Open Face Helmets....

[Yarddog]

Not necessarily. But there are other factors to consider such as comfort, features (as you mentioned) and how long you can use the thing before it comes apart I've heard people saying that HJC helmets had liners that were worn after only one or two years. Or crappy visors with mechanisms that don't work very well.
Maybe Schuberth is more expensive in the US, but since I live next door to Germany where they're made, it's not as expensive. I got mine as a bargain and it was under $400 (the Dutch are well known cheapskates)

It's the same as with your other gear: quality has it's price. That is not to say that the most expensive stuff is automatically the best, but somewhere in between lies the truth so to say. The most deciding factor with helmets is obviously how well it fits your head (the shape of it). If it doesn't fit well, the price is not important.

Just choose a helmet that fits well, is comfortable and has the right features (as far they are important for helmets).

Well said...

 

[pipestone]

Thanks everyone for your bits of info..it really does help to funnel decision making.

I chose the modular route with the Schuberth..should be the last bucket I will ever need...figured it would be a little more modular in the training aspect of totally shutting myself in..hopefully help wean me away of the claustrophobia bug.

Thanks for your precious time in replies -

God Bless America,
pipestone

 

[jogitu]

I saw a show on Discovery a year ago or so about motorcycle safety. They went to the Nolan testing lab. To confirm Theo's chart they said from crash studies 80% of the crashes resulted in hits to the front of the helmet, 18% back, 2% top. I have worn a full face since my parents bought me one when I was a teen. I had to be like Evel Knievel you see but knowing what I know now glad I made the switch years ago. From all of the helmets I have seen after crashes it confirms the studies. Then again I have a pretty face some might not care or see it as room for improvement.

 

[Yarddog]

Well, most of us may not have a choice any more about whether we will or will not wear a helmet, but for the nonce, anyway, we can choose what ever certified helmet that rocks our boat...That's a choice I don't take for granted, and someday, whether we can or cannot ride 'death machines' may not be a choice either...Maybe not in our lifetimes...let's hope not!!!

 

[Mike_Philippens]

Well, most of us may not have a choice any more about whether we will or will not wear a helmet

When you've seen one accident without a helmet, you'll be glad you wear one. I've been witness to one, and it wasn't a pretty sight. A girl on a moped with 15mph hit her head against a tree...

I don't understand that there's so much resistance against helmet laws (and seat belts) in the US only because the governement says so. It should be second nature, a no-brainer. But then again...so much people like to drive their bike in shorts and wearing flip-flops...maybe it's a Darwin thing.

 

[boxwrench]

I use ( and now on my 2nd ) Shoei Multitec flip helmet.
Last one served me well in my recent hit and run incident @50 mph.
I don't ride w/ the front half up.
I do ride w/ the visor up 80% w/ no problems.
At speeds like 75+ I leave the visor down.

Granted I am not so claustrophobic.

 

[boxwrench]

When you've seen one accident without a helmet, you'll be glad you wear one. I've been witness to one, and it wasn't a pretty sight. A girl on a moped with 15mph hit her head against a tree...

I don't understand that there's so much resistance against helmet laws (and seat belts) in the US only because the governement says so. It should be second nature, a no-brainer. But then again...so much people like to drive their bike in shorts and wearing flip-flops...maybe it's a Darwin thing.

you forgot the wife beater shirt too!

 

[Yarddog]

When you've seen one accident without a helmet, you'll be glad you wear one. I've been witness to one, and it wasn't a pretty sight. A girl on a moped with 15mph hit her head against a tree...

I don't understand that there's so much resistance against helmet laws (and seat belts) in the US only because the governement says so. It should be second nature, a no-brainer. But then again...so much people like to drive their bike in shorts and wearing flip-flops...maybe it's a Darwin thing.

I've one...I've seen more than one...Don't have a problem with helmets, I have a problem with freedom of choice...riding a motorcycle is a dangerous activity, how about if we just outlaw them too? Thataway we don't have to put up with any more icky nasty motorcycle wrecks...

 

[rockbottom]

I've one...I've seen more than one...Don't have a problem with helmets, I have a problem with freedom of choice...riding a motorcycle is a dangerous activity, how about if we just outlaw them too? Thataway we don't have to put up with any more icky nasty motorcycle wrecks...

