located on my borders.

What about my "Feelings" Why am I not "entitled" to feel secure? I already lost my father in law and my mother in law to murder, and so why was no one there to protect them?
Should my Bride suffer the same fate, because i will not protect her?

This is all the same argument, there is just different kinds of equipments.

What the hell do I know. I am no more than a long hair country hick.

[tombstone]

. If a person wants to ride without a helmet, it should be legal to do so. It should be their choice.

Absolutely!



As I stated before, the government isn't interested in our safety. .

"Benevolent" and "government" are not two words that go together. They want control, and that is all they want.

[dougster]

Right on, Mac!

[socwkbiker]

Well said Mac!

[skiman]

What I think would make motorcycling safer is better education of drivers, stiff penalties for injuring or killing a motorcyclist, and better enforcement of distracted driving laws. A driver saying "I didn't see the motorcycle" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I Agree.



The problem is most motorcycle crashes are single bike wrecks so they see it as a bike rider problem more then a cager problem.
That's why all the attention is on rider education and testing again if we would quit running off the roads in the turns the statistics would show that cars are killing the bikers not the bikers killing themselves

[socwkbiker]

I still contend that wearing a helmet should be a matter of choice for the rider. What I was talking about the constituents is that the people who don't ride and don't know anything about riding except what they've seen on television or in movies are those who influence the politicians and affect how they vote for us, the bikers. We need to stand up for ourselves and demand that congress not be allowed to tell us how to ride, but let the rider decide.