Mandatory Helmet Laws

[jmorrison]

You don't jog at highway speeds. Also, what about the situation where the driver of the car that hits the motorcyclist and the driver is completely at fault? That has nothing to do with the motorcyclist taking responsibility.

I was hit by a car while riding my bike (bicycle). It's scary as hell. Luckily I didn't hit my head but I could have meant the difference between walking away and being a vegetable for the rest of my life. I'm also for mandatory bicycle helmet laws.

Again, you completely missed my point, whether by misreading, or by being deliberately obtuse. Let me try again.

Replace jogger with mountain climber. Would mandatory chalk laws save more climbers lives? Yes probably. Should it be a law?

Replace mountain climber with fat guy. Would mandatory calorie restriction at fast food restarunts for the obese save lives? Probably. Should we make it a law?

Replace fat guy with surfer. Would wearing lifejackets save lives? Probably. Should that be a law?

Would wearing a helmet in a car save lives in the event of a crash? Yes, probably. Should we then make that mandatory too?

Better yet, why even allow these dangerous activities at all? Why not limit everyones behavoir to a subjective definition of "safe"? Where is the line drawn?

Paternal laws take away our freedoms. We should all be allowed to live and die in whatever way we choose as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Hell, thats what our country was founded on.

 

[jmorrison]

say what you want about mortality rates ( some studies do show benefit ) but there is no question that cost of medical care for motorcyclists in accidents without helmets are exorbitantly more than a helmeted rider

Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State.
this is just one such research article


When I was a paramedic in New York I never pulled out a dead person wearing seatbelts, I arrived on scenes all the time where a non seat belted person was thrown through the windshield and impaled on tree limbs or other sharp objects all the time,
Most of my DOA pronouncements were with non helmetted bikers. Also, non helmeted motor cyclists comprised the majority of facial reconstruction surgeries when I was doing my month of ENT/plastics rotation. It's amazing how asphalt can rip off your lower jaw and half your face so nicely when you are going 45 mph....

I don't doubt that medical costs for unhelmeted riders cost more to fix than helmeted ones. But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?

Overwhelmingly, the majority of motorcyclist deaths are white, middle aged, divorced men with a median income of 55k. These are not uninsured riders. In fact it has been proven time and time again that motorcycle riders are no more likely to be uninsured than any other motoristand in addition, car insurance rates have been completely unimpacted in states with no helmet laws. The society burden is NOT a plausible argument.

As far as grinding your face off, sure. Thats terrible, but true. Have you ever treated someone who drown? Do you think that if they were wearing a mandatory life jacket that they may have lived? I propose immediately that all swimmers must start wearing mandatory life jackets.

Don't you think its ridiculous to target a certain group with a risky behavoir? And once again it is OVERWHELMINGLY (over 81%) of nonriders who support helmet laws. Its much easier to support stripping away freedoms from a group of people when you are not one of those people right?

 

[DOMS]

Again, you completely missed my point, whether by misreading, or by being deliberately obtuse. Let me try again.

Replace jogger with mountain climber. Would mandatory chalk laws save more climbers lives? Yes probably. Should it be a law?

Replace mountain climber with fat guy. Would mandatory calorie restriction at fast food restarunts for the obese save lives? Probably. Should we make it a law?

Replace fat guy with surfer. Would wearing lifejackets save lives? Probably. Should that be a law?

Would wearing a helmet in a car save lives in the event of a crash? Yes, probably. Should we then make that mandatory too?

Better yet, why even allow these dangerous activities at all? Why not limit everyones behavoir to a subjective definition of "safe"? Where is the line drawn?

Paternal laws take away our freedoms. We should all be allowed to live and die in whatever way we choose as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Hell, thats what our country was founded on.

You comparisons don't hold up. Being a surfer, a climber, or fat does not require a motorized vehicle or take place on public roads (okay, being fat does, but they're encased in 2-ton cars). No one is telling you to wear a helmet in your home. Using a vehicle on the road is a privilege and not a right, thus mandating a range of compliances that you must meet; both for the vehicle and for the operator. This includes safety devices.

Keep in mind that I'm not in favour of helmet laws. I do think that the insurance costs should be very, very high for motorcycle riders for the reasons that bandaidwoman stated. Either that, or health insurance companies shouldn't be liable for any damage above the neck if you were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

I have to ask a corollary question: are you against seatbelts?

