Helmets are not optional

[marvinsc]

If you really think about it.....Everything should be a matter of CHOICE!\\/[/quote]

Once again, Agreed on in Principle but I don't know many Who chose NOT to Pay taxes and got away with it! I do know a few who Didn't However!:shock:

 

[bhppy101]

If you really think about it.....Everything should be a matter of CHOICE!\\/

Once again, Agreed on in Principle but I don't know many Who chose NOT to Pay taxes and got away with it! I do know a few who Didn't However!:shock:

Touche!

:-D

 

[wolfie]

Grooveboy, I'm glad you are okay. Thank you for posting this story.

I have always worn a helmet. One evening though, I was headed to the grocery store, and apparently my mind was elswhere because I was halfway down my street before I realized that I had forgotten it. Oh well, it's only 3/4 mile away. By the time I was halfway to the store, I was thinking how stupid and irresponsible I was being. I'm married. My wife depends on me. Besides, I haven't been a teenager in nearly a decade, so the invincibility wore off long ago.

The rest of the gear, and my attitude toward it was slower coming. A coworker was decent enough to give me a pair of mc gloves that were a nice improvement over cheap leather work gloves. I still rode around in t-shirt and shorts when it was hot out for some time.

My wore out pig skin thin leather jacket was a joke. I eventually replaced it with a good textile armoured jacket a couple of years ago. It was nice experiencing the relative security it offered me. Think of all that skin I might retain when I get in an accident. So I bought the wife one as well.

Thinking about all that potential skin retention progressed to thinking about all that skin on my legs. So, I bought some textile armoured pants earlier this year. They have been optional depending on the weather...

Until about a month ago. I was a couple of blocks from the house, heading out. I hadn't worn my overpants, but it was just a touch chilly. I thought about going back for them. "No, I don't need them. I'll be fine." After another quarter mile I got to thinking about who is going to pay the bills while I'm in the hospital waiting on my skin grafts to heal up. I turned around, went home and put them on. I still haven't convinced the wife that riding pants won't make her butt look big though.

Yes, motorcycling is a calculated risk. Yes I might still die in an accident, but I can seriously reduce that risk through the use of quality, protective gear.

When I see people riding without a helmet (Kansas), or with a cheap novelty helmet to keep the lazy cops at bay (Missouri), or gear, all I can think of is what price they are willing to pay in pounds of flesh, or life, for an image of what some advertising exec decided cool should look like.

Foolishness.

 

[Jbeaber]

My brother-in-law had an interesting job for a bit. He picked up dead bodies and brought them to the morgue. He is a motorcyclist who was living in Arizona at the time. No helmet law. He learned to ride there, no helmet. Then he had to pick up the body of a woman who had been riding on the back of her hubby's bike. no helmet on either. He was at a stop, about to turn into the dealership. He lost his balance, bike went down. He was in serious condition with head injuries. She was dead. zero miles per hour. We've got him in a helmet and a jacket now.
Me, I'm the other extreme. I have a full Aerostich, race boots, armored gloves and helmet. Aerostich is $800 (I needed a custom color to match my Triumph). It keeps me warm, comfortable, colorful and has full armor. I ride year round because of it. I have been down, I had a few bruises on my fingers. My wife went down on a track while wearing full leathers. She walked away with some minor bruises (wish we could have said the same about the bike... radiators and gas tanks are expensive!).
with regards to helmet laws. I have trouble with the lack of helmets because they do typically make the injuries much worse. The other people involved have to deal with the reprocussions of that. The death of the rider, lawsuits, everything else. Fine, ride without a helmet. I think if you choose to do that, you have to sign away some of the legal protections because of your decision. If you are not going to protect yourself, why should the legal system protect you? It is a tough question. I know I will never ride without gear. Just seems insane to me.

 

[Beauetienne]

Weighing In

Weighing In

I believe that the decision to wear a helmet or seat belts should be an individual choice except where chidren are concerned and others are not put at risk.
If the arguement is made that the cost to the public is the issue, should we also legislate smoking, alcohol consumption and unprotected sex? All of these activities are also very enjoyable and all of them contribute to the deaths (both to the individual and to others) of many more people than riders without helmets do. Many riders that advocate helmet laws would probably be very upset if tobacco and alcohol were outlawed.
If we as a country would legislate all unsafe activities I would probably consider moving out, right or wrong.
I have hit the pavement both with (no head damage) and without a helmet (severe concussion only). I prefer with.
I also like cigars, Samual Adams and Jim Beam.

