Jump to content
Patallaire

Should Helmets be mandatory in all states? Should we abdicate that decision to the government?

Recommended Posts

Patallaire

This issue has been discussed, debated, and while many opinions have been offered, I don't believe we have reached a definitive conclusion.  As BMW riders, we are more committed to AGATT, however, I have been to some events in other parts of the country where even our clan ride without helmets.  So what do you think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whip

Seat belts, helmet law, maximum allowed water temperature on hot water heaters and so many other warnings and restrictions all have good intentions. I personally would rather have the choice and take responsibility for my own risk.

 

I almost always do wear a helmet, but never a seat belt.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisolson

I have been known to ride down the block to get gas without a helmet in jeans and in sneakers.  Choice is good. 

 

When touring I wear leather armored jacket and riding pants and a Sell approved full face helmet .  Choice is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twisties

Unfortunately, others bear the costs of our mistakes...  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whip

I have seen numbers that say it saves all of us money?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisolson
1 hour ago, Twisties said:

Unfortunately, others bear the costs of our mistakes...  

For those that make mistakes , maybe. 

 

What I mean is just 'cause one rides without a helmet doesn't guarantee you will a) have and accident or b) if you do have and accident, be hospitalized solely because you didn't have a helmet on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

No. Helmet laws are a warm fuzzy for people who are not into motorcycles, most of whom want such a law. And while wearing any helmet is better than not, wearing eye protection, gloves, boots, and a long sleeve shirt are important too. So why are they not included? 

 

I'd much rather see Tiered Licensing. (Why are people with limited experience riding liter bikes that make over 100 hp?)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisolson
1 minute ago, Dennis Andress said:

I'd much rather see Tiered Licensing. (Why are people with limited experience riding liter bikes that make over 100 hp?)

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
3 hours ago, Dennis Andress said:

No. Helmet laws are a warm fuzzy for people who are not into motorcycles, most of whom want such a law. And while wearing any helmet is better than not, wearing eye protection, gloves, boots, and a long sleeve shirt are important too. So why are they not included? 

 

I'd much rather see Tiered Licensing. (Why are people with limited experience riding liter bikes that make over 100 hp?)

 

Meh,....near 200hp on less than 400lbs of bike:

2014-BMW-HP4c-small.jpg

 

Either way, it should be a choice, the "help me protect me from myself" mentality.  Do you know anyone that has died in an accident with a helmet on,.....how about do you know anyone that has lived with a helmet off,......yes for both (yes different accident types but violent in both instances nonetheless).

 

I've ridden with nothing more than flip-flops, shorts, t-shirt and helmet, simply because the helmet was required by law and is an easily seen law violation if po-po are around.  "Oh my god, you could die",...."ya, and I could have died in combat too what's your point?"  ATGATT, over rated, I wear what I wear according to my mood and conditions and if this state allowed, yes, there would be times I'd take it on the road helmetless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress
42 minutes ago, Living the Dream said:

 

Either way, it should be a choice, the "help me protect me from myself" mentality.  Do you know anyone that has died in an accident with a helmet on,.....how about do you know anyone that has lived with a helmet off,......yes for both (yes different accident types but violent in both instances nonetheless).

 

I've ridden with nothing more than flip-flops, shorts, t-shirt and helmet, simply because the helmet was required by law and is an easily seen law violation if po-po are around.  "Oh my god, you could die",...."ya, and I could have died in combat too what's your point?"  ATGATT, over rated, I wear what I wear according to my mood and conditions and if this state allowed, yes, there would be times I'd take it on the road helmetless.

 

 

Yes, it should be a choice, all of it. I crashed about 30 years ago and my helmet did not absorb the full impact. My brain bounced off the inside of my skull. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEWKS

My el-cheap-o HJC sacrificed its life for mine so by default, I'm pretty much a believer. I'm not a crazy "everybody needs to wear a helmet screamer" but they do save lives. You Choosy! :classic_wink:

 

Pat

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
6 minutes ago, TEWKS said:

My el-cheap-o HJC sacrificed its life for mine so by default, I'm pretty much a believer. I'm not a crazy "everybody needs to wear a helmet screamer" but they do save lives. You Choosy! :classic_wink:

 

Pat

 

 

