Helmet law debated
 

Article

The one thing that really irked me is the comment made by Dave Carroll saying that the debate of whether or not to reinstated helmet law is misguided because he believes the cause of motocycle accidents are cars and trucks.

The guy's an idiot, the point of the law is to prevent serious injury. BigBen of the Steelers' accident is a clear example of that.

I'm curious to hear your opinion whether or not the helmet law should be reinstated and why

Edit: Vote Yes to force riders to wear helmets. Vote No to allow riders to ride without helmets

I'm likely to be a motorcycle rider within the next six to nine months. Ain't no way in HELL you'll catch me on a bike without a proper lid. I've got too much to live for.

Yeah, okay, you can blame cars for motorcycle accidents, but what do you want to do, outlaw cars? Yes, drivers should be better educated about sharing the road with motorcycles, but until that glorious day, what's going to keep your brain off the pavement? A HELMET.

Incidentally, I believe the word you're after is "reinstated". That means "put back into effect". "Restated" means "said again". Not to be a pedant, but there it is.

There's easier ways to kill yourself than driving around on a motorcycle without a helment. Personally, I'm all for taking the retarded people out of the gene pool, but I don't want their brains all over my sidewalk.

I'm not usually one to fall on the side of loose legislation that allows people to engage in reckless, irresponsible, and selfish behavior. Take smoking for example...I think it should be banned in most public places. /end thread jack. In this case it is simply on the rider to engage in good safety practices. As a rider myself the joke has long been that a helmet only makes your face look better as you stare up out of the casket. It's selfish of you to ride that way but it's still entirely your choice to do so. For the record I don't ride sans helmet (and I'm a non-smoker).

If any more soft headed pittsburgh squeallers want to ride without a helmet... GOOD ON YA! Yeah I'm still bitter about the intentional hit on Carson Palmer but that's a story for yet another thead on yet another board! :lol:

Ride with a GOOD helmet. It just makes good sense.

Repealing the helmet law was an idiotic idea in my opinion.

Not only a no, but a HELL NO!!

as it should be - I'd like everyone to wear a helmet to protect their noggins... however.. it's not the government's place to legislate it... (I feel the same way about seatbelts.) If you want to wear one... that's fine.. you might be saving your life someday... but it's your choice... it's not up to the goverment to decide.

I currently live in NH - the only state without a mandatory seatbelt law for adults, and one of the few states without a helmet law.. Live free or die is the state's motto - and that's the way it should be... The government should exist to protect people's rights, not to punish them for activities that really don't interfere with anyone else..

I really don't care whether people wear a helmet or not... their choice...

It should really be up to the rider to decide if they want to wear a helmet or not. Their choice doesn't hurt anyone else, and I don't think it should be the government's place to protect people from their own stupidity.

seatbelts and helmets are law in Australia- as are bicycle helmets from kids to adults The laws dont really worry me as I wear helmets on motorcycles and bikes and always wear my seatbelt. I agree with maleficent that it should be up to the individual but I live in the land where democracy means compulsory voting.(Or get fined)

Anyone who rides without a helmet is an idiot in my opinion.

However I see no reason it should be illegal.

Hows about we set up a law that you get your license to be a motorcycle driver, then you can take another hour long course or whatever to have it on your license that you explicity understand the dangers of not wearing a helmet when driving a motorcycle, and you understand the risks of t hat and all. While that course in itself may not effect a person's decision to wear a helmet, the results (higher insurance probably) would effect a person's decision to wear or not wear a helmet.

Ultimately I don't think the state should regulate helmet laws. It's a personal decision. Do what you want.

People I've talked to are very awareof the dangers, but don't think it will ever happen to them - and they love the feel of the wind in their hair (and bugs in their teeth i'd imagine.)

Last week was Bike Week at weirs beach by Lake Winnepausauke - or however the hell you spell it) in New Hampshire.. There were no less than 5 deaths of motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets.. This past saturday when I was out - I didn't see one rider wearing one... Death is for other people - wont happen to them..

While that's understandable, Mal, and I do believe you, it removes the benefit of the doubt if they explicity see people with their skulls shattered across the road.

