Motorcycyle helmet laws?

[underpants]

Our local talk radio idiot brought this up yesterday afternoon and frankly I didn't know much about the arguments for or against.

One caller chimed in with the "Get government out of my business" line which I can buy.

Another caller said that a majority of injuries are to legs, ankles, and feet. The host didn't seem to be aware of that or anything else for that matter( Why did he bring it up then? See idiot reference above). The caller then went on to say that helmets often make the injuries WORSE because people don't know how to treat the injured biker when they arrived-okay that was stupid all her credibility went out the window with that (mine not the host's-Idiot)

I think that aside from the safety issue there is some implication in Non-helmet states with insurance for all drivers/riders.

So what are the arguments (don't have to be any party line) for or against motorcycle helmet laws?

P.S.-I do share the road and I do look for cycles of all kinds when turning.

[htuttle]

1. I wear a motorcycle helmet, because I'm not a stupid fool

However, I am well aware of the fact that helmet laws, like seatbelt laws, were originally pushed by the insurance industry to keep their costs down -- not because they really care about my well-being.

:shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. If I have to pay higher insurance rates

because stupid fools won't do what they should be doing to prevent costly medical bills, then I am all for the insurance companies doing whatever they can to avoid those costs.

[Toots]

15. Did you know most injuries in car accidents are head injuries but

I don't see laws demanding helmets for automobile drivers. :shrug: I believe helmets restrict one's hearing as well as peripheral vision. I think they cause more harm than good. I don't believe government should be protecting me from myself.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. Whenever I hear that...

"restricts hearing/peripheral vision" I have to laugh. As someone who has ridden for almost 20 years, I know that is utter crap. I always wear full face helmets with a windscreen and all of my helmets over the years have provided me with perfect visibility and sound.

And several of them have saved me from nasty head injuries. I won't drive without a helmet -- I've seen the results.

[Toots]

35. I won't drive without a helmet

I would say that statement is not exactly true. You ride a bike and you drive a car. I doubt seriously that you wear a helmet while driving even though far more head injuries come from automobiles than motorcycles. Have you seen the results of automobile head injuries? You also state your equipment is perfect
"have provided me with perfect visibility and sound." Anyone who states their stuff is perfect loses my attention. Enjoy your closed air riding.

[htuttle]

30. That same argument could be used to outlaw all sorts of behavior

Eating fatty foods, smoking cigarettes, rock climbing, you name it. Any potentially risky behavior causes insurance rates to rise.

As I said, I don't have a problem with either seat belts or motorcycle helmets, and I'd use them even if there weren't a law.

However, I am not in favor of allowing insurance companies to dictate our behavior. If an idiot doesn't want to wear a helmet, that's their choice, in my opinion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

42. bu they are not outlawed- only regulated

where I come from driving a vehicle on a public way is a privilege- NOT a right.
Nobody is dictating anything- we are only trying to protect the common good.

[Ravenseye]

43. Isn't it funny....

we live in a country where you have a right to own a high powered rifle, but not to legally drive a car.

[skippythwndrdog]

50. No, that's perfectly logical.

Gun rights are protected by the CONUS.

[Ravenseye]

61. Sometimes logic is funny.

Besides being in the constitution whats the argument for having guns being a right, and driving being a priviledge?

[Turbineguy]

2. Here's an argument

A friend of mine needed a heart-lung transplant and was on the waiting list.

When California brought in the Helmet law his chances for a donor went out the window and he died.

That should tell us something about wearing a helmet.

[AllegroRondo]

6. What do you call a motorcyclist with no helmet?

an organ donor.


sad but true.

[Blue_Tires]

4. i don't ride a bike

so i don't really care one way or another...but this is pure darwinism at work here...if people don't want to wear helmets/seatbelts, then by all means, go ahead

[grumpy old fart]

5. The arguments are straight forward.....

Society has an interest in (1) protecting life in general (2) protecting itself from the costs of head injury to bikers (medical, lost wages, etc.)
On the other side, it's a libertarian issue. If I wanna ride and die, it's my business and no one else.
IMHO, let 'em go without helmets. Anyone that stupid, we want 'em out of the gene pool anyway.

[sweetheart]

18. I used to ride a dirt bike without a helmet

and i wholly enjoyed the feeling of the wind in my hair, being
able to see to the side and all. I presume these laws are for
"on road" motorcycling... and even there, i confess having enjoyed
the wind in my hair.... but i could really care less.

