novelty helmet failure

[upflying]

This morning, I assisted in an investigation of a probable fatal motorcycle accident.

A 0200 hrs, a lone motorcyclist riding a 1999 HD Road King failed to negotiate a right hand curve in the roadway. The rider drifted left, high sided on the center median and struck a tree.

The rider was taken to a hospital with major head injuries. It's expected he will be declared brain dead in a day or two.

The rider was wearing a cheap novelty helmet, ironically emblazoned with death skulls. Evidence shows the helmet struck the tree and suffered structural failure that could have intensified the head injuries.

I know we are all proponents of ATGATT but I wonder if this guy might still be alive if he had been forced to wear a "certified" helmet?

I inspected the helmet and noticed it was constructed of a hard exterior shell with very thin, 1/8" thick, interior lining. IMO, this helmet provided the same head protection as not wearing any helmet.

This helmet did not have any "DOT" stickers or interior labels of any kind.

This begs a question and the reason for the post. Are mandatory helmet laws making outlaws of those who oppose wearing a motorcycle helmet? Are those who would ordinarily choose not to wear a helmet forced to buy unsafe, inferior and dangerous helmets that when worn may pose a greater danger to the rider than wearing no helmet?

Are those who choose to wear novelty helmets making a political statement of their opposition to helmet laws? Why wouldn't someone want to buy and wear the best possible protection for their head?

Could a properly implemented helmet law save the life of this rider? As of now, the helmet law in California is simple. Either you wear one or get a ticket if you don't. Currently there is 99.9% helmet compliance in California. LEO's cannot write a ticket if you are wearing a beanie or novelty helmet.

When the law was first enacted 20 years ago, riders wearing helmets without a DOT sticker could be cited. Lawsuits by ABATE and others put an end to that enforcement because the LEO had not actually conducted engineering and structural testing on the suspected "novelty" helmet.

Selling cheap novelty helmets is like selling drug paraphernalia. How are products, by their mere design, can only be used by consumers unlawfully?

 

 

[cali_beemer]

I dont believe helmets should be mandatory at all. That being said, even if they were to remove the helmet law, I would still wear my HJC full face. I just believe that it should be worn by choice.

[Paul Mihalka]

"When the law was first enacted 20 years ago, riders wearing helmets without a DOT sticker could be cited. Lawsuits by ABATE and others put an end to that enforcement because the LEO had not actually conducted engineering and structural testing on the suspected "novelty" helmet"

 

This is absurd and part of the problem. In this situation you might as well not have a helmet law.

[Rotor]

I have been involved in several investigations of this nature. In one incident, a vehicle turned left, struck the motorcycle and ejected the rider. Witnesses say the rider was thrown into the air and was twirling like a helicopter when his head struck a steel barrier. In this case, I doubt a helmet would have made any difference; however, we’ll never know because it remained strapped to the rear of the bike which was another 20 yards down the road.

 

In another incident a motorcyclist was unprepared when his lane of traffic suddenly slowed for a vehicle making a right turn. He locked front and rear brakes, lost control and was ejected onto the roadway. This rider was wearing a novelty helmet. He expired from head trauma when his only other injuries were a few fractures and minor road rash.

Personally, I think approved helmets should be mandatory. Seat belts in cars are mandatory but helmets on motorcycles are not. Not trying to start a feud, just my opinion based on what I see. I'm confident others will disagree.

 

[baggerchris]

My riding partner of over 25 years wears his novelty helmet about 90% of the time, along with his Thunderheader pipes.

 

He doesn't care. He rides a HD with apes. He likes the "outlaw" look. He rode for many years without a helmet at all and never went down. He is almost deaf in his right ear. He is 40 pounds overweight. He is 57 years old. He is a Husband; Father and Grandfather and has been retired for 7 years. I may get to scrape him off the pavement one of these days, or he may do the same for me and my atgatt. Go figure. He basically just doesn't care.

[tallman]

Bob,

I've posted this before, but secondary impact of the brain, contrecoup , causes many injuries.

Approved helmets help dissipate this force, but some, including the Late Mr. Hurt, argued that the Snell standard actually contributed to this at times.

Bottom line, novelty helmets may help in some cases.

In others, specifically those that an approved helmet would provide adequate protection in the crash, they do not help.

You raise many issues.

Too many to address at one time, IMO.

Specifically, the helmet in this case may have contributed to the riders death.

 

We'll never know and that is the tragedy.

 

I believe in freedom of choice.

But from the information I've seen, a helmet, specifically a DOT approved one, will almost always help protect the head and brain and thereby reducing traumatic brain injury and the associated consequences of those injuries.