 

[KelJu]

I don't doubt that medical costs for unhelmeted riders cost more to fix than helmeted ones. But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?

Overwhelmingly, the majority of motorcyclist deaths are white, middle aged, divorced men with a median income of 55k. These are not uninsured riders. In fact it has been proven time and time again that motorcycle riders are no more likely to be uninsured than any other motoristand in addition, car insurance rates have been completely unimpacted in states with no helmet laws. The society burden is NOT a plausible argument.

As far as grinding your face off, sure. Thats terrible, but true. Have you ever treated someone who drown? Do you think that if they were wearing a mandatory life jacket that they may have lived? I propose immediately that all swimmers must start wearing mandatory life jackets.

Don't you think its ridiculous to target a certain group with a risky behavoir? And once again it is OVERWHELMINGLY (over 81%) of nonriders who support helmet laws. Its much easier to support stripping away freedoms from a group of people when you are not one of those people right?

This is basically what I was getting at, also. Once you start going down the slippery slope of safety and health care cost, when does it stop? Eventually a law will be passed against something you enjoy doing, and then it is too late.

Motor-cycle injuries are such a tiny aspect of health care cost, that it is completely bullshit to go after riders when you allow other dangerous shit that is hundreds of times worse.

I'll tell you why. Pussy ass little bitches that have never been on 2 wheels in their life pass judgment about something they don't know shit about. End of story!

The same fucking cunt that says it should be a law to wear a helmet will drive down airport blvd with four screaming ass kids in the back with a cellphone in her hear on the way to McDonalds. The hippocracy is staggering. I'm not forcing you to stop eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, stop telling me to wear a helmet!

 

[Zaphod]

You comparisons don't hold up. Being a surfer, a climber, or fat does not require a motorized vehicle or take place on public roads (okay, being fat does, but they're encased in 2-ton cars). No one is telling you to wear a helmet in your home. Using a vehicle on the road is a privilege and not a right, thus mandating a range of compliances that you must meet; both for the vehicle and for the operator. This includes safety devices.

Keep in mind that I'm not in favour of helmet laws. I do think that the insurance costs should be very, very high for motorcycle riders for the reasons that bandaidwoman stated. Either that, or health insurance companies shouldn't be liable for any damage above the neck if you were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

I have to ask a corollary question: are you against seatbelts?

Car drivers should be charged with attempted murder for injuring a motorcyclist and charged with murder for killing one.

Being a surfer takes place on public beaches. Somebody gets to fish your half eaten ass out of the water. Climbing takes place in public parks. Somebody gets to mop up your splattered self off the rocks at the scenic overlook. When your overworked heart vaporlocks during a fit of roadrage you're going to be blocking the highway until some good Samaritan pushes your car to the curb.

The comparisons are valid. People want to restrict each and every groups' activities that they themselves don't participate in. THAT is stupid. "But it's all in the name of safety." More people die at home than anywhere else. Guess you should move out of your house. Of those that die at home the vast majority of deaths occur in the bathtub. Guess what. You're not taking showers any more. Forget eating, you might choke to death on your food. So you get a nutrient rich paste to slurp down.

"That's stupid" is what you're going to reply. So is saying any activity you don't take part in is stupid. You believe in freedoms yet you want to restrict someone else so long as you aren't affected. THAT is stupid.

 

[DOMS]

Car drivers should be charged with attempted murder for injuring a motorcyclist and charged with murder for killing one.

They already have those laws. If the driver was at fault, it's called vehicular manslaughter. Duh.

Being a surfer takes place on public beaches. Somebody gets to fish your half eaten ass out of the water. Climbing takes place in public parks. Somebody gets to mop up your splattered self off the rocks at the scenic overlook. When your overworked heart vaporlocks during a fit of roadrage you're going to be blocking the highway until some good Samaritan pushes your car to the curb.

This part of your post brought to the group by the letter "S", for straw man argument.

The comparisons are valid. People want to restrict each and every groups' activities that they themselves don't participate in. THAT is stupid. "But it's all in the name of safety." More people die at home than anywhere else. Guess you should move out of your house. Of those that die at home the vast majority of deaths occur in the bathtub. Guess what. You're not taking showers any more. Forget eating, you might choke to death on your food. So you get a nutrient rich paste to slurp down.

Ignoring points of my post doesn't make them go away. What happens in your home, doesn't happen in public. And they do take reasonable precautions in the home. Those appliances? They have to meet safety standards. That gas furnace? It does, too. The building itself? Build to code.