I don't think there's any dispute that in the right instance, a helmet will save your grape from releasing its juice, but the idea that the gubment pimps the laws that say you must wear one while at the same time ignoring the Leatt brace, proper footwear,  body armor, Turtle type airbags and abrasion resistance wear, thus leaving me a "choice" as to which level of protection I want the other parts of my body protected.  As you know, the head is not the ONLY vulnerable part of the body, but the gubment seems to think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEWKS

It's probably very similar to the Second Amendment in a way. I'm sure they have a sense of where the pushback line is. Oh man, I see that one being an interesting topic...:whistle:

 

Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
2 minutes ago, TEWKS said:

It's probably very similar to the Second Amendment in a way. I'm sure they have a sense of where the pushback line is. Oh man, I see that one being an interesting topic...:whistle:

 

Pat

 

"What do you carry?",......"not enough!!" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red

I all for free choice when those who crash don't get a free ride.  If the rider has the financial resources to pay all their medical bills and support his/her family while recovering fine.  If the individual has the financial to pay for the possible life long medical support due to being an invalid then fine.  And on and on and on.  Free choice comes with responsibility.  If it doesn't, then I'm not for free choice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trilegy

I had a driver uturn in front of me doing 60KPH 4 car lengths away. (K1600) I was lucky to not directly tbone but slightly moved the bars to have a degree impact and slide into him. I came off rolled and landed on my feet. Broken rib and a leg issue. I don't think any of my gear or helmet helped. 

Alternative could have been a direct right angle tbone and me over the car into oncoming traffic. Who knows what may have transpired.

Ive only been riding for 10 years so don't know any other way than must have a helmet.

I choose to gear up on all occasions.

What we do is a risk. I came off a pushbike at low speed with minimal gear and broke a wrist much worse than the incident above.
I prefer to be prepared for my own or others stupidity.

I cant believe anyone would ride without a helmet at least.    As my partner says...we are the chassis! (And she runs the spinal unit in a major hospital helping those not so fortunate after their accidents)

Suit up...you never know.

WP_20160911_12_44_07_Pro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

To the point of free choice, does that suggest that if you made the choice and are injured, that the government or insurance companies should pay a lifetime of Social Security disability and the medical insurance should pay because you made a choice to not wear a helmet or AGATT?  If we accept that as true, if you are doing well over the speed limit when you crash, should the insurance companies pay the benefits and even the death benefit on your life insurance, even though that was not what they underwrote?  They assumed a risk, they didn't bargain on the risk you felt you could exercise under the "Free Choice" argument.  This slope gets slippery  fi we say that they shouldn't pay, if we say they should then why is your choice suddenly a community expense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elkroeger

It'd be different if all that happened was that people who crashed sans helmet were killed.  But I suspect that many are permanently disabled.  And that's the expensive part.  Believe me, I have a severely disabled family member, and the government contributes to her care.  It ain't cheap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
1 hour ago, Patallaire said:

To the point of free choice, does that suggest that if you made the choice and are injured, that the government or insurance companies should pay a lifetime of Social Security disability and the medical insurance should pay because you made a choice to not wear a helmet or AGATT?  If we accept that as true, if you are doing well over the speed limit when you crash, should the insurance companies pay the benefits and even the death benefit on your life insurance, even though that was not what they underwrote?  They assumed a risk, they didn't bargain on the risk you felt you could exercise under the "Free Choice" argument.  This slope gets slippery  fi we say that they shouldn't pay, if we say they should then why is your choice suddenly a community expense?

 

Does the policy SPECIFICALLY call out that in the course of the accident the insured MUST be within the realms of the law AND must be dressed head to toe in protective gear?  If not, the slope has traction, thus the insurance must pay.  The same with social security.  You can argue negligence, but to what degree,....to you, head to toe dressing may be seen as normal/common but to another group, flip-flops and tanning oil is common to ride.

 

It's not a community expense, it's a company expense, how the company acquires their funding is on them (government is a company).  You can say it filters down to all the policy holders, but then again, I can say rates (taxes) rise simply due to inflation,...every thing goes up in time.

 

Insurance is a gamble, no different than a casino.  I put low money in, and at the time of the "win", I get big money out,.....if I never "win", I just keep putting low money in and others get to get my "winnings".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

That is certainly a perspective.  The reality is that as claims go up premiums go up, so ergo ~ it is a community expense.  The issue was expanded to riding well above the speed limit, which by the way, we have all done, so then the question, ethically is why should Social Security Disability pay for poor judgment or Insurance companies pay claims for would be road racers, that was not what they agreed their risk/reward equation was to be based on.  If, on the other hand, you sated that you would be riding at well above the speed limit and not wearing any gear, then they could base their claims with exceptions and write the premium accordingly.  It is a quandary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whip

Does anyone see a the slippery slope argument?

