National Helmet Laws. Comming soon?

[Ken H.]

they want to mandate helmets because they believe society has a right to control behavior that supersedes an individual's right to free expression of will.

Society ALWAYS has the right to control behavior. It's one of the rights we implicitedly grant it by agreeing to participate in, and benefit from, it. Because if we didn't grant it that right, it wouldn't successfully exist at all. And then by extension nor would the benefits of it we enjoy.

[codougd]

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?

With respect, whenever I hear mention of "other people" or "groups" in "society" my palms begin to sweat and I reach back to make sure I still have my wallet.

 

Thomas Sowell notes what he calls "patterns of failure" in Vision of the Anointed:

Stage 1 is "the crisis". A situation is defined to be of such negative impact to "the society" that "something must be done."

Stage 2 is "the SOLUTION". Coercive policies are advocated and beneficial result A is promised. Critics say that there will be significant costs with either no positive result or that negative result Z will occur.

Stage 3, (if we are lucky) is when the results of the policy become available/clear. Usually there is no result or negative result Z.

Stage 4 is "the RESPONSE" where critics (who were correct, remember) are accused of not understanding "the complexities" and of having bad motives.

 

My suspicion is that a national mandatory helmet law would have little practical impact on motorcycle fatality rates because there is so much more involved in the issue (rider skills, demographics, the mixture of types of bikes, changes in traffic flow and congestion). I also suspect that the severity of injury in lower speed accidents would go down. However, absent well designed, controlled studies these are just my unscientific opinions.

 

Heck, I am very confident that the increased use of seat belts has saved a lot of lives. However, the studies that I have seen have been very inconclusive so even this safety benefit is subject to question.

 

The point of this ramble is that we are quick to state how obvious the benefit is (if it is at someone else's cost), quick to say "there oughta be a law!" (when if affects others) and never seem to circle around and see if we have done good or ill. Laws, once enacted, are seldom undone (much like the oxymoronically named "temporary tax").

 

I would simply urge humility and great caution when presuming to regulate others.

[Ken H.]

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.

I have never, ever, seen any thing to support your contention. So I have to challenge you to site your sources.

[Ken H.]

When Sowell gets to, "Usually there is no result or negative result Z", I don't think history proves him to be right. Sure there are miss-steps and over-reactions, but by-and-large society's decisions on subjects over time turn out to be correct. Or are tweaked toward correct and closer to the desired outcome. If it were not so, the entire structure of it would collapse under the weight of its own repetitive failures.

[Matts_12GS]

We should force those that don't wear helmets to go faster so they won't survive the crash.

 

EMTS will now do the organ allocation so it can be done on the side of the road saving ambulance trips and important surgical facilities and resource times.

 

That should reduce the burden on the medical profession.

 

We'll raise the taxes on everything, especially motorcycle tires, seats, leather, anything rated as CE approved, helmets, faceshields, safety glasses, chrome, stainless steel, billet aluminum, inner tubes bigger than bicycles, foam grips, heated grips, small abs modules, led light bulbs, synthetic oil (the true root of all evil) diet sodas, low fat microwave popcorn, and SPAM to offset the cost to society from motorcycling activities so that nobody dare offend anyone else with their untimely passing from doing something they had a legal opportuity to do.

 

Maybe we should make every choose either to be an organ donor or sign a do not resuscitate order when they get their endoresment. I mean, do you really want to distribute the organs and DNA of someone who made such an amazingly inapporiate and poorly reasoned choice such as to ride a motorcycle?

 

There, problem solved....

 

I guess it must be rainy or cold where many of you are because this is far too @$%@$@$% energetic a discussion for folks that should be out riding.

 

 

Now, go outside and enjoy the irresponsibility of your choices!

[codougd]

When Sowell gets to, "Usually there is no result or negative result Z", I don't think history proves him to be right. Sure there are miss-steps and over-reactions, but by-and-large society's decisions on subjects over time turn out to be correct. Or are tweaked toward correct and closer to the desired outcome. If it were not so, the entire structure of it would collapse under the weight of its own repetitive failures.

