Helmets, or lack there of....

[007brendan]

There is obviously got to be some middle ground here.....between personal freedom, and regualtion for your own good an the good of otheres...and overregulation.......just hard to figure where the middle is sometimes.

Here' s an extreme scenario.......

You choose whether to wear a helmet or not........

Ambulance squad decides whether or not to pick your sorry ass up off the road after an accident or not...

Hospital decides whether they want to admit you or not......

Doctor decides whether he wants to operate on you or not........

Insurace company decides whether they feel like paying or not....

Cookie

I think you're enforcing the point right there.  The fact that ambulances, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies have had their freedom of choice legislatively removed has led to an imbalance in the decision making of motorcycle riders. 

The logical choice for an insurance company would be to charge substantially more for people who don't wear helmets, or refuse to insure them at all, but law prohibits that. 
Ambulances, hospitals, and doctors would only treat those who they reasonably thought would be able to pay them back, but law also prohibits that.

Government regulation actually removes many disincentives that would otherwise exist when not wearing a helmet (e.g. higher insurance costs, higher medical costs).

[johnny ro]

Why ride without helmet = why have sex without clothes on.

having sex without clothes is like riding a bike in tennis shoes and a t shirt, riding without a helmet is more like having sex without a condom, which is a pretty big difference.

Riding without a helmet is a tough price to pay for trying to look good. I can see it happening if you only ever get up to 15mph when you're riding, but any faster than that and it's just really not all that enjoyable. When I see someone on a bike who doesn't have a helmet on, all I really assume is that they don't actually ride the bike. Whether or not your grand plan is just not crashing, you still have no way to predict when that giant beetle is going to smack you right in the center of the forehead.

Depends on who you are having sex with.

I don't care how I look when I ride. Witnesses can confirm that if you can find any. I ride for myself not for others.

I hit a seagull on the Long Island Expressway in heavy traffic at 70 mph with helmet. I flinched and it hit my shoulder. Hurt.

I hit another in my car and it bounced up and away and broke a wiper arm. Freaky stuff. I might not have spotted a giant beetle in time. I do wear large non-glass shades. They would cave with a mutant gull. I moved off of LI.

Took a bee last saturday between skin and coat on the neck last saturday, was wearing helmet. Stung, didn't stop, reached in and pulled it out.  

I grind without glasses but I stand to side. Maybe 10 minutes a year. I don't count grinding plastic.

I draw the line at welding naked with or without sunglasses.  Or painting houses with a ladder repaired with furring strips and drywall screws.

[johnny ro]

There is obviously got to be some middle ground here.....between personal freedom, and regualtion for your own good an the good of otheres...and overregulation.......just hard to figure where the middle is sometimes.

Here' s an extreme scenario.......

You choose whether to wear a helmet or not........

Ambulance squad decides whether or not to pick your sorry ass up off the road after an accident or not...

Hospital decides whether they want to admit you or not......

Doctor decides whether he wants to operate on you or not........

Insurace company decides whether they feel like paying or not....

Cookie

I think you're enforcing the point right there.  The fact that ambulances, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies have had their freedom of choice legislatively removed has led to an imbalance in the decision making of motorcycle riders. 

The logical choice for an insurance company would be to charge substantially more for people who don't wear helmets, or refuse to insure them at all, but law prohibits that. 
Ambulances, hospitals, and doctors would only treat those who they reasonably thought would be able to pay them back, but law also prohibits that.

Government regulation actually removes many disincentives that would otherwise exist when not wearing a helmet (e.g. higher insurance costs, higher medical costs).

I dunno. Kind of like saying the death penalty inhibits family murders and if reduced to life in prison encourages them. It seems not to in either case. 

[007brendan]

I dunno. Kind of like saying the death penalty inhibits family murders and if reduced to life in prison encourages them. It seems not to in either case. 

I never said it encouraged it, just that it removed the disincentives, namely lack of medical care.  Your analogy is only removing a small disincentive.  A more accurate analogy would be reducing a death penalty to a few years in jail, or removing jail time altogether.  Though, I don't think it's a really good analogy, since I believe most people that would commit murder would do so regardless of the consequences.

[twocool]

There is obviously got to be some middle ground here.....between personal freedom, and regualtion for your own good an the good of otheres...and overregulation.......just hard to figure where the middle is sometimes.

Here' s an extreme scenario.......

You choose whether to wear a helmet or not........

