National Helmet Laws. Comming soon?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Helmet laws are needed for the stupid, simply because if you don't volentarily wear one, you are stupid! My fullface HJC saved me and my chin, then I smacked up a C1 another time!

 

Glad the FF helmet did its thing for ya. But riding bare-headed isn't stupid, if done with the full awareness/acceptance of what the possible/probable outcomes are.

 

helmets (and helmet laws) are VERY NECESSARY!

 

...very necessary...for what? If you like the wind in your hair and the unmuffled roar of a V-twin in your ears, they're an impediment.

 

I'm sure if your health insurance provider knew you weren't wearing one they would want to drop you!

 

My HI provider never asked about my motorcycle riding. Or my SCUBA diving. Or any of a whole range of other potentally hazardous activites. They just don't care. OTOH, my life insurance provider asked a LOT of questions about my SCUBA diving. and they asked if I'm involved in motorcycle racing, but didn't ask anything about street riding. And they certainly didn't ask whether I wear a helmet or not.

 

I had stones throne at my visor from tires, bumblebees, bettles, better my helmet than my face! I can't believe the amount of fools I see when I leave NJ and go to NY State wearing no helmet!

 

It does seem strange to me, too, but I'm not so presumptuous as to call the whole lot of them fools. Maybe they catch a june bug on the cheek once in a while, and they just chalk it up as the price they pay for not having four pounds of sound-muffling, wind-masking foam and plastic wrapped around their head.

 

I guess my opening line was a bit inappropriate, I'm sure many riders I have seen not wearing a helmet have a much higher IQ than myself...

 

Don't know what your IQ is, but mine's pretty high. I have indeed gone without a helmet before, and I don't much appreciate being called stupid for doing so. As Bob pointed out earlier in the thread, you'd be wise to review the user agreement and reconsider your use of pejoratives.

[SnowDog]

1. Do non-helmet wearers really cost more?

 

If so, then can I assume that insurance premiums are higher in states without helmet laws than they are in states with helmet laws?

 

 

Good point. In New Hampshire, I do not get asked if I wear a helmet though I am sure my policy rates are helping to subsidize the injured helmetless out there.

 

I was wondering if someday, insurance companies would write policies and establish rates based on helmet usage.

 

I could see there being a surcharge that allows additional coverage for accidents incurred without the use of a helmet. One's choice is preserved while removing some of the cost burden from others.

[Wyn]

How bout this? If you wear a helmet you pay X amount for insurance. If you don't you pay 50% more for your insurance. If you have coverage for wearing a helmet, you go down and your not wearing it. Sorry, you weren't wearing a helmet, your on your own. That way I don't have to pay for your mistake. You do. Never happen, just a thought.

[SnowDog]

How bout this? If you wear a helmet you pay X amount for insurance. If you don't you pay 50% more for your insurance. If you have coverage for wearing a helmet, you go down and your not wearing it. Sorry, you weren't wearing a helmet, your on your own. That way I don't have to pay for your mistake. You do. Never happen, just a thought.

 

Excellent timing.

[UberXY]

MY ex-girlfriend rode her new R1200RT to MarineWorld and blew a seal. The security guards threw her out.

 

Sorry, just thought the thread needed a little levity.

[Bob Palin]

Good point. In New Hampshire, I do not get asked if I wear a helmet though I am sure my policy rates are helping to subsidize the injured helmetless out there.

What makes you sure of that? How do you know that helmeted riders are not surviving numerous crashes that would have killed them without helmets and then their other injuries are costing us a fortune.

[Lets_Play_Two]

"I am sure my policy rates are helping to subsidize the injured helmetless out there."

 

As well as those who drop their motorcycles in the garage!!

[rob1100r]

quote:

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

So? You ride a dangerous, impractical, unforgiving, inefficient vehicle that exposes you to the elements. So you put a little plastic hat on for protection...big whup.

 

What beemerman2k is saying, is that if helmet use should be mandatory because of the "cost to society", then we should ban motorcycles since even a fully geared-up rider is considerably more vulnerable than a car driver.

 

 

Well, geared up is better than geared down, it was the times I hit pavement, part of the reason I may still be breathing! I will never argue the fact that you are at much higher risk riding than driving! As far as impractical/inefficient goes??? I would be a better 'environmentalist' riding my 40+ MPG motorcycle than always driving my pickup!

[beemerman2k]

Well, geared up is better than geared down, it was the times I hit pavement, part of the reason I may still be breathing! I will never argue the fact that you are at much higher risk riding than driving!