From what I understand seatbelts are also important to stop people flying around in a car and hitting other passengers in an accident. So not wearing a seatbelt actually puts other people at risk. I may just be misinformed though.

if you don’t want to wear a Helmet, you should not have to, i think it is stupid not to, but its your right, as long as doing so does not significantly increase the risk to others (and I have yet to see proof of that) the government needs to get out of people personal space, I just don’t want to be the guy scrapping you off of the road.

That being said, I do think that eye protection should be mandated, I don’t care how tough you think you are, if the car in front kicks up a rock and it pops you in the eye, all hell is going to break loose. You will not only endanger your self, but others, and that is when the government should step in.

A doctor on TV suggested something that seems like a good idea to me.

If you don't wear a helmet, you should be required to be an organ donor.

My motorcycle riding father (who always wears a helmet) has a bandana that he wears under it.. LIVE FREE OR DIE.


I really don't feel it's the place of the government to put a law in like that. Personal responsibility goes away, so does a mature society. Personal responsibility can never be legislated. I'd wear a helmet 99% of the time, but if I don't feel the desire -- it's MY CHOICE.

I have no problem with mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. If the study listed above was any indication, the laws may actually increase the liklihood of a driver rider using the proper safety precautions.

I didn't vote in the poll because I don't know if I'm supposed to vote yes or no if I'm in favor of helmet laws.

Gilda

It's interesting to see that the American perspective of the debate is quite different from Canadian's perspective.

I would think that Americans are more likely to say no to the poll because they're not the one that's being footed with the health care cost of people who didn't wear helmet and got their head smashed.

However, on the northern side of the border, Canadians would be more likely to say yes because of the fact that health care is practically free and it is being paid for by taxpayers.

That's just my opinion though.

With the Motorcycle craze that's hit the US in the last 5-6 years there's ALOT more rookie riders on the road. I think this, along with the the repeal of the helmet law has caused an increase. I don't necessarily agree that there should be a law requiring helmets but it's kinda crazy NOT to.

I personally wear a half helmet since full face and open face helmets annoy my peripheral vision. They say it's not as safe which is logical and I agree but it's definitely not safe driving with blinders on. Not to mention it's much more comfortable.

your healthcare is not free -it is being footed by taxes... Our healthcare is being footed by taxes (medicare/medicaid) or thru private insurance (paid for by an individual or thru a group plan thru an employer) Inmost cases, with the group plan, a non smoking healthy eater who drives a safe car pays exactly the same amount as the smoker, who lives on fast food and drives a motorcycle without a helmet.

the cost of healthcare has no bearing on my argument... it's about the government trying to protect people from themselves... that's not their place to do that.

I'd say it is - that is why hard drugs are illegal, for example - people as a whole are notorious for taking extraordinarily bad care for themselves. My buddy came over the handlebars of his bike not long ago. It was a 1000cc yamaha, and it landed on his head. If his arm didn't catch on the mirror and break his wrist and shoulder, he would have walked away from it with cuts and bruises.

If someone wipes off their bike and dies, they're not the only ones affected - their friends, their families have to deal with the pain involved. Nobody will come and arrest you for not wearing a helmet, it's a fine, a deterrent. Getting rid of that? You're just asking to foot the bill for massive cosmetic surgery, quadraplegics, comatose patients. Bad idea.

Every time some idiot gets killed or turned into a vegetable for not using a helmet, my insurance rates go up. I could care less if the less intelligent amongst us are weeded out by death due to misadventure, but alas, it ends up costing me so I am entirely in favour of seatbelt and helmet laws.

And perhaps the poll should be edited for clarity.

I think healthcare does factor into it. My taxes go to pay for the idoit that rides his motorcycle without a helmet. More to the point, it increases the governments expenses so it behooves them to mitigate those expenses by limiting the damage one can do to oneself with helmet and seatbelt laws.

I wouldn't be surprised to see insurance companies add caveats that if the rider is determined to not have been wearing a helmet then they aren't covered. This would be the equivalent action.