Appearantly, the helmet does indeed exacerbate some sorts of injuries
and new innovations in helmet design that are as-yet pre-market
copy the scalp's ability to shift and keep the head from being twisted
too violently on hard impact. Appearantly there are some cases of
accidents where the helmet does cause damage that would otherwise
not occurr... but these seem a small percentage, next to those where
it does indeed offer more protection.

As a libertarian, i support anyone who wants to ride sans-helmet...
its russian roulette, but then again, all of life is filled with risks
and i don't need some nanny state to fill me in on them... otherwise,
the state should ban rock climbing, parachuting, cave diving, and
fatty fast foods. Where do you stop on this slippery slope of protecting
us from ourselves.

[grumpy old fart]

52. totally agree...it's a random world and adults should be free to choose.

eom

[ApgarScrs]

7. I'm an ICU Neuro ARNP

and it sounds like one of the callers was on crack! Take a tour of your local Neurological unit, you'll find it full of people who have closed head injuries from not wearing a helmet. Most are on ventilators or in PVS states. It's not pretty and rehab isn't effective. That's why medical professionals call them "DONOR Cycles."
The insurance angle I don't know and don't particularly care. But I do know if you have a bad accident without a helmet you can pretty much kiss your life goodbye, because you may end up having your family or the taxpayers taking care of you the rest of your life.

[natrat]

45. no doubt

in 12 years of motorcycling i have a nice collection of impact dents on my helmets. Riding a dirt bike without helmet and knee/elbow pads is incomprehensible to me. One of my mishaps involved t-boning a car that ran a red light. I am cutting across the intersection and my head is going straight for this guy's drivers side window and we are looking at eachother for a time. Followed by impact by the helmet and smashed glass. The helmet was there for me. I think some people really lack a certain proficiency,myself included sometimes, and therefore helmets should be required.

[MadHound]

8. Well, I think that it is foolish to ride a motorcycle sans helmet.

However if somebody wants to be foolish and ride without one, fine. The only one that they are hurting is themselves. The insurance arguement is wrongheaded. Why should we allow the insurance industry to mandate what legislation is passed, for their own benefit? If we're going to mandate that motorcyclists wear helmets in order to prevent the insurance companies from paying out monies, then before you know it we'll have to require that skiers go down the slope clothed in airbags for the same reason.

Frankly, in a cold cruel Darwinistic way, I think that the lack of helmet laws, seatbelt laws and other laws that protect us from ourselves is a good thing. It weeds out the fools and idiots from the population.

[AllegroRondo]

12. When the insurance companies pay, we all pay

Why should I be stuck with higher insurance bills to cover people who dont want to wear a helmet?

[MadHound]

24. Then take that to the logical extreme friend

Why should you pay for people who choose to ski, snowboard, skateboard, bicycle, bungee jump, base jump, sky dive, rodeo, race cars, or any of the other high risk activities that our society dreams up. If you don't want to wear a helmet, then I see no reason why you shouldn't pay a higher premium, but allowing the insurance industry to dictate legislation is going to decimate this country. First it was pushing through legislation on seat belts and helmets, now they're going to push through tort "reform". Do you really want your actions dictated by what the insurance industry allows you to do?

[AllegroRondo]

32. In most cases, insurance does NOT cover 'extreme' activities

So if you want to sky dive, base jump, or ride rodeo, you either have to get special coverage for these and pay A LOT more, or face paying all the medical bills yourself.

[Ravenseye]

36. What happens when you pay the medical bills yourself?

Often times you can't. The hosptial collects meager sums from the patient and never recoups the money they were forced to outlay to treat you, which they must by law. So they raise the prices on everything else. A tylenol in a hospital costs more than a bottle at a pharmacy. So your insurance rates increase because the hospital is defering payments to everyone else.

No matter what system we have, people who don't do high risk activites will pay for someone who does, unless you deny that person ANY medical treatment, which I won't be a party to.

[LiberallyInclined]

53. Insurance companies don't pay the same prices as the uninsured.

they get 'volume' discounts...of about 60-75%.

[MadHound]

41. I think that you had better check again friend

Yes, some of those activities aren't covered, especially if you're a professional. However things like skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, cycling, hang gliding, etc are all covered by insurance, as are injuries sustained while doing illegal things like speeding or driving drunk.

[AllegroRondo]

59. It all comes down to what do we consider 'reasonable'

when we consider what activities should have their costs covered by society and what shouldn't.

Base Jumping? Most people would consider it unreasonable.

Bicycling? Most people would consider it reasonable.