 

Then how do you justify to the non-riding public that the risk you are taking by riding a motorcycle ought to be protected even though:

 

- you are far more likely going to cost society a lot more money if you crash than you would in your truck

 

- what you do is widely considered by society in general, and the medical profession in particular, as being very suicidal. I'm sure you've heard the term "donor-cycles". That term isn't applied solely toward those who ride without helmets.

 

You feel society ought to bear your risk because in your mind, the risks are acceptable. Yet you feel that those who ride with different risks ought not be acceptable. Don't you see the inherent hypocrisy in your approach?

 

The whole point of the anti-helmet law argument is: let's not encourage laws that regulate others who are not like ourselves. If we go down that road, then we had better kiss all our motorcycles goodbye as there are far more car drivers who don't want to "pay" for any of us going down than there are helmet wearing motorcyclists who only want to limit the law to non-helmet wearers.

 

At work, I listen to KQED radio over the Internet. Everyday at least 1 motorcyclist -- and often it's more than 1 -- goes down in the Bay Area. Oftentimes, the accident is fatal. Now I know California has a helmet law, yet society still has to bear the myriad of costs, even if the cost is in terms of the staggering traffic jams that result from the accident, by the suicidal helmet-wearing motorcyclist!

 

You feel free to impose the costs of your risks on others, yet at the same time want to regulate others whose risks might vary from yours! Unreal.

[Mike]

It seems like we often wade into the helmet debate with notions of risk and social costs that seem intuitive, but turn out to be fallacious. As an example, a recent study reported in Scientific American noted that bicyclists who wear helmets are subjected to more risky behavior by motorists than unhelmeted riders. Could it be that that would prove true for motorcyclists as well?

 

Though I haven't searched for the studies to cite in this post, there are ample statistics that indicate that helmeted and unhelmeted riders suffer pretty much the same rates of serious and fatal injuries while riding. This sort has been attributed to risk adjustment by riders, who apparently adopt increasingly risky riding behaviors as they don more protective gear.

 

In a more perfect world, there might be a closer correlation between wearing a helmet and reducing one's risk of death or serious injury. Those who would suggest that the government intervene in this decision haven't convinced me that there's any social benefit to be gained. That being the case, why on Earth would anyone want Congress or civil servants making those decisions for you?

[John in VA]

Those who would suggest that the government intervene in this decision haven't convinced me that there's any social benefit to be gained. That being the case, why on Earth would anyone want Congress or civil servants making those decisions for you?

 

I'm convinced by common sense that helmets can and do save lives, but that's just me. Some folks are more the cost/benefit/statistics kind. In a democracy, it's all a matter of convincing others. But why on Earth does anyone believe that an ephemeral, nefarious "Congress" makes such decisions "for us"? We make those decisions ourselves -- by casting ballots for legislators whose policies we support. Those who don't vote are the only ones for whom Congress is making decisions. Anyway, I'm out of this political debate for fear of offending a Moderator by characterizing the wisdom (or lack thereof) of riders who like the wind in their hair and the sound of their pipes at 80mph.

[Wyn]

MY ex-girlfriend rode her new R1200RT to MarineWorld and blew a seal. The security guards threw her out.

 

Sorry, just thought the thread needed a little levity.

 

Thanks!

[beemerman2k]

I'm convinced by common sense that helmets can and do save lives, but that's just me.

 

For the record, it's me too!

 

I live in the only state in New England that has a helmet law (Massachusetts). But I work in New Hampshire and every day I see motorcyclists without helmets on riding around on their bikes. In fact, I recently saw a man riding his R1100RT with shorts, tee-shirt and no helmet! I wanted to take his picture and post it on this forum.

 

Personally, I think riding without protective gear is nuts! I literally cringe whenever I see people riding -- especially young couples riding with minimal clothing, let alone without protective gear; I almost can't stand to even look at them. But I strongly defend the right of every adult to live freely and to live in a way that even I might not approve of. After all, I want the freedoms to live as I choose without the intervention of others on my personal choices. AND, that young rider who lacks respect for ATGATT used to be me! When I started riding back in the Summer of '77, there was no MSF and there was little in the way of protective gear.

 

Having said that, if I had it my way and everyone asked me for my opinion on how they should ride, everyone would wear good, protective gear and a good full-face helmet.

 

...but that's just me

 

(Actually, I would bet this is the position of 95+% of everyone on this forum, regardless of where they stand on a helmet law)

[RFW]

Just keep on giving up your freedoms for warm fuzzies and see where that will lead you. A warm fuzzy cocoon where you won't be allowed to do anything not expressly desired by the government.