 

If helmets save "us" money then imagine how much could be saved if motorcycles were outlawed for the same reason?

 

Baths are safer than showers?

 

Chainsaws?

 

ATVs?

 

1972 Chevelle?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chrisolson
14 minutes ago, Whip said:

1972 Chevelle?

 

There goes my '63 truck with a metal dash, metal headliner, metal doors and not steering wheel airbag in sight .... 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roadscholar

I got stopped for speeding (what's new) years ago in my '61 Porsche Roadster. The officer walks up and says, your not wearing your seatbelt. I say, it doesn't have any and it never did. :grin: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

Come on! Why does the person without a helmet have to be the bad guy? He or she is still a person just like you and me. We all make mistakes, and we are all worth the chance to try again. Ultimately all medical costs are shared anyway (The $1700 a month Laney and I paid for insurance are a drop in the bucket compared to the monthly EOBs we've seen in the last year).

 

On October 21, 1989:

I was wearing a helmet, leathers, boots, and gloves.

I don't remember the accident. But I remember waking up 4 days later in ICU.

I didn't have insurance. My medical costs were paid from a fund which all insurance companies doing business in California paid into. (The costs were not quite $15,000)

As a consequence of the head injury I became very focused and determined. I changed careers increasing my income, and have spent dang near every dime of it. I think I paid back to society the pissy $15K!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John in VA
22 hours ago, Whip said:

Does anyone see a the slippery slope argument?

 

If helmets save "us" money then imagine how much could be saved if motorcycles were outlawed for the same reason?

 

Baths are safer than showers?

 

Chainsaws?

 

ATVs?

 

1972 Chevelle?

 

 

 

 

 

There's also the alternative slippery slope argument that since the whole world's a slippery slope there's no reason for laws, regulations or safety standards at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
041100S

I don't believe that there should be a mandatory helmet law for adults, however if you decide to ride that way then if you are injured, whether your fault or not, that you should be held responsible for some percentage of your injuries. I believe that it is best if all riders wear helmets and AGATT, but some things should be left up to adults to decide.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire
On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:43 AM, John in VA said:

 

There's also the alternative slippery slope argument that since the whole world's a slippery slope there's no reason for laws, regulations or safety standards at all.

There is that argument, Why is the government in our lives as adults and riders?  Why should they mandate anything?  Seat Belts, Air Bags, Helmets, smoking laws, speed limits etc.  Would you then take that further and argue that if you were in an accident, and injured that the SS disability and medical insurance should not pay?  After all, your choice, your consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud

Seems to me that everyone enjoys government bashing these days. But how many of those want no government?

 

Do you enjoy clean air and water? Do you fly and count on some level of security from TSA.

 

Does everyone think that drinking and driving/riding is OK.

 

I'm OK with requiring infants be in a car seat and belted in.

 

I'm in favor of law enforcement at all levels. 

 

I hope the government will consider comprehensive immigration reform.

 

The "nanny state" produced safety improvements in cars and trucks that make it safer for all of us. 

 

I'm happy that there is a speed limit in Illinois rather than everyone deciding on their own what is safe and prudent. I don't want semis weighing 80,000 going 95 miles an hour on I 64. And yes, I speed. In fact I just got a summons for jury duty and one of the questions was have you ever had a traffic offense and they mean a speeding ticket (I asked). Nancy hopes I don't get any additional performance awards on the side of the road. The older I get, the slower I go.

 

We live in a complex world where there will always be tension between complete freedom and government.

 

As the Goodyear ad used to say: "This is where the rubber meets the road."

 

I'm pretty much ATGATT. 

 

I also wear seat belts as there is proof that they reduce fatalities.

 

Would I accept the risk of riding a bicycle in an urban area wearing spandex riding gear and a thin helmet. Heck no.

 

But everyone has their own level of acceptable risk/risk management. And that is what this thread is all about, isn't it?:thumbsup:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John in VA

My comment was really just to question the concept of "slippery slope" -- which is sometimes used as an excuse or rationalization to oppose any regulation or standards as being threats to liberty.