Those are all reasonable precautions. Just like like wearing a helmet while zipping around on the road on a motorcyles with other drivers who command multi-ton vehicles. A helmet is a reasonable safety precaution. But I guess your desire to "look cool" trumps that.

"That's stupid" is what you're going to reply. So is saying any activity you don't take part in is stupid. You believe in freedoms yet you want to restrict someone else so long as you aren't affected. THAT is stupid.

There are degrees. Technically, taking a bath and jumping off a building can both be deadly, but telling someone not to jump of a roof is reasonable. You know, that which you are not.

Actually, I would call the ridiculous straw man argument, ridiculous. The rest of your post, ignoring my points and that not all things are equal, I would call retarded.

 

[jmorrison]

You comparisons don't hold up. Being a surfer, a climber, or fat does not require a motorized vehicle or take place on public roads (okay, being fat does, but they're encased in 2-ton cars). No one is telling you to wear a helmet in your home. Using a vehicle on the road is a privilege and not a right, thus mandating a range of compliances that you must meet; both for the vehicle and for the operator. This includes safety devices.

Keep in mind that I'm not in favour of helmet laws. I do think that the insurance costs should be very, very high for motorcycle riders for the reasons that bandaidwoman stated. Either that, or health insurance companies shouldn't be liable for any damage above the neck if you were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

I have to ask a corollary question: are you against seatbelts?

Why does attaching a motor to something change the root of the argument?

For the public road aspect, let me use swimmers as an example. What would happen if lifejackets were required in all public pools, and on national beaches? They are state-owned facilities, and as such, using them is a privilege, and not a right. Would drowning deaths decrease? Yes, probably. Now on to a second part of the same example. What if some states had mandatory life jacket laws on their swimming areas, where other states did not? Which beaches would be used? Would the drowning death rates be higher in states that did NOT have mandatory life jacket laws? Of course, for 2 reasons. One being that swimming without a life jacket is more dangerous that swimming without one, and two, because the states without the laws would have many many many more swimmers.

Don't you think that as an adult, you should be entitled to make decisions about your personal safety? Or do you support the above scenario? To be honest, to support one and not the other is sort of hypocritical.

As far as the insurance aspect, this has been disproven time and time again. Insurance rates for drivers of motor vehicles and those of motorcycle riders have not been impacted in states with no helmet laws. only 1.8% of total deaths in the US are from motor vehicle accidents, and less than 15% of those are motorcycle deaths. This is a tiny fraction of health care or insurance costs.

To answer your question about seat belts. I sort of answer the same way. I do not support seat belt laws for drivers over the age of 21 who carry sufficient insurance. Minors and those with only liability should have to wear them at all times.

 

[jmorrison]

And just to add this Doms, I am certainly not trying to be rude or trying to invalidate your points, I just disagree whole heartedly.

 

[DOMS]

Why does attaching a motor to something change the root of the argument?

For the public road aspect, let me use swimmers as an example. What would happen if lifejackets were required in all public pools, and on national beaches? They are state-owned facilities, and as such, using them is a privilege, and not a right. Would drowning deaths decrease? Yes, probably. Now on to a second part of the same example. What if some states had mandatory life jacket laws on their swimming areas, where other states did not? Which beaches would be used? Would the drowning death rates be higher in states that did NOT have mandatory life jacket laws? Of course, for 2 reasons. One being that swimming without a life jacket is more dangerous that swimming without one, and two, because the states without the laws would have many many many more swimmers.

Don't you think that as an adult, you should be entitled to make decisions about your personal safety? Or do you support the above scenario? To be honest, to support one and not the other is sort of hypocritical.

Your analogy isn't quite right. If say, there was some mythical creature that liked to push people underwater, then yes, I would support the lifejacket law. That mythical creature is analogous to the other, very casual, drivers of vehicles that can turn a person into hamburger. Why don't car drivers have to wear helmets? Because they're encased in two tons of steel with numerous safety devices. Asking a motorcycle driver to wear a helmet to cut down on injuries if he lives is reasonable.

As far as the insurance aspect, this has been disproven time and time again. Insurance rates for drivers of motor vehicles and those of motorcycle riders have not been impacted in states with no helmet laws. only 1.8% of total deaths in the US are from motor vehicle accidents, and less than 15% of those are motorcycle deaths. This is a tiny fraction of health care or insurance costs.