[Penforhire]

I'm with Cali_Beemer. The law should be repealed. I myself will not ride without a helmet now, even though my first decade of riding was actually lid-less back when it was legal in CA.

 

My reasoning on "it should be a choice" is the same reason motorcycling should remain a choice. We really cannot defend motorcycling as safer than typical cage transportation. Helmet laws are just a little closer on the slippery slope. You can go ahead and fit me for a tin foil hat but plenty of non-riders don't understand our need to ride, lid or no lid.

[BalancePoint]

This morning, I assisted in an investigation of a probable fatal motorcycle accident.

A 0200 hrs, a lone motorcyclist riding a 1999 HD Road King failed to negotiate a right hand curve in the roadway. The rider drifted left, high sided on the center median and struck a tree.

The rider was taken to a hospital with major head injuries. It's expected he will be declared brain dead in a day or two.

The rider was wearing a cheap novelty helmet, ironically emblazoned with death skulls. Evidence shows the helmet struck the tree and suffered structural failure that could have intensified the head injuries.

I know we are all proponents of ATGATT but I wonder if this guy might still be alive if he had been forced to wear a "certified" helmet?

I inspected the helmet and noticed it was constructed of a hard exterior shell with very thin, 1/8" thick, interior lining. IMO, this helmet provided the same head protection as not wearing any helmet.

This helmet did not have any "DOT" stickers or interior labels of any kind.

This begs a question and the reason for the post. Are mandatory helmet laws making outlaws of those who oppose wearing a motorcycle helmet? Are those who would ordinarily choose not to wear a helmet forced to buy unsafe, inferior and dangerous helmets that when worn may pose a greater danger to the rider than wearing no helmet?

Are those who choose to wear novelty helmets making a political statement of their opposition to helmet laws? Why wouldn't someone want to buy and wear the best possible protection for their head?

Could a properly implemented helmet law save the life of this rider? As of now, the helmet law in California is simple. Either you wear one or get a ticket if you don't. Currently there is 99.9% helmet compliance in California. LEO's cannot write a ticket if you are wearing a beanie or novelty helmet.

When the law was first enacted 20 years ago, riders wearing helmets without a DOT sticker could be cited. Lawsuits by ABATE and others put an end to that enforcement because the LEO had not actually conducted engineering and structural testing on the suspected "novelty" helmet.

Selling cheap novelty helmets is like selling drug paraphernalia. How are products, by their mere design, can only be used by consumers unlawfully?

 

 

If I read California's law correctly, only DOT approved helmets suffice for compliance with Cal's helmet law. I understand the difficulties inherent in enforcing the letter of the law, but at a certain point, the rider has made a decision to put style over substance. And paid more than he bargained for.

 

Without going into a long-winded oratory, I support helmet laws. Everybody is a freedom loving individual right up until they are a subsidy-dependent head trauma victim.

[NonComp]

It's a choice, up until the victim/surviver then sues the state for not "forcing" him to wear a helmet. There have been a couple of landmark decisions here in BC, where employees got drunk at the company Christmas party, got in the car and crashed, and then sued their employers for allowing them to get drunk and drive. One guy sued the police for not arresting him at a roadblock.

[russell_bynum]

Without going into a long-winded oratory, I support helmet laws. Everybody is a freedom loving individual right up until they are a subsidy-dependent head trauma victim.

 

Given that the accident/injury rate of motorcyclists is much higher than it is for cage drivers, and there's really no logical compelling reason why someone has to ride a motorcycle instead of taking a much safer car, can I then assume that you support banning motorcycles?

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

Evidence shows the helmet struck the tree and suffered structural failure that could have intensified the head injuries.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you say this?

 

The head injury results from the impact with another object and the resultant sudden deceleration of the skull and brain. A helmet is designed to spread the force of the impact over a wider area (to mitigate structural failure of the skull) and to lengthen the deceleration (to mitigate the internal impact of the brain in the skull).

 

Even if a helmet provides zero protection, it should result in the same injuries as no helmet. The only way I can imagine a helmet that would intensify head injuries over no helmet at all would be if it had something like pointy spikes on the inside, like an iron maiden. Not that it would surprise me to find out that some of these guys wear helmets with pointy spikes on the inside.

 

In the article tallman alluded to, there is some indication that because Snell helmets are stiffer, the brain suffers a higher g-force of deceleration than it would in a DOT helmet (but Snell helmets may protect better against multiple impacts). But in either of them, you'd still have less g-force than wearing no helmet.