 

Helmet laws are not federal but were enacted by legislation in those states that have them. I think helmet laws are reasonable and appropriate safety measures as a state law. I don't equate helmet laws with seat belt laws. A seat belt not only protects the occupant but can help secure a driver behind the wheel in a loss-of-control situation. A driver can't control a rolling vehicle if he's thrown into the passenger seat by, say, a side collision, in which case others are in danger from a temporarily driverless vehicle because the driver insisted on the personal liberty of not wearing a seatbelt. Of course, some might insist that seat belts are a danger that prevents occupants from being "thrown clear of the wreckage."

 

A new and bigger problem is electric scooter safety. Recent news reports show that serious injuries from scooters exceed those of bicycles or motorcycles -- and there are injuries to pedestrians being hit by them. And these are injuries -- broken bones etc. -- that happen at low speeds. Just watching the physics of, say, a 250 lb person standing on a scooter cruising downhill on a sidewalk with no protection, winding through pedestrians, makes me wince. It seems crazy that skateboards and bicycles are prohibited from most city sidewalks but powered scooters are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider

Michigan (and probably many states) seem to have a workable handle on helmet usage.

 

They require an age of consent (21) as well as a mandatory extra medical insurance  to legally ride without a helmet.

 

The only fly-in-the-ointment that I see with such laws is there is no way to verify if a rider or passenger has the required age, riding years, or medical insurance without being pulled over so I'm betting that a LOT of riders that are riding without a helmet aren't  riding with the required  extra insurance (probably many are riding without any insurance, or even a M/C endorsement).

 

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1585_50413-277037--,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John in VA
3 hours ago, dirtrider said:

Michigan (and probably many states) seem to have a workable handle on helmet usage.

 

They require an age of consent (21) as well as a mandatory extra medical insurance  to legally ride without a helmet.

 

The only fly-in-the-ointment that I see with such laws is there is no way to verify if a rider or passenger has the required age, riding years, or medical insurance without being pulled over so I'm betting that a LOT of riders that are riding without a helmet aren't  riding with the required  extra insurance (probably many are riding without any insurance, or even a M/C endorsement).

 

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1585_50413-277037--,00.html

 

"$20,000 first party medical benefits" won't pay for 2 days in an ER with one's head split open, so somebody else (other Michiganders) will be paying the rest. So in MI if you're pulled over without a helmet do the cops give you a ticket if you can't produce a current medical insurance policy documenting coverage? What's the fine, if any? Or is your m/c permit suspended? Not being snarky just wondering how such a scheme is actually enforced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream

Why stop at a helmet?  Is the head the ONLY vulnerable part of a body?  Have not people died from injuries sustained on other parts of the body?  Why is it arbitrarily the helmet?  Were the traffic studies shown to only show death or serious injury to the head or was there some slight percentage difference to cause the light to go off for state's to say we need a helmet law?  Have not people had serious neck injuries from motorcycle accidents causing a lifetime in a wheelchair;  Quadriplegics, paraplegics, no requirement for a Leatt Brace?  If I wear a helmet, do I get a discount from the community for being "less at risk", should I get a discount?

 

This argument/debate will go the way of which way does the toilet paper go on the roll, some will say under some will say over and neither side will agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress
1 hour ago, Living the Dream said:

Why stop at a helmet?  Is the head the ONLY vulnerable part of a body?  Have not people died from injuries sustained on other parts of the body?  Why is it arbitrarily the helmet?  Were the traffic studies shown to only show death or serious injury to the head or was there some slight percentage difference to cause the light to go off for state's to say we need a helmet law?  Have not people had serious neck injuries from motorcycle accidents causing a lifetime in a wheelchair;  Quadriplegics, paraplegics, no requirement for a Leatt Brace?  If I wear a helmet, do I get a discount from the community for being "less at risk", should I get a discount?

 

This argument/debate will go the way of which way does the toilet paper go on the roll, some will say under some will say over and neither side will agree.

 

When did this become an argument/debate? Agreement isn't reached by shouting from a soapbox. Harry Hurt's study is 38 years old. Items 44 and 45 explain the significance of wearing a helmet. Why a helmet and not the other stuff you mentioned? Because mandating helmet use produces good positive results that are easily recognized by the general public. It is a political thing. Which is why I object to helmet laws.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress

I don't see any posts in this thread decrying helmet use. Helmet laws on the other hand are either evil, or handy for punishing someone who does something you disagree with. (Crash your motorcycle while not wearing a helmet and I'll see you in the poor house!) Wearing a helmet is important, but there is other safety gear that is almost as important. I've long felt that in making motorcycling a little bit safer, helmet laws stop any further efforts. 