I don't have a problem with people choosing risky behavior. I do have a problem with other people underwriting the costs of this choice.

Here's what a mean. People who elect to ride without a helmet don't pay higher insurance premiums because of this choice even though they put themselves at greater risk for serious injury or death. That means that other policyholders who do ride with a helmet are helping to underwrite the risky choice.

So it should be like smoking: if someone elects to ride without a helmet, they themselves should bear the cost, perhaps in the form of a much higher deductible if they are injured while riding without a helmet, or a lower payout if they are killed.

That just seems fair.

 

[Yarddog]

I don't have a problem with people choosing risky behavior. I do have a problem with other people underwriting the costs of this choice.

Here's what a mean. People who elect to ride without a helmet don't pay higher insurance premiums because of this choice even though they put themselves at greater risk for serious injury or death. That means that other policyholders who do ride with a helmet are helping to underwrite the risky choice.

So it should be like smoking: if someone elects to ride without a helmet, they themselves should bear the cost, perhaps in the form of a much higher deductible if they are injured while riding without a helmet, or a lower payout if they are killed.

That just seems fair.

All's I'm saying is that the same rational that goes along with the reasons to take the choice out of wearing a helmet can be used to outlaw motorcycle riding. Think about that. Why should society underwrite motorcycle riding AT ALL? So far, NOBODY has addressed that...What, you don't think that someday that same government isn't going to try to outlaw the very thing we do at all?

Dig it...there's far more of an impact on our insurance and medical systems for folks who ride motorcycles in the first place...why stop with mandatory helmet wearing, and only get partial success? Why not protect all these motorcyclists from themselves, reap the insurance and medical benefits, and outlaw them altogether?

You don't think it can't happen? When was the last time you went into a dealership and tried to buy a three wheeled ATV?

 

[martinph]

 

[rockbottom]

All's I'm saying is that the same rational that goes along with the reasons to take the choice out of wearing a helmet can be used to outlaw motorcycle riding. Think about that. Why should society underwrite motorcycle riding AT ALL? So far, NOBODY has addressed that...What, you don't think that someday that same government isn't going to try to outlaw the very thing we do at all?

Dig it...there's far more of an impact on our insurance and medical systems for folks who ride motorcycles in the first place...why stop with mandatory helmet wearing, and only get partial success? Why not protect all these motorcyclists from themselves, reap the insurance and medical benefits, and outlaw them altogether?

You don't think it can't happen? When was the last time you went into a dealership and tried to buy a three wheeled ATV?

You missed my point. People who choose to ride motorcycles DO pay for the cost of that choice through their insurance premiums. That's fair.

People who choose to ride without a helmet do not pay for that choice because their premiums are the same as people who do wear helmets. That's not fair.

 

[Theo]

 

[johnnywishbone]

Always have worn them..have tried the full faces but they make me claustrophobic.

My old Arai classic has the snaps for visor and shield.I'm upgrading to another open face soon..and have been looking at the flip up style like this one:

http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/arai-xc-helmet

Questions that I have is.. can this



what a horrid price! i didn't think much obout my ARAI SZ/a till i saw todays prices. $475.00 delivered for a high quality open face. don't that beat all?
the primary reason i'll get the$ 700 schuberth c3 is the bluetooth. ipod,gps,phone.

 

[Yarddog]

You missed my point. People who choose to ride motorcycles DO pay for the cost of that choice through their insurance premiums. That's fair.

People who choose to ride without a helmet do not pay for that choice because their premiums are the same as people who do wear helmets. That's not fair.

Don't wash...many folks who ride motorcycles DON'T have insurance, despite the law requiring same OR outspend their insurance caps with medical expenses... Again, the same reasons apply here that applied when helmets were made mandatory...

I say again, why stop with helmets? Outlaw the activity altogether, in the interest of society...Surely, you must agree with that...

 

[Theo]

I say that we should let natural selection run its course.

 

[Yarddog]

I say that we should let natural selection run its course.

Wish that was the case, Theo...the government often dictates otherwise! I say the dummies stoopid enough not to wear helmets deserve to be culled...but government has told us that even those folks deserve to be protected from themselves! And THAT, my friend, IS my point!!!