Actually social policies enacted in the US since the New Deal pretty much make his point. I disagree with some of his opinions but the conclusions he reaches based on real data are pretty solid. We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own data.

 

My only point in all my posts on this topic is that it is presumptuous to attempt the regulation of others' behavior unless there is a clear, well supported (by data), overwhelming (and I do mean to use that word) social need or cost. I do not think the use (or non-use) of helmets by motorcyclists rises to that level.

 

To paraphrase a previous poster (perhaps you, I am getting lost in the opinion-forest), IMHO liberty trumps personal safety. (If I am endangering others, that is another matter.)

[Bud]

I'd support a national helmet regulation similar to the national seatbelt regulation. There's no federal statute, but the states should enact helmet laws it if they want federal funds. If they don't want helmet laws, that's fine. People can call that nanny-statism, and impinging on "personal freedom" but seat belts save lives, and so do helmets.

 

Some feel that operating a motor vehicle on regulated public roads should be a constitutional right, like free speech or free assembly, but of course it is not. Such notions demean and trivialize our real freedoms. Driving is an earned privilege. You have to be licensed, insured and pass a minimal test of competency or you can't get behind the wheel on public roads. You cannot be impaired, you have to have good eyesight, be minimally literate, etc. And you can't drive just any motorized contraption that you build in your garage. Motor vehicles have hundreds of standards for required safety equipment -- lights, signals, glass, pollution control, etc. Is that an assault on freedom? There are federal standards for occupant restraint. Seat belts are required equipment, and while there are some whiners who claim they are "uncomfortable" or who won't wear them for "libertarian" reasons, they are becoming fewer (maybe they're dying off). Motorcycles require certain federal safety features like lighting, signals, etc., and it is very reasonable to require use of a helmet (manufactured to certain standards) when riding on public roads.

 

Off-road is a completely different story. Build your own contraption. Ride naked. On-road with other motorists -- accept being regulated. My 2c.

 

 

Having read all of the responses, the members who strongly oppose a national helmet law all failed to respond to the contention that they do not have a "right" to ride.

 

It is a "privilege" granted by the government, yet the argument continues along the line of losing our rights. It then continues along the NRA "slippery slope" argument on gun control. Once you let them require helmets, next they will require you to give up your bike.

 

Many then state they always, or mostly always, wear a helmet and gear. I assume they wear the helmet because they think there is some advantage to do so. The most likely advantage would be reduced risk to themselves in case of an accident. But then the argument turns to if there are statistics to show the wearing of a helmet does any good.

 

It all leaves me a little

[russell_bynum]

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.

I have never, ever, seen any thing to support your contention. So I have to challenge you to site your sources.

 

It's called Risk Homeostasis

[Bob Palin]

Having read all of the responses, the members who strongly oppose a national helmet law all failed to respond to the contention that they do not have a "right" to ride.

Few would dispute that the government can pass a helmet law, the question here is whether it should.

[TyTass]

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.

I have never, ever, seen any thing to support your contention. So I have to challenge you to site your sources.

 

It's called url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis]Risk Homeostasis[/url]

Ken,

 

I'll not argue the common sense notion that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of serious trauma or a fatality in given situations. But you'd be the one hard-pressed to cite your sources to support that even a large portion of motorcycle deaths are caused by helmetless riders.

 

The recently released NHTSA data do not indicate lack of helmet use as a major contributing factor in rider fatalities (single or multiple vehicle collisions). And what's worse is that it is one of the data points they take. But what they don't do is compare simplar accident conditions of helmeted riders. What it does clearly show is that for single vehicle fatalities, DUI/DWI was the largest contributing factor and for multi-vehicle fatalities the largest was on the part of the cager to yield the right of way.

 

So, if we're only trying to save a few lives and run thumping our chests all the way to the ballot box that our candidate is going to save lives, then whew ... knock yourselves out. But as Killer said, "Few would dispute that the government can pass a helmet law, the question here is whether it should." The draconian reply of "If we save just one life ... yada, yada, yada" may not pass your lips but it will most who share your view. Those words have justified far too many poorly conceived and badly executed laws.