 

What other safety gear use, training, and licensing would you lie to see included in a helmet law? And just to make it challenging, please make reference to Harry Hurt's study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
11 hours ago, John in VA said:

 

"$20,000 first party medical benefits" won't pay for 2 days in an ER with one's head split open, so somebody else (other Michiganders) will be paying the rest. So in MI if you're pulled over without a helmet do the cops give you a ticket if you can't produce a current medical insurance policy documenting coverage? What's the fine, if any? Or is your m/c permit suspended? Not being snarky just wondering how such a scheme is actually enforced.

 

 

Morning John

 

"$20,000 first party medical benefits" won't pay for 2 days in an ER with one's head split open, so somebody else (other Michiganders) will be paying the rest. --  I have read  that Michigan has a HUGE overfunded catastrophic fund paid for from every insured motorcycle in that state  so that, plus the riders other insurance,  probably makes up some or most of the difference.  

 

So in MI if you're pulled over without a helmet do the cops give you a ticket if you can't produce a current medical insurance policy documenting coverage? -- I would imagine that they could do just that, now if they really do is another question. My guess is just a warning (probably depends on the rider & their attitude). I would imagine that 2nd offence seen by same officer would result in a ticket & possibly more. 

I think that Mi has a very high M/C rider population that doesn't even have motorcycle endorsements so my guess is that the LEO's  mostly focuses on that.

 

What's the fine, if any? -- I have no idea but fine  would probably be less than the insurance increase over the next few years once the ticket reaches the insurance pipe line. Fine might even be dismissed if the rider went to court & produced a current $20,000 first party medical benefits document to the court.  

 

Or is your m/c permit suspended? -- Again I don't know but I doubt it as the M/C endorsement is part of the  basic drivers license so it would probably take a license suspension. 

 

Not being snarky just wondering how such a scheme is actually enforced. -- I doubt that it is aggressively enforced for non aggressive older motorcycle riders. But my guess is that is aggressively enforced when young (or young looking) passengers are seen on the back of a motorcycle helmetless.

 

My guess is that the  basic  $20,000 first party medical benefits requirement was meant as more of a deterrent than an amount to cover all medical costs.  It also put some teeth in the helmet requirement for young passengers riding behind an intoxicated parent without choice.

 

As with about every other forced motorcycle law it is accepted by most & hated by a few.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire
9 hours ago, Dennis Andress said:

 

When did this become an argument/debate? Agreement isn't reached by shouting from a soapbox. Harry Hurt's study is 38 years old. Items 44 and 45 explain the significance of wearing a helmet. Why a helmet and not the other stuff you mentioned? Because mandating helmet use produces good positive results that are easily recognized by the general public. It is a political thing. Which is why I object to helmet laws.

  

 

Did you really mean to say it is a political thing, after quoting the Hurt Study, then state that you are opposed to helmet laws?  I, for one am a AGATT guy, when I raced dirt bikes, I wouldn't ride across the parking lot without a helmet, sold it and started riding bicycles, I was coming down a steep hill one Sunday and realized I was riding at well over 45 MPH with no helmet, no gloves, a tee shirt and shorts, had a breakthrough at that moment that while I was ok, that was crazy. Got a helmet the next day, but there is not much else you can put on when racing bicycles.  When I got back into Motorcycles I got all the gear because I have fallen on a bicycle and had a level of road rash that was the most painful experience.  One of my friends who rode behind me on a Motorcycle commented that at the speeds we ride, I would be a bag of bones wrapped in great gear.  AGATT is a deterrent for many accident injuries, but it is not the absolute solution, I get that, riding has inherent risks.  To Bud's point, do we want the government in or out of our lives with mandates, and if so or not, where does it stop?  That is the question.  The Hurt study clearly identified the risk/reward ratio of helmets, it didn't identify the new distracted driver issues as they didn't exist at that time and many States have since introduced safeguards, meagerly enforced, against them, so that is a new dangerous issue, that begs the same question, government intervention or not?  One would think common sense would prevail, but we know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
11 hours ago, Living the Dream said:

Why stop at a helmet?  Is the head the ONLY vulnerable part of a body?  Have not people died from injuries sustained on other parts of the body?  Why is it arbitrarily the helmet?  Were the traffic studies shown to only show death or serious injury to the head or was there some slight percentage difference to cause the light to go off for state's to say we need a helmet law?  Have not people had serious neck injuries from motorcycle accidents causing a lifetime in a wheelchair;  Quadriplegics, paraplegics, no requirement for a Leatt Brace?  If I wear a helmet, do I get a discount from the community for being "less at risk", should I get a discount?