And, folks, I realize that where I've taken this is NOT the point of this thread at all, but ya know, somebody somewhere with horsepower IS thinking about the concept of doin' away with the thing that many of us love the best! Yeah, it's not on the political radar screen at the moment, but it's in our best interest, as motorcyclists, not to get too complacent about this issue of personal choice. I have found that it's not the general nature of folks riding BMW's to question this issue, at least in my own observation, but to go along with the flow...but be careful where that flow dumps out, might come back to bite us all right where we live...on our own personal choice of motorcycles...

 

[rockbottom]

Don't wash...many folks who ride motorcycles DON'T have insurance, despite the law requiring same OR outspend their insurance caps with medical expenses... Again, the same reasons apply here that applied when helmets were made mandatory...

I say again, why stop with helmets? Outlaw the activity altogether, in the interest of society...Surely, you must agree with that...

You really aren't getting my point but I'll try to explain one more time.

People who ride without insurance are accepting the risks and costs of their own choices because if they get in an accident, they face legal sanction and can be sued. People who pay for motorcycle insurance are bearing the costs of their own choices. People who choose to ride without a helmet are not bearing the costs of their own choices. Those costs are being underwritten by other premium payers who do wear helmets.

I'm fully in favor of choice and freedom, but simply believe people should be the costs and responsibilities of their own choices.

 

[Yarddog]

You really aren't getting my point but I'll try to explain one more time.

People who ride without insurance are accepting the risks and costs of their own choices because if they get in an accident, they face legal sanction and can be sued. People who pay for motorcycle insurance are bearing the costs of their own choices. People who choose to ride without a helmet are not bearing the costs of their own choices. Those costs are being underwritten by other premium payers who do wear helmets.

I'm fully in favor of choice and freedom, but simply believe people should be the costs and responsibilities of their own choices.

Oh, I'm fairly intellligent, and I understand what you are saying...I'm saying that your idea works in a Machevellian world...which is not America in the New Millenium!!! I would agree with you if mandatory insurance laws insured that every one carried vehicle AND medical insurance...in my state, liability insurance on the vehicle is required, but not medical insurance...that means that if I'm out of work, can't afford $1200 per month for medical insurance, which is what I pay, I can legally ride my motorcycle if I pay the $32.00 per month premium...The other person is covered, but not me, but I comply with the law...

Now then, what's to insure that I carry the necessary, minimum insurance? Okay, I supposedly have to provide proof of insurance when I register my vehicle every year...I can tell you that sometimes this is required on my registration form, sometimes it is not...can't tell you why, but hey, here's an opportunity to save some money if I decide to be a scofflaw...

What's the other way to insure mandatory coverage? If a police officer pulls me over, he asks for my license, registration, and since 1986, proof in insurance... If I don't have it, he cites me... But if I don't get pulled over for say, ten years? What then?

So, yeah, in a perfect world, each and every person driving a vehicle obeys the law, and if you were to look at the flow of traffic, who's to know otherwise? Is everybody in those vehicles gonna be covered sufficiently to insure that they aren't gonna skip out on a huge medical bill? Nope. Not hardly.

So the premise of increasing insurance coverage doesn't make a lot of sense in the practical world...you and I would probably do that...many, maybe most others, would not...Your laws are only as good as the enforcement of the laws...

So, again, the most practical way of insuring that we don't have to incur huge medical costs, as a society, is to do away with the thing that actually CAUSES the costs...in this case, motorcycling!!!

The reason that mandatory helmet laws work is that enforcement is easy... does that guarantee that the base premise of the law works...well, not necessarily. There are enough 'outs' that in my opinion, it does not...

Yeah, I get what yer sayin', I just don't agree with it, and I'm not advocating outlawing motorcycles, but I'm saying that when you get into lockstep with mandatory helmet laws, that's a verrrrrry slippery slope!!!

 

[rockbottom]

The "slippery slope" argument doesn't really hold up: many states have helmet laws yet none has even proposed outlawing motorcycling. There hasn't been any slippery slope. So I'm hard pressed to see how allowing insurance companies to increase the deductible or decrease the pay out for someone who chooses to ride without a helmet is then going to start this "slippery slope."