 

Society can pass all sorts of laws when demagogues get kickin'. The New Deal is one case study I too would submit for review. It was not the only option, but it became the model that too many statist still cling to as the ideal. I would also submit one you love to hate ... the patriot act. Same scenario ... "We've got to do someting, so let's do this!" ... "and now this little bit further" ... "and now this teenie bit more."

 

We should be ever mindful of the number of laws we create on a given issue when an issue is emotionally hot and the data not definitive. History HAS indeed shown a tendency for the avalanche rather than small minor corrections.

[harleyjohn45]

Its simple, outlaw motorcycles, its obvious if you are in a crash, you are 30 times more likely to be injured than in an automobile. Two weeks ago, here in lincoln county, during a motorcycle event a harley rider and a pickup truck collided. He was wearing a helmet, but he got his foot cut off. The pickup driver was not injured. Right there is proof enough to outlaw motorcycles.

[Mike]

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.

I have never, ever, seen any thing to support your contention. So I have to challenge you to site your sources.

 

Ken--

 

I don't have the article at my fingertips, but Wendy Moon, who writes for MCN, did a fairly extensive study around 2004 and noted that the rates of injury and fatality were actually higher in states with helmet laws. She also found that within the states she studied those rates were similar (I don't recall how similar) for helmeted and unhelmeted riders, which she attributed, at least in part to risk compensation on the part of helmeted riders. If you'll do a search for risk compensation and risk homeostasis, you'll see that this phenomenon has been studied extensively and manifests itself across a wide range of human (and animal) behaviors. It's not just some nutty ABATE-created theory; it's a well-proven fact of life.

 

Also, you might want to see if you can locate these sources, which found risk compensation to be a factor in negating the perceived safety benefits of helmet legislation:

 

Adams, J. G. U. (1983). "Public Safety Legislation and Risk Compensation Hypothesis: The Example of Motorcycle Helmet Legislation," Environment and Planning C, 1: 193-203.

 

Graham, J. D., and Lee, Y. (1986). "Behavioral Response to Safety Regulation: the Case of Motorcycle Helmet-Wearing Legislation." Policy Sciences, 19: 253-273.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

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

 

Most definitely not. I just inferred that you work ICU, and my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that patients go to the ER first before being moved to ICU and if they die before they go to ICU, you don't see them. I've got absolutely no medical training other than some VERY basic First Aid training and I don't presume to know more than the average schmuck about this stuff.

 

and if you feel that I dont understand the concepts of sampling bias and generalization, that's also fine. Erroneous, but fine.

 

I should have been more clear on that...as a doctor, there's no question that you understand that stuff. I said what I said for everyone else's benefit, not yours.

 

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.

 

OK, that's cool.

 

Most people who use the lame "cost to society" argument to promote helmet laws roll their eyes and blow me off when I take that argument to its logical conclusion.

 

I don't feel the same as you, but since you're at least being logical about it, I can respect that.

[russell_bynum]

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.

 

You're making my point for me.

 

 

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!”

 

It isn't a distraction technique. If you're going to say the reason you're doing something is because of the "cost to society", and the thing that you picked is WAY down on the list of stuff that "costs society", then you have to be prepared for someone to call you on it.

 

 

 

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

 

At what point have I EVER said that I don't think helmets save lives and reduce head injuries?

 

I've NEVER said that. In fact, I've explicitly said that I'm a huge proponent of good safety gear, including full-fact helmets.

 

I just don't think it's any of your damn business what I wear when I ride.

 

And on requiring helmets, just like requiring seatbelts, IMHO we have arrived at that point. And none too soon.

 

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, too...for the same reasons. When I pick up the mail in the afternoon, I wear my seatbelt driving 70 yards from the mail box to my driveway. The only time I drive without a seatbelt is if I'm pulling my car from the driveway into the garage. But I don't think that's any of your business.

 

This isn't about cost to society or safety. If it was, there are much bigger fish to fry than a couple of motorcyclists not wearing helmets. IMO, this is about some people's need to control others.

[russell_bynum]

they want to mandate helmets because they believe society has a right to control behavior that supersedes an individual's right to free expression of will.