So if we just have people wandering around with a shot gun and kill the people who wipe out on their bikes and eliminite the whole - living for years in a vegatative state at the taxpayers expense - the problem is solved right? :D

Not a good reason for the government saying they shoudl wear a helmet, they shoudl wear a helmet for their own good... because they want to protect themselves... and perhaps their loved ones...

A motorcycle, like any other vehicle, has to be insured... if a person chooses to not wear a helmet, then they should have higher insurance rates for the motocycle.

Simple solution: Outlaw motorcycles :)

The high majority of injuries caused my bike accidents are not to the head. My father whom worked as an EMT many many moons ago told me this. He also said that the weight of some helmets can cause serious neck injuries.

Also, I dont feel that its the governments buisness to force us to protect ourselves for our own good. That goes for seat belts as well. I do wear my seat belts, and I don't ride bikes, but if I did my state doesnt require me to wear a helmet and I'm glad

Cars have accidents, outlaw cars.
Children fall off of bicycles, outlaw children.
People stub their toes on furniture on the way to the bathroom in themiddle of thenight, outlaw bathrooms - or the middle of the night... your choice. :D
People take the info given on afternoon talk shows seriously, outlaw people.
Decaf coffee makes me cranky, outlaw me.
People get divorced, outlaw romance...

I dont honestly care if someone wears a helmet or not... all I want to know is...

How many people died of just head injuries in which a helmet "may have" spared their life and how many would have died anyway from massive internal organ trauma or from their bodies being so mangled and broken that no matter what they would have been toast.

If someone cares so little for themselves and their families that they're willing to risk their life and cause their loved ones' grief, then let survival of the fittest take effect. I have been on a motorcycle once in my life without a helmet, and that was in a large private parking lot, going very slowly, on the weekend when there weren't any other vehicles there, for a total of three minutes. It's exhilirating, yes, but worth risking my life to do that on the streets, no. I don't even like the "brain bucket" helmets. Put me in a full helmet with a face shield, or nothing at all.

First of all...I should like to state for the record, that I, Bill O'Rights, have not ridden a motorcycle sans helmet since 1978. It was during that year that I pulled my Yamaha off of the top of me, sat down on the side of the gravel road that I had just wiped out on, removed the helmet, that heretofore I had only worn sporadically, took a look at the left side of it. Or rather...what was left of the left side of it. It had been almost completely ground away from the abrasion. I had ridden that exact stretch of road only the day before with no helmet. Had I crashed then...well, suffice it to say that any face that I have today would have been prosthetic. I kept that helmet. 28 years later...I still have it. It's a nice reminder of what could have happened. And I do bring it out on occasion. Usually to demonstrate to someone why helmets are necessary.

However...the government need not legislate laws to protect me from myself. I am fully capable of making these decisions for myself. In fact, nowhere, that I can seeing, is there any provision in the Constitution, or anywhere else for that matter, giving congress the authority to mandate the personal use of any safety equipment. Therefore, pro helmet as I am...I am adamantly against any form of helmet or seatbelt legislation. Period.

This is a great example of the huge problem with socialized healthcare. Now that everyone is forced into a healthcare system, most feel it's OK to legislate out things that are agreed to be dangerous or unhealthy. Who are you to say that I must wear a helmet? It's bad legislation on top of bad in my opinion.

Voluntary healthcare and voluntary helmet wearing is the solution that supports everyone's freedoms the best.

That's an excellent point, they don't have the authority to legislate that. They have no jurisdiction over my body. Any law they pass regarding helmets is done through fiat. Government's job is to protect the rights of people, not to protect people from themselves. Riding without a helmet is not violating anyone's rights.

My thinking is that it is a common sense thing to use a helmet when you're riding a motorcycle. No! your face is not harder than the ashphalt and it's not harder than a truck's windshiled, if you're idiot enough not to realize it, then the gene pool is running low in your side and it will be nature's responsability to take care of you so you can't breed. That been said, no law should interfere with nature's survival of the fittest.

This thread underscores, once again, the great divide between Canada and the US.

The US sure loves their freedoms.


(no sarcasm intended... just an observation of differences)

sometimes we're like petulant 4 year olds... we're gonna do what you want us to do anyhow - just don't tell us that we have to do it... :)

heh that was my thought, but I wasn't going to say it...