But not wearing a helmet seems to fall right on the edge of the reasonable/unreasonable line.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. The insurance arguement is right. The costs are ultimately spread

to you and me and anyone else who pays for insurance- not to mention the waste of perfectly healthy lives and wasted medical resources- for money, equipment, personnel- which could be used for others who need it and whose need as NOT preventable.
What is there to not understand about this?

[MadHound]

27. Then we had better put a stop to all high risk activities

After all it is things like skiing, cycling, snowboarding, playing paintball, all of those high risk activities that are adding to the costs of insurance for you and me, so in the name of the almighty dollar we'd better damn well let the insurance industry dictate how we spend our free time.:eyes: Rather than allowing big business dictate to the government, simply have them hike the insurance rates for those who don't wear helments, and leave the rest of us alone. The insurance industry has too much power in our government anyway, after all, haven't you heard of tort "reform"? Pretty soon if this keeps up we the people won't be allowed outside unless we have a waver from our insurance provider.

Then again, UHC would put an end to all of this, but that isn't going to happen under this two party/same corporate master system of government.

[Ravenseye]

29. It's All Moot

I think we all agree that if someone wants to Ski, or ride a motorcycle, or free climb el Capitan that they should be allowed to. Nobody should be able to prevent someone from performing an activity because it's 'high risk'.

I think we also agree that if someone gets hurt skiing, or riding a motorcycle, or free climbing el Capitan they should recieve health care. Emergency care shouldn't be kept from these people because of the activities they are performing.

Well if people are free to do these things, and have a right to medical care, regardless of payment structure, then people who don't do these things no matter what will be paying for it.

Whether we have a single payer system, the current insurance system, or even a completely independent cash only private system with no insurance...everyone else will pay. As long as people are guaranteeed the right to medical care in this country, and are free to do what they want, it's going to be this way.

So it's all moot, unless someone wants to argue that a skiier or a motorcyclist should be denied even the most basic emergency care.

"911"
"Yeah a car hit me while I was riding my bike I need an ambulance, my legs are broken and I think I have a concussion."
"I'm sorry sir, did you say you were on a bike? If so you're on your own."
*click*

[GiovanniC]

9. My Take

You wanna wear a helmet... good for you! You're smart.

You don't wanna wear a helmet... whatever! But I'm not going to subsidize your medical bills when half your brains are sprayed on the interstate.

[Ravenseye]

31. You'll pay one way or another

In any kind of group insurance format be it multi company, or public single payer, you're going to pay more money for insurance. Even if you made higher premiums on people for high risk activities, the price would have to be so high that nobody would be able to pay for it should an accident occur.

We also can't deny medical treatment to people who are in these kinds of accidents.

The only viable option to not subsidizing these kinds of accidents is to prevent their being treated at all, and I can't argue for that.

[GiovanniC]

34. That's Their Choice

If they choose not to wear a helmet, that can be like a "Do Not Give Medical Treatment" card.

I'm just in an irritable mood today.

The fact of the matter is, they are being irresponsible with THEIR lives and OUR money. I think it's acceptable for people to be irresponsible with their lives. I don't like having to subsidize stupidity, however.

[Ravenseye]

38. I don't like it either.

But how far will this go?

Do you honestly want to live in a country where someone who chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet gets into an accident on your street and an ambulance won't show up? He just lays there in front of your house and bleeds to death? Who picks him up then? We leave him on the curb for the garbagemen?

I know that's extreme, and I recognize your irritable mood, but just trying to take it to the logical extreme.

The only options are either we all pay for dumbasses, or dumbasses don't get any medical care. We all do stupid things once in a while. What if that person normally wears a helmet but the strap broke and he's trying to get to the hospital where his wife was just admitted and he risks it cause he is worried about her. Then he's blindsided by a dumbass driver. He gets no care?

It's a bad idea.

[AngryAmish]

10. This is such an interesting argument

One side will say - What right does the gov't have to tell me what to do. I know the risks, but the pleasure I get well outweighs any risk. Is is a more libertarian argument I guess.

The other side will say - Hold on here. Your pleasure increases my costs through Medicaid, insurance etc. This is a more statist argument I suppose.

(libertarian/statist is just words I am using. I'm no Poly-Sci guy and if am using the wrong language tell me. I mean no insult).

This is a very big argument in all democracies. It touches virtually every issue. Smoking especially. I guess this is why we have legislatures.

on edit: I would definately wear a helmut because I have enough brain damage right now, thankyouverymuch.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Arguments FOR

1) Helmets REDUCE the risk of traumatic brain injury..this of course becomes moot at high speed, but in more instances than not, helmets do protect the brain upon impact.