Society ALWAYS has the right to control behavior. It's one of the rights we implicitedly grant it by agreeing to participate in, and benefit from, it. Because if we didn't grant it that right, it wouldn't successfully exist at all. And then by extension nor would the benefits of it we enjoy.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more if my life depended on it. IMO, Society only has the right to control behavior when that behavior has a substantial negative impact on the group.

[ghaverkamp]

I'm opposed to seat belt laws, too...for the same reasons. When I pick up the mail in the afternoon, I wear my seatbelt driving 70 yards from the mail box to my driveway. The only time I drive without a seatbelt is if I'm pulling my car from the driveway into the garage. But I don't think that's any of your business.

 

This isn't about cost to society or safety. If it was, there are much bigger fish to fry than a couple of motorcyclists not wearing helmets. IMO, this is about some people's need to control others.

 

Given the scale difference, seat belts likely do have a much larger impact than helmets.

 

Mandatory helmets are just busybodies projecting.

[Little Joe]

When I pick up the mail in the afternoon, I wear my seatbelt driving 70 yards from the mail box to my driveway.

Sometimes I miss L.A.

[Ken H.]

I'm well familiar with Risk Homeostasis theory.

 

I'm looking for documentation that, "helmeted and helmeted riders suffer injury and die at about the same overall rate."

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...I'm a huge proponent of good safety gear, including full-fact helmets.

 

I think there are a number of folks in this discussion who are wearing full-fact helmets.

 

Meanwhile (pertinent to earlier parts of this thread), here's a fantastic (and totally free) in-depth read on the subject of risk homeostasis:

 

Target Risk

 

A very coarse example of risk homeostasis is that if I lose my helmet, I won't ride; I won't expose myself to the perceived risk of riding helmetless. But then suppose I finally find my helmet and go for a ride. The helmet lowers the perceived risk of riding to a level I'm comfortable with, but the true risk is in fact greater than if I stayed at home and sat on the couch. In this extreme example, the helmet has actually made my life riskier. There are many more subtle real-world situations that are detailed at the above link; a lot of them have to do with driving (ABS, high-center tail lights, etc.), but it shows up elsewhere, too. The bottom line is that while helmets themselves may lower the risks associated with riding, helmet laws won't necessarily reduce injury/fatality rates, as people are likely to adjust their behavior to account for the fact that they're wearing helmets.

[Ken H.]

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!”

It isn't a distraction technique. If you're going to say the reason you're doing something is because of the "cost to society", and the thing that you picked is WAY down on the list of stuff that "costs society", then you have to be prepared for someone to call you on it.

Sure it's way down on the overall priority of a society. But it's the subject of this thread. My only point is that instead of discussing the subject at hand, people go off on some other tangent about some other problem. And that's just an attempt to deflect the conversation. Abet a subconscious one I suspect. Make your (anyone) position/argument on pro or against helmet laws, but don't say, 'There shouldn't be helmet laws because they haven't done anything about _________ yet.' That's just a cop-out.

At what point have I EVER said that I don't think helmets save lives and reduce head injuries?

 

I've NEVER said that. In fact, I've explicitly said that I'm a huge proponent of good safety gear, including full-fact helmets.

Helmet save lives and reduce injuries.

My reply wasn't necessarily intended to you specifically Russell. I know you personally believe in helmets. Rather toward the generic audience of this thread that seem to discount helmets for everyone while at the same time wear one. Seems like quite a contradiction.

[Ken H.]

they want to mandate helmets because they believe society has a right to control behavior that supersedes an individual's right to free expression of will.

Society ALWAYS has the right to control behavior. It's one of the rights we implicitly grant it by agreeing to participate in, and benefit from, it. Because if we didn't grant it that right, it wouldn't successfully exist at all. And then by extension nor would the benefits of it we enjoy.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more if my life depended on it. IMO, Society only has the right to control behavior when that behavior has a substantial negative impact on the group.

Well on that then we will just have to agree to disagree. A successful social society where everyone is free to do whatever they want is an irreconcilable oxymoron.

[beemerman2k]

I would simply urge humility and great caution when presuming to regulate others.

 

And this guy quotes Thomas Sowell, too?!