Your 1.8% figure is a bit of red herring. As for the 15%, that's interesting consider that only 2% of all registered vehicles are motorcycles. That's about 7 times the per capita death rate versus all other vehicles.

I'll take your word about the insurance rate thing and give you that point in the conversation.

To answer your question about seat belts. I sort of answer the same way. I do not support seat belt laws for drivers over the age of 21 who carry sufficient insurance. Minors and those with only liability should have to wear them at all times.

I could almost get behind this.

 

[DOMS]

And just to add this Doms, I am certainly not trying to be rude or trying to invalidate your points, I just disagree whole heartedly.

I'm not taking it any negative way. What we're doing is arguing, in the good sense of the word. It's an intellectual exercise.

It's zaphod that I'm willing to shit all over. We had another discussion, about unions, where he did the same crap he's doing here: ignoring discussion points and using straw man arguments.

 

[KelJu]

Why does attaching a motor to something change the root of the argument?

For the public road aspect, let me use swimmers as an example. What would happen if lifejackets were required in all public pools, and on national beaches? They are state-owned facilities, and as such, using them is a privilege, and not a right. Would drowning deaths decrease? Yes, probably. Now on to a second part of the same example. What if some states had mandatory life jacket laws on their swimming areas, where other states did not? Which beaches would be used? Would the drowning death rates be higher in states that did NOT have mandatory life jacket laws? Of course, for 2 reasons. One being that swimming without a life jacket is more dangerous that swimming without one, and two, because the states without the laws would have many many many more swimmers.

Don't you think that as an adult, you should be entitled to make decisions about your personal safety? Or do you support the above scenario? To be honest, to support one and not the other is sort of hypocritical.

As far as the insurance aspect, this has been disproven time and time again. Insurance rates for drivers of motor vehicles and those of motorcycle riders have not been impacted in states with no helmet laws. only 1.8% of total deaths in the US are from motor vehicle accidents, and less than 15% of those are motorcycle deaths. This is a tiny fraction of health care or insurance costs.

To answer your question about seat belts. I sort of answer the same way. I do not support seat belt laws for drivers over the age of 21 who carry sufficient insurance. Minors and those with only liability should have to wear them at all times.

Wow! This is a very strong and thought out argument.

 

[jmorrison]

Your analogy isn't quite right. If say, there was some mythical creature that liked to push people underwater, then yes, I would support the lifejacket law. That mythical creature is analogous to the other, very casual, drivers of vehicles that can turn a person into hamburger. Why don't car drivers have to wear helmets? Because they're encased in two tons of steel with numerous safety devices. Asking a motorcycle driver to wear a helmet to cut down on injuries if he lives is reasonable.

I certainly agree that riding a motorcycle is more risky than swimming, and that there are many more hazards. Swimming was just the best analogy I could come up with.

I completely 100% disagree with your answer to why don't drivers of cars have to wear helmets. The answer is because drivers would never stand for it,and drivers encompass the majority of americans and voters. People don't like to restrict the activities that THEY participate in, only in those that affect other people. The question you need to ask yourself (seriously, think about this one) is: Would wearing a helmet in a car save lives? Before you answer, keep in mind that over 90% of reported injuries in auto accidents involve head injury. That said, I am not trying to compare the dangers of the two activities, I am only arguing your definition of "reasonable". Given that common sense would dictate that wearing a helmet in a car would cut down on deaths, wouldn't it be completely reasonable to mandate driving helmets?

Your 1.8% figure is a bit of red herring. As for the 15%, that's interesting consider that only 2% of all registered vehicles are motorcycles. That's about 7 times the per capita death rate versus all other vehicles.

I'll take your word about the insurance rate thing and give you that point in the conversation.

I would never think to argue this point Doms. Riding a motorcycle is a very hazardous activity, and frankly the numbers of deaths surprised me, I had thought that they would be higher. It still doesn't change the point of the argument. Any single person with an IQ over 60 would agree that riding is dangerous, so following the logic of paternilistic law, why allow it at all? It comes down to personal choice about inherant risk.

I could almost get behind this.

I am certainly not anti helmet. I am only anti-helmet law. It has been shown that in states where the helmet laws have been repealed or revised, about half of riders still wear helmets. I believe that this is a prudent decision, best left to the individual. I believe that helmet laws infringe on my 9th amendment rights, and I honestly believe that as long as the publics' well being is not threatened and the common rights are not infringed upon, then a persons safety is their own responsibility.

