GEAR. Or "Helmet Laws: Why Save Only The Head?"

[xp8103]

47 states have either a universal helmet law or something that covers minors. Most cover either 17 and under or 20 and under with the exception of Maine (14-under) and Delaware (18-under). NH, Illinois and Iowa are the only states with no law covering anyone. 30 states have no law governing adults. This is not a helmet law debate. What it is is a question about gear in general.

20 states have laws requiring adult helmet use. All states require young drivers to wear. So why not gear use? I do laugh when I see a crotch rocket drive by with it's young male rider in a nice fancy expensive helmet, tee shirt, shorts and sneakers (if not flip flops). Sometimes he has gloves on. As often, his significant other is similarly clad. We tell kids to wear seat belts and use the force of law. We tell them to wear helmets and use the force of law. Why not enforce the use of some protective clothing? In 20 states we tell adults they must "helmet up" but can otherwise wear anything they want.

Have at it.

 

[Cruzin]

I say forget about the laws. We should use our common sense to protect us, not have the courts babysit us. If someone doesn't protect themselves and happens to get into a situation... well then, it's natures way isn't it.

 

[bob1100rtc]

I say take your force of law and use it to force something where the sun doesn't shine. I'm tired of people telling me whats right for me. Its my life and as long as I don't physically hurt someone else No one has the right to tell me what to do. I wore a seatbelt religiously from the day I started driving a long time ago. When PA passed a manditory seatbelt law I quit wearing one. Scares me a little but you have to take a stand somewhere.

 

[70783]

I use my seatbelt every time I drive. I wear my helmet and gear every time I ride. When someone asks me why, I tell them I would rather sweat than bleed.

I don't like laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves. On issues like this one, I believe that logic, common sense and good judgement should dictate the course one chooses and, that one should be personally responsible for the consequences of those choices.

 

[john1691]

I guess if someone could put about a million dollars in an escrow account, to self fund their recovery/rehab, then they should feel free not to wear a seatbelt of helmet or gear. If you can't afford the escrow, then follow the law or don't ride/drive. We have a Nanny state because so many people expect the government or insurance to take care of them. One of the reasons insurance is so high is the costs associated with people who can't/wont pay their own way, but demand the best possible treatment. I'm all for personal choice, but that demands personal responsibility. Of course, it doesnt help that Dr.s/hospitals charge more if you do have insurance, and pay extra people just to find ways to get more from the insurance company. But that's a whole other thread.................

 

[scoobs]

If they had any common sense we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. What about the poor sods who have to come along and scrape up the pieces? What about the families who lose loved ones and become "anti-bike" as a result?
what happens when the death/injury levels get so high that bikes are banned?
Unfortunately our actions always affect other people; isn't suicide illegal - surely climbing on a high speed bike with little or no protective gear could be viewed as "attempted suicide"?
I always cringe when I see riders/pillion passengers with lots of exposed skin, "hollowed -out turtle shell excuse for a helmet" etc.
Just my personal opinion of course...........

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Bud]

I say take your force of law and use it to force something where the sun doesn't shine. I'm tired of people telling me whats right for me. Its my life and as long as I don't physically hurt someone else No one has the right to tell me what to do. I wore a seatbelt religiously from the day I started driving a long time ago. When PA passed a manditory seatbelt law I quit wearing one. Scares me a little but you have to take a stand somewhere.

I guess you showed them, didn't you.

 

[35634]

Big brother passing more laws to protect us from ourselves is bad
Riding without gear is bad for all of us, with increased insurance and
negative perception of motorcycles, as noted.

Why don't insurance companies reward good habits and punish bad? No
helmet and you wrecked you FXHLTZY H-D? Sorry, can't pay off the $20,000
you still owe on it, see this clause here?

They raise rates for smokers, sky divers and other high risk takers. Why not
on bikers that don't limit risk. Not a perfect solution, but maybe a start.

 

[grafikfeat]

A motorcyclist from Washington state has died in a crash in southwestern Minnesota.

Shoreline man dies in Minnesota motorcycle crash
By The Associated Press

WORTHINGTON, Minn. ÔÇö A motorcyclist from Washington state has died in a crash in southwestern Minnesota.

The Minnesota State Patrol says 55-year-old Pattrick Comstock of Shoreline, WA died Monday when he drove his motorcycle off Interstate 90 west of Worthington and flipped in the median.

Comstock was thrown from the bike when it flipped. He was not wearing a helmet.

 

[montana]

There should be armed police patrolling the entrances to all ice cream shops. When they see an overly large belly trying to get in and order, they should explain the dietary consequences and issue a citation: "Inadequate measure taken to protect your health."

Unless this person can provide proof of dietary training classes, of course.

And all those people smoking outside of office buildings should be arrested and hauled in. They should know better! Their addiction is costing me a lot of money in caring for the consequences of years of smoking cigarettes. Who do they think they are, standing around smoking, all casual, like it doesn't hurt others?

 

[grafikfeat]

There should be armed police patrolling ... all casual, like it doesn't hurt others?

Next will be opinion Police. So on and so on...

 

[testinglogin]

There should be armed police patrolling the entrances to all ice cream shops. When they see an overly large belly trying to get in and order, they should explain the dietary consequences and issue a citation: "Inadequate measure taken to protect your health."

Unless this person can provide proof of dietary training classes, of course.