 

My kind of American

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Sure it's way down on the overall priority of a society. But it's the subject of this thread. My only point is that instead of discussing the subject at hand, people go off on some other tangent about some other problem.

 

No one's particularly interested in the other issues, but neither is anyone trying to deliberately go off on a tangent. It's a fair question:

 

Why should unhelmeted riding be particularly singled out for attention when there are activities with a far greater aggregate societal cost (such as unhelmeted driving, or junk food) and activities with a much greater per-participant societal cost (such as SCUBA or skydiving)?

[Little Joe]

I admit, I only read the Wikipedia entry on risk homeostasis, not the full study. That said, and acknowledging that I'm no statistician:

 

It seems that a logical inference can be drawn from this theory (as applied to riding and helmets) that riders with full-face helmets would engage in riskier behavior than riders with open-face helmets. Beanie wearers would ride more aggressively than non-helmeted riders.

 

In my small-sample-size experience, that has not been borne out. When riding in a non-helmet-law state, many of the craziest riders I've seen are helmetless. In my own state, they have to wear helmets, but they are often jacket-less, boot-less, and even shirtless.

 

Interesting theory though, nonetheless.

[John Ranalletta]

they want to mandate helmets because they believe society has a right to control behavior that supersedes an individual's right to free expression of will.

Society ALWAYS has the right to control behavior. It's one of the rights we implicitly grant it by agreeing to participate in, and benefit from, it. Because if we didn't grant it that right, it wouldn't successfully exist at all. And then by extension nor would the benefits of it we enjoy.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more if my life depended on it. IMO, Society only has the right to control behavior when that behavior has a substantial negative impact on the group.

Well on that then we will just have to agree to disagree. A successful social society where everyone is free to do whatever they want is an irreconcilable oxymoron.

Advocates of mandatory helmet laws see those laws as consistent with how people should behave, i.e. the laws are consistent with their internal standards of freedom. Opponents, especially those who wear their helmets all the time, see the laws as a further impingement of their freedoms.

 

The opponents see these laws as sliding further down the slippery slope of totalitarianism. The opponents act as early warning sentinels. Their message to the advocates is, "One day, further down the slope, you will lose a right to choose that you cherish, but it will be too late to stop the momentum of regulation the advocates helped create."

 

Proposed helmet laws are not really about the here and now, their value is in the precedent they set for future losses of freedom.

[beemerman2k]

Proposed helmet laws are not really about the here and now, their value is in the precedent they set for future losses of freedom.

 

That, in my view, is exactly correct. It's amazing how the "helmet" in this debate has become a powerful symbol. It symbolizes "safety" to some and "tyranny" to others.

 

While I clearly stand on the side of erring toward the freedom ethic (it is hard to win freedom, and even harder to keep!), I am enjoying points made by both sides of the issue. Like most here, I wear a helmet and protective gear, and I think you're next to nuts if you don't. But that's the opinion I have a right to just like you have a right (for now) to ride the way you choose.

 

To me, FREEDOM is sacred, and way more important than safety. But I guess where you stand on this issue -- as well as the role of government and society in the United States -- is the central issue here.

 

Great debate indeed! I always enjoy this heated topic every month when we have it

[tallman]

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

 

Thank you for this link.

Since it has only been downloaded 7 times, I'll infer that not too many posters bothered to read it.

I did.

The conclusions seem obvious, to me.

And, they are continuing to update data collection.

Not to obfuscate the issue with information, instead of opinion, there is enough evidence in this, and other reports, to support the idea that helmet use reduces risk of death.

The report also cites speed as a factor.

Just a little fuel...

[awagnon]

Why should unhelmeted riding be particularly singled out for attention when there are activities with a far greater aggregate societal cost (such as unhelmeted driving, or junk food) and activities with a much greater per-participant societal cost (such as SCUBA or skydiving)?

 

There is no data to support wearing a helmet when driving, but how many race car drivers choose not to wear helmets? And, yes, laws are being passed to restrict junk food starting in schools where it may make a difference. Even though SCUBA diving and skydiving may have a greater "per-participant cost", the small number of participants in our society (compared to motorcycle riders) don't add up to a significant cost to society.