Ambulance squad decides whether or not to pick your sorry ass up off the road after an accident or not...

Hospital decides whether they want to admit you or not......

Doctor decides whether he wants to operate on you or not........

Insurace company decides whether they feel like paying or not....

Cookie

I think you're enforcing the point right there.  The fact that ambulances, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies have had their freedom of choice legislatively removed has led to an imbalance in the decision making of motorcycle riders. 

The logical choice for an insurance company would be to charge substantially more for people who don't wear helmets, or refuse to insure them at all, but law prohibits that. 
Ambulances, hospitals, and doctors would only treat those who they reasonably thought would be able to pay them back, but law also prohibits that.

Government regulation actually removes many disincentives that would otherwise exist when not wearing a helmet (e.g. higher insurance costs, higher medical costs).

I think I understand what you mean.........

But my point is to find that middle of the road position...........

I'm for small government and as little regulation as possible.......

You have to take everything case by case.......

Seatbelts for instance.........

One of my first cars was a Triumph......I took one  look at that little car and put in seat belts and roll bar.......figured at least I had a fighting chance in an accident........seatblets were not required then....but I got used to them and like the feeling of being "part of the car"......later began flying planes where seatbelts  and sholder harness are REQUIRED.

Again got to like the feel............so I have no problem with seatbelts, and the government mandating them.

Any rational person will look at the auto accident statistics and see the difference seatbelts make..........yet some still come to the conclusion that they don't want to wear seatbelts!

So now there is a public outcry to the polititions, "You have to do something about highway safety!!!""

So what do the polititions do?  Make laws........mandate safety regualtions......maybe go overboard....but what do you expect them to do??


Cookie

[yurtinus]

I expect them to not cave in to mob rule just to show they're doing "something" about high profile issues that may or may not even be problems. MORE IMPORTANTLY I expect them to hold up civil liberties over lobbyist profits. I have high expectations, I know 

I do take issue with the "it's the insurance companies choice to cover your bills" analogy though. That coverage is something I've already contracted and paid for, so sure they have the choice, but it's between covering the bills and breach of contract (something frowned upon more in legal circles than riding without a helmet). Insurance companies want riders to wear helmets? Increase premiums for those riders who don't. Offer plans (at whatever statistically calculated higher price) for those riders who choose to take the extra risk. Choices very rarely need to be legislated.

[007brendan]

I'm going to cut myself off, since this is a motorcycle forum and not a politics forum, and because I think Milton Friedman already said this better than anyone:

Jump to 3:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPqdRqacpFk

[Asym]

Motorcycles are just too dangerous, we should all be forced to ride the bus.

Just kidding, I like to cook bacon naked on metal heated with an angle grinder with no eye protection. If this gets outlawed take me to jail, and I'll eat bacon for free on your tax dollars.

I wear a half helmet when I ride into work, 45 miles uphill both ways... Usually wearing shorts.

When out riding for fun I wear a helmet about 50% of the time. Only reason its jumped to 50% is because of the crappy roads and all the gravel thats kicked up....Oh, and the bugs at night. I always wear gloves and an armored jacket, but the helmet is optional.

[yurtinus]

45 miles uphill both ways... Usually wearing shorts.

Unless that's in the snow, COLOR ME UNIMPRESSED! 

[mister]

So now there is a public outcry to the polititions, "You have to do something about highway safety!!!""

So what do the polititions do?  Make laws........mandate safety regualtions......maybe go overboard....but what do you expect them to do??

So now there is Outcry Published By The Media. Media Generated Outcry.

Pollies react.

WHO decided the media should publish this outcry in the first place?

Let's face it. In any city you can find hundreds of people to have outcry over anything. Pick a topic and you'll find people to have outcry. So... WHO decides what the outcry of the moment will be?

Something to think about.

Michael

[twocool]

I expect them to not cave in to mob rule just to show they're doing "something" about high profile issues that may or may not even be problems. MORE IMPORTANTLY I expect them to hold up civil liberties over lobbyist profits. I have high expectations, I know 

I do take issue with the "it's the insurance companies choice to cover your bills" analogy though. That coverage is something I've already contracted and paid for, so sure they have the choice, but it's between covering the bills and breach of contract (something frowned upon more in legal circles than riding without a helmet). Insurance companies want riders to wear helmets? Increase premiums for those riders who don't. Offer plans (at whatever statistically calculated higher price) for those riders who choose to take the extra risk. Choices very rarely need to be legislated.