 

[Anthony]

First, from a Canadians perspective, I think this debate is ridiculous. I can't believe that there are still places in what is supposed to be a developed country that don't have manditory helmet laws. ALL Canadian provinces have universal motorcycle helmet laws. Here is an excerpt from the Canadian Safety Council's web site.


"In 1967, the US government started requiring states to have universal helmet laws to qualify for federal highway funds. By 1975, all but three American states had helmet laws covering all motorcycle riders. Then, in 1976, Congress revoked the authority to impose the sanctions. Many states repealed or weakened their helmet laws.

In the early 1990s, federal incentives were introduced for states with helmet laws, but these were dropped in 1995. Now, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have mandatory use laws covering all riders; most of the rest have laws covering drivers under a certain age, normally 21, 19 or 18.

The limited laws assume that older riders don't need as much protection as younger, less experienced riders. However, over the past three years motorcycle deaths have gone up 68 per cent among riders 40 and older, but only 20 per cent in those younger than 40. Today, 40 per cent of all fatally injured riders are 40 and older, up from 14 per cent in 1990. This increase is due in part to the fact that more and more older, affluent professionals own motorcycles. In most states, these older riders are not required to wear a helmet."


The only reasoning I can come up with is that the members of Congress back in 1976 had been in motorcycle accidents without wearing helmets. How else do you explain such diminished mental capacity?

Second, I just wanted to say that I agree with everyone here who also includes more than just a helmet in their list of personal safety gear. I learned this the hard way. After laying my Honda Rebel down a few years ago, I was hit by something the size of a dump truck. The truck rolled up on top of my bike pinning my left ankle between my bike and the ground. It then dragged me and my bike some 5m. I was left with a sizeable hole in my ankle and road rash over much of my arms and legs. I spent 5 weeks in the hospital. Three surgeries later I now have a graft from my thigh covering my ankle. I'll have the scar for the rest of my life.

I was wearing a full face helmet, t-shirt, shorts, and sneakers. Had I been wearing boots that covered my ankles and proper clothing, I'm sure I would have walked away with minor bruises. It was a stupid mistake. At least I had the helmet and didn't make a bad situation worse.

If you still think your entitled to "chioce" p/m me, I have some hospital pictures that I'm sure will change your mind.

That's my two cents. Anybody who is interested in the rest of the Canadian Safety Council information check out.
http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/helmets.html

Anthony

 

[jbs80106]

Glad you're okay!

Glad you're okay!

Coulda been much worse.

Heard that last weekend there was a toy run up in Denver, about 3000 motorcycles in all. One bike went down unfortunately, no helmet, guy left quite a bit of his head on the pavement and was still in critical care at the hospital. A real surprise to me. No details on what happened. Whenever I see these large groups riding they're usually going relatively slow but what a damper on the 'fun' of the toy run. I hope the guy is okay in the end but I expect that if you leave some of your brains on the road you're probably not coming back at 100%.

I scratch my head and wonder how I'd live with the 'regret' if it were me and I was laid up in hospital in extremely critical care and wondering why I thought the 'coolness' of not wearing a helmet was worth leaving my kids without a dad and my wife a widow. IMO its a pretty selfish move. If you're single, no kids and nobody really depending on you, I think you have more 'freedom of choice' than if you've a spouse or kids.

On a side note, big groups like that scare the **** out of me. I don't like riding in a group larger than 4-5 bikes. I think it totally changes the dynamic and the nature of the risks already inherent in riding. Granted I've never been in a large group like that so its totally from in experience.

Yeah, we all make the dangerous choice to get outta bed every day and venture out into the world. Then make lots of choices all day long that can go one way or the other. Its my 2 cents to think about the consequences of your choices before you make them....

be safe!

 

[tkent02]

ALL Canadian provinces have universal motorcycle helmet laws.

This is not Canada, or the U.K., or France, we are free to be as smart or as stupid as we please.

Only a moron would routinely ride without a helmet, the difference is we have the freedom to be morons if we please.

I have broken quite a few helmets, the choice is simple for me.
However, if I decide to go around the block or across the country without one, I am free to do so.
We do not have any states where it is illegal to wear helmets.

 

[tkent02]

On a side note, big groups like that scare the **** out of me. I don't like riding in a group larger than 4-5 bikes. I think it totally changes the dynamic and the nature of the risks already inherent in riding.