[Polo]

Personally, I think approved helmets should be mandatory. Seat belts in cars are mandatory but helmets on motorcycles are not. Not trying to start a feud, just my opinion based on what I see. I'm confident others will disagree.

 

I thought along these lines before finishing the OP's post.

 

If bodily injury coverage wasn't optional, the Insurance Lobby would already have us wearing approved ATGATT, which would cost probably twice as much as it does now. But since they don't have to pick up the tab when WE do it to ourselves, then it's just up to our incompetent legislators to impose their ignorance upon us.

 

I for one agree that mandatory helmet laws will force the purchase of cheap helmets due to economic constraints.

 

I have a hard time accepting seat belt laws, but if they are going to make it mandatory, then make it sensible. In Texas we must provide proof of insurance when we obtain or renew license plates. Why not require an approved helmet at the same time, and then ticket for lack of wear?

 

However, I will say that even a leather helmet is better than nothing.

[NonComp]

Just out of curiosity, why do you say this?

Perhaps because the victim ended up with shards of helmet shell embedded in his brain...

[Dennis Andress]

Bob,

That sucks. I couldn't do the things you do on your job. Thanks for doing it.

 

There is only so much energy that any helmet can absorb. I believe, and have never checked if this is true, that no helmet can absorb a direct impact of greater than 13 mph. Personally, I woke up in ICU 20 years ago after landing on my head. My helmet did protect me, it just didn't protect me from all of the impact. I'm not saying that this junky helmet is not to blame here. But, a direct impact with a tree would probably overcome any helmet.

 

It is my understanding that when California enacted the current helmet law, it was left up to the CHP to define what an appropriate, and legal, helmet is. Something they have (wisely) never done. If that is so then the some of problem of junk helmets being available rests with them.

 

Dennis

[ShovelStrokeEd]

I live in a state where the helmet law is more or less unenforced. If you are over 21 and have $10,000 worth of major medical insurance, you don't have to wear one.

 

I would speculate that at least 50% of the riders out there are not in compliance. Maybe more on weekends.

 

My avatar pretty well illustrates why I wear high quality, full face helmets. Damn the fact that they are uncomfortable. They WILL reduce trauma and MAY save your life in a bad situation. There will be some accidents that even the best of safety equipment is not going to prevent severe trauma or even death. We accept that risk every time we turn the key on our bikes.

 

I have never understood the novelty helmet thing, or, for that matter, wearing an open faced helmet on the street. Having your face removed by sliding down the road on it may well be worse than death.

[upflying]

Folks, I have a couple of photos of the helmet. I am bit hesitant in sharing them mainly because this is a public forum and I didn't want the probable widow to see the helmet. The chances of her or her relatives/associates visiting this forum is remote but possible.

The hard surface showed impact and cracking behind and above the right ear area. The cracking is visible on the inside and is directly behind where the non-padded lining is. Blood loss evidence is extensive inside the helmet.

What's the feeling here, is it bad taste to show it or is it a benefit to the safety of the motorcycling community?

[EffBee]

He basically just doesn't care.

My money says that he (speaking generically, not specifically) does care. He just doesn't believe his number will get called. Fair enough. His life. His family. But if he's not in compliance with the law and his number comes up, all costs are on them. No one else.

 

Bye-bye house, cars, insurance money, retirement fund, pension, 401K, college funds, and everything else set aside for his successors.

 

I wonder if he'd care now?

[EffBee]

Folks, I have a couple of photos of the helmet. I am bit hesitant in sharing them mainly because this is a public forum and I didn't want the probable widow to see the helmet. The chances of her or her relatives/associates visiting this forum is remote but possible.

The hard surface showed impact and cracking behind and above the right ear area. The cracking is visible on the inside and is directly behind where the non-padded lining is. Blood loss evidence is extensive inside the helmet.

What's the feeling here, is it bad taste to show it or is it a benefit to the safety of the motorcycling community?

 

Benefit vs. potential pain to the family? Don't show it. I think we can all figure out what a crushed, bashed and/or otherwise destroyed helmet looks like, even if it doesn't look bad because it transfered all impact energy to the wearer.

 

It's not worth the potential pain to the family, or yours and ours if they see it and are traumatized.

[Wooster]

What's the feeling here, is it bad taste to show it or is it a benefit to the safety of the motorcycling community?

 

I vote for not showing it; whether it's a matter of taste, yo no sey. My imagination is up to the task of visuallizing a cheap "brain bucket" after head trauma and I don't need nor want to see gore on this screen.

