• Welcome Guest! If you are already a member of the BMW MOA, please log in to the forum in the upper right hand corner of this page. Check "Remember Me?" if you wish to stay logged in.

    We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMWMOA forum provides. Why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the club magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMWMOA offers?

    Want to read the MOA monthly magazine for free? Take a 3-month test ride of the magazine; check here for details.

  • NOTE. Some content will be hidden from you. If you want to view all content, you must register for the forum if you are not a member, or if a member, you must be logged in.

Riding

Direct costs from deaths and injuries due to motorcycle crashes were $16 billion in 2010, but the full cost is likely higher because long-term medical expenses are difficult to measure, a government report said.


OK, that's a lot of money we're contributing to our health care industry.
 
OK - you opened the door, so I'll step in for a moment - then run for cover. :laugh

As a professional motorcycle instructor, the whole "debate" over mandatory helmet use is vexing.

I did however take note of the analogy from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, that education alone is hardly the answer. They mentioned that "What.....because you took a driver's ed course, you now no longer need to wear a seatbelt?"

Federal government thought otherwise. Under threat of withholding federal highway funds, 49 states now maintain some variation of mandatory seatbelt laws, and New Hampshire has them for under the age of 18.

I speak from experience since I was in law enforcement thru those transitional years - didn't matter whether you began wearing a seatbelt because it made sense or because you feared enforcement consequences, death and serious injruies declined. Go figure.

Mandatory helmet use seems a bit more inflamatory an issue - infringes on our "right" to die or be rendered vegatative from most head injuries.

For now, it's a moot point - the NTSB threw in the towel and no longer rattle their sabers over denying funding for road repairs, bridge replacement, etc. in exchange for universal helmet use. And I do question whether or not a fatal crash averages $1.2 million.

But with legions of lawyers out there to make sure that no matter what happens to us, it's somebody else's fault and they must pay, should costs continue to skyrocket, the feds may again realign their priorities.

We already have a perception problem with the general public, who vote in far greater numbers than we do. They think we're reckless and/or obnoxious. Some of us are. But I think most (certainly in the BMW demographic) are more orientated towards safety.

Nothing gives a better first impression to the non-riding public than going past them wearing a helmet. It's the ultimate PR tool for our chosen form of transportation.

Think your chances in a crash scenario are better sans helmet? I don't even have an intelligent comeback for that.

But money talks, and if cycle crash dollars keep climbing, a majority opinion will rule.

I think a combination of educating the public, the rider and always wearing a helmet would ultimately benefit the motorcycling community.

Give it some thought - perhaps worthy of a New Year's resolution?! :scratch
 
Last edited:
Hi-Viz Clothing

I recently switched from an old First Gear black-and-grey riding suit to a Hi-Viz jacket and a Hi-Viz Shoei helmet. Since doing that, I've had at least two motorists (at gas stops) come up to me and say, "I wish all motorcyclists would wear that stuff."

Black doesn't show oil, grease, road grime. . .and is also damn near invisible to distracted motorists, and baby, they are ALL distracted. IMHO, the seat of a moving motorcycle is NOT the place to issue a "fashion statement." [That said, I do wear a black leather suit every so often. Hey, it looks cool!]

Walking Eagle
 
OK - you opened the door, so I'll step in for a moment - then run for cover. :laugh

As a professional motorcycle instructor, the whole "debate" over mandatory helmet use is vexing.

I did however take note of the analogy from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, that education alone is hardly the answer. They mentioned that "because you take a driver's ed course, you now no longer need to wear a seatbelt?"

Federal government thought otherwise. Under threat of withholding federal highway funds, 49 states now maintain mandatory seatbelt laws, and New Hampshire has them for under the age of 18.

I speak from experience since I was in law enforcement thru those transitional years - didn't matter whether you began wearing a seatbelt because it made sense or because you feared enforcement consequences, death and serious injruies declined. Go figure.

Mandatory helmet use seems a bit more inflamatory an issue - infringes on our "right" to die or be rendered vegatative from most head injuries.

For now, it's a moot point - the NTSB threw in the towel and no longer rattle their sabers over denying funding for road repairs, bridge replacement, etc. in exchange for universal helmet use. And I do question whether or not a fatal crash averages $1.2 million.

But with legions of lawyers out there to make sure that no matter what happens to us, it's somebody else's fault and they must pay, should costs continue to skyrocket, the feds may again realign their priorities.

We already have a perception problem with the general public, who vote in far greater numbers than we do. They think we're reckless and/or obnoxious. Some of us are. But I think most (certainly in the BMW demographic) are more orientated towards safety.

Nothing gives a better first impression to the non-riding public than going past them wearing a helmet. It's the ultimate PR tool for our chosen form of transportation.

Think your chances in a crash scenario are better sans helmet? I don't even have an intelligent comeback for that.

But money talks, and if cycle crash dollars keep climbing, a majority opinion will rule.

I think a combination of educating the public, the rider and always wearing a helmet would ultimately benefit the motorcycling community.

Give it some thought - perhaps worthy of a New Year's resolution?! :scratch

I'm already under the covers!
 
I recently switched from an old First Gear black-and-grey riding suit to a Hi-Viz jacket and a Hi-Viz Shoei helmet. Since doing that, I've had at least two motorists (at gas stops) come up to me and say, "I wish all motorcyclists would wear that stuff."