But a contract has TWO sides.......it is reasonable for the insurance comapany to expect that you wear a helmet.

They could write it into the contract if they wanted.......often, if you are in viloation of the law, the insurance dosen't have to pay.

Cookie

[twocool]

So now there is a public outcry to the polititions, "You have to do something about highway safety!!!""

So what do the polititions do?  Make laws........mandate safety regualtions......maybe go overboard....but what do you expect them to do??

So now there is Outcry Published By The Media. Media Generated Outcry.

Pollies react.

WHO decided the media should publish this outcry in the first place?

Let's face it. In any city you can find hundreds of people to have outcry over anything. Pick a topic and you'll find people to have outcry. So... WHO decides what the outcry of the moment will be?

Something to think about.

Michael

Problem noted.........so what's the solution???

Cookie

[lilwoody]

When I smoked I paid a higher life insurance premium. As I put my sons on my car insurance my car insurance went up. After hurricane Andrew destroyed my home my home owners insurance went up. Insurance is a calculated risk, if you live in a area likely to get hurricanes your home owners insurance will be higher than someone in Kansas. If you have teens that drive expect to pay more for car insurance but your neighbor without kids shouldn't pay more. If you smoke cough up more for life insurance. Same goes for riding sans a lid, it's a risky behavior and folks who wear them shouldn't be used to subsidize those who don't. Legislation would be moot if the insurance rates were based on who wears helmets and who doesn't. It would be a simple box to check, helmet, no helmet. Florida does require you carry 20k in personal injury insurance if you go without a helmet but those rates don't ask the question. So the rate on my policy is based on risks for all people who ride. It's not broken down into categories of sans, dons.
And to those of you who are bullet proof, you're not. I could really care less, who wears and who doesn't, it's a very good idea to and if I'm finning the bill I'll demand it. I'm just amazed at the amount of people who don't believe it could happen to them. Some of you may well have started to see friends and acquittance's starting to be weeded out through risky behaviors, if not you will. It's not for anyone other than yourself to decide if a little inconvenience is worth the difference between being around or being a sticker on the back window of your best friends truck. Excuse but it's the father in me talking and it's the man who has many aches and pains from doing thing that were plenty fun at the time and didn't hurt much at all....then. It's also the man who has seen quite a few people buried because they didn't take proper caution to situations they put themselves in.

[Twisted]

When I smoked I paid a higher life insurance premium. As I put my sons on my car insurance my car insurance went up. After hurricane Andrew destroyed my home my home owners insurance went up. Insurance is a calculated risk, if you live in a area likely to get hurricanes your home owners insurance will be higher than someone in Kansas. If you have teens that drive expect to pay more for car insurance but your neighbor without kids shouldn't pay more. If you smoke cough up more for life insurance. Same goes for riding sans a lid, it's a risky behavior and folks who wear them shouldn't be used to subsidize those who don't. Legislation would be moot if the insurance rates were based on who wears helmets and who doesn't. It would be a simple box to check, helmet, no helmet. Florida does require you carry 20k in personal injury insurance if you go without a helmet but those rates don't ask the question. So the rate on my policy is based on risks for all people who ride. It's not broken down into categories of sans, dons.
And to those of you who are bullet proof, you're not. I could really care less, who wears and who doesn't, it's a very good idea to and if I'm finning the bill I'll demand it. I'm just amazed at the amount of people who don't believe it could happen to them. Some of you may well have started to see friends and acquittance's starting to be weeded out through risky behaviors, if not you will. It's not for anyone other than yourself to decide if a little inconvenience is worth the difference between being around or being a sticker on the back window of your best friends truck. Excuse but it's the father in me talking and it's the man who has many aches and pains from doing thing that were plenty fun at the time and didn't hurt much at all....then. It's also the man who has seen quite a few people buried because they didn't take proper caution to situations they put themselves in.

The best post so far in this thread. Sounds like a word from the wise. Ride safe 

[yurtinus]

But a contract has TWO sides.......it is reasonable for the insurance comapany to expect that you wear a helmet.

They could write it into the contract if they wanted.......often, if you are in viloation of the law, the insurance dosen't have to pay.