 

Proposed helmet laws are not really about the here and now, their value is in the precedent they set for future losses of freedom.

 

I remember the same fears when seat belt laws were imposed, but look at how many lives have been saved (and there is data to support it), yet no additional Draconian laws have further restricted our driving freedom.

[Ken H.]

Advocates of mandatory helmet laws see those laws as consistent with how people should behave, i.e. the laws are consistent with their internal standards of freedom. Opponents, especially those who wear their helmets all the time, see the laws as a further impingement of their freedoms.

 

The opponents see these laws as sliding further down the slippery slope of totalitarianism. The opponents act as early warning sentinels. Their message to the advocates is, "One day, further down the slope, you will lose a right to choose that you cherish, but it will be too late to stop the momentum of regulation the advocates helped create."

I think your analysis is correct.

Proposed helmet laws are not really about the here and now, their value is in the precedent they set for future losses of freedom.

I guess to me what it boils down to is I don't really buy into the 'slippery slope' argument on issues in general. I think it is used as a scare tactic to drive up hysteria and distract from the issue at hand. The NRA is infamous for it for example. Thus my comment that; helmet laws today do not motorcycles banded tomorrow, make. I'm quite confident that just like the rest of the world, if a national law helmet went into effect we would still be able to ride motorcycles in the United States.

[smiller]

I guess to me what it boils down to is I don't really buy into the 'slippery slope' argument on issues in general.

No matter how many times history demonstrates its validity?

[russell_bynum]

Rather toward the generic audience of this thread that seem to discount helmets for everyone while at the same time wear one. Seems like quite a contradiction.

 

No contradiction at all. There's a difference in saying "I don't like helmets" and saying "I don't like helmet laws."

[TyTass]

A successful social society where everyone is free to do whatever they want is an irreconcilable oxymoron.

I think this is an inaccurate summary of the opposition's views. What has been offered here, and initially over 230 years ago should be read thusly:

 

A social society where everyone is free to do whatever they want, while not impeding the rights of others, is a successful society.

 

In framing the Constituion the Founding Fathers could not initially agree on whether to define the rights of man in the same document. The more progressive ones (i.e., the old Left) continuously advocated in writing to their colleagues the need to specify the rights of man - that without it, the newly created government would soon trample those rights. As we all know the Bill of Rights was indeed passed, but not without dissenting views and arguments. It is safe to say the greatest opposition came from those who had initially advocated that the US adopt a more English system; to include rule by nobility/gentry, advocating a state religion, and even rule by monarchy. But eventually, the more radical ideas of the Old Left won the day, and the American Experiment was given a chance to be something different: A government that protected the rights of the individual.

 

I find it not strange in the least that today those who advocate the the right of this government interfere with personal choices (when no one else is harmed) continually try to redefine the American Experiment into Majority Rules (when it suits them, of course). And, going against the principles of the Old Left, they argue that The People are in fact too uneducated, too stupid, or too stubborn to govern their own affairs (as they should) and be responsible for their choices.

 

All in all, I simply just don't think that badly of Americans.

 

I realize this will be thought of as off point, but perhaps someone else reading it will realize this IS a long and slippery slope and it has been going on for over 230 years.

[Francois_Dumas]

..... but perhaps someone else reading it will realize this IS a long and slippery slope and it has been going on for over 230 years.

 

But then again, what's a mere 230 years ?????

 

I too enjoy these recurring discussions, if only to glean more of an understanding as to how people think and feel in different cultures.

 

I must admit that seeing a picture of a guy riding a Goldwing in his shorts and bandana is similar to us as seeing a business executive step into the business lounge wearing a (top) part of suit and tie, but in his nickers......

[TyTass]

I must admit that seeing a picture of a guy riding a Goldwing in his shorts and bandana is similar to us as seeing a business executive step into the business lounge wearing a (top) part of suit and tie, but in his nickers......

Too funny!