Black doesn't show oil, grease, road grime. . .and is also damn near invisible to distracted motorists, and baby, they are ALL distracted. IMHO, the seat of a moving motorcycle is NOT the place to issue a "fashion statement." [That said, I do wear a black leather suit every so often. Hey, it looks cool!]

Walking Eagle

+1

Exactly my way of thinking: making yourself more visible to other motorists not only helps improve your odds, it helps those other motorists avoid hurting you, and they do appreciate that.

Harry
 
+1

Exactly my way of thinking: making yourself more visible to other motorists not only helps improve your odds, it helps those other motorists avoid hurting you, and they do appreciate that.

Harry

Of course there's another thread nearby with the premise that they're deliberately out to get you. Making oneself more visible maybe only helps them.

Wonder how many times anyone's seen a guy in a high-viz jacket but no helmet?

No, high-viz is a diversion and the real issue will again be helmets and whether there are any reliable statistics proving the cost to society of allowing such silliness. Given the economy, this is really just another "entitlement" that might be looked at.
 
You want something that will make your brain explode? Try this...

Around here (Florida), we often see riders wearing a hi-vis t-shirt or vest, over their tank top, shorts and flip-flops. I can't even begin to explain that kind of convoluted thinking...
 
You want something that will make your brain explode? Try this...

Around here (Florida), we often see riders wearing a hi-vis t-shirt or vest, over their tank top, shorts and flip-flops. I can't even begin to explain that kind of convoluted thinking...

:banghead:banghead:banghead
 
You want something that will make your brain explode? Try this...

Around here (Florida), we often see riders wearing a hi-vis t-shirt or vest, over their tank top, shorts and flip-flops. I can't even begin to explain that kind of convoluted thinking...

I think I can explain it. Those riders are SURE they will do nothing that causes a crash. Hence, if other drivers see them, they won't cause a crash either. Therefore, no need for protective garments.

I've come off the bike twice. Once was on a rain-slick road where my entry to a turn was slow, but not slow enough. No other motorist involved. The other involved another rider losing traction on a passing lane where the winter sand had not been removed. We both did our best and it was not good enough.

He was judged at fault (though in my opinion the road crew were the real culprits) and I received a few thousand dollars for the bike and physio.
 
16 billion dollars in one year? A fatal accident costs an average of 1.2 million dollars?

Even without arguing with the figures, I would suggest the majority of that money is paid out by insurance companies who make a nice profit. We are not talking about taxpayer dollars, right? It's mostly our insurance dollars.

I just don't understand riders who chose to ride without either a fullface or flipup helmet. They provide the greatest comfort as well as the best protection in a get-off. And this is not mandated where helmets are required. So I see the point of those opposed to mandatory helmets since pretty useless ones are legal.
 
The funny thing is, I have so many family and friends who ride and all wear full face helmets. The one quote I have heard from all is "after I got hit in face with that, I can not understand how anyone would not wear a full face helmet!"
How many accidents are caused by a rider getting hit by something and either knocked out or just silly enough to crash?
I can not help but laugh when I see some "COOL" guy getting plastered by rain, squinting from wind, sunburnt, ETC. because they are too cool for a helmet. and when the cooler temps hit, all those guys that strap all kinds of crap to their faces to protect from cold because thats better and quicker than putting on a helmet.
Sorry little off topic.
 
Honestly, this battle has been lost to the folks that demand the right to incur head trauma. No amount of logic can ever change their core belief that they have a divine / constitutional right to a pointless level of risk that others will pay for.
 
Honestly, this battle has been lost to the folks that demand the right to incur head trauma. No amount of logic can ever change their core belief that they have a divine / constitutional right to a pointless level of risk that others will pay for.

Logic will not change their mind, but maybe their insurance company can by adjusting coverage and/or rates based on the level of protective gear actually worn.
 
Logic will not change their mind, but maybe their insurance company can by adjusting coverage and/or rates based on the level of protective gear actually worn.

No employer or insurance company is going to "drill down" to that level of actuarial detail to determine rates for an individual. Besides, the expense of head trauma will be born by social security and medicaid, once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. Thus, it is ultimately is a welfare issue.
 
No employer or insurance company is going to "drill down" to that level of actuarial detail to determine rates for an individual. Besides, the expense of head trauma will be born by social security and medicaid, once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. Thus, it is ultimately is a welfare issue.

The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.
 
The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.

Good points were made.

Insurance companies already ask such questions as "Are you a smoker or use smokeless tobacco?" and underwriters adjust rates and conditions of benefits accordingly.

All they need to do is simply add the question "If you operate a motorcycle, do you plan to wear a DOT-approved helmet?"

If you answer yes, the insurance company doesn't need to start shadowing you on rides to verify compliance. It simply means if you're in a crash without a helmet, you forfeit certain coverages that you might have received for documented injuries.

Say 'NO' to that question, and you either pay much higher rates or find yourself excluded from coverage for such an event alltogether.

My premiums should not have to help build the fund insurance companies need to pay for the poor judgement of others.

I have been denied certain levels of insurance in the past due to being a SCUBA diver, and had to secure coverage thru an alternate provider. It happens. Not a burden the rest of you should have to bear. :deal
 
Mandatory helmet use? Think what that will do to the workers in the do-rag industry.

I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.

I also see a lot of young riders on sport bikes wearing shorts, tanktop and flip flops, so I guess the cruiser guys are better off than that.
 
Back
Top