MarkM
All-round Motorcyclist
Remember that email is not 100% reliable. It's possible they never got it (not that I'm defending ABATE).
-
Welcome! You are currently logged out of the forum. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please LOG IN!If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the benefits of membership? If you click here, you have the opportunity to take us for a test ride at our expense. Enter the code 'FORUM25' in the activation code box to try the first year of the MOA on us!
Position on ABATE?
- Thread starter jogitu
- Start date
sjbmw
Roadster Rider
Certainly. I arrived at the rally on Monday to volunteer. The finer swimming holes were discovered by the Camps Gears kids Monday down by the covered bridge.
The far gate was locked down then, and the trip there involved exiting the fairgrounds entirely, and riding down the side road by the entrance.
The covered bridge was another half mile + down the road, which had the most open swimming holes, even a swing.
The gate may have been opened by Friday, but that is inconsequential. A fall without a helmet on dirt is dangerous too.
Everyone, if inconvenienced enough, can find an acceptable exception to a rule they believe is iron clad. IMHO, dirt is more dangerous for a street bike than asphalt, so I rode the tarmac. Yes, I did not wear my helmet.
MarkM
All-round Motorcyclist
The AMA is not preaching loud pipes, so that gets you half way there.
From AMA's position statement:
The rest of the AMA position is here: http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatements/ExcessiveMotorcycleSound.aspx
sjbmw
Roadster Rider
The loud pipe issue often gets confused, as the AMA has just endorsed a sound standard using the use of decible meters for all motor vehicles. ABATE, for all I can see, is silent on this issue, but they can't be for too long. This is the issue that will make them or break them, as loud pipes ARE OFFENSIVE, and freedom does not include annoying everyone within 1000 yards when flexing one's rights. This is the highest hill that the public's barrels are coming down at us from.
The fight now is that politicians are using the EPA exhaust label standard on motorcycles only (CA, and it's been introduced in NH) that does not really address the loudness issue. It's a draconian misguided law, that would even make some sound legal BMW exhausts illegal, for the same reason that some Euro helmets are illegal in the US for not being "DOT" approved, but are some of the finest helmet products made.
Having a EPA label on a unpacked loud exhaust is 100% legal with this standard, and also, the standard fails to address autos with loud pipes, they get a free pass. It's a "motorcycle only" law, which is awful for riders.
Maine has just endorsed this sound standard for ALL street vehicles.
One thing we have to be wary of is to not let the government isolate motorcycles for specific laws. Checkpoints, etc. This slope is too dangerous, as history shows us, once a minority of any kind is successfully targeted by the state it's hard to stop.
I don't want to use the P word, but the AMA, and ABATE are political orgs. It's a inherently knarly business. The secret to this is to find consensus.
For example:
Here is the NJ Abate top ten list:
1. Increased penalties for right of way violations causing injury or death. (Like)
2. Fight for increased penalties for and enforcement of distracted driving violations. (Like)
3. Maximum utilization of motorcycle safety funding program. (Like)
4. Promotion of driver and rider education courses and motorcycle awareness. (Like)
5. Modification of handlebar height laws. (Don't care, but don't know how many states have made ape hangers illegal, NJ has. Guys use them, it's another arbitrary law here.)
6. Lane splitting per task force bill. (Like)
7. Option to proceed at unresponsive red lights. (LOVE)
8. Increased enforcement of covered load laws. (Like)
9. Legalize multiple motorcycles per parking spot. (Like)
10. Educated freedom of choice concerning helmet use for adults. (Don't care)
In NJ, point #1 is non-existent. Turn in front of a bike and kill someone, and you get an illegal turn ticket, or careless driving.
#9 It is technically illegal to share a parking spot with another motorcycle in NJ, and it is arbitrality enforced, depending on the local town's current revenue stream. This is the insanity targeted at 2 wheeled riders that is out there.
If a person was a force in achieving success with points 1 through 9, think they would gain the credibilty to influence point #10? It's possible that person could end up be the ABATE chairperson, purely on performance metrics!
Boiling down all rider issues to one (mandatory helmet laws) is ignoring a lot of what is going on out there on our roads (and trails).