Yes but aren't the legislators morally obligated to pass such legislation if it will save lives? I can understand concerns about this being a case in which, to a certain extent, freedom is being traded for security and there is a rather famous quote warning againts that.

But being forced to wear a helmet however, could be compared to being stopped walking near an unstable cliff. Would you stop your friend walking next to the cliff even if they were fully aware of the risk? What about banning it for everyone?

I am not entirely comfortable in dismissing any law to do with the safety of individuals (even if they're not putting anyone else at risk). I am not againts saving people from their own stupidity. Of course there is still the fundemental problem in that you're limiting somebody's freedom in a way that is incompatible with the underlying ideals of the United States.

I guess I would agree with Charlatan. You will find more opposition for this kind of law in the United States because of the great emphasis on individual freedom in the nation's ideals. The opposition will come because of these principles. Then again you hardly see anyone in Germany on a bicycle wearing a helmet, but in Australia most do and it is mandated by law. So it's not like the USA has a monopoly on non-helmet wearing culture at the expense of the western European social democracies.

Be still my beating heart.... :love:

As for the tax angle...I don't mind paying a bit more today to cover the acts of the 'hopelessly stupid,' as long as, in the future, they remember my generosity and return the favor.

no - legislators are obligated to protect the rights of individuals.

if we're going by moral obligation, who's morals are we going by? Mine (I'm an uptight prude) someone else's who's less uptight? Doesn't that become a slipperly slope at some point, if we start legislating on what is morally right or not?

Don't encourage them. They already sneer down their noses at us because we're not entirely obsessed with hockey. You're only feeding their Canadian sense of superiority with remarks like that. :p

Your original Constitution and all amendments have been based on the morals of those that wrote them, ye know.

1980 for me, sliding my bike under a car that pulled out in front of me didn't do it. Having my pregnant girlfriend, now wife, demand that I wear one did the job. It prefer one now.

Last year, an acorn sized rock got flung off a tire and took out the polycarbonate visor on my helmet. The visor stopped the rock; but was no longer transparent afterwards. I'm not sure what would have happened if it had hit my face, instead.

I wear a full faced, Snell approved helmet, leather jacket, gloves and boots every time I ride. However, I fully support your right to be a moron if you choose.

If they don't put into effect a helmet at least make people sign a release if they don't want to wear one.

At least in California, the legislation was put into effect soely because of the state footing the healthcare bills for those who are dependant on state care for the many expensive-to-treat and preventable head injuries. Ideally, if the state takes care of your butt (or your head, or any combination of the two), then I'd say they have a right to tell you you have to wear a helmet.

Obviously though, that'd be impossible to enforce.

I guess the next best thing would be for the insurance companies to do the ruthless enforcement--that's their specialty, after all.

It's hard, because I do believe that helmet laws save and improve lives in general, but it's easy to see how this line of thought could be abused by the government. It's also easy to see how the general public could also take this arguement to rediculous extremes.

Edited to add: I do like the idea of the mandatory organ donorship if nothing else but to make a point, but I'm sure that would inflame people who don't want the gov't to impose *that* either.

For the record, I'm highly in favor of organ donorship. By force, if needed! :p :thumbsup:

To be honest, if you chose to ride a bike/motorcycle without a helmet, your an idiot.

I've come off various vehicular transportation devices with a helmet, hurt like hell, but i'm still hear now to moan and bitch about it.

As long as you have insurance, so the country doesn't end up paying for your hospitalization because of your "preference", it should be your call if you wear a helmet or not.

I'd just prefer that everyone did, because I live in Florida, so I won't have to scoop up so much brain matter and console your families when i'm a Paramedic.

I don't like legislating personal decisions that have no impact on me. If you want to die, I'm not gonna vote on a law to keep you from it.

I already had one kid yesterday during one of my clinicals who fell off his moped, landed straight on his head at only 30 mph. 17 years old. Thankfully, he lived because he had his helmet on.