2) The cost of treating traumatic brain injury can be up to 6 million dollars over the course of a lifetime since the primary recipients for TBI are males between the ages of 15 and 32.

3) Even if one says "Well then don't let them get insurance...the STATE pays for this healthcare.

4) The FAMILIES of TBI victims are the ones who are forced to rearrange the most after a male who "just wanted the wind blowing through his ears" gets a head injury.


Most hospitals have some form of Brain Injury support group available...I suggest anyone who is anti- helmets, go visit one of those groups.

[SarahB]

25. That's my thought as well.

If someone has a traumatic brain injury, it costs millions in care which we all pay for one way or another. It's not just about a person's individual rights in this case because others are involved.

[Ravenseye]

33. So What's the Solution?

I think it's just to grin and bear it.

We live in a society. Everything we do is tied in to the rest of us. People get in accidents. Someone who doesn't own a car and walks and lives in a quiet city neighborhood is far less likely to have serious injury than someone who commutes 2 hours in the car every day. Should that person have lower monthly premiums? It would get too extreme and even in the begining it wouldn't work out.

The premium for someone who rides a motorbike, likes to ski in the winter, and rock climb in the summer would be so astronomical they couldn't afford insurance. If you prevent them from doing those activities if they don't have insurance we dont' live in a free country. If they get injured without insurance the rest of us pay for it anyway as our rates and costs increase.

Just grin and bear it.

[SarahB]

57. Um...

wear helmets and seat belts as a responsibility to one's self and society as a whole. I thought that's what this whole discussion was about? :shrug:

[SmokingJacket]

13. I'm usually somewhat libertarian when it comes to things like this...

... but if the cost to society is larger than the cost to freedom, I say go with the law, though.

If tax payers end up paying to support a number of brain-injured cyclists for thirty years in a nursing home, then that cost is too high.

If brain-injured cyclists provide organs at a really detectable and useful rate, I'd say that balances it out, though.

Someone needs to do a real cost-benefit study. Have any been done?

[Trailrider1951]

14. Well, I ride both a motor scooter and a mountain bike in a

state without a helmet law. There is no way I would ride either bike without a helmet. IMHO, people who ride without a helmet show exactly how much they have in their heads to protect.

[TO Kid]

22. Helmets on bicycles are useless

Anyone who bought into the propaganda about bicycle helmets must be convinced that the streets were littered with cracked skulls before they became mandatory. The fact is that head injuries from cycling accidents are extremely rare- serious cycling accidents are not very common (I've had two in 35 years of riding 20-30km a day) and only a small percentage of those accidents involve head trauma (mine involved wrist, elbow, shoulder, knees and ribs). Furthermore, bicycle helmets fail on impact at 20 km/h while most urban cyclists travel at 25 to 35 km/h. Finally, there's a lot of evidence that suggests a strong correlation between increased helmet usage and higher accident rates. Unless your riding involved soft groud, low speed and high risk of falling forward (such as off-road cycling) then the helmet is worse than useless.

[Trailrider1951]

23. Actually, my friend, I ride a mountain bike

on a trail through the woods, not on the street in Houston, Texas traffic. My helmet has saved my head from collisions with tree branches, and the ground during my last endo. I won't leave home without it. B-)

[TO Kid]

16. Only one thing a helmet does for you

If you wear a helmet, you can have an open casket. Goggles and/or a visor will do far more good than a helmet because they prevent accidents rather than mitigate the effect.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Nice mantra but it isn't true

[LiberallyInclined]

40. Actually, my helmet saved my life-

I was hit broadside by a car that went thru a stop sign...I had highway bars on the bike, which saved my right leg from being crushed- but i went airborne, sailed over the car, and landed on my head and right shoulder, before skidding along the pavement. i ended up with some nasty road rash, a broken collar bone, and a broken shoulder blade, but the cabesa was unharmed.
I know from experience that people who ride without helmets are morans.

[Ms_Mary]

56. So not true. Helmets can keep your head from caving like a ripe melon.

[Harksaw]

17. What happens when someone crashes and doesn't have enough to cover

the medical bills? The hospital won't just let them die. They're going to operate on them, and I believe they get reimbursed by the government. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because of this, we all benefit from the lower costs associated with wearing helmets.