H
harryt11
Guest
Yeah, that's probably what happened. I am sure if they had gotten the email they would have been all over it!
gunderwood
New member
Well said.
Life is full of risks and we all choose to accept different ones. Many people won't even consider riding a motorcycle, even with ATGATT, because that is more risk than they wish to assume. I choose to ride and wear the gear and I have to live or not with the consequences of those decisions. Being alive is dangerous business.
gunderwood
New member
Law of unintended consequences...
1. It's not liberty if I have no choice in the matter. Yes, I might make a "bad" decision, but that's life and it's full of risks. How many people don't think you should be riding a motorcycle at all because it's more dangerous than riding in a car?
2. Legislating helmets puts the focus on complying with the minimum standard rather than evaluating the risks and making an informed choice. I've seen plenty of DOT helmets that can't provide much protection over nothing at all. Generally those people who would choose to not wear a helmet if the law allowed for it fall into this category; they comply with the minimum standard.
3. Just like speed limits (fast enough to kill you, but slow enough to make you feel safe), by setting a arbitrary standard you've given people the presumption that they are being "safe" just because they did what you said to do. By taking the choice from the individual you also are taking the responsibility for it, they go hand in hand. Ironically, an individual who is just complying with the law usually doesn't comprehend where the responsibility you've taken from them ends.
Taking personal responsibility from the individual simply leads to the next crisis you have to save them from. You don't learn to be a responsible adult overnight...unfortunately some people never seem to learn and others never get the chance. You can't legislate away risk, it will always be there.
Ironically the only functional difference between banning the riding of a motorcycle with out a helmet and banning the riding of a motorcycle at all is your opinion that one is "unsafe" and the other is "safe." Certainly the statistics show that one is safer than another, but it's your opinion that one is too "unsafe" for someone else to do and should be illegal, while the other is just fine for you to do. Practically all it takes is enough people who think it's too risky and your helmet and "showbike" will be gathering dust never again to be used. You will have given them the rope to hang you with. This kind of thinking is incompatible with a free society.
Personal responsibility is a really interesting thing. There are a lot of old adages about it too. Lot's of people around here do their own maintenance because they recognise that they will do a better job because they care more. Owners typically take better care of things than renters. I could go on and on, but you get the point. There are lots of problems with helmet laws:
1. It's not liberty if I have no choice in the matter. Yes, I might make a "bad" decision, but that's life and it's full of risks. How many people don't think you should be riding a motorcycle at all because it's more dangerous than riding in a car?
2. Legislating helmets puts the focus on complying with the minimum standard rather than evaluating the risks and making an informed choice. I've seen plenty of DOT helmets that can't provide much protection over nothing at all. Generally those people who would choose to not wear a helmet if the law allowed for it fall into this category; they comply with the minimum standard.
3. Just like speed limits (fast enough to kill you, but slow enough to make you feel safe), by setting a arbitrary standard you've given people the presumption that they are being "safe" just because they did what you said to do. By taking the choice from the individual you also are taking the responsibility for it, they go hand in hand. Ironically, an individual who is just complying with the law usually doesn't comprehend where the responsibility you've taken from them ends.
Taking personal responsibility from the individual simply leads to the next crisis you have to save them from. You don't learn to be a responsible adult overnight...unfortunately some people never seem to learn and others never get the chance. You can't legislate away risk, it will always be there.
Ironically the only functional difference between banning the riding of a motorcycle with out a helmet and banning the riding of a motorcycle at all is your opinion that one is "unsafe" and the other is "safe." Certainly the statistics show that one is safer than another, but it's your opinion that one is too "unsafe" for someone else to do and should be illegal, while the other is just fine for you to do. Practically all it takes is enough people who think it's too risky and your helmet and "showbike" will be gathering dust never again to be used. You will have given them the rope to hang you with. This kind of thinking is incompatible with a free society.
gunderwood
New member
Exactly.