I find it funny that a state the foots the bill for thousands of illegals, has a problem with paying for people who don't wear a helmet even if they pay health insurance and/or pay into socialized healthcare system. To me it seems they did it more to enhance the police-state than to save on healthcare costs.

You see how helmet laws could be abused by the government, but fail to see how organ donation could be abused by them too? Sorry, but mandatory organ donorship is a hellish practice. Just look to China where you can get a match for a pristine 20 year old's kidney in two weeks. You don't have to have that great of an imagination to figure out that scenario is impossible unless you're killing people only for their organs.

True! I find it interesting as well.

I thought it would be funny to propose organ *Donation* by force...it's a joke, see?

Well being that I've been riding motorcycles for a while and that I race my bikes off-road this is a big thing for me. I don't know many people that approve of me riding on the street but I'm trying to get a street bike anyways. I live in Phoenix, one of the most dangerous places for motorcycles and I've know people that have died or been injured on motorcycles.

It's true that alot of the danger comes from other people on the road but I do agree that it is a surival of the fittest issue. I don't think that it's necessarily right for the government to control helmet use but I understand that it would save lives. It's not about speed it's just how you will hit the pavement when you crash. Your skin gets damaged too but you can easily fall back and hit your head hard enough to have permanent brain damage.

That said, my dad is a neurologist and he constantly rides without a helmet. I can understand people not wanting to wear helmets, especially out here where it's 117 degrees in the summer but personally, I've hit my head enough to have learned. Granted I still ride on the dirt with out protection somtimes..last time I did I flipped my bike and lost a good amount of skin.

I'm all for freedom.

I'll stay out of the whole helmet thing, I just don't enjoy arguing that much but I do have a couple of observations.

In this state, and probably most of the country, you can just walk in and buy a zero to 60 in 3 seconds, 160 MPH or faster machine, weighing anywhere from 300 to 1800 pounds, (yes, really), and you don't even need to prove that you can operate the thing. You might need a license to ride it on public roads, but not to buy it.

To get a license in this state, unless you were grandfathered in like me, you need to take a basic class at slow speed to learn to operate said machine. Bingo, you have a motorcycle license and you can now ride it where ever you want.

Interesting observation about helmets. So, you have the best helmet money can buy, guaranteed to save your noggin. So, where are your boots, leathers, armor, gloves, etc? I see people every day with helmets, and T-shirts, shorts, flip flop shoes and women with almost nothing on but the helmet. (Not that I don't enjoy that part).

I have wrecked a few times and have seen several. I pretty much have slid to a stop on my leather jacket, jeans, gloves, and boots each time. I have also seen a few folks slide to a stop on their arms and bare legs. I once saw a guy slide to a stop with his bike on top of his left leg. He was wearing tennis shoes and had sanded the outside of his ankle off. From the screaming I assumed it probably stung a little.

My only point in all of this is that it is not just a helmet issue. Idiots with helmets die also. If you are going to discuss safety equipement then I think you should discuss all of it.

By the way, I don't ALWAYS wear a helmet but I have two and they are both full face, high dollar items. I wear em as I see fit.

As you were.

Sorry, I guess I'm too used to the more abrasive and no joking around attitude over in the politics forum to pick up on jokes. :thumbsup:

Exactly why I can't survive in the Politics forum.:)

I don't think the government should mandate helmets or seatbelts. Recommend yes, Require no.

I wonder which would save more lives and injury, requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets or requiring car passengers to wear helmets. By shear numbers alone I bet many more lives would be saved in the car crashes even with seatbelts on. How far do we want our government to go in protecting us? I do not like the logic of "if it saves one person's life, it is worth it". Freedom from excessive intrusion from our government is worth something.

My insurance agent tells me that motorcycle insurance is reasonably priced because 9 out of 10 times an accident is the car driver's fault and they collect from them. However since they also insure the cars they probably wish that motorcycles would just go away.

I don't want to get into a lot of statistics debate because one can usually twist the numbers around to show what you want but a few comments on the OP's Florida numbers:
I wonder how many of those would have died even with a helmet on?
From my experience riding over 30 years, there are many who will stop riding altogether or ride a lot less if required to wear a helmet. Perhaps the number of increased riders and miles ridden are contributing to the increase in deaths? I believe that one of the main reasons that helmet laws save lives is because it reduces the amount of motorcycle riding. Our government and the insurance companies would probably support an outright ban of motorcycles if it was politically possible and with the attitudes expressed in this thread we may not be far from it.