My limit is one bike.

 

[Anthony]

I scratch my head and wonder how I'd live with the 'regret' if it were me and I was laid up in hospital in extremely critical care and wondering why I thought the 'coolness' of not wearing a helmet was worth leaving my kids without a dad and my wife a widow. IMO its a pretty selfish move. If you're single, no kids and nobody really depending on you, I think you have more 'freedom of choice' than if you've a spouse or kids.

This is a good point. How about you ask your wife and kids next time you want to go riding without a helmet. See if they say "Yeah sure daddy, we'll love you brain dead or not."

Same goes for those that have spent countless thousands of dollars on their brains through post-secondary education yet still drive without a helmet. Might as well throw your money down the toilet. Or even better, just give it to me.

 

[Beauetienne]

This is not Canada, or the U.K., or France, we are free to be as smart or as stupid as we please.

Only a moron would routinely ride without a helmet, the difference is we have the freedom to be morons if we please.

I have broken quite a few helmets, the choice is simple for me.
However, if I decide to go around the block or across the country without one, I am free to do so.
We do not have any states where it is illegal to wear helmets.

Amen to that.

 

[jbs80106]

Freedom of Choice isn't free....

Freedom of Choice isn't free....

The massive costs incurred due to head injuries paid for by insurance companies just gets passed along to everyone....same as high incidents of car theft gets everyone's insurance to go up a few cents...dilution across the populace.

In the end its probably a wash. Someone who without a helmet might not survive a particular accident where the helmeted rider might require lots of physical therapy or sustained hospitalization.

They did this with smoking. All the big payout for people who 'chose' to smoke. they didn't quadruple the price of cigs or tobacco...that would be excessive I suppose.

It gets to be a slippery slope. Make tobacco illegal, probably ought to make liquor/spirits illegal too. Make riding without a helmet illegal, could probably make motorcycles as a whole illegal due to the increased risk of injury as compared to riding a car. But then again, cars pollute and allegedly cause global warming so the choice to drive a car harms everyone in the world, better make that illegal too.......

I'm being a bit overdramatic but this is probably the difference between Dems and Repubs....is it the govts job to protect the populace from being stupid or making bad choices or is it down to the individual to choose for themselves and suffer the consequences of that choice...thats where we fall short -- when someone can ride without a helmet, wreck and then sue for suffering brain-damage ro someoen can choose to smoke for 10 years, get cancer and sue the tobacco company for damages).

As much as I am for protection, I still choose to ride. It should be individual choice. Helmets, smoking, drinking, eating (can't have people being fat now can we?), driving....its all down hill from here!!!!

 

[Tazman001]

helmets vs. darwinism

helmets vs. darwinism

I am proud and happy to say I was born and live in a country that allows me to make the intelligent choice to wear a helmet about 92% of the time. Life is a series of calculated risks. If a person doesn't want to make choices, move to Russia where you life is dictated every minute. Choice, right or wrong is written into this country's constitution. Of course, never wearing a helmet will net a person a dirt nap eventually, confirming darwin's theroy.

 

[wolfie]

Only if they cack themselves before they breed.

 

[HumptyDumpty]

I think it's funny how when one's self perception changes, so does their functionality. I'll give you an example.

Generally speaking, why do sport bike riders always wear helmets? Yet when these same people sell their crotch rocket and buy a "cruiser", they no longer wear the full face helment? They almost always go with the half-helmet (brain bucket) or no helmet at all. It's a strange transformation I have yet to experience.

Don't get me wrong, in the summer, when it's 100+ degrees out, I don't like helmets...but it doesn't mean I'm going out without wearing one.

Thanks for listening! :-D

 

[Tal/IL]

As this thread has developed, I've been tempted to jump in with some smart-a** comment because.... that's just sort of my nature. But instead, I'll offer a serious thought.

Nobody can dispute that wearing a helmet is a good idea. And, it's easy for me to see the justification in forcing the individual to do something against their will in the name of "the greater good" when it is something that I would choose to do anyway. However, many of the arguments stated in this thread to justify mandatory helmet laws could just as easily be applied, and be just as valid, to justify laws to prohibit a number of common, individual life-style choices. So, what happens when those arguments are applied, for the "greater good" of course, to deny you the life-style/activity/choice that you value? Sometimes you have to defend the other guy's right to choose to do something "stupid", "insane", that "only a moron" would do in order to protect your right to choose to do the thing you value.