Helmet laws seem to push different buttons in different people. Some see helmet laws thru a prism of free will/choice; others see thru a prism of societal responsibility. I don't know whether to applaud or snicker when some one says, "I don't approve of helmet laws, yet you'll never see me w/o one."

While I'm uncharacteristiclly confused by it all, I vote for DOT-stickered helemts as required gear; w/o DOT-stickered helmet, take a hike not a bike.

Wooster

[EffBee]

I believe, and have never checked if this is true, that no helmet can absorb a direct impact of greater than 13 mph.

 

That's not quite correct. The average person's head/brain cannot survive a sudden deceleration from speed much above 13mph. A properly designed helmet helps absorb energy, reducing the effects of impact.

 

Most impact speeds in a motorcycle crash are less than that. In a simple fall, regardless of speed, the impact speed from your head falling to the asphalt is about 4-6mph, probably a bit less if you lowside while hanging off. Additionally, these types of impacts with the ground are often glancing blows, which are not "sudden decelerations" as in an abrupt cessation of forward motion by the head. Once you're down on the ground, though, whatever you hit while sliding stands a greater chance of doing damage than the initial impact speed because you're starting at the speed of the vehicle at the moment you left it, until that speed gets diminished.

 

So many variables. It's difficult if not impossible to address each hypothetical possibility.

[SageRider]

Agree with FB. No need to show.

 

Rider made the choice of what type of protection (if any) to wear. Rider was the only one directly injured as a result.

Where is the problem with this????

I am against helmet laws (or any other laws designed to protect one fom one's self).

I choose to wear a quality helmet. I also wear seatbelts. etc... It is my decision, and not coerced by any laws.

That said, at least a case can be made for seatbelt laws IF there is more than one occupant in a vehicle, as one's body flying around the interior of a car during an accident could injure or kill other passengers.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Folks, I have a couple of photos of the helmet. I am bit hesitant in sharing them mainly because this is a public forum and I didn't want the probable widow to see the helmet. The chances of her or her relatives/associates visiting this forum is remote but possible.

The hard surface showed impact and cracking behind and above the right ear area. The cracking is visible on the inside and is directly behind where the non-padded lining is. Blood loss evidence is extensive inside the helmet.

What's the feeling here, is it bad taste to show it or is it a benefit to the safety of the motorcycling community?

 

Benefit vs. potential pain to the family? Don't show it. I think we can all figure out what a crushed, bashed and/or otherwise destroyed helmet looks like, even if it doesn't look bad because it transfered all impact energy to the wearer.

 

It's not worth the potential pain to the family, or yours and ours if they see it and are traumatized.

 

Even though the curiosity piques my interest, I have to agree with Fernando.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

It's a choice, up until the victim/surviver then sues the state for not "forcing" him to wear a helmet. There have been a couple of landmark decisions here in BC, where employees got drunk at the company Christmas party, got in the car and crashed, and then sued their employers for allowing them to get drunk and drive. One guy sued the police for not arresting him at a roadblock.

 

It's people's inability to take responsibility for themselves that has caused any number of problems in our society, the least of which is laws governing the use of helmets on motorcycles.

 

I keep telling people, "if you don't want the government to act like your nanny, don't act like you need one."

[bobbybob]

Folks, I have a couple of photos of the helmet. I am bit hesitant in sharing them mainly because this is a public forum and I didn't want the probable widow to see the helmet. The chances of her or her relatives/associates visiting this forum is remote but possible.

The hard surface showed impact and cracking behind and above the right ear area. The cracking is visible on the inside and is directly behind where the non-padded lining is. Blood loss evidence is extensive inside the helmet.

What's the feeling here, is it bad taste to show it or is it a benefit to the safety of the motorcycling community?

 

Even a novelty helmet will spread the impact to *some* degree. Take a hammer and tap your head lightly with a novelty helmet on (not too hard, now ) . Then, just imagine how that would feel with NO helmet. I think you'll get the point. However, anything greater than a tap and you're probably SOL with the novelty helmet. If it cracked and shards were embedded in the brain (sorry for that visual), just think how much MORE traumatic the injury would have been without that helmet spreading out the blow a little. But even a novelty helmet could possibly help you by turning a collision with a sharp object into a glancing blow instead.

[Selden]

The most absurd novelty helmet I have seen was a welder's yarmulke with 1" metal spikes around the perimeter. I honestly don't know what message this guy was trying to send.

[4wheeldog]

One of my riding buddies swears that helmet laws saved his life......When his state put a helmet law into effect, he quit riding for 25 years......He is sure that if he continued to ride, helmet or not, he would have done something dumb and died. Instead, he wound up taking a loonngg break, and has ridden happily as an older and more careful rider for the past 5 years.