If there were a real* cost transfer there would be a market for "helmeted only" insurance; if you're not wearing a helmet you don't have coverage or at least medical coverage. I could get a discount because I choose to wear a helmet all the time, regardless what the state says (something like: whatever the reduced probably of a payout due to wearing a helmet is x the amount of my premium for medical coverage + other correlated things like "people who choose to wear a helmet generally do X which saves costs, etc."). Life insurance has been doing things like this for years! I pay a higher premium than I otherwise would because I own a motorcycle. I could have lied, but then I may not have coverage if I died.
I pays my monies and I ride my bike.
In a way these laws are really a form of subsidy to the insurers so they don't have to compete for our dollars.
Edit: I say real here because insurance is by definition an aggregated risk pool which transfers costs. As long as it's voluntary I have no problem with it and the many forms of insurances very existence shows that there is a market for such a service. If there was a real cost for anything in particular, insurers come up with specialized risk pools/costs because if they don't some competitor will and that will allow them to offer the standard risk pool service at a lower cost while charging more for the special risk pool. E.g. companies who insure firearms from fire/theft generally charge less for those kept in a fire/security safe. The examples are endless as that's exactly the job of an insurer; calculate the risk and charge appropriately. Only things in the noise will not be accounted for in short order...or the insurer will go out of business.
Last edited:
R
rocketman
Guest
Some folks have an odd notion of what "Freedom" and "Liberty" really stands for...
and why do you think speed limits are "arbitrary"? This implies that no research or data went into setting the limits or that laws are just passed so that we all "feel good" about some subject. Sorry that's just bull cookies, as are all such generalizations, not to mention an insult to all those involved in making these decisions; folks who for the far greater part, are dedicated individuals doing something they actually care about, not simply sitting around thinking up ways to annoy you!
And again with the claim that setting standards for something "eliminates" or down plays other safety related aspects of the issues....and I won't even bother to ask where you're gotten your data on "all the DOT helmets that are [crap]" from...
and I won't even go into the slippery slope claims again.....
Gotta say the internet spin doctors are doing a mighty fine job these days.
*sigh*
RM
PGlaves
#13338
"Freedom" carries with it, responsibility. Like the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater", or the freedom to swing your fist that ends at the end of my nose, or the more on-topic freedom to annoy the general public with loud noise because you want to be noticed and seem bad.
That said, don't get me started on state legislatures that think they know more than their own engineers about setting speed limits.
That said, don't get me started on state legislatures that think they know more than their own engineers about setting speed limits.
gunderwood
New member
Where's the argument?
National speed limits were put in place to save gas because the "leaders" decided they knew better than the people on how best to operate their vehicles and optimize competing variables on a journey. The safety excuse, which has been disproved (VA-DOT just raised some of our speed limits to 70MPH after a lot of studies which showed that 70MPH was "safer" than 65MPH), was concocted later in an attempt to justify a failed mandate; which is also why it was raised to 65MPH from 55MPH.
That certainly seems like an "autocratic use of authority" to mandate how people use gasoline, which they purchased at the going market rate.
The history of government standards is of the lowest common denominator and/or written by the highest political donator, which has the negative, unintended consequences of destroying the market for higher standards unless some private institution steps in because they have something to loose. Case in point, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Despite the governments standard, the insurance companies, who actually have something to loose, decided that the government standard was insufficient and created their own.
Another case in point is DOT vs. SNELL certification for helmets (since that's the subject at hand). There are plenty of DOT helmets which SNELL won't pass because they are subpar, but technically meet the requirements for DOT. Ask your average "brain bucket" DOT only helmet wearer in a mandatory helmet state and odds are they don't even know SNELL exists (bonus points if they actually know there are several SNELL standards for different uses!). They bought the coolest looking, least protective and cheapest DOT helmet they could find.
Forcing people to do something always yields worse results than educating them and having them choose of their own free will. Yes, there will some people who choose to remain ignorant and those are their consequences to deal with.
Yes, your notions are strange...much more "modern European" than American (historically).
