Some new helmet(less) injury stats

[BUBBAZANETTI]

Personal freedom is supposed to be accompanied by a proportional responsibility.

that might be an interesting concept to develop further.

 

[statdawg]

+1

I'm all for a national helmet law.

I am for Cash for Old Helmets to stimulate our economy.

Then move on to Cash for Leaky ATGATT.

 

[nplenzick]

I live in Pa. It's absolutely ridiculous that the state requires me to wear a seat belt and doesn't require me to wear a helmet. I too wonder why the insurance companies haven't gotten on board with this as their great for finding ways to increase premiums.

 

[greenwald]

If you have no one who cares about you, go ahead and ride without a helmet. Just leave the EMT Technician some consideration in your will, since he will be the only one who cares that your brain is spread across the tarmac, because he has to pick it out of there.

But if you have a wife or kids who love you, and you ride without a helmet, your actions only indicate a selfish disregard for their well-being. Since if you die in a crash, you will not have to see their pain and suffering at your loss. So the feel of wind in your hair (and bugs in your teeth) really worth that?

Personal freedom is supposed to be accompanied by a proportional responsibility. But history is full of folks who exploit the first while disregarding the second. They are the ones who leave a legacy of devastation caused by selfishness instead of responsibility by example.

+1!

Very well stated.

 

[ultracyclist]

If you want to hear some interesting views on wearing helmets, go talk to some first responders.

 

[BUDDINGGEEZER]

I live in Pa. It's absolutely ridiculous that the state requires me to wear a seat belt and doesn't require me to wear a helmet. I too wonder why the insurance companies haven't gotten on board with this as their great for finding ways to increase premiums.

I have an insurance educated theory why PA, like Arkansas and other states require seat belt use in auto and do not have a mandatory helmet law. I also have a few friends that have been state legislators and discussed this with them.

After Google research there are very few health insurance companies that sponsor mandatory helmet use. Why would that be? Wouldn't insurance companies want to decrease costs for moto injuries? Helmet use doesn't decrease injuries, it decreases deaths. Very few people escape injury in a moto crash, helmet or not. Health insurance companies only pay on injuries, not deaths. In a car crash the seat belt keeps one from moving reducing injuries, reducing insurance costs. In a moto crash not wearing a helmet reduces injuries due to increased death, reducing insurance costs. Life insurance is so closely actuarial figured that most companies know to the dollar what their claims will be.

Since legislature is controlled by lobbiest and insurance companies have plenty of $$$ this makes sense to me. Health companies want you dead, not injured.

Ralph Sims

 

[bob1100rtc]

That pain and suffering by others thing is a bunch of crap. Every single one of us will die some day. No exceptions to this rule. It might be cancer,stroke,car crash,plane crash,on the job accident,gun shot,stabbing,old age or god forbid a bike crash. I would hope that no matter the cause of my death there will be some tears shed. Get over trying to help poor stupid me and focus on helping your own super intelligent selves. You may be happier. I know I will.

 

[83014]

that pain and suffering by others thing is a bunch of crap. Every single one of us will die some day. No exceptions to this rule. It might be cancer,stroke,car crash,plane crash,on the job accident,gun shot,stabbing,old age or god forbid a bike crash. I would hope that no matter the cause of my death there will be some tears shed. Get over trying to help poor stupid me and focus on helping your own super intelligent selves. You may be happier. I know i will.

+1

 

[MOTOR31]

As long as anyone is over the age of 18 I really do not care a bit if they wear a helmet. They won't be getting on my bike without one, either as a driver or a passenger but they are free to be stupid all they want on their own bikes in that regard.

I will not tell someone (over 18) that their head is worth the price of a helmet. I figure they know the worth of their head more than I do and besides there are lots of folks waiting transplants in hospitals who could use the parts. We salvage bikes and other vehicle parts, there is no reason to make the wait longer for those folks who need the parts to live. It's Darwin in action as far as I am concerned.

I wear a seat belt and a helmet because I feel it is the smart thing to do to reduce the chance of injuries or death in traffic. In my career I've been to far too many collisions (note they are for the vast majority NOT accidents) to think otherwise. You cannot eliminate stupidity by legislation.

 

[Bud]

I have to wear one.

Nancy says that she won't take care of me if I'm brain damaged in a motorcycle accident.

 

[burnszilla]

I always thought not wearing a helmet puts other people on the road at risk. A rock/bee/car part could hit an unhelmeted rider in the face causing him to swerve or crash his bike into an oncoming car or bike and kill the other person. Thanks.

 

[MOONDOG59]

i have to wear one.

nancy says that she won't take care of me if i'm brain damaged in a motorcycle accident.

good!!!!!

 

[MOONDOG59]

There is a glaring fault in the logic here. Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of trauma to your brain, granted. BUT there are innumerable counts of ATGATT deaths, often noted
in this forum. If your going to accuse the helmet-less as irresponsible, consider the massive increase in risk you take by riding rather than driving. What gives us the right
to condemn someone who merrily exposes him or herself to some more risk than we are
willing to take?