 

[Bill_Walker]

One thing I think that is somewhat in helmet laws' favor: it may reduce the "uncool" factor of wearing a helmet. In other words, if _everybody_ is wearing a helmet, then there aren't examples running around of other riders who look "cooler" without one.

 

Then again, the novelty lids are probably mostly chosen because they look cooler than a real helmet, since they don't have all that thick padding that makes your head look big. I think very, very few of them are worn for economic reasons.

 

Bob, the first thing that jumped out at me from your description was "0200 hrs". That just screams "alcohol involvement" to me (bars close at 0200 in California). If so, this rider had more than one strike of poor judgment on his slate.

[Paul Mihalka]

Very personal opinionated opinion, but I don't know of many things more "uncool" or stupid looking than a "novelty" helmet.

[EffBee]

The is just my personal opinion, and for the record I am very much in favor of helmet use. However, there is one thing that I think is a negative about wearing a helmet. It sort of dehumanizes us.

 

Without a helmet, you can tell in an instant that the rider you see is a male/female, white/black/other, bearded/shaved, hairy/bald, etc. It gives the rider human characteristics that people in cages can relate to. That's a REAL person.

 

Unfortunately, with a helmet we're an unidentifiable human form. There's nothing for the cager to connect with, to identify with, to see himself or someone he knows who has similar characteristics, astride that bike. Unidentifiable people are more easily dismissed, ignored, even attacked.

 

 

[TandemGeek]

First of all, I'm guessing it would be inappropriate to share the photos if they were collected as part of your duties.

 

Secondarily, while I choose to wear a helmet, I sometimes have a hard time reconciling the entire helmet & AGATT discussion when so many folks who ride AGATT under the premise of self-preservation don't address other more obvious risk factors that put that at greater risk than a crash with or without a helmet. For example, let's consider Racer X in the photo below.

 

 

Anyone else see the irony? Moreover, anyone else know riders who are seriously overweight and/or who smoke or who engage in other high-risk activities, aside from motorcycling? Frankly, I'm guessing we lose more friends to heart disease or other diseases than crash-related injuries.

 

Just something to think about it.

 

[tallman]

And of course, in the interest of objectivity, someone else can look up the data on motorcycle deaths in states that have repealed their helmet laws (or like Florida, created a legal option).

It may surprise you.

[TandemGeek]

And of course, in the interest of objectivity, someone else can look up the data on motorcycle deaths in states that have repealed their helmet laws (or like Florida, created a legal option).

It may surprise you.

 

Yes, but don't forget to normalize the NHTSA FARS data against the total number of registered riders so that the increase in the number of riders doesn't skew the data.

 

Linky to FARS: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

[BalancePoint]

Without going into a long-winded oratory, I support helmet laws. Everybody is a freedom loving individual right up until they are a subsidy-dependent head trauma victim.

 

Given that the accident/injury rate of motorcyclists is much higher than it is for cage drivers, and there's really no logical compelling reason why someone has to ride a motorcycle instead of taking a much safer car, can I then assume that you support banning motorcycles?

 

 

I can see the logic in your question, but it seems to me to be a matter of degree. Perhaps we can agree that while it's a good idea to license drivers of all vehicles on public streets, we must accept that a certain proportion of those duly licensed drivers will get themselves and others into accidents that result in death or injury. All of the risks cannot be managed. We don't leap to the conclusion that licensure, since it doesn't eliminate accidents, is inadequate and thus driving itself must be banned.

 

Helmets have been proven to reduce the incidence of traumatic brain injury. They don't eliminate it. Sufferers of traumatic brain injuries who survive are more likely than those afflicted with other kinds of injuries to lose the capacity to manage their own affairs, and while I can't cite statistics, I'll bet they are more of an expense to the rest of society than those who suffer injuries of a permanent or long-term nature to other parts of the body.

 

But putting aside the dollar issue, the very issue of humanity comes into play, in my opinion. The very essence of who we are as cognizant beings resides in our brains. I think it's a worthwhile compromise with our individual impulses toward self-determination to place this limit ( requiring a helmet ) when the range of risk involves the loss of our essence of humanity at the same time society is placed in the position of caring for the vegetative shell of that humanity at great expense.

[FlyingFinn]

This thread didn’t start as a helmet law debate but since it’s already moved to that direction, I might as well pus it bit further.

 

Many are in the opinion that the individual’s choice to ride a motorcycle should be free for anyone to make since there’s no harm in not wearing one to anyone else except for that person himself. Right?