Thomas Jefferson said:
Helmet laws and speed limits are certainly restraining the people from their pursuits and it certainly doesn't let them take the responsibility for their actions. Some people can't stand the idea that people might make bad decisions and have to live with the negative consequences of them (or at least less optimal and consume more fuel while travelling at higher rates of speed). Of course many of them also can't stand the idea that people profit from their good decisions either...Wikipedia" said:
Dictionary said:
Wikipedia said:
National speed limits were put in place to save gas because the "leaders" decided they knew better than the people on how best to operate their vehicles and optimize competing variables on a journey. The safety excuse, which has been disproved (VA-DOT just raised some of our speed limits to 70MPH after a lot of studies which showed that 70MPH was "safer" than 65MPH), was concocted later in an attempt to justify a failed mandate; which is also why it was raised to 65MPH from 55MPH.
That certainly seems like an "autocratic use of authority" to mandate how people use gasoline, which they purchased at the going market rate.
I didn't, you put words in my mouth. I said "I've seen plenty of DOT helmets that can't provide much protection over nothing at all." That's hardly all DOT helmets.
The history of government standards is of the lowest common denominator and/or written by the highest political donator, which has the negative, unintended consequences of destroying the market for higher standards unless some private institution steps in because they have something to loose. Case in point, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Despite the governments standard, the insurance companies, who actually have something to loose, decided that the government standard was insufficient and created their own.
Another case in point is DOT vs. SNELL certification for helmets (since that's the subject at hand). There are plenty of DOT helmets which SNELL won't pass because they are subpar, but technically meet the requirements for DOT. Ask your average "brain bucket" DOT only helmet wearer in a mandatory helmet state and odds are they don't even know SNELL exists (bonus points if they actually know there are several SNELL standards for different uses!). They bought the coolest looking, least protective and cheapest DOT helmet they could find.
Forcing people to do something always yields worse results than educating them and having them choose of their own free will. Yes, there will some people who choose to remain ignorant and those are their consequences to deal with.
You've not actually made a single argument to back any of your claims up. I at least provided some rationale for the stated positions. Who's the spin doctor here?
Last edited:
MarkM
All-round Motorcyclist
Overall a fine response and I agree with most of it, except I would like to add one thing about the part I quoted: When Snell does not pass a helmet, it's because the helmet did not pass Snell's test, but one cannot conclude that the helmet is less safe than a Snell approved helmet. In 2005 Motorcyclist Magazine published an article "Motorcycle Helmet Performance: Blowing the Lid Off" that demonstrates this. They found that many inexpensive DOT approved helmets provided excellent protection. But obviously the kind of "brain bucket" helmet you referred to will not provided excellent protection; I'm not defending those--I'm only pointing out that Snell approval is not required to get decent protection.
gunderwood
New member
Absolutely true. Engineering, like life, is a case study in trade-offs. SNELL has taken one approach based on their analysis of likely head injuries. That doesn't mean they are the end all be all as different crash assumptions will yield different results. IIRC, one of the criticisms of SNELL is that they are biased towards high energy impacts rather than low and as such, in a low energy impact, the "softer" DOT only helmet may actually provide better protection. SNELL would counter that their approach is better because that's exactly when you want a good helmet. Of course pro-helmetless riders would point out the higher likelihood of neck injuries due to the helmets weight (e.g. the rise of the HANS device for racing). Etc.
There is no free lunch and the best way to evaluate alternatives is to try them out. It's actually one of the best features of having 50 states make up their own minds about these things; it allows for different social ideas to be tested. However, mandating a single solution is almost always guaranteed to be the worst possible result because it doesn't allow for alternatives to be evaluated (all other issues aside). Supports will make incontestable claims that things would be worse without their intervention, but since no alternatives are legal it's just an emotional opinion.
MarkM
All-round Motorcyclist
A recent study found, "Helmet use was not significantly associated with spinal injuries" so there goes that argument.
I totally agree with state-level control of this kind of thing. That goes for A LOT of stuff that the feds have taken over from the states, but I guess we better not get that started.
PGlaves
#13338
When a rider says that he or she doesn't wear a helmet because he or she doesn't want to that's fine with me. But when they attempt to bolster their preference with bogus stuff about loss of hearing, or peripheral vision, or neck injuries, or any of the other bull associated with the topic they lose me entirely. Those are simply lies associated with their usually political agenda. The people who make that stuff up know it isn't true, even if the folks who continuously pass it on haven't caught on yet.