Like the man said:
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856- 1941)

 

[argonsagas]

As this thread has developed, I've been tempted to jump in with some smart-a** comment because.... that's just sort of my nature. But instead, I'll offer a serious thought.

Nobody can dispute that wearing a helmet is a good idea. And, it's easy for me to see the justification in forcing the individual to do something against their will in the name of "the greater good" when it is something that I would choose to do anyway. However, many of the arguments stated in this thread to justify mandatory helmet laws could just as easily be applied, and be just as valid, to justify laws to prohibit a number of common, individual life-style choices. So, what happens when those arguments are applied, for the "greater good" of course, to deny you the life-style/activity/choice that you value? Sometimes you have to defend the other guy's right to choose to do something "stupid", "insane", that "only a moron" would do in order to protect your right to choose to do the thing you value.

I might suggest the statement could more appropriately be deemed facetious, as the points raised are entirely irrelevant and so is the question at the end. "Red herring" arguments seldom serve any purpose except to distract from the original line of thought, and tend to be used when valid points are not available, or cannot be raised.


Is it a form of sublimation when Americans tend to choose incidental things, such as helmet laws, upon which to vent what appear to be deeply-felt emotions about rights, while they so easily ignore vastly more important things, such as their own willing forfeiture of fundamental rights or freedoms that affect EVERY person in the country?



A brief view into the action of landing.....many fall in this tape, while engaging in a sport in which helmets are mandatory.

Note how many of these superior-level riders, who all have the very best of reflexes, land on their heads, or hit them after falling.

You will hear one man say " If you're going to be riding it's going to happen"

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&bra...l:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

 

[Tal/IL]

My point is that the prececents established in regulating/prohibiting things that many consider "incidental" or unpopular end up threatening things that are "fundamental rights". (That wasn't facetious.)

On the issue of falling/landing, I will say that it seems some folks do crash a lot! (That was smart-a**.)

 

[argonsagas]

My point is that the precedents established in regulating/prohibiting things that many consider "incidental" or unpopular end up threatening things that are "fundamental rights". (That wasn't facetious.)

On the issue of falling/landing, I will say that it seems some folks do crash a lot! (That was smart-a**.)

Yes, this point is understood, however regulation of safety issues, as applies in the case of helmets, does not impinge on a "right" as motorcycles were completely unknown when the Constitution was framed, thus there was no thought of them.

There is, however a demand that governments write laws and regulations that may help those within the society, both in their daily lives and with regard to their safety as well as that of others around them.

Some prior rights may have to be compromised, to whatever extent, to meet this requirement. This is fundamental to creating what is called a civilized society.

The issue of whether or not there should be rights with regard to the wearing of helmets is decidedly less important than many, many, other issues.

If anything, it ranks with wanting to feel good, perhaps not unlike getting high on drugs. This ranking seems appropriate to me because there is no other true benefit to not wearing a helmet for most people.

Does this not imply that those who prefer riding helmet-less want rights to feel good, and would it not be reasonable to follow the same form of argument offered against the laws in saying that, if that is a right, then they should also be allowed to increase their rights, so that they can use drugs and drive, in order that they still feel good?

 

[Tal/IL]

Sorry, I just can't resist.

....the case of helmets, does not impinge on a "right" as motorcycles were completely unknown when the Constitution was framed....

I'll have to disagree with your implication that rights related to motorcycles are not protected because they came along after the Constitution. Lots of things have come along since then.

....those who prefer riding helmet-less want rights to feel good, and would it not be reasonable to follow the same form of argument offered against the laws in saying that, if that is a right, then they should also be allowed to increase their rights, so that they can use drugs and drive, in order that they still feel good?

Comparing requiring helmets to prohibiting DWI is the type of ill-conceived logic that becomes dangerous. Me riding down the road helmetless, feeling good, enjoying the wind in my hair, or rather across my scalp, endangers nobody. In itself, it doesn't even endanger me. Something else that I or another might do may endanger me. And, my odds of surviving that danger may be less, but it was my choice to go helmetless. On the other hand, my happy ass zooming down the road feeling good after pounding down a few Jack Daniels does in itself endanger anyone else on the road, and possibly the sidewalk. In that case, Government should certainly disregard my right to feel good and make every effort to protect you from me. But, I don't believe it is government's place to disregard my right to feel good (pursuit of happiness?) to try to protect me from me.

Anyway, I'm guessing we'll never agree on it. So, it's been fun and I'll move on now.