Wouldn't that be OVER adequate measurements?

And all those people smoking outside of office buildings should be arrested and hauled in. They should know better! Their addiction is costing me a lot of money in caring for the consequences of years of smoking cigarettes. Who do they think they are, standing around smoking, all casual, like it doesn't hurt others?

They SHOULD know better! Of course, places actually are passing anti-smoking laws. In Ohio, you can't smoke indoors anywhere but in a private residence, I think. I actually enjoy the smoke-free bars, although some of the women don't look as attractive anymore without that haze in the air.

I've also been to places where there are signs posted that you have to be X number of feet away from a building entrance. I actually think that's a good idea so you don't have to walk through it to get into the building. I don't think we should ban them outright, of course. Anyhow, they are already paying for their addition through higher insurance premiums and massive cigarette taxes.

Are insurance companies charging more for people who don't wear helmets? That might work out from a medical bills standpoint, except it would be hard to prove without doing spot checks.

 

[BeemerMike]

We have a Nanny state because so many people expect the government or insurance to take care of them.

Actually, we only have a part-time nanny state now . . . but she continually lobbies for more hours.

 

[sheridesabeemer]

we are not a logical society.
that's why.

 

[xp8103]

For the record, I am most CERTAINLY a "the best government is one that governs less" proponent.

I'd like to think that the insurance company angle is a good one. But, how do they "not pay"? Sure, if the rider has comprehensive, they can elect not to cover the bike. But if it's a liability only policy (I have a 20 year old bike, should I be carrying comprehensive insurance on something that they will value at only a couple thousand dollars, maybe??) who DOESNT the insurance company cover? What about bodily injury? The rider is in the hospital and his insurance company doesn't pay? Who picks up that cost? Lower premiums for ATGATT? How is that policed? How do they know?

I don't know the answer. But in my opinion those who insist they are only harming themselves by not wearing gear are naive. And those who say that helmets and gear are only good for slow speed accidents have never watched a MotoGP race.

 

[hlothery]

Of course, it doesnt help that Dr.s/hospitals charge more if you do have insurance, and pay extra people just to find ways to get more from the insurance company. But that's a whole other thread.................

Ah......the assumptions. (Rant on)

Could it be that hospitals bill less for the indigent as a way of reducing what the taxpayers have to pay to take care of them? Could it be that doctors hire folks to try to get what they billed from insurance companies, instead of the usual 40% of what they billed (if not a flat out refusal to pay)? No..........of course not! After all, hospitals and doctors are inherently evil. Hope none of us ever need one.

Be careful which can of worms you open. (Rant off)

I agree that you can't legislate common sense.

 

[testinglogin]

For the record, I am most CERTAINLY a "the best government is one that governs less" proponent.

I'd like to think that the insurance company angle is a good one. But, how do they "not pay"? Sure, if the rider has comprehensive, they can elect not to cover the bike. But if it's a liability only policy (I have a 20 year old bike, should I be carrying comprehensive insurance on something that they will value at only a couple thousand dollars, maybe??) who DOESNT the insurance company cover? What about bodily injury? The rider is in the hospital and his insurance company doesn't pay? Who picks up that cost? Lower premiums for ATGATT? How is that policed? How do they know?

I don't know the answer. But in my opinion those who insist they are only harming themselves by not wearing gear are naive. And those who say that helmets and gear are only good for slow speed accidents have never watched a MotoGP race.

The insurance company not paying if the person doesn't wear gear doesn't solve anything since the cost is then passed on to the hospital. Charging more for no gear would offset some of the cost for the insurance company (and mean less "punishment" for the rest of us - higher rates for all riders), but there is no good way to police it. People would throw on a helmet until they were out of sight and then never wear one again. Around here I see lots of people riding with helmets strapped to the side of their bike (instead of on their heads) in case they venture into Michigan (helmet law state).

Honestly, the easiest thing IS a helmet law. It helps cut down on costs to the public due to head trauma. Some people would stop riding all together but that would cut down on accidents as well. I know for some people this is a very unpopular choice. I really don't care since I wear a helmet 100% of the time already.

As for the "helmets are only good for low speed accidents" people, I suggest a basic physics class specifically focusing on gravity and directional forces. I've had many people argue with me when I tell them the initial impact with the ground is the same if you're going 10mph or 100mph.

 

[braddog]

Sums it up for me.

I use my seatbelt every time I drive. I wear my helmet and gear every time I ride. When someone asks me why, I tell them I would rather sweat than bleed.

I don't like laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves. On issues like this one, I believe that logic, common sense and good judgement should dictate the course one chooses and, that one should be personally responsible for the consequences of those choices.

Those are my sentiments exactly.

 

[grafikfeat]

I say forget about the laws. We should use our common sense to protect us, not have the courts babysit us. If someone doesn't protect themselves and happens to get into a situation... well then, it's natures way isn't it.

...as my sig line points out...

IF* you have insurance, have a check box. Helmet, No Helmet. You check helmet box and you benefit on a good rate etc. In a accident w/o it on... No Coverage.
Don't check helmet box you pay a higher rate. Period.

It's all about "adult" choices.

* Insurance is not mandatory on motorcycles in Washington State.
Odd since they also reinstated their helmet law.

 

[rocketman]

we are not a logical society.
that's why.

Tuvok to the white courtesy phone! those crazy humans are being illogical again!

RM