[underpants]

26. THANKS EVERYONE-it is an interesting argument

As I was listening to these people talking about the government getting out of their business I knew that the fact of insurance rates going up and the absorbtion of medical cost threw a monkey wrench in their "no brainer" (sorry for the pun) black-and-white argument.

I, personally, am still not exactly sure how I stand on it (I see both sides) but I have always worn a helmet when mountain biking but have to admit that I have gone for city rides without one (stupid I know).

[Hand]

20. "If you've got a ten-dollar head..."

"...wear a ten-dollar helmet." If you choose not to wear a helmet...

BTW, a helmet probably saved my life once. At the least it saved me from a very bad head injury.

[UdoKier]

37. As a former motocyclist, I favor them.

It's just too dangerous without a helmet. I hate nanny-state laws, but this is an exception.

I vacillate on seat-belt laws - at least a car offers SOME degree of protection, but hurtling along the highway at 60 or 70 mph with NOTHING on your head is insanity. I also think sturdy clothing that cover both arms and legs should be required.

[jmowreader]

39. There is one disadvantage to wearing helmets

In a bad-enough crash, the force of your helmet flopping around can break your neck. This is, according to the NASCAR report, what killed Dale Earnhardt.

I would wear the Hutchens Device or some other head-and-neck restraint system if I was a motorcyclist. Watch this video: http://www.hutchensdevice.com/home/hutchenscrash.mov to see what this thing does. (It's a video of a sprint car crash. The car rolled over several times and all the bodywork came off. After they fished the guy out of what was left of his car and took him to the infield care center, he stood there and gave an interview. Without the Hutchens Device, they would have put this guy in a bag and sent him to the funeral home.) I know I wouldn't go out with no helmet.

We employ a Hells Angel. This gentleman used to ride his motorcycle in all weather conditions--driving rain, snow, you name it and he was out on his Harley in it. In October he was in a motorcycle accident. He got off work at 3pm and was riding home. He was traveling in broad daylight at a constant 25mph down a busy city street and someone driving 45mph ran up on the back of him. It knocked over the bike, trapped his knee under the bike, dislocated his ankle, sanded off the partially-completed streetscape tattoo he was putting on his leg, completely destroyed his motorcycle...didn't put a scratch on his helmet. Helmets won't help in all crashes, but they help in enough of them that I wouldn't think of riding without one.

[LiberallyInclined]

44. Let the Driver sign a waiver to get their motorcycle driver's liscense-

When they get a Motorcycle Driver's Liscense, they can sign a waiver saying that they will be personally financially responsible for any head injuries for themselves or their passengers that occur when/if they ride without a helmet, even in an accident where they are not at fault.

[AllegroRondo]

48. Or make them pay more if they dont want to wear one

Dont want to wear a helmet? Sign here.
Your insurance is now $5,000 more per year.

Works for me.

[cynatnite]

46. Insurance spending limits

Given how much these kinds of injuries cost, don't most medical insurances have a spending limit? They quit covering the injured person after so much money. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.

[DS1]

47. Riding without helmet should be considered carrying a DNR card

IMO

[SarahB]

58. Yes!

Perhaps it's cold (I'm not always so damned warm and fuzzy), but to me it seems if you're stupid enough to get yourself vegged-out when you could have otherwise protected yourself, why should everyone else have to pay to take care of you forever?

[Magleetis]

49. I'm surprised that

nobody has mentioned the Harry Hurt report.

http://www.gunsmoke.com/scot/hurt.html check out #'s 40-50

I learned a lot when I took the motorcycle safety course in the US Navy. One of the things that I learned is that a helmet can save your life. I was an avid motorcyclist when I was younger and I saw many people killed or seriously injured by choosing not to wear a helmet.

[Liberal Classic]

51. I ride every damn day

I wear my helmet every damn day. I wear it, a jacket, gloves, and boots even when it is 100 degrees. I do not need the government to tell me to wear my helmet. Thank you.

If you can't say "Fuck," you can't say, "Fuck the government." - Lenny Bruce.

[Pithlet]

54. On public roads, yes.

I don't think there is anything wrong with bicycle or helmet laws for anyone who uses public roads. If you want to ride your motorcycle or drive without a seatbelt, you can do it on your own property.

[Ms_Mary]

55. Helmets are pretty important. DH has answered calls to wrecks

and there have been a couple where people had shoddy helmets on and suffered head injuries. There have been others where a good helmet took the hit and they were able to walk away. I'm all for well made, well fitting helmets. I won't ride without one and neither does DH, who has been a motorcycle fanatic for years.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.