That, my friend, is a most excellent point. If we're going to legislate the mandatory use of helmets, then let's also make mandatory the use of leather jackets, chaps, gloves and boots. And, while we're at it, lets also recognize that 4 wheels on the ground are much safer than 2. Therefore, let's enact legislation requiring all motorcycles to have 4 wheels. Is it not also common sense that it is safer to be surrounded by a protective cabin, than ride out in the open? Ok...let's mandate that all motorcycles be surrounded by a cabin constructed of metal and glass (you have to be able to see out). Oooh...I know...let's also make straps that the operator can tie himself to seat with, and mandate thier use.

There are far more people dying of causes that leave healthy organs available for transplant than there are people needing organs. The shortage is caused by people not taking the time to indicate that they want to donate. Because it's a system that is based on the presumption of not consenting, the large majority who never think about it one way or the other end up being buried with their organs intact.

I'm fully in favor of a presumption of consent to donate. It would work exactly as it does now. In case of an accidental death, the family would be contacted and asked what their wishes were regarding donation, and if the next of kin objected, no donation would occur; if they consented, the organs would be donated.

The big difference would be for the apathetic middle. Those like my family would still donate, and those, like the Orthodox Jewish family that lives next door, who have religious or other reasons not to donate, would still have their wishes honored. But that apathetic middle would be donating rather than not, and the organs lost because a person with a donor card or donor marked license has no family to consent would be used.

Heck, short of that, a very simple, easy to implement change would make a huge difference: Ask people when renewing licenses if they want to donate their organs. Many who make no effort on their own will say yes when asked. Make this a standard section of the license and then use that as consent without requiring additional family consent.

Grace has told me that they routinely get potential donors with a donor card or a marked license whose organs are lost because a family member can't be located quickly enough or the family member refuses donation against the expressed wishes of the patient. The beauty of this system is that it's a small change, no government intrusion, and it follows the wishes of the individual rather than relying on others to speak for her.

Grace also is a bit ambivalent regarding helmets. Young, healthy accident victims with severe head injuries and intact internal organs are the perfect organ donors.

Gilda

Can we build them to seat eight and get real crappy gas mileage? :lol:


This is how the system should work. Decision ----> consequence

Sorry, I draw the line on chaps.

Every time I consider them, I get Village People flashbacks.:eek:

I don't know Bill, that contraption full of folks strapped into the equipment sounds pretty darn dangerous to me. And you want to surround these folks with glass? Shouldn't they be wearing helmets? And gloves? Glass can cut you pretty bad. And how can you jump off if it decides to fall over? Wouldn't you all be mushed together inside if it rolled over several times?

It certainly looked like a learning experience to me. Pretty messy once we got the bike off of him also. Ich! The screaming sure harshed my buzz!

And I agree StanT, but then I live in cowboy country and can get away with it a little better. ;)




And I didn't even plan to have a horse in this race! Sucked in again.:cool:

When you buy car or motorcycle insurance it's not to protect you from any harm other than financial. If you're in a single car or bike wreck, your insurance company isn't going to pay for anything other than you damaged vehicle. So if you drive your bike into a concrete wall at 100 mph (with or without a helmet), your insurance company is just going to send your estate a check for the cost of the bike minus depreciation.

Unfortunately, the insurance industry can't solve this problem, no matter how much they may want to (and trust me, anything that will lower claims costs they are all for). Since insurance policies are written to protect the people you hurt (liability section), your physical property (physical damage section) and you if you're hit by someone with no or not enough insurance (uninsured/underinsured motorist section), there's no way to craft any language anywhere except the UM/UIM portion (which is an optional coverage only purchased by about 35% of drivers) to remove coverage if you don't wear your helmet. Most auto claims end up going to the health insurance carrier and since most Americans buy their health insurance through work to get better rates, it's unlikely that a blanket helmet requirement would be legal since it's a coverage provided by the employer who pays for at least a portion of it. If I'm driving and hit someone, my insurance can't have an exclusion of coverage for a third party that I injure because of my actions/negligence because that third party wasn't wearing a helmet. I'm still liable for my actions, and that denial of coverage could theoretically bankrupt me.