“It should be my own free choice to wear a helmet or not, it’s none of your business what I decide to do with my own life.”

 

But I don’t think it’s that simple.

Say I’m driving a car, get little distracted by talking on the cell (using a headset so it’s legal) and slightly run the red light in a typical fast moving big city traffic. Not blasting all the way through the intersection but say 10ft past stop line.

It so happens there was motorcyclist coming from left on that cross street and we collided. He timed his approach to the lights just perfectly and just gave it gas crossing his stop line right when his light turned green.

 

In scenario 1) the motorcyclist wears a full-face helmet, I t-bone him, he hits the pavement and suffers a broken leg and a concussion.

In scenario 2) he does not wear a helmet, I t-bone him, he hits the pavement head fist and dies from the head injury.

 

In both cases my mistake was the same, I blew a red light a little.

But in scenario 2) my punishment is for sure going to be much more severe. I might likely face jail time. And all that because the other guy decided not to wear a helmet.

 

I have to say, since we are all out there in the traffic together, I’d much rather see other around me be mandated to take reasonable steps to guard their own safety. Like wearing a proper helmet while riding a motorcycle.

 

--

Mikko

[russell_bynum]

This thread didn’t start as a helmet law debate but since it’s already moved to that direction, I might as well pus it bit further.

 

Many are in the opinion that the individual’s choice to ride a motorcycle should be free for anyone to make since there’s no harm in not wearing one to anyone else except for that person himself. Right?

“It should be my own free choice to wear a helmet or not, it’s none of your business what I decide to do with my own life.”

 

But I don’t think it’s that simple.

Say I’m driving a car, get little distracted by talking on the cell (using a headset so it’s legal) and slightly run the red light in a typical fast moving big city traffic. Not blasting all the way through the intersection but say 10ft past stop line.

It so happens there was motorcyclist coming from left on that cross street and we collided. He timed his approach to the lights just perfectly and just gave it gas crossing his stop line right when his light turned green.

 

In scenario 1) the motorcyclist wears a full-face helmet, I t-bone him, he hits the pavement and suffers a broken leg and a concussion.

In scenario 2) he does not wear a helmet, I t-bone him, he hits the pavement head fist and dies from the head injury.

 

In both cases my mistake was the same, I blew a red light a little.

But in scenario 2) my punishment is for sure going to be much more severe. I might likely face jail time. And all that because the other guy decided not to wear a helmet.

 

I have to say, since we are all out there in the traffic together, I’d much rather see other around me be mandated to take reasonable steps to guard their own safety. Like wearing a proper helmet while riding a motorcycle.

 

--

Mikko

 

Even better option: The other guy is in a car because motorcycles are illegal because they're too dangerous. You T-bone him. Insurance pays for a few thousand dollars to repair both cars. Nobody is seriously injured.

 

 

I'm a full gear kinda guy, but I just don't like the argument that it's uncle sam's responsibility to protect me from myself. (Note: I also don't think it is uncle sam's job to foot the bill when I shoot myself in the foot.)

[FlyingFinn]

Even better option: The other guy is in a car because motorcycles are illegal because they're too dangerous. You T-bone him. Insurance pays for a few thousand dollars to repair both cars. Nobody is seriously injured.

 

 

I'm a full gear kinda guy, but I just don't like the argument that it's uncle sam's responsibility to protect me from myself. (Note: I also don't think it is uncle sam's job to foot the bill when I shoot myself in the foot.)

 

So the jist of the matter must be what is considered "taking reasonable steps to safeguard one's own safety"?

And IMHO a resonable thing to do, while ridign a bike, is to wear a proper helmet. If someone wants not to, I don't want to be held liable for that person's poor judgement if I get into an accident with the said person.

 

The argument there is not uncle sam's responsibility to protect "me from myslef". Helmet law does also protect me (my liability) from you.

 

--

Mikko

[lvnvbiker]

I am in the "by choice, not force" camp and feel that helmet laws are just one more step in big brother removing person freedoms. Of course I also support ones right to end thier life if they choose, weather or not they have a terminal illness and really support it as a valid choice when that illness makes living pure agony no matter what drugs are used. My early years riding were in So Cal before the law was made, and I rode in a beanie until a few years ago myself. As I have aged and come to the realization that if I kill myself being stupid that it effects more than just me I have adopted safer ways of doing things. I wear a helmet by choice, and a full face one because I like my face as it is now with out asphalt reconstruction. But if one choses to go sans protection and something happens to them, while I feel for the family and friends, it was his fate.