Yes - the contract does have two sides. If the state law says you must wear a helmet then I wouldn't expect the insurance companies to mention it. The discussion though is whether or not states have the right to demand you wear helmets. I say an emphatic "no." Not because I want to ride without a helmet (I wear a full face and jacket all the time) - but because it should be up to me how much risk I take. You can't let the state incrementally criminalize every potentially risky behavior or you'll start seeing them cut into things you enjoy. Helmets are safer. Mandate them. Cages are safer. Mandate them. Sure, that example is a stretch, but as they say - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[tt_four]

...will be higher than someone in Kansas.

I think theirs have been up ever since the Wizard of Oz came out anyway.

[ragecage23]

...will be higher than someone in Kansas.

I think theirs have been up ever since the Wizard of Oz came out anyway.

Damn tornadoes...

[tt_four]

I have a hard time getting into the helmet debate because I always get stuck trying to figure out how people even enjoy riding without a helmet. I know it's a hassle to put one on and take it off all the time if you're running from one place to another and then figuring out what to do with it once you get there, but still. At least an mx helmet or something like that. My head has to feel like it's sufficiently wrapped up before I'm willing to do anything fun on the bike. When I see someone not wearing a helmet, I can only assume they don't actually know how to ride the bike they have.

Aside from that, I don't much care about the law, but I do with the consequences of not wearing one were distributed properly. Adjust the insurance rates, and be sure that priority is given to the guy wearing a helmet any time 1 ambulance shows up and there may be 2 people, or two people get to a hospital and there's only one surgeon ready. Unfortunately, in the real world, hospitals are going to may more attention to the person who's in worse condition, and in this case it means the guy with the helmet would probably be hooked to up an IV and told he needs to wait until they can get the helmetless wonder in stable condition.

It's nothing more than that south park episode where the guys on Harleys rode around making more and more noise thinking everyone thought they sounded awesome, when everyone else was just irritated. The majority of people around my town without helmet just figure there's no point in riding a motorcycle if the girls can't see your face to know it's you. Meanwhile everyone on the outside just looks at them and thinks there's something wrong with them.

[GI_JO_NATHAN]

...and be sure that priority is given to the guy wearing a helmet any time 1 ambulance shows up and there may be 2 people, or two people get to a hospital and there's only one surgeon ready. Unfortunately, in the real world, hospitals are going to may more attention to the person who's in worse condition, and in this case it means the guy with the helmet would probably be hooked to up an IV and told he needs to wait until they can get the helmetless wonder in stable condition.

Yeah that would never happen. Fortunately they normally don't make it that far, being DOA and all..

[007brendan]

I'll sum up my agitation with the "gear nazis", for helmets or otherwise.

Early yesterday morning, I stopped at the grocery store on the way to meet some friends for a trip to go wine tasting (I wasn't taking the motorcycle wine tasting).  I consciously chose not to wear my motorcycle boots.  I'm zipping through the store to get the few items I need, and I briefly pass the Starbucks counter inside the grocery store.  A man -- one of the narcissistic, self-described intellectual, yuppie-hippies that plagues every square inch of Marin -- barks at me, "what, you don't own motorcycle boots?"  I respond that I do own them, but I'm just not wearing them right now.  He continues to scoff at me and proceeds to tell the group of old women around him some apocryphal story about a rider that didn't wear boots and had his feet crushed or something like that, and how boots are a necessity for riding.

Now, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the thing that gets me, is that in NO OTHER situation do people even think twice about making comments about someone elses decisions concerning their own safety.  I could have responded, "You know that hybrid you're driving?  You're 3 times as likely to die in an accident than I am in my truck.  You're clearly irresponsible."  But I didn't, and no one would even think about making those types of comments.

Even beyond opinions, I feel the gear nazis have adopted a condescending tone, as if their decisions are clearly on the moral and intellectual high ground, and anyone who disagrees with them are just irresponsible fools.  Case in point:

It's nothing more than that south park episode where the guys on Harleys rode around making more and more noise thinking everyone thought they sounded awesome, when everyone else was just irritated. The majority of people around my town without helmet just figure there's no point in riding a motorcycle if the girls can't see your face to know it's you. Meanwhile everyone on the outside just looks at them and thinks there's something wrong with them.

There are so many things wrong with this:
1. Pretends to know why someone has chosen not to wear a specific piece of gear.
2. Assumes that everyone agrees with him.
3. Contends that people not wearing a specific piece of gear are "irritating" him.

All of which is bullshit...

If you have an opinion, fine.  But don't talk down to me.