But then, loud pipes save lives too.
But then, loud pipes save lives too.
gunderwood
New member
Cause and effect
For example, it's hard to see how adding weight to a system (aka the helmet) can't but increase the forces acting on it during a crash. It may be that their data set wasn't representative (~1k cases) or that the likelihood hasn't really increased, but the severity does or even that something else is at play hiding the true impact to neck injuries, etc.
It could even be something as obscure as people who wear helmets:
1. Are more cautious and typically ride "safer."
2. The helmets weight builds up the muscles in the shoulders/neck, which counteracts the increased forces during a crash.
3. The dynamics of a motorcycle crash are different than a car crash where neck devices (e.g. HANS) have shown to be very beneficial. I.e. the energy is dissipated over a longer period of time (aka sliding) unless you hit something solid...in which case you're SOL or the impact to the head was going to kill you anyways.
The point is that it takes a lot of data and statistical analysis agreeing with logical explanations of the events being studied to really come to a conclusion.
The problem with statistical analysis is that it's hard to truly determine cause and effect. Just to be clear, I personally choose to wear a full face helmet all the time as I think that is the safest configuration, but I can't prove it.
For example, it's hard to see how adding weight to a system (aka the helmet) can't but increase the forces acting on it during a crash. It may be that their data set wasn't representative (~1k cases) or that the likelihood hasn't really increased, but the severity does or even that something else is at play hiding the true impact to neck injuries, etc.
It could even be something as obscure as people who wear helmets:
1. Are more cautious and typically ride "safer."
2. The helmets weight builds up the muscles in the shoulders/neck, which counteracts the increased forces during a crash.
3. The dynamics of a motorcycle crash are different than a car crash where neck devices (e.g. HANS) have shown to be very beneficial. I.e. the energy is dissipated over a longer period of time (aka sliding) unless you hit something solid...in which case you're SOL or the impact to the head was going to kill you anyways.
The point is that it takes a lot of data and statistical analysis agreeing with logical explanations of the events being studied to really come to a conclusion.
deanwoolsey
New member
I remember back in the 80s when the vice president of ABATE here in kansas died in a low speed accident where his front tire/wheel got caught up in the wheel well of a left turning car at about 10 MPH. The car was attempting a left turn from the right lane and didn't see him beside them. Slammed him down and killed him. Wasn't his fault but he's still dead.
I thought his death was ironic since the original design of ABATE was A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments. Their original and primary focus was mandatory helmet laws. They were formed when the federal government began pressuring states to enact mandatory helmet laws by with-holding highway funding for those who declined.
My presumption is that most who die from head injuries would elect to wear a helmet if they had it to do over.
Are there any of you out there who would like to share your personal story of serious injury received without a helmet who still ride without one? If so, I would like to hear your story.
I thought his death was ironic since the original design of ABATE was A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments. Their original and primary focus was mandatory helmet laws. They were formed when the federal government began pressuring states to enact mandatory helmet laws by with-holding highway funding for those who declined.
My presumption is that most who die from head injuries would elect to wear a helmet if they had it to do over.
Are there any of you out there who would like to share your personal story of serious injury received without a helmet who still ride without one? If so, I would like to hear your story.
Last edited:
jogitu
New member
Helmets save lives. Gear saves from more serious injury. These are simple truths. It is as simple as a hot burner on the stove will burn you. Some must touch it anyway. I don't know why and glad I don't. Survival instincts are not strong with every human being. It is I guess the thinning of the herd in action. I don't have to understand I am just glad I am built differently.
mika
Still Wondering
Missing the studies point -
IF this is the study I read in the past the study does not deal with a statistical analysis of making a cause and effect argument with helmet wearing and riding. Rather, the study looked into the issue of spinal injuries that were thought to occur after the accident as a result of emergency responders removing the riders helmet to secure the airway of the injured rider. The rider/patient population was not the motorcycling universe. It was the rider/patient population that had decided to wear a helmet and had an accident that required hospitalization.
Several factors have gone into decreasing this spinal injury possibility (if it existed in the first place) including, training responders, changes in standards/design and others.
Similar threads