Natural selection has been legislated out of the loop for far too long in way too many areas of our lives I say!

[NonComp]

My opinion about why people would wear a novelty helmet: they think that are sticking it to the man. Perhaps its fortunate that the ones who will die of head injuries, will probably not be conscious enough to regret their decision.

[SWB]

Count me with the crowd that firmly contends that helmets save lives, even those of the idiots who only wear them if they are forced to. EVERY MOTORCYCLIST SHOULD WEAR A HELMET!

 

On the other hand, freedom once compromised is usually only secured again by human sacrifice, by blood. Whatever a helmet law saves is too high in relation to what is lost. I say this knowing full well that my 22 year old son would be riding without a helmet at least some of the time if we didn't have the helmet law.

 

Some things are more important than even the life and safety of my own family. I know that helmet "freedom" is nothing in relation to freedom of speech, and others in the Bill of Rights. But in principle, all freedom's are equally priceless.

 

- Scott

[russell_bynum]

Even better option: The other guy is in a car because motorcycles are illegal because they're too dangerous. You T-bone him. Insurance pays for a few thousand dollars to repair both cars. Nobody is seriously injured.

 

 

I'm a full gear kinda guy, but I just don't like the argument that it's uncle sam's responsibility to protect me from myself. (Note: I also don't think it is uncle sam's job to foot the bill when I shoot myself in the foot.)

 

So the jist of the matter must be what is considered "taking reasonable steps to safeguard one's own safety"?

And IMHO a resonable thing to do, while ridign a bike, is to wear a proper helmet. If someone wants not to, I don't want to be held liable for that person's poor judgement if I get into an accident with the said person.

 

The argument there is not uncle sam's responsibility to protect "me from myslef". Helmet law does also protect me (my liability) from you.

 

--

Mikko

 

How can riding a motorcycle (regardless of what gear you're wearing) possibly be considered "taking reasonable steps to ensure one's safety"?

 

What if you hit someone in a car, but it's an old car that doesn't have airbags? Should everyone be forced to drive a car with airbags to reduce your liability?

[russell_bynum]

I say this knowing full well that my 22 year old son would be riding without a helmet at least some of the time if we didn't have the helmet law.

 

Not if you're done your job as a parent. I grew up riding dirt bikes and my parents pounded into me the importance of wearing a helmet.

 

When I started riding on the street (at 25...so only a big older than your son) I wouldn't have even considered riding without one (regardless of the law). I will admit to wearing a half-helmet rather than a full-face, but it was at least a "Real" DOT approved helmet and not a novelty lid.

 

 

[FlyingFinn]

What if you hit someone in a car, but it's an old car that doesn't have airbags? Should everyone be forced to drive a car with airbags to reduce your liability?

 

IMO, that would be beyond reasonable.

 

I don't have the same passion for arguing as you do Russell, but all I'm saying is that the "I don't like uncle sam protecting me from myself" argument is not the only valid argunet in the debate. Helmet law does also protect other people and that's why I'm for it.

 

--

Mikko

[russell_bynum]

What if you hit someone in a car, but it's an old car that doesn't have airbags? Should everyone be forced to drive a car with airbags to reduce your liability?

 

IMO, that would be beyond reasonable.

 

I don't have the same passion for arguing as you do Russell, but all I'm saying is that the "I don't like uncle sam protecting me from myself" argument is not the only valid argunet in the debate. Helmet law does also protect other people and that's why I'm for it.

 

--

Mikko

 

 

IMO, if you caused the accident, you are liable. If I caused the accident, I'm liable. If we both played a part in it, then we split liability. That's as far as it should go.

 

What if you're driving a 7000lbs 4x4 pickup with a heavy steel front bumper/brushguard and I'm in a Mazda Miata? Would the end result be much different than if I'm on a bike and you're in the Miata?

 

What about bicyclists? A bicyclist, even with a helmet on is far more vulnerable than a motorcyclist...should you be less liable if you run into a bicyclist?

 

I understand your argument, but it's another one of those "slippery slope, where do you draw the line and why?" sorta things.

 

 

[JonathanE]

Remember what laws are supposed to be about.

 

Before you run amok after what I am about to say, spend a few minutes (sheesh, in these days of the all powerfull internet, ten minutes will do it, easy) researching historical influence on the rule of law.

 

Laws are primarily concerned with preventing persons from trespassing (old biblical language: means taking advantage of) upon other persons. Almost all law is supposed to be used to prevent persons or groups from taking advantage of other individuals or groups.