 

But taking that example in the context of this discussion (because there's no point lettin' go now! ), should we pass a law to make that action illegal because of the potential financial risk to his family when he is fired/sack/can/let go/made redundant/whatever?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Even though SCUBA diving and skydiving may have a greater "per-participant cost", the small number of participants in our society (compared to motorcycle riders) don't add up to a significant cost to society.

 

Ah, then the issue is total cost. the total societal cost of head injuries incurred during car accidents is very high; the per-participant cost is of course much lower than motorcycles but (citing data for New Hampshire here) because of the much larger number of drivers on the road (and # of miles driven per year), the total number of head injuries due to car accidents is four times the total number of head injuries due to motorcycle accidents. (see page 19)

 

On that basis, anyone advocating mandatory helmets for motorcyclists ought to be positively screaming for mandatory helmets for car occupants.

[Francois_Dumas]

I must admit that seeing a picture of a guy riding a Goldwing in his shorts and bandana is similar to us as seeing a business executive step into the business lounge wearing a (top) part of suit and tie, but in his nickers......

Too funny!

 

But taking that example in the context of this discussion (because there's no point lettin' go now! ), should we pass a law to make that action illegal because of the potential financial risk to his family when he is fired/sack/can/let go/made redundant/whatever?

 

No, but perhaps he should be made to adhere to the already existing law of showing such (un)dressing only at specific places, such as nude beach/club or private gentlemen's club ?

 

As to the actual discussion, I won't 'interfere' ... not my fight and I can understand both arguments; that of 'freedom' and that of 'social burden'. I think 'common sense' should prevail and perhaps tax money spent on public campaigns teaching people why it is smarter to wear a helmet ..... or why motorcyclists are to be MORE protected than car drivers for that matter ..... would be money best spent.

[beemerman2k]

I think 'common sense' should prevail and perhaps tax money spent on public campaigns teaching people why it is smarter to wear a helmet ..... or why motorcyclists are to be MORE protected than car drivers for that matter ..... would be money best spent.

 

There's a lot that can be done here without having to mess with government and/or laws.

 

If I had it my way, motorcycle manufacturers would take the lead on this issue: good protective gear would be included with every motorcycle sold as a given. In fact, the manufacturers would take pride in and maybe even advertise the quality of their gear and the safety record of their riders. In this respect, I would imagine BMW would have a lot to tout about on this issue.

 

What we need is a wholesale change is motorcycle culture and values, not laws. Laws will do nothing to change the safety of the rider; a change in values will absolutely. Let riders begin to take pride in their safety records and let the irresponsible rider become effectively disdained by the riding community and then we'll see safer riders.

 

Now we have a win/win outcome: everyone feels like their freedoms haven't been trampled on (because they still have choice), yet most everyone is riding responsibly with safe gear and good protection.

 

That would be my ideal scenario.

[bakerzdosen]

See, if somehow there really are helmet laws enacted nationally, what kind of helmets are then required? If a mere DOT certification is required, how much good are some of the (think "beanie") helmets going to actually do? It's pretty easy to get DOT certification based on some of the helmet designs I've seen.

 

This is an endless argument IMHO.

[Matts_12GS]

What we need is a wholesale change is motorcycle culture and values, not laws. Laws will do nothing to change the safety of the rider; a change in values will absolutely.

 

Why is this a need in the first place? This is a desire of yours. Your statement there is not too far astray from saying "Everyone must be a Catholic because that's where true salvation lies." Mods please, humor me here, I'm not attacking anyone's religion.

 

While I agree with the sentiment of what is being said here, to paraphrase "Gear is good, I wish everyone would wear it all the time." It's apparent the ATGATT mentality has developed a "religious fervor" of it's own much like they say about "global warming" or "staying the course."

 

I think we would be much farther along if we quit worrying about the legal choices other motorcyclists make whatever "community" they ride in. For instance, I stopped at a bar after bike night on my Harley and was talking to a regular from my wine shop. He asked to come see my bike, and as we walked outside I said mine's easy to find, it's the one with the helmet on it!

 

Like St. Francis said, "preach the gospel, if necessary use words."