 

This argument/debate will go the way of which way does the toilet paper go on the roll, some will say under some will say over and neither side will agree.

 

Morning Living the Dream

 

One reason is that helmets are presently about the only thing (safety wise) that are rated for safety & performance.

 

A state or government could require gloves, or boots,  underwear, or air-bag vest  to be worn but without a specific standard it would be toothless requirement.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
20 minutes ago, dirtrider said:

 

Morning Living the Dream

 

One reason is that helmets are presently about the only thing (safety wise) that are rated for safety & performance.

 

A state or government could require gloves, or boots,  underwear, or air-bag vest  to be worn but without a specific standard it would be toothless requirement.  

 

 

 

Only via DOT,....armor gear does have EN and CE ratings of varying degrees that could easily be adopted for U.S. use/standards/laws. 

 

We've known people to go down and die in a crash with a helmet, we've known people to go down and survive a crash without a helmet.  Yes, a helmet does save lives, but so would a chest protector or neck brace.  My last two fall downs at 40-45+, the helmet didn't even touch the ground, both low side slides(although I wouldn't have wanted to be without the lid).

 

I'm not anti-helmet, but I am pro-choice on the safety factors that affect my life (or life ending) moments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twisties

Just so we're clear, Insurance is socialized cost/risk sharing...  my point being that even if you have insurance, we all still pay the cost. 

 

Not arguing for or against helmet laws.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dirtrider
54 minutes ago, Living the Dream said:

 

Only via DOT,....armor gear does have EN and CE ratings of varying degrees that could easily be adopted for U.S. use/standards/laws. 

 

We've known people to go down and die in a crash with a helmet, we've known people to go down and survive a crash without a helmet.  Yes, a helmet does save lives, but so would a chest protector or neck brace.  My last two fall downs at 40-45+, the helmet didn't even touch the ground, both low side slides(although I wouldn't have wanted to be without the lid).

 

I'm not anti-helmet, but I am pro-choice on the safety factors that affect my life (or life ending) moments.

  

Morning Living the Dream

 

You do have a choice on most personal safety protection factors as long as you wear an approved  helmet (or in some states have the required extra insurance & riding experience).

 

If there weren't some basic safety standards like drivers licenses,  sight requirements, headlight standards, lighting requirements,  etc then the roads would probably be so deadly that riding a motorcycle would be out of the question for most riders with any common sense & insurance costs would be so high that none but the extremely wealthy could afford to ride or  drive with insurance.  

 

I am  basically also pro choice  as long as someone else's poor choice doesn't cost me money, inconvenience, or my life.

 

Pro choice says I should be able to put a large port-a-john storage facility on the property next to yours, common sense zoning regulations say I can't.

 

But this is 'Merica so we have basic rules & requirements  to protect  ourselves from others  (be that monetary, health, or safety).  I don't agree with some & do agree with others.  

 

Personally I don't like posted or government mandated speed limits but my guess is those aren't going away soon either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Andress
4 hours ago, Twisties said:

Just so we're clear, Insurance is socialized cost/risk sharing...  my point being that even if you have insurance, we all still pay the cost. 

 

Not arguing for or against helmet laws.

 

 

I would add that part of a healthy society is sharing risks The group as a whole is stronger when there are fewer people who are disabled and in debt. To a point. Our society needs a control mechanism for this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
7 hours ago, dirtrider said:

 

Morning Living the Dream

 

You do have a choice on most personal safety protection factors as long as you wear an approved  helmet (or in some states have the required extra insurance & riding experience).

 

 

Not really, if it's law, the choice is taken away.  I can choose, in my state(NC), to not wear anything other than a helmet.  I can choose to go without a helmet if I want to get pulled over, ticketed then have to call the wife to bring the trailer to haul the bike home.

 

Quote

 

If there weren't some basic safety standards like drivers licenses,  sight requirements, headlight standards, lighting requirements,  etc then the roads would probably be so deadly that riding a motorcycle would be out of the question for most riders with any common sense & insurance costs would be so high that none but the extremely wealthy could afford to ride or  drive with insurance. 