We have had a helmet law here in BC since the 1960s. I rode with one always, even before the law was passed. Now, we have a helmet law even for bicyclists, although no one pays much attention to it.

 

My problem with these laws has nothing to do with the kneejerk argument about "freedoms" (at least not directly). I have a BIG problem with the increasing tendency for governments (who are SUPPOSED to reflect the will of the people), turning into a nanny-state that dictates to the individual what is good for him.

 

The argument up here is supposed to be that wearing a helmet IS the government's business, since the government here pays the cost of hospitalization in the event of an injury. If you accept this argument, then soon we will be required to always hold onto a handrail when climbing stairs, or it will become law to wear protective eyewear at all times!

 

But in the US, where there is no significant government funded health (and in fact more than the entire population of Canada there has no medical insurance at all), the above argument clearly is without any merit at all.

 

From my point of view, if someone does not want to wear a helmet, they can suffer the consequences and that is entirely their problem. With the lawsuit mania that has developed, maybe the government is afraid to be sued for not having forced an injured person to have used a helmet?

 

More to the point, I believe that like in Canada, helmet laws in the US are the domain of the state (or here, the province), and cannot be enacted by the federal government.

[SnowDog]

Good point. In New Hampshire, I do not get asked if I wear a helmet though I am sure my policy rates are helping to subsidize the injured helmetless out there.

What makes you sure of that? How do you know that helmeted riders are not surviving numerous crashes that would have killed them without helmets and then their other injuries are costing us a fortune.

 

Well, maybe not the most accurate choice of words. I am not sure on exactly what the real costs are or how the actuaries at the insurance companies do view the risk of insuring a rider in a state without a helmet law.

 

But, I do know a few insurance companies do not write policies in this state due to the helmet law ( Geico for instance ). I can't imagine that the actuaries in these companies that DO provide coverage in this state do not impose some policy cost do to the likelihood of me riding without a helmet.

 

So in a sense, the cost of the perceived risk is passed onto me.

[beemerman2k]

So in a sense, the cost of the perceived risk is passed onto me.

 

Yeah, but are you aware of the fact that the "costs" associated with you riding a motorcycle is passed onto the non-riding public? Why is that acceptable to you, yet it isn't acceptable for all who ride under the law?

[dmk]

Well, maybe not the most accurate choice of words. I am not sure on exactly what the real costs are or how the actuaries at the insurance companies do view the risk of insuring a rider in a state without a helmet law.

 

But, I do know a few insurance companies do not write policies in this state due to the helmet law ( Geico for instance ). I can't imagine that the actuaries in these companies that DO provide coverage in this state do not impose some policy cost do to the likelihood of me riding without a helmet.

 

So in a sense, the cost of the perceived risk is passed onto me.

 

Until somebody provides data showing that health care expenditures are greater on average for non-helmeted riders, it's just a straw man argument.

 

And I wonder whether the cost burden is really the key issue for the pro-helmet law crowd. Suppose we did have data, and it revealed no significant differences in the average health care costs of helmeted vs. non-helmeted riders. Do you think people would stop advocating helmet laws? I don't. I suspect that helmet law advocates are motivated primarily by the desire to control dangerous behavior, and that the presumed cost burden is just a convenient debating point.

 

And by the way, isn't it ironic that the one state in New England that has a helmet law also happens to be the state with the highest insurance premiums? (I know that's mainly due to regulation, but I still find it ironic).

[Little Joe]

How bout this? If you wear a helmet you pay X amount for insurance. If you don't you pay 50% more for your insurance. If you have coverage for wearing a helmet, you go down and your not wearing it. Sorry, you weren't wearing a helmet, your on your own. That way I don't have to pay for your mistake. You do. Never happen, just a thought.

 

Great idea. Unlike most laws, it's complete, concise, and grounded in the principles of laissez-faire economics and personal responsibility that this country was founded on.

 

Not a chance it would pass.

[SnowDog]

So in a sense, the cost of the perceived risk is passed onto me.

 

 

 

Yeah, but are you aware of the fact that the "costs" associated with you riding a motorcycle is passed onto the non-riding public? Why is that acceptable to you, yet it isn't acceptable for all who ride under the law?

 

Whoa!! How did that get torn out of context?

 

 

That statement was tied to the fact that my insurance rates are higher because I live in a state without a helmet law. Not that I was complaining but I do share in the perceived burden because there is not distinction between those who wear a helmet and those who don't from the insurers point of view.

 

If you are trying to stretch this concept to imply that this view is hypocritical because my riding itself imposes a societal cost then please explain this cost.

 

I do the responsible things like:

I pay my state registration and fees.

I have motorcycle insurance.

I have health insurance.