 

Let's all try to communicate without preaching the "sermon" of ATTGATT, injuries, accidents, etc. stop the name calling/finger pointing junk and just go out and ride the way WE are comforatable. As riders, we're all in it together and should try harder to appreciate the ride others take. Inclusion is good, riders are a small portion of the vehicular traffic here in the states, let's forget about the elitism and get over ourselves so that we who choose to wear the suits are not fragmented from the rest of the riding fraternity.

 

mmmm kay?

 

I used so many sets of "scare quotes" here I feel like a New York Times reporter!

[John Ranalletta]

I guess to me what it boils down to is I don't really buy into the 'slippery slope' argument on issues in general.

Do any of these movements toward the "public good" gone a step too far ring a bell? NHSTA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Banking Act (have you tried getting a large amount of your cash out of a bank lately?).

 

To deny the obvious when it doesn't support one's position only weakens the position further.

[Mike]

I'm well familiar with Risk Homeostasis theory.

 

I'm looking for documentation that, "helmeted and helmeted riders suffer injury and die at about the same overall rate."

 

See my earlier post and the sources I cite there.

 

But my main thrust isn't really about whether it's wiser to wear a helmet. I think it is. My point, which I'm apparently not explaining well, is that there are many things in life which, while perhaps prudent, shouldn't be mandated by government. I think Thomas Paine got it right when he wrote "That government is best which governs least." Darned liberal.

[Ken H.]

On that basis, anyone advocating mandatory helmets for motorcyclists ought to be positively screaming for mandatory helmets for car occupants.

Off topic. My prior point made. Thanks Mitch! -

 

"My only point is that instead of discussing the subject at hand, people go off on some other tangent about some other problem. And that's just an attempt to deflect the conversation. Abet a subconscious one I suspect. Make your (anyone) position/argument on pro or against helmet laws, but don't say, 'There shouldn't be helmet laws because they haven't done anything about _________ yet.' That's just a cop-out."

[Ken H.]

Cochrane Database Review - Helmet Use

I couldn't get the link to work. Got a ad space for some ring tone or something.

[Ken H.]

I guess to me what it boils down to is I don't really buy into the 'slippery slope' argument on issues in general.

No matter how many times history demonstrates its validity?

Examples?

[Ken H.]

Ah, then the issue is total cost.

Of course it is. When the perceive losses to a society bubbles up to the level where they first garnish attention, then later action, that is it working exactly as it's suppose to. SCUBA diving losses haven't reached that 'critical mass' level yet. Motorcycle losses may be.

[russell_bynum]

Ah, then the issue is total cost.

Of course it is. When the perceive losses to a society bubbles up to the level where they first garnish attention, then later action, that is it working exactly as it's suppose to.

 

Should we be at all concerned with making sure that perception matches reality before we go passing a bunch of restrictive laws?

[Ken H.]

Let's all try to communicate without preaching the "sermon" of ATTGATT, injuries, accidents, etc. stop the name calling/finger pointing junk and just go out and ride the way WE are comforatable.

Because it's not that simple. What "WE" individually are doing isn't an individual act at all. What we/I are/am doing has consequences beyond you/me individually. The 'Can't we all just get along' ideology ignores the consequences of our action. In this particular subject at hand, the consequences of being allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

[Ken H.]

Do any of these movements toward the "public good" gone a step too far ring a bell? NHSTA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Banking Act (have you tried getting a large amount of your cash out of a bank lately?).

Well 5 of the 7 things on your list I happen to support unequivocally. And parts of the other two. But that's a different thread...

[Ken H.]

Should we be at all concerned with making sure that perception matches reality before we go passing a bunch of restrictive laws?

There is no such thing as "reality." Perception IS reality when it is perceived the same by enough people.

 

A quote I saw some where - "Fiction becomes truth through endless repetition."

 

But we're wandering way off topic now...

[John Ranalletta]

Do any of these movements toward the "public good" gone a step too far ring a bell? NHSTA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Banking Act (have you tried getting a large amount of your cash out of a bank lately?).

Well 5 of the 7 things on your list I happen to support unequivocally. And parts of the other two. But that's a different thread...

Not surprising, but why don't you "buy into" the others? They are all aimed at providing for the common good, aren't they; or, do one or two go just a bit to far for your tastes?