 

[pitman]

it will take one by one individual to be into a cycle accident to say '' wear a fuckin helmet '' !!!!!!

 

[DOMS]

I completely 100% disagree with your answer to why don't drivers of cars have to wear helmets. The answer is because drivers would never stand for it,and drivers encompass the majority of americans and voters.

We're all over the place, so I'm going to go forward with this since it's really the crux of it.

And I have to disagree with this. The reason that they don't wear helmets it because they already have a reasonable amount of safety precautions, unlike "bareback" motorcycle riders. Part of being in society is having to put up with reasonable (sometimes, not so reasonable) mandates. Taking advantage of the public roads means that you must adhere to some sort of safety standards.

It's in this same vein that anti-cell phone bills are passing across the nation. It's reasonable to have the driver not diddle with some piece of equipment in his hand while driving.

Again, I'm not for the helmet law. If someone wants to kill themselves, I say let them. I do have a problem with having children on motorcycyles, even more so when they're not wearing helmets because they're douche bag anti-helmet parents don't want to be kept down by the man.

I reiterate it one last time: being fat, climbing, and surfing are loner activities. You're not climbing a rock face while dozens of other people are trying to push past you, and possible to knock you to your death. It's not the same as riding a motorcycle on the public roads. A fender bender for cars can easily turn into a fatality with a motorcycle. On those two points, I think it is reasonable to require helmets.

Finally, let me ask you this: why are you, and others, so set against, helmet laws? What's the downside?

 

[Zaphod]

They already have those laws. If the driver was at fault, it's called vehicular manslaughter. Duh.



This part of your post brought to the group by the letter "S", for straw man argument.



Ignoring points of my post doesn't make them go away. What happens in your home, doesn't happen in public. And they do take reasonable precautions in the home. Those appliances? They have to meet safety standards. That gas furnace? It does, too. The building itself? Build to code.

Those are all reasonable precautions. Just like like wearing a helmet while zipping around on the road on a motorcyles with other drivers who command multi-ton vehicles. A helmet is a reasonable safety precaution. But I guess your desire to "look cool" trumps that.



There are degrees. Technically, taking a bath and jumping off a building can both be deadly, but telling someone not to jump of a roof is reasonable. You know, that which you are not.

Actually, I would call the ridiculous straw man argument, ridiculous. The rest of your post, ignoring my points and that not all things are equal, I would call retarded.

Of course you would. That's your only argument.

As far as the manslaughter goes, it isn't the same as murder. Rarely does anyone who kills a motorcyclist get more than a slap on the wrist.

Using the size comparison you have no business on the road in a car or light truck. Tractor trailers are so much bigger than what you drive. Put on your helmet, it's dangerous out there.

 

[Zaphod]

Just so you're aware of it I wear a helmet when I'm out riding. So do my children. Not because it's the law, because it's smart.

I'm against helmet laws because I'm for personal freedom. I'm not into telling someone else how to live their life. Someone making an uninformed opinion about something they don't even participate in is ignorant at best.

 

[jmorrison]

Finally, let me ask you this: why are you, and others, so set against, helmet laws? What's the downside?

This is where you get me on MY hypocrisy. I am against helmet laws because they restrict MY activities. When a law interferes with your personal life, it becomes much more important to you.

I am also against just about any laws that are in place to "protect" society. I don't like laws against personal drug use (although I dont even smoke), or seatbelt laws, or laws against euthanasia, sodomy, homosexual marriage, or any other law that stops you from living your life the way you want if you aren't hurting anyone else.

I guess the biggest downside of the law in my personal opinion is just being singled out. To pick 1 certain risky behavior, and limit how people can do it, while allowing smoking, overeating, drinking (Heart disease is the #1 killer in America) or to allow driving a car without a helmet even though motor vehicle accidents are the ONLY non health related cause of death in the top 5 is just hypocritical and wrong. Its an agenda based law, created and upheld by people that it does not affect.

I don't really have a problem or downside to actually wearing one. Helmet head I guess? Minor discomfort? Its the issue of HAVING to wear one I take issue with. Its the next thing to discrimination and profiling in my opinion.