 

Not that I have had an accident, but if I do, as well as I can see, I have the costs covered. In NH, they have no problem billing you for emergency services.

 

And in the mean time, my bike is less wear and tear on the roads and reduces my carbon footprint due to getting 50mpg as opposes to 15mpg in my Pickup.

 

I think I am keeping my societal costs to a minimum.

 

Unless you are referring that I am not paying my share of the average societal cost of motorcycles in general (for all the services provided to the uninsured showing up broken up on the ERs doorstep with injuries from riding recklessly and possibly without decent gear). But is this fair also?

 

But that brings us full circle in the discussion doesn’t it?

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

David said, "You didn't ruffle my feathers. I'm trying to save you from yourself."

 

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement?

[Mike]

It does seem as though we're treading a dangerously slippery slope if we as motorcyclists buy into the "social costs" argument. There are differential social costs in virtually everything humans do. If we want to be honest with outselves, motorcycling is, for about 90% of us, a hobby. For that 90% (or whatever the number may be), the cost to society is great--we're using carbon-based fuel, which defaces the Earth, we're using up transportation resources (roads, law enforcement, traffic capacity), when we could be spending our recreational time hiking or paddling a canoe. We're needlessly exposing our loved ones to ruin if they lose our financial support as the result of injury or death.

 

Personally, in the past 30-plus years as a motorcyclist I've riden maybe one or two miles total without a helmet. I think it's the prudent thing to do. But, I'm absolutely convinced that it's a short leap from mandating helmets to other significant restrictions and, perhaps, an outright ban on motorcycles.

 

If you think that that's far-fetched, I'd remind you of a few "exploratory ideas" that have been floated in the span of my riding career: requirements to wear reflective vests, limitations on displacement, establishing vehicle modification prohibitions that apply only to motorcycles and not cars, speed governors, mandatory motorcycle seat belts (?!?!?!), and, yes, BANNING MOTORCYCLES FROM ALL PUBLIC ROADS.

 

That's right. The NHTSA, under the direction of Joan Claybrook, developed a plan in the early seventies to eliminate motorcycles from public roads in the United States over a ten-year period. Why? The social cost was too great.

[eddd]

...The NHTSA, under the direction of Joan Claybrook, developed a plan in the early seventies to eliminate motorcycles from public roads in the United States over a ten-year period. Why? The social cost was too great.

 

There's a name from the past! How well I remember that bureaucrat's name. She had to be one of the worse, self-annointed "experts" our government has ever seen. Didn't she also have some ridiculous idea for the design of motorcycles?

[drzep]

If you crash while riding sans helmet, your chances of landing in the ICU are quite high. Once in the ICU, the expenses you incur are astronomical. Once you become comatose, you incur more expenses and a ridiculously painful ride for your friends and family. Could it happen with a helmet? Of course. Is it as likely? No.

 

I treat these people every day in the neuro-ICU; it's my job as a neurointensivist. From the data we have in our trauma database, the likely hood of having intracranial swelling and/or bleeding leading to permanent disability is roughly 20-fold greater in the 'no helmet' group verses the helmeted group. Make of it what you will. To me, safety trumps liberty - sorry.

 

Here is a great example from a few weeks ago. This was a 19 year old on an R1 who low sided a turn and hit his head on a telephone pole. A few scrapes on his arms and legs, but no broken bones - other than his skull. No helmet. He died 5 hours post intubation in our neuro-ICU. There is no question that he would have walked out of the hospital had he been wearing a helmet, as this was a very low speed incident with no neck trauma at all. I see this more than I am comfortable admitted to you all. Almost every other day, if not more.

 

Count the skull fractures:

 

The white stuff inside the skull is blood. Thats what killed him.

 

So yeah, I'd support a national helmet law because I'm sick and tired of telling 40 year old parents that their son or daughter is going to die.

[russell_bynum]

To me, safety trumps liberty - sorry.

 

Then you would, no doubt, be in favor of an outright ban on motorcycles, right?

 

Or is "safety" a relative term measured against whatever you have personally decided is "safe"?

[Stir]

You have stopped way too short.

 

We need laws mandating what Americans eat as well. 65% of Americans are obese and not just over weight. We need laws that lock these individuals up for their own good. 1 day in the hoosegow for every pound or if you like 2 kilos over the government mandates. I don't want to have to foot the bill for all these fools that can't keep the fork out of thier mouths....

 

 

BTW, when did trolling on this board become in vogue?

[drzep]

Give me a break man. If you are going to partake in a risky behavior then you should have the common sense to at least make it as safe as possible. It's relative risk reduction.