 

None of these elements fall in line with PPE(Personal Protective Equipment) Key word is personal.  And if you've never ridden a moped in Thailand,......you're missing out:classic_tongue:

 

Quote

 

I am  basically also pro choice  as long as someone else's poor choice doesn't cost me money, inconvenience, or my life.

 

So the thought is that if helmet laws all of a sudden disappear, a mass of accidents will occur causing an instant raising of the rates.  Car accidents happen daily, yet my rates don't go up daily.  Motorcycle accidents happen daily, yet my rates do not go up.  Over time, inflation occurs and rates do rise, but I don't see how dumping the requirement for a helmet will somehow magically make all of our rates go up instantaneously.  There's currently 28 states that either have no helmet law or have an age requirement (over 18 or over 21 for no helmet).  I'd really like to know a compare/contrast between insurance rates of the differing states, but, that may be difficult because all states differ in the insurance requirements overall (NC really low, LA really high (lived in both) can't compare those two).  I know when I lived in Louisiana and Mike Foster repealed the helmet law, my insurance rate did not go up.

 

Quote

 

Pro choice says I should be able to put a large port-a-john storage facility on the property next to yours, common sense zoning regulations say I can't.

 

Yes you can, I live in the country with unrestricted property,....I may not like it, but you certainly can put up your port-a-john storage facility :classic_tongue:

 

Quote

 

But this is 'Merica so we have basic rules & requirements  to protect  ourselves from others  (be that monetary, health, or safety).  I don't agree with some & do agree with others.  

 

Personally I don't like posted or government mandated speed limits but my guess is those aren't going away soon either.

 

Methinks the helmet is the help me protect me from myself more than protecting from others and I ignore those signs most of the time :classic_tongue:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tallman
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 7:25 PM, Dennis Andress said:

 

Yes, it should be a choice, all of it. I crashed about 30 years ago and my helmet did not absorb the full impact. My brain bounced off the inside of my skull. 

Dennis,

There will always be contrecoup when impact to the cranium is involved.

Can't eliminate all impact consequences because of the brain's natural reaction to imapct.

Helmets can be great.

We should also focus on the data that shows where impact happens to a Rider in a collision and protect the thorax and lower legs better too.

That same data has helped develop helmets into better brain buckets than before.

Instead of a helmet, all should have to join Neptune Society.

That way If it happens, they'll scoop you up and mail the ashes home...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bud
On 1/24/2019 at 7:11 AM, Patallaire said:

This issue has been discussed, debated, and while many opinions have been offered, I don't believe we have reached a definitive conclusion.  As BMW riders, we are more committed to AGATT, however, I have been to some events in other parts of the country where even our clan ride without helmets.  So what do you think??

 

I think this thread supports your initial statement. There will be no definitive conclusion ever reached on this or any other motorcycle forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire
14 hours ago, Bud said:

 

I think this thread supports your initial statement. There will be no definitive conclusion ever reached on this or any other motorcycle forum.

Yes, but that was the purpose of the thread.  To open a controversial topic on the anything goes forum and let it rip. There are opinions posted as facts and facts posted as opinions, but the discussions are all good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tallman

I'm pretty certain that most insurance policies have disclaimers.

If one is violating the law and subsequently require the insurance, I could see the company balking and no pay.

If they claim you acted "intentionally" they maight not pay.

Not wearing a helmet is "intentional", IMO.

 

They have the time and ammo to go to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

While that opinion might hold water in a State the requires helmets, in a State that has no helmet laws it would be perfectly acceptable. I even doubt that it would have any contributory  value in a State that requires them.  No more than riding in shorts and a tee shirt, would negate an insurance payout.

1 hour ago, tallman said:

I'm pretty certain that most insurance policies have disclaimers.

If one is violating the law and subsequently require the insurance, I could see the company balking and no pay.

If they claim you acted "intentionally" they maight not pay.

Not wearing a helmet is "intentional", IMO.

 

They have the time and ammo to go to court.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mickeym3

Obvious many on the forum have never been first on the scene of a serious head injury accident or worked in a ER. It ain’t pretty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
2 hours ago, mickeym3 said:

Obvious many on the forum have never been first on the scene of a serious head injury accident or worked in a ER. It ain’t pretty. 

 

There's many that have never seen a gun shot wound to the head, torso, yet are pro-gun,......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red

Worked on an ambulance for 10+ years.  Seen many head injuries both cagers and motorcycles.  Seen  several gun shot wounds: shotgun, rifle, and pistol.  I'm pro helmet and pro gun.  I fail to see your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...