(btw, I feel most arguments against helmets are bogus, but we need to keep things in perspective)

So you are saying that because there have been ATGATT deaths, justifies not wearing a helmet? Choosing to ride is irresponsible vs driving? Granted the risks are greater but minimized by the rider choosing to take every precaution there is available to protect himself or herself. Lots of people die in there own home or at work or anywhere. What do we do? Crawl under a rock and never let the light of day touch us? No. We choose to protect ourselves, get the best training and use our brains to minimize as many possibilities as we can, to keep us from becoming "road pizza".
Try an experiment some day. Wearing no helmet walk out into your driveway or street. Tie your hands in front of you and tie your ankles together. Now let yourself fall backwards but don't bend your knees. Don't want to do it? Why? Because your head is going to hit the pavement. Even if you have strong neck muscles your head is going to hit.

Now that is only a 5-6 foot fall. Imagine it is at 10 mph (which happened to me ad I am here to tell you about it) or imagine it at 65 MPH? If those who choose not to wear have such a fatalistic view can't see the reality in this experiment then they don't deserve to ride. Remember riding and driving is a privilege not a right.

 

[MARTYW]

Can I join the ranting?

I don't think that it is the government's job to save free citizens from the consequences of their own bad decisions. If I ride without protective gear, or without anti-lock brakes, or on bald tires in the snow, those would be my own bad decisions and I may eventually regret them. If I sky dive, rock climb, invest in energy stocks, or even clean my own 2nd floor gutters, that is my choice. I am an adult and the risks I choose are my own.
I agree it is smarter to ride with a helmet than without, but it's even smarter to drive in a Humvee during daylight hours only. Motorcyclists with or without riding gear (including helmets) only victimize themselves, unlike drunk drivers who victimize others.
I vote for education and personal responsibility. Ban helmet laws, make motorcycle safety courses mandatory, explain the risks, and then let the people decide for themselves. Isn't that the American way? It's why we get to choose to ride in the first place.

 

[dancogan]

I don't think that it is the government's job to save free citizens from the consequences of their own bad decisions. If I ride without protective gear, or without anti-lock brakes, or on bald tires in the snow, those would be my own bad decisions and I may eventually regret them. ...

Yes, people have to learn to take responsibility for their own decisions and acts. But when their decisions impact others, such as driving on bald tires and thereby causing an accident that injures another, then government needs to step in. So it's really a question of where to draw the line between individual freedom and the welfare of society in general. What I have a hard time seeing is the point of view that claims any regulation of personal freedom will lead to a total loss of personal freedom, society be damned. I just don't buy it.

 

[redclfco]

We all take risks.

My mother in law would outlaw anything with a motor and on two wheels if she could.

I tell her to never mind. It's not her place to tell me what to do.

Now if I was riding a bike with bald tires, or riding drunk

then I think I should shut up and listen, she would be right to object to me putting that gun to my head.

 

[MARTYW]

Tru dat Mr. Dancogan. I would be on the side that thinks that there is not much statistical difference between endangering other citizens with your helmet on vs. with your helmet off. Probably being on the bike in the first place is the greater leap in endangering others. Now if the facts prove me wrong, I'll go with the facts. I'll admit, I'm going with my gut on this one.

I agree with you that there is a fine balance between personal freedom and protecting other members of society. My point is this: if you only potentially victimize yourself (and your unfortunate next of kin), then the choice should be yours to make.

I do choose to wear full riding attire, although I did not before I had dependent children. I also chose to have them, and sometimes I wonder why my parents didn't warn me about that.

 

[MOONDOG59]

yes, people have to learn to take responsibility for their own decisions and acts. But when their decisions impact others, such as driving on bald tires and thereby causing an accident that injures another, then government needs to step in. So it's really a question of where to draw the line between individual freedom and the welfare of society in general. What i have a hard time seeing is the point of view that claims any regulation of personal freedom will lead to a total loss of personal freedom, society be damned. I just don't buy it.

+1

 

[MOONDOG59]

We all take risks.

My mother in law would outlaw anything with a motor and on two wheels if she could.

I tell her to never mind. It's not her place to tell me what to do.

Now if I was riding a bike with bald tires, or riding drunk

then I think I should shut up and listen, she would be right to object to me putting that gun to my head.

But would you shut up and listen?

 

[dancogan]

Tru dat Mr. Dancogan. I would be on the side that thinks that there is not much statistical difference between endangering other citizens with your helmet on vs. with your helmet off. Probably being on the bike in the first place is the greater leap in endangering others. Now if the facts prove me wrong, I'll go with the facts. I'll admit, I'm going with my gut on this one....

Well, SirMartyW, not sure I'm up to arguing this one, but I can agree with you if it's true that the only person who pays for a closed head injury is the individual, and not the rest of us who have to underwrite the hospital expenses for the rest of that person's life, plus increased insurance premiums.