Here was a great statement made by a more intelligent and educated man than myself:

"The ninth amendment says that no law shall be enacted that regulates the individual's freedom to choose his personal actions and mode of dress, so long as it does not in any way affect the life, liberty, and happiness of others."

It is just plain unconstitutional, and this has been upheld in several cases by the supreme courts. We can't pick and choose what we like about the constitution. It is a right, or it is not, and I don't want mine infringed upon by people that are not affected by the decisions that they make.

 

[jmorrison]

And I have to disagree with this. The reason that they don't wear helmets it because they already have a reasonable amount of safety precautions, unlike "bareback" motorcycle riders.

Sorry Doms, had to do a little work there for a sec! On with the debate!

This is where your factual argument and your subjective argument part ways. The precautions in a car are what you deem to be reasonable because it is the status quo.

Automobile accidents are the only cause of US deaths that are not health related in the top 5 causes of death. So many people die each year on the highways that it is a top killer in the US. So are the safety precautions "reasonable"?

Lets take it a step further.

I will use the helmet thing again. Would it not save lives for car drivers and passengers to wear helmets? Therefore, would it not be reasonable to mandate their use (following your logic)

Would it not be reasonable to limit the horsepower/speed in automobiles? Would this not cut down on deaths?

Would it be reasonable to limit the weights of vehicles so that larger trucks could not run over smaller ones?

All of these would undoubtedly reduce deaths, and save lives. So why are these not reasonable? Because it would affect too many voting americans. It all comes down to personal choice. Why do you not drive the heaviest and safest vehicle on the road? Why do you not make your children wear a helmet in the car? Why do you have a car that can go over the nationally posted speed limits? Because as an American adult you want to have control over these things and for the government to trust you with making the decisions that determine your safety.

Reasonable is a completely subjective word, and subjectivity should not be a part of the law-making process. Everyone should be given the same rights, not just the majority.

 

[KelJu]

Finally, let me ask you this: why are you, and others, so set against, helmet laws? What's the downside?

They a restrictive, hot, smelly, gay, they obscure my peripheral vision, l and they prevent me from being able to hear. I wear them when they are useful, and that is only when I am going faster than 40 mph.

I am true rider. I ride because it is as much a part of me as anything else. I ride because I love to ride, and not because of the image. I grew up riding. I had a 50cc junior when I was only 5 years old. When I am on a motor-cycle the bike becomes an extension of my body. A helmet feels like an obstruction to my senses.

It is something only riders really understand.

 

[jmorrison]

This is specifically for Doms, but may be interesting to anyone who likes this topic.

Doms: I am not saying I agree with this article, but it is a great read if you have the time and inclination. Check it out and let me know what you think.

The Wild One - Forbes.com

 

[Zaphod]

What kind of riding experience do you have, DOMS? What makes you, or anyone else who doesn't ride, uniquely qualified to decide whether or not someone should wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?

 

[DOMS]

This is where you get me on MY hypocrisy. I am against helmet laws because they restrict MY activities. When a law interferes with your personal life, it becomes much more important to you.

I am also against just about any laws that are in place to "protect" society. I don't like laws against personal drug use (although I dont even smoke), or seatbelt laws, or laws against euthanasia, sodomy, homosexual marriage, or any other law that stops you from living your life the way you want if you aren't hurting anyone else.

I guess the biggest downside of the law in my personal opinion is just being singled out. To pick 1 certain risky behavior, and limit how people can do it, while allowing smoking, overeating, drinking (Heart disease is the #1 killer in America) or to allow driving a car without a helmet even though motor vehicle accidents are the ONLY non health related cause of death in the top 5 is just hypocritical and wrong. Its an agenda based law, created and upheld by people that it does not affect.

I don't really have a problem or downside to actually wearing one. Helmet head I guess? Minor discomfort? Its the issue of HAVING to wear one I take issue with. Its the next thing to discrimination and profiling in my opinion.

Here was a great statement made by a more intelligent and educated man than myself:

"The ninth amendment says that no law shall be enacted that regulates the individual's freedom to choose his personal actions and mode of dress, so long as it does not in any way affect the life, liberty, and happiness of others."

It is just plain unconstitutional, and this has been upheld in several cases by the supreme courts. We can't pick and choose what we like about the constitution. It is a right, or it is not, and I don't want mine infringed upon by people that are not affected by the decisions that they make.

I see where you coming from--the personal freedom angle.

So, are seat belts unconstitutional? Should that law be removed? If it ever is, the number of deaