Helmets or no Helmets? that is the question!

[Zarathustra]

i retract my earlier comment about not wanting the gov't to have to protect us.  i mean, i'm all for the darwin awards and thinning out the weak minded and all, but seriously people, come on.  people who don't wear helmets are just like people who don't wear seatbelts.  they're not taking their activity seriously, and not taking the responcibility they should when behind the wheel/bars.  people in cars are lounging listening to their music, talking on their cells, and running us off the roads.  why is this?  is it because they're bad people?  no, not really.  it's because they're not taking the care that they should for the activity they're engaged in.  they're moving a couple ton piece of metal down a road at speeds of over 60 mph.  that's fuckin fast.  sure, i love topping out my bike as much as the next guy, and i do it, but i think and pay attention the whole time.  these same people who don't pay attention and think they can multi task while driving are the same people who don't wear seatbelts, because they dont respect the fact that they're in a beast of a car moving quickly enough to kill themselves and other drivers.  as for the helmets, you're going fast enough to kill yourself, and that road *will* rip your face off.  take responcibility for the activity you are engaging in, grow a pair, and do the right thing.  you might enjoy the free feeling of no helmet, but some people enjoy the feeling of heroin, and i'm telling you it's dumb.  now, if most people are too stupid to realize this, then yeah, let the gov't tell them to do it, cause when someone knocks me off the road i want to be able to get back up and beat them senseless myself, i don't want them dead before i get back to them.

[Laura]

I don't buy the seat-belt laws and helmet laws lower insurance argument. The seat-belt law was inacted not too long ago in indiana. When it passed there was no change in my insurance. It should of went down because everyone is safer, right? I think the insurance argument is just something teh goverment used ot justify it to people.

I don't buy the public burden argument either. People say motorcyclists should wear helmets so tax money isn't wasted on motorcyclist's head injuries. It seems that if you take that argument to it's logical conclusion, then riding motorcycles shouldn't be legal either. Because let's not kid ourselves, wearing a helmet doesn't make motorcycling "safe". There are plenty of motorcyclists who wear helmets and are seriously injured, often by a car driver screwing up. In an accident between a motorcyclist and a car driver, no matter whose fault it was or whether the rider is wearing a helmet or not, who is going to most likely have the highest hospital and ambulance costs? Those damn motorcyclists are driving up our taxes and insurance rates. They should just get off the road. Anyway, if you die on contact with the pavement because you aren't wearing a helmet, your hospital bills aren't going to be large. Maybe if car drivers would run into fewer motorcyclists, there would be a lot less taxes spent on motorcyclists, and lower insurance rates all around.

[Zarathustra]

i dunno laura, that's a pretty slippery slope.  necessitating that motorcyclists wear helmets because of the incurring medical costs does not logically follow through to that motorcycling should be banned.  there is no logical following there actually.  it simply shows that motorcycling is dangerous, yet legal, so we must make it as least dangerous as possible, by wearing helmets.  the argument seeks to keep heath bills low by taking reasonable means, not to keep them low by any means possible.

as an example, by necessitating football teams wearing pads to keep injuries down, and the sport functioning, is the logical conclusion that football should be disbanded because that would solve all of the problems?  no, associations are simply looking for ways to let us enjoy our activities, but still making us remain responcible and as safe as possible while doing them.  using vehicles is a privilage, not a right; respect it.

[Jasco]

I think the govt should just legislate away anything that is potentially harmful or dangerous.  We will start with cigarettes and alcohol and then start taking away any form of motorized transportation.  Hell, my friend was nearly killed (less than a year ago) on a bicycle when some old dude pulled out infornt of him as he was doing 40-45 mph down a hill.  Need to take away those bicycles too.  Think of all the money we would save on broken bones if we got rid of skateboards, rollerskates and inline skates.  We will have to get rid of any kind of competivie sport, people could get hurt.  Will have to stick with board and card games, but then again I might get excited that I won and have a heart attack.  Those are gone too.  And all that water that is lying around get rid of that too, someone might drown.

Do you get my point here?  Everything is potentially dangerous.  It is my responsibility to deciede what I feel are acceptable risks. The govt should not be making these choices for me.  If I want to be a dumb bastard and not wear a helmet, let me and I will accept the potential risks and consequences.  The only time govt has any right to step in and make me do something is if i am doing something that is a risk/danger to other. For example, firing a pistol randomly at anything and everything.  That could hurt someone besides me.  How does not wearing a seatbelt or helmet hurt anyone besides me?

Let me be a dumb bastard if I wanna be.

[Zarathustra]

jasco i think you missed the point of my post.  those are all slippery slope arguments that don't logically follow from one another.  to legislate that during one potentially skull-cracking activity you wear a helmet is leaps and bounds away from drying up river beds to stop drownings and keep cards away from kids from fear of papercuts.  to argue that the gov't should stay out of your biz taken to the extreme that you give, you should be rallying against any form of gun control, and against all drug laws.  join the libertarian party, start shooting H, and play in traffic.

yes yes, everything is potentially dangerous, and as bikers we except a little extra risk that most people don't; however, that doesn't mean you should be allowed to take any risk that you think is fine and dandy.  you might think you want to jump off a cliff just for kicks, and maybe not use a parachute.  well, i don't want my tax money going to your family who you are now not providing for just because you had a "right" do engage in your behavior.  i also don't want to pay higher insurence premiums because you're out there splitting your skull.  check some stuff out here and see what you find out about your hurting other people by not wearing a helmet.  

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/helmet_use.htm#5

sometimes people arn't smart enough to do what they should, just like parents need to step in and tell a kid not to eat 10 candy bars or he'll feel crappy, once in a while someone needs to point out that you should (and sometimes make you) wear a helmet.  just because you're older now doesn't mean you know everything and are always right about your decisions.  children arn't the only ones who make mistakes.

[Laura]

Zarathustra, that website, which is promoting helmet laws, compares average hospital costs of  injured motorcyclists wearing helmets to those who weren't wearing helmets. $15,578 compared to $14,377. That doesn't seem like a huge difference to me. If a good chunk of those motorcyclists are injured by car drivers messing up, it seems a more effective way of reducing money spent on injured motorcyclists would be to reduce the amount of cars hitting motorcyclists, helmeted or not.

Secondly, my motorcycle insurance is incredibly cheap. If I get in an accident that is my fault, and I get hurt, then my health insurance is going to cover it. My motorcycle insurance isn't. My health insurance provider doesn't even ask me if I ride a motorcycle or not. If somebody else hits me, then their insurance should cover it, if they have decent insurance. I don't think anybody should be allowed to drive or ride without decent insurance.  I don't care how good of a driver anyone is, we are all human and we all make mistakes. We should all be responsible and get good insurance. If people's car insurance rates go up because of the costs of running over riders, so be it. Maybe it will help them watch out for us.

I always wear a helmet. I don't really understand why people don't. Supposedly some people would rather get a head injury and die instantly than have a neck injury from the helmet. I don't really want to get into whether I'd rather have a head injury or neck injury. I'd rather have neither. But $15,578 compared to $14,377, does not seem like a significant difference in costs. Cutting both of those numbers down, for instance by getting drivers to LOOK for motorcyclists and cutting down on drunken driving and riding, in my opinion would be a much better way to save money.

Ride on!

Laura

[Jasco]

Seperate debate here buy you brought it up.  I don't think the govt owes me or my family anything if I go out and kill myself.  I don't want soc security I'd rather take that money that I am forced to pay and invest it how I see fit.  I want to take responsibility for my actions and future.  I don't think I should have to pay for schools in the form of property tax if I don't have children.  It was the parents choices that led them to have children, make them pay for their childrens education.  Govt has it's grubby hands to far into my life and pockets.
Matt

[johncam4]

i agree

[Zarathustra]

see here's the deal for both jasco and laura, in my opinion.  firstly, laura.
 i agree that cars should stop hitting motorcyclists, in fact, i'm whole heartedly in favor of that.  however, the sad fact of the matter is that we cannot control wether or not a car will hit us (yes we can be extra vigilent, but nonetheless...).  however, we can control wether or not we wear a helmet.  and given that only one of these is a control we can handle, i say we need to wear helmets.  while that cost is not a "significant" difference, i'm pretty sure all of us wouldn't mind not spending an extra 1.2k when we could buy a helmet for less than $300.  also, there were some lower paragraphs explaining costs in more detail, and injury statistics that were important.

jasco, that's all well and good that you don't want the state looking after your family.  i think that's a great idea.  however, just as with laura's comments, we operate in the real world where we can't control these things and opt out personally, either form being hit by cars, or by having our families receive wage loss pay.  therefore, while i agree with your idea, that's simply not how our state is run.  because of that, whether you want it or not, or any helmetless rider for that matter, i will be paying your family money because you weren't wearing a helmet and got yourself killed.  so, what with us needing to deal with the facts, and with reality, just wear a helmet.  

sorry if i come off like a jerk here gang, but i rather strongly believe in helmets for safety's sake, and also, i really don't want to be reading about any of you guys in the paper.  you're my gs krew!  

[Jasco]

I always wear a helmet and jacket and always buckle my seat belt.  I have a high degree of respect for my life and would like to make sure it last as long as possible.  Saying that I still believe that I should have the choice to be a dumb bastard if I so choose to be.  

matt

[Laura]

sorry if i come off like a jerk here

You don't!  

[70 Cam Guy]

You'll ride once.... and probably be okay, and knowing that the last time you rode you were fine, so you can get away with it again and again, etc.

That's exactly why there is such a problem with drunk drivers.  You make it home once a little buzzed and then confidence builds as you do it some more.  Its playing with fire.