 

In this case, being a farkin' moron and hanging your but* onto and riding a projectile at high relative speed across the planet without protecting the vessel that contains your personality and the abilty to control the rest of your body, is considerably more risky to yourself, than it is to anyone else. This is why people will continue to be allowed to do so. The motivation to prevent injury is already, supposedly, there.

 

Otherwise, you will need to outlaw skydiving, mountain climbing, stock market speculation, private plane piloting, and things much more dangerous, such as love.

 

More died in the war for Helen of Troy than in all the years of helmetless moto riding.

 

The purpose of the laws are to protect the non-rider, not the rider. No laws are required or even desired to protect the rider from himself/herself.

[Francois_Dumas]

It's a choice, up until the victim/surviver then sues the state for not "forcing" him to wear a helmet. There have been a couple of landmark decisions here in BC, where employees got drunk at the company Christmas party, got in the car and crashed, and then sued their employers for allowing them to get drunk and drive. One guy sued the police for not arresting him at a roadblock.

 

It's people's inability to take responsibility for themselves that has caused any number of problems in our society, the least of which is laws governing the use of helmets on motorcycles.

 

I keep telling people, "if you don't want the government to act like your nanny, don't act like you need one."

 

Good one !

 

And I continue to be baffled as to why people are opposed to wearing a helmet when they are doing something intrinsically dangerous like riding a fast motorbike.......... but DO ALL wear them when gliding down a snowy slope at leisure

 

(Europeans don't wear helmets when skiing or skating..... don't ask me why either).

[Deadboy]

The list of things people show "know better" than to do is only limited by ones imagination.....

 

 

 

 

[Paul Mihalka]

The is just my personal opinion, and for the record I am very much in favor of helmet use. However, there is one thing that I think is a negative about wearing a helmet. It sort of dehumanizes us.

 

Without a helmet, you can tell in an instant that the rider you see is a male/female, white/black/other, bearded/shaved, hairy/bald, etc. It gives the rider human characteristics that people in cages can relate to. That's a REAL person.

 

Unfortunately, with a helmet we're an unidentifiable human form. There's nothing for the cager to connect with, to identify with, to see himself or someone he knows who has similar characteristics, astride that bike. Unidentifiable people are more easily dismissed, ignored, even attacked.

 

 

Fernando, you are right, but only partially right. Helmet "dehumanizes", but you are still visible as a human being, not just a car with somebody supposedly behind the steering wheel. People jogging, walking their dog, picking up their mail, wave at me. Kids in the bus or waiting for the bus wave at me. Best thing is the big smile and wave from the pretty blonde in the open Miata. She doesn't see what's inside the helmet . When stopping a open face or flip-up helmet is much better than a full face that is kept on.

OTOH in my job selling bikes I hate it when somebody walks in and starts speaking to me without taking the full face helmet off. I usually smile (salesmen always have to smile) and ask: Who are you?

 

[Rocer]

Bob - lots of stats in this study on motorcycle safety recently released here in Canada but with lots of comparisons with stats in the US and the Uk. Haven't read it all yet but I didn't see any reference to non-DOT helmets but otherwise some interesting reading.

 

http://tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/rsm_2008_motorcyclists_final.pdf

[Nice n Easy Rider]

I've always worn a helmet, going way back before there were helmet laws. And I firmly believe helmets save lives. Up until recently I would have said I favored helmet laws but now I'm inclined to say: let riders make the choice.

 

Some of you may remember I posted back in July about my 38-yo nephew Ken dying from a low-speed fall while riding in NH. He had gone up there from Massachusetts (helmet law) and once in NH he removed his helmet. On a newspaper blog following his death some of his friends, his sister and his fiance (of one day) said that he died doing what he loved. Of course, people didn't mention the heartache he caused in so many of his friends and family.

 

I think if Ken knew how much pain he would cause for friends and family he would have chosen differently. But we all make those kinds of choices every day, don't we? The hurtful comment we wish we could take back, the failure to acknowledge someone's kind gesture, etc. Ken made his choice and, in retrospect, it was a poor one. But it was his to make. One excellent choice he did make was to be an organ donor. So even though his poor choice caused pain for his friends and family it was balanced by his choice providing new life and health to seven individuals he never knew.

 

If we knew the future we'd all choose better. But we don't so we do as best we can with what we know, what we feel, and what we want. And hope it works out.

[Selden]

Nothing brings out the libertarian streak in most motorcyclists like a helmet law debate. Not all laws are to punish trespass against another; e.g. suicide. While I tilt toward mandatory helmet laws, I recognize the slippery slope argument, since nobody will argue that motorcycles are a risk-free mode of transport.