That all said, I'm fine with the state telling you to wear your damn helmet just as I'm ok with them telling you that have to have the proper departments have to sign off on the plans for your new house - it's too dangerous to have a lack of oversight.

Just to clarify...

I agree that some government oversight is good. We probably just differ on what kind and how much. There are many things we people do that is not healthy or safe. I guess I look to the state to be more like the protector of our freedom rather than protecting us from ourselves, at least in most cases.

I just don't want to be stuck with the bill when one of these people ends up a vegetable.

Helmet laws are good for the idiots that make the foolish choice not to wear one.
Stupid people need stupid laws.

Unless you are the guy who has to come along afterwards and clean someone's brain off the road. I'd say having to clean up after irresponsible people is having your life interfered with. I've gotta say I'm happy that Oz has legislation that makes safety things compulsory. Sometimes I think Americans take their "freedom" a little too seriously.

Perhaps we need to outlaw guns ;)

You obviously don't watch funniest home videos - there is almost always a 4 wheel motor bike doing strange tricks (i.e. flipping over). 4 wheel bikes are inherently unstable - their center of gravity is just wrong...

I see, and agree, with both sides of the argument.

I agree that helmets save lives, and that every motorcyclist should wear one.

I also agree that it isn't the government's place to enforce it, it should be common sense.

And yeah... survival of the fittest is great to bring up in this argument.

My problem with the whole thing is that there are some pretty shady traffic laws in this country. Enough that if the motorcyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet caused an accident with me, and his brains end up on my vehicle... if his family got a snazzy lawyer, -I- could be liable for his death. That's fucked up. There are laws that try to simplify traffic accidents to the point that in many states, you are automatically at fault if you were the car in the rear or the accident. So if Joe Headstrong decides to dump his bike right in front of my car, and I crush his head under my wheels, suddenly I am at fault for his death.

My feelings are, if you want to ride without a helmet on public roads, you should feel free to do so, but if you do, then you are held responsible for all injuries to your head, regardless of who's fault an accident is.

Cars have to meet a minimum crash rating to be allowed on public US roads for a reason. There is no reason they shouldn't have that same crash rating for your head.

The mafia has "cleaners" that come along and clean up after a mob hit... they could be put to good use here :)

Riding a motorcycle in traffic is like diving in shark infested waters without a cage. Riding the bike in traffic in the first place is the big danger and helmets offer little protection.

I still believe that the reason the stats show fewer deaths/injuries when helmet laws are enacted is largely because of the reduced number of riders and miles ridden.
Forbes: http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/mike...9/Helmets.html
I found the following rather amusing but it hasn't been all that long ago when most people would say that seatbelt laws were ridiculous.

I was almost run over 3 times within 7 minutes today made me glad I was wearing my helmet, gloves, jacket, jeans, and boots. Would have given me a fighting chance if they had gone ahead and run over me.

As long as the passenger is wearing a helmet, I couldn't care less. If someone wants to ride without a helmet and ends up dead, well... that's their own damn fault. They should've known better.

Where in the hell did you get such a drastically untrue opinion stuck in your head?

What, do you think the #1 cause of motorcycle deaths is road rash or something? No. What's the part of the body most likely to kill you if you sustain trauma there? That's right, it's your head.

I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. It just creates more room for the rest of us.

When I was 13, I asked my father for a motorcycle. He said he'd rather give me a pistol instead, because if I really wanted to kill myself he'd rather I do it properly. On that same note, my big sister is a high-ranking official in state government yet she rides her Harley everywhere (including Daytona every March). ANd she does wear a bucket.

So...about this sister of yours....:D

You mean the redheaded one? The married redheaded one? The married redheaded one whose ex-tournament karate-fighting husband rides with her to Daytona on his Harley, too?

Of course, if you whipped that spidercrawl manuever on him, I think you could take him.