 

Or is "safety" a relative term measured against whatever you have personally decided is "safe"?

 

Your damn right. Just like you have your opinions, I have mine and I'm not sure of any ethical or moral code that prohibits that.

[SnowDog]

It does seem as though we're treading a dangerously slippery slope if we as motorcyclists buy into the "social costs" argument. There are differential social costs in virtually everything humans do. If we want to be honest with outselves, motorcycling is, for about 90% of us, a hobby. For that 90% (or whatever the number may be), the cost to society is great--we're using carbon-based fuel, which defaces the Earth, we're using up transportation resources (roads, law enforcement, traffic capacity), when we could be spending our recreational time hiking or paddling a canoe. We're needlessly exposing our loved ones to ruin if they lose our financial support as the result of injury or death.

 

Personally, in the past 30-plus years as a motorcyclist I've riden maybe one or two miles total without a helmet. I think it's the prudent thing to do. But, I'm absolutely convinced that it's a short leap from mandating helmets to other significant restrictions and, perhaps, an outright ban on motorcycles.

 

If you think that that's far-fetched, I'd remind you of a few "exploratory ideas" that have been floated in the span of my riding career: requirements to wear reflective vests, limitations on displacement, establishing vehicle modification prohibitions that apply only to motorcycles and not cars, speed governors, mandatory motorcycle seat belts (?!?!?!), and, yes, BANNING MOTORCYCLES FROM ALL PUBLIC ROADS.

 

That's right. The NHTSA, under the direction of Joan Claybrook, developed a plan in the early seventies to eliminate motorcycles from public roads in the United States over a ten-year period. Why? The social cost was too great.

 

 

IMHO, it shouldn't be the government's job to protect individuals from themselves. We need to avoid having the freedoms that add the spice to our lives get mitigated to the point having a boringly shielded existence.

 

But the complication of societal cost always creeps in. In the simplistic sense, the fair thing is if you want to play to have to pay. Fair enough right?

 

I ride so I pay for motorcycle insurance, easy enough.

 

Is ok if I pay more because others don't wear helmets? Maybe so or maybe not.

 

Should others pay higher health insurance costs because I ride? Should I pay higher health insurance costs because others ride, ski, handglide or eat a box of twinkies every day?

 

I’d rather pay a few unfair things than sell out our personal freedoms.

 

I think that riding without a helmet is foolish, but I am not going to impose that on others who have a different values and views on life's risks and rewards.

 

Lines are drawn in the sand every day on issues like this and many of us are so quick to condone them when they are drawn in front of us and are so quick to criticize when they are behind us.

 

(Personally I’d outlaw Twinkies)

[Ron_B]

Didn't she also have some ridiculous idea for the design of motorcycles?

 

That would be the infamous "backwards motorcycle," or so it was called at the time. A ridiculous looking recumbent thingy with the motor in the rear, roll bars and outrigger wheels. After a few hundred thousand dollars in development costs, it proved un-ridable and won the Proxmire "Golden Fleece Award" for government waste.

 

Joan Claybrook was a peach. Her entire tenure as head of the NHTSA could be termed as a jihad against motorcycles and their riders. I seem to recall that the AMA tried to convince her to develop rider education courses and even volunteered help. Her reply? "Rider education would be counter-productive because it would only encourage more people to ride."

[russell_bynum]

Give me a break man. If you are going to partake in a risky behavior then you should have the common sense to at least make it as safe as possible. It's relative risk reduction.

 

If common sense had anything to do with it, you wouldn't partake in an unnecessary risky behavior in the first place.

 

You said "To me, safety trumps liberty - sorry."

 

Converting that statement into an action plan, we should ban anything that doesn't meet the (your) criteria of "safe".

 

Surely, motorcycling (even wearing the stuff that the professional racers wear) can't possibly be classified as "safe", so it should be banned. After all, safety trumps liberty.

 

Using that same philosophy, we should ban unhealthy foods, require everyone to get a certain amount of aerobic excercise, etc.

 

If you disagree, then explain where my logic broke down between your statement (safety trumps liberty) and and my action plan (ban things that are not "safe".)

 

I would also, BTW, suggest that your experience isn't entirely relevant in this case. You only see the folks who make it to the hospital. How many unhelmeted riders died at the scene (or shortly thereafter) before you had a chance to treat them? And how many helmeted riders survived to have other extensive injuries? We can't totally discount your experience, of course, but surely you realize that it does not constitute a complete, accurate sample of the data. Besides, in the case of the example that you posted, all that shows is that an unhelmeted rider sustained multiple scull fractures and subsequently died. I don't think anyone (even the ABATE people) would deny that helmets help reduce the risk of head injury. That's not the issue at hand.