I'm on the fence regarding the helmet law because its a personal freedom issue.  I may think its irreponsible to ride without one because of who may be left behind but I also have a problem with govt. telling us they know what's best.  I don't buy into the whole helmets hurt you "studies".  I think that on the population level, full-faced helmets help much more than they hurt.  Who knows what kind of samples were picked for these studies.

[MarkusN]

As for "with a helmet you'd be reduced to a vegetable" discussion: My aunt was a nurse and has for decades assisted surgery.

She says things they saw and  had to try to fix before helmets were the law (and when the standard helmet was the "eggshell" type) were just unbelievable. Those bad brain injuries are mostly a thing of the past now.

Of course you can still break your back, but at least the chance of an injury that really turns you into a vegetable are greatly reduced.

My neigbour is in a wheelchair since he was 22 (Surfing accident, tetraplegic even, he has control of his arms, but not fully of his fingers). He has his share of hardships, but I never got the impression that he wouldn't take and enjoy every minute of his life.

[Ed_in_Az]

 

[jkstyle834]

not wearing one is just stupid... case over

[Ed_in_Az]

not wearing one is just stupid... case over

So is getting drunk... case over.

[Kerry]

not wearing one is just stupid... case over

So is getting drunk... case over.

I'll agree with both of you, but then I'm a teetotaler that always wears his helmet....  :mrgreen:

Hmmm, do we all tend to agree with things that we already do?  If so, is that because we resist change, or because our current actions reflect our accumulated history of thought and conscious decisions...?

[Ed_in_Az]

our current actions reflect our accumulated history of thought and conscious decisions...?

Bravo Kerry.  That is precisely what it should be for each of us.  

[dmp221]

Back in the early '80s, Harry Hurt and his staff meticulously analyzed 3600 motorcycle accidents in the LA area.  Here are a few of the conclusions of the study, no particular order:

1.  The most deadly injuries to accident victimes were of the chest and head.

2.  The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention and reduction of head injury.

3.  Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury at all levels of severity.

4.  Median pre-crash speed was 29.8 MPH and median crash speed was 21.5 MPH, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approx. 86 MPH.

5.  There is NO liablility for neck injury by wearing a helmet.  helmeted riders always had less neck injury than non-helmeted riders.  Only 4 minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented more critical or fatal haed injury.

OK the Hurt study is fascinating and it's all we've got.  I'd love to see a current study done, and in multiple locations.  Anyway, I'm as much a freedom-of-choice guy as anyone (I believe what Ben Franklin said...or was it Aretha Franklin, I don't remember).."the government that governs best governs least..."

My choice:  helmet.  every time.

[Zarathustra]

ed if anyone one here is needs to take of the tin foil hat, it's you.  yeah, i'm a pretty liberal guy, but i'm not trying to enact control over a population with devious intentions in mind.  and let me get this straight, my seeing tests that show that people recieve less serious injuries when they wear helmets, and my wanting to have my money go towards myself and people who deserve it, is self-centered, egotistical, and condescending?  it's my god damn money, i'm not setting it towards some dumbass that didn't wear a brain bucket because he had "the right"not to.  i'll adopt a kid from kenya, and help charities when it's my choice, but i will not be forced to pay some morons bill when he should have been more safe.  it's just like a parent telling a child what's better for them when they can't figure it out.  people who don't wear helemts seem to be in this boat.  they must have some cognitive problem going on where they just don't get it, so yeah, make them wear a helmet.  

next.  the tip of the liberal control iceberg?  jesus.  and then you go on to talk about more things, which are all good.  i don't understand what's wrong with trying to have a safe and responcible society (seatbelt helmet), and an intelligent society (education).  as for the diet and exercise, i sincerily doubt that the liberal agenda is backing bills for the institutionalization of exercise.  and the speech and thought control?  wake up buddy, liberals arn't the only ones who tote around "progressive speech."  

i'm sorry your wife sees a growing trend in liberal sided teaching, but lets think about this.  why are liberals teachers?  perhaps because conservatives generally take higher paying jobs, and arn't involved in teaching fields.  based upon party politics concerning teachers wages, school funding, and children's mental health, most teachers are going to be liberally minded.  most people in their chosen profession don't back someone who looks to shaZam! on their efforts.

all in all ed, i really don't want to type this anymore.  you just bitched about some conspirosy theory junk, that has no external basis for fact than your own thoughts.  everyone in politics thinks that they're right, that's why they back laws for the betterment of the country.  liberals, conservatives, they all think they have the answers.  to simply lambast liberalism on a post regarding the issues of safety and neccesitiy of helmets shows what kind of theory this is.  you barge in and just spew propaganda about the evils of liberalism and the looming threat over the horizon.  you apply domination to liberal agendas when in another crackpot theory i could spout about conservative domination.  get the tin foil hat off man, i'm not promoting a world shattering change, and i'm not starting a ripple effect.  i'm backing a law that keeps people safe, ensures my money is spent how i deem that it should be, and makes people be responcible for the activites they engage themselves in.