 

The issue is: Do you (through the government) have the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet? And if you do have the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet, why?

 

"Because it is stupid not to wear a helmet" doesn't fly. 1. It isn't illegal to be stupid. 2. For all intents and purposes, it is stupid to ride motorcycles in the first place.

[HexHead]

I'd gladly give on the helmet issue if they also pass a national lane splitting is okay law.

[David]

David said, "You didn't ruffle my feathers. I'm trying to save you from yourself."

 

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement?

 

I didn't until you pointed it out. That's pretty good, and all by accident.

 

...just a little more irony.

[exwingnut]

To me, safety trumps liberty - sorry.

 

Ever seen the movie "I, Robot"?

[ghaverkamp]

Ever seen the movie "I, Robot"?

 

Yeah. Wish I hadn't. What did Asimov do to make Hollywood hate him so much? (Seen "Nightfall"?)

[tallman]

OK, so I wear a helmet. A full face modular one.

I'm thinking that's a good thing.

Then this thread comes along, and gets me thinking about helmets.

So I do a little research

and what do I find?

People who wear helmets are more likely to become footnotes in history.

Yep.

You've got your Vikings

 

they wore helmets. And where are they today?

Exactly.

 

How about Knights?

 

Ditto.

Samurai?

 

Gone.

And these guys were professional helmeteers, not some dentist dressing up on the weekend.

So now, I wonder, to helmet or not to helmet, that is the question.

Maybe I should do something safer, like play football.

[Shaman97]

The issue is: Do you (through the government) have the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet?

Absolutely...through the legislative or Initiative process. Remember...driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you ride the roads, you need to adhere to the laws of that state.

 

And if you do have the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet, why?

No requirement for that, since the law is what the law says it is; no 'why' required.

[rob1100r]

Wow....All I can say is if you don't want to wear a helmet, by all means don't...I wish no bad luck on anyone who wouldn't, and if you know the risks so be it! To the Noobie riders, I really worry as lack of street experience can really hurt you...I'm sure there are no noobie riders here, but I see them often, stumbling with the clutch unsure what they are doing, dressed like they are going to the beach!

[russell_bynum]

Wow....All I can say is if you don't want to wear a helmet, by all means don't...I wish no bad luck on anyone who wouldn't, and if you know the risks so be it!

 

 

But...aren't you the same guy who said " I don't like being told what to do, but helmets (and helmet laws) are VERY NECESSARY! "

 

Now you're saying it's OK if I decide to ride without a helmet.

 

Which is it? Does the government have an obligation to protect me from myself, or not?

 

To the Noobie riders, I really worry as lack of street experience can really hurt you...I'm sure there are no noobie riders here, but I see them often, stumbling with the clutch unsure what they are doing, dressed like they are going to the beach!

 

I totally agree. I've also been in that situation (though I've always worn helmets) and I'm really glad I had friends who showed me about good protective gear.

[Dave McReynolds]

People raise the argument that the costs of caring for injuries suffered by riders without helmets are passed on to society, therefore society ought to have the right to mandate helmet use. Are there really costs that are passed on to society if you look at the big picture, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to the immediate costs involved?

 

Somebody crashes on a motorcycle while not wearing a helmet and runs up a bill of $X hundred thousand dollars that society pays. Let's assume that if he had been wearing a helmet, those costs could have been avoided. So for that incident, society was out the money.

 

But is that a true measure of the cost to society?

 

Let's look at the cost to society of caring for people as they age. For example, my father-in-law, who survived being a jet fighter pilot and is now in his '80's, has run up medicare bills well in excess of $500,000 during the last 10 years for heart bypass operations, knee replacements, prostate surgery, and a few other things. If he had crashed while flying a jet as a young man, the cost to society would have been the $10,000 that the government paid at the time for GI life insurance.

 

As many of us know, the same argument has been made for smoking: that people should be encouraged to smoke because they die sooner, and thus avoid the almost inevitable costs associated with various geriatric diseases.

 

Granted, if a helmetless rider crashes, sucks up big bucks in medical treatment, and then lives to a ripe old age and has geriatric diseases, he will have hit the system twice. In his particular case, society has paid a cost in excess of what it would have paid had he worn a helmet.

 

But how often does that happen? I would guess that when helmetless riders are in serious crashes, they die at the scene or within a short time fairly frequently. Some in this category perform the useful societal function of donating their organs. Others may survive the crash but have only a limited lifespan thereafter, and don't have expensive geriatric diseases. I would imagine that smoking is more prevalent among helmetless riders than the population as a whole, also making it more unlikely that they will burden society with geriatric medical costs later on in life.

 

Understand, I'm not saying that there is a net cost benefit to society from helmetless riding. I'm just saying that it is disingenuous to say that because certain helmetless accidents have resulted in a cost to society, as measured solely by the costs of those accidents alone, it justifies restricting our freedom to act as we choose, when a broader analysis may reveal a much lower net cost, or even a benefit.

 

I'm not crazy about the concept of calculating a net benefit from the accidental death of anyone. However, I'm not the one who raised the argument that the costs justify the restrictions, either. Once that argument is raised, I think we have to follow it to its logical conclusion.

 

Especially when I think this whole cost to society thing is just a red herring thrown out by those in favor of mandatory helmet use anyway. Some might care about that, but most of them really don't; they want to mandate helmets because they believe society has a right to control behavior that supercedes an individual's right to free expression of will.

[russell_bynum]

That's good stuff, Dave.

[drzep]

I would also, BTW, suggest that your experience isn't entirely relevant in this case. You only see the folks who make it to the hospital. How many unhelmeted riders died at the scene (or shortly thereafter) before you had a chance to treat them? And how many helmeted riders survived to have other extensive injuries? We can't totally discount your experience, of course, but surely you realize that it does not constitute a complete, accurate sample of the data. Besides, in the case of the example that you posted, all that shows is that an unhelmeted rider sustained multiple scull fractures and subsequently died. I don't think anyone (even the ABATE people) would deny that helmets help reduce the risk of head injury. That's not the issue at hand.

 

Those that die in route are still brought in because we need to pronounce them dead and allocate organs if the family consents. So actually, I see nearly all of them.

 

So the liberty comment was a tad knee-jerk and ill thought out - I have absolutely no problem admitting that. I was simply sharing my experience as somebody that watches cyclist die daily, helmeted and unhelmeted. You appear to know much more about motorcycle injuries and the epidemiology of them than I do. That's great! Hopefully you use that knowledge for some form of public service. If you choose to discount my experiences, thats absolutely fine with me and if you feel that I dont understand the concepts of sampling bias and generalization, that's also fine. Erroneous, but fine.

 

The issue is: Do you (through the government) have the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet? And if you do have the right to tell me I have to wear a helmet, why?

 

My personal opinion is yes, I feel the government is justified to set standards that minimize the risk of common behaviors, i.e., making helmets mandatory. If they decided to ban motorcycles, I would be saddened but also understand their perspective from a public health perspective. I am physician, not a philosopher. My goal is to keep people from dying and if they ride a motorcycle, one of the easiest things you can do to avoid dying is to wear a helmet. The data are pretty clear.

[Ken H.]

And...can I assume that insurance companies ask riders in states without helmet laws if they wear a helmet or not? I get asked all kinds of questions when I get insurance...do I smoke, am I a private pilot, etc. Nobody ever asks if I wear a helmet...but I'm sure that's just because I live in a state with a helmet law, and folks in non-helmet law states are asked that question. Right?

There is a whole laundry list of risk related questions insurance companies don’t ask you. “Do you have carpet on your stairs?” When you apply for home insurance. But that no one asked doesn’t negate the basic fact that more claims = higher overall rates. Any actuary anywhere will tell us that.

If un-helmeted riders really do cost more, and that is acceptable grounds for outlawing their behavior...then what else should be outlawed based on the cost to society?

There are dozens, hundreds even, of risk activities we can spend hours pointing our fingers saying, “But why don’t they outlaw THAT?” But doing so is nothing more than a distraction technique from the specific subject at hand. At the moment helmets. It’s the equivalent of “Look! Over there!”

 

Helmet save lives and reduce injuries. If you don’t believe that, why do you where one? More people wearing them will save more lives, and prevent more injuries. Just like any risk subject, (e.g.- It’s generally illegal to drive at 180 mph) society decides when the adverse impact of somebody doing something (not wearing a helmet) is greater than the advantage of it. That’s a functioning social structure working as it is suppose to. And on requiring helmets, just like requiring seatbelts, IMHO we have arrived at that point. And none too soon.

[Jones]

The evil government also said I have to have my darned headlight on EVEN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT!! My gut says the wise man would wear some type of helmet just out of common sense, no other real reason. But a LAW regulating my headlight? Sheesh!

 

Expect more government overlord insanity like MAKING gasoline tankers stop at a railroad crossing EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT TO!

 

EMPIRE! It's EMPIRE I tell you.

[Ken H.]

Ken, I'm not going to respond directly to your contention because I don't think there is anything to be gained by it.

Why not? I'm interested in knowing why you don't think an avoidable injury or death doesn't have a financial impact on other people or groups in a society?

[Mike]

Helmet save lives and reduce injuries. If you don’t believe that, why do you where one?

 

Ken--

 

I think there's an inconsistency in your logic, at least as I understand what studies of this subject have shown. Yes, in just about any collision involving trauma to the head a helmeted rider has a greater chance of surviving and suffering less injury than if he were unhelmeted. But it's also been shown--and this is more illustrative of a psychological phenomenon--that helmeted and unhelmeted riders suffer injury and die at about the same overall rate, indicating that more protected riders adjust (increase) the risks they take in response to their perception that they're safer when armored. So, the notion that helmet laws will save lives overall is questionable, at best.

 

But, I confess that I always wear a helmet . . . and gloves . . . and boots . . . and armor. I tend to look on those who don't as dumbasses (in the nicest way, of course . . . some of those dumbasses are family and friends). But, I really question the rationale and, more importantly, the motivation behind those who would legislate our behavior. Not everything that makes sense to you or me or the guy down the street whose never been on a bike should be legally mandated.

[Ken H.]

But in the US, where there is no significant government funded health (and in fact more than the entire population of Canada there has no medical insurance at all), the above argument clearly is without any merit at all.

 

That's just not true. There many not be a formal universal federal health care program, but there is a huge unfunded care cost we are shouldering indirectly. Just go to any emergency room in the U.S. and you;ll see it filled with people there for routine medical conditions because they have no insurance to go elsewhere. And we're all paying that cost indirectly.

[KMG_365]

Those that die in route are still brought in because we need to pronounce them dead and allocate organs if the family consents. So actually, I see nearly all of them.

Funny we don't transport dead people here in SD County and I've thrown a yellow sheet over a few dozen recently "late" motorcyclists in my career--and they were all wearing helmets. But I don't see what that small sample proves either. I also don't see how you avoid the corollary of the large percentage of my calls which are related to obesity, unhealthy life-styles, lack of compliance with "proven" medical treatment regimens, or other "risky" leisure activities. I had a pt. wind up in the ICU after getting hit in the head with a golf ball--we should either ban golf or require the wearing of helmets until the government conducts a comprehensive study of the REAL costs all those unhelmeted golfers are having on society.

 

 

Oh, and:

[smiller]

That's good stuff, Dave.

+2, very well said.

 

I used to be pro-helmet law but after careful consideration I determined that it is impossible to support a reasonable 'big picture' claim of increased cost to society caused by lack of helmet use. And if one cannot support a claim of a real-world impact or burden on society then there remains no reasonable support for nanny laws, at least not for anyone with a drop of libertarian blood in their veins. I'm afraid I agree that in many cases this argument is used as a thin disguise for other motives and beliefs. That's how a lot of laws get passed.

[Ken H.]

To me, safety trumps liberty - sorry.

 

Then you would, no doubt, be in favor of an outright ban on motorcycles, right?

 

Or is "safety" a relative term measured against whatever you have personally decided is "safe"?

Nothing is so black and white Russell. To say helmet laws today = no motorcycles tomorrow, is a stretch of the imagination. At best. The effort in discussion is to make an incremental step to make motorcycling more safe. Not get ride of it completely. The draconian 'the sky is falling' argument is a bit much. Give society a bit of credit to be able to draw the line between rational regulation and total hysteria on a subject. Nobody banded cars after the first speed limit was thought of either!

[David]

To me, safety trumps liberty - sorry.

 

Then you would, no doubt, be in favor of an outright ban on motorcycles, right?

 

Or is "safety" a relative term measured against whatever you have personally decided is "safe"?

Nothing is so black and white Russell. To say helmet laws today = no motorcycles tomorrow, is a stretch of the imagination. At best. The effort in discussion is to make an incremental step to make motorcycling more safe. Not get ride of it completely. The draconian 'the sky is falling' argument is a bit much. Give society a bit of credit to be able to draw the line between rational regulation and total hysteria on a subject. Nobody banded cars after the first speed limit was thought of either!

 

Like you're always saying that loud pipes will lead to no motorcycles?

[drzep]

For those interested: Quick, download this before the internet police come and arrest me.

 

Its the best review of the literature on helmet use available IMHO. Its from 2003, so you can argue that it's a bit outdated. However, there is new version in the works - I'm actually on the panel collecting and analyzing the data for the next Cochrane review . It should be out in 2008. I'll post as soon as an accepted draft is available.

 

Cochrane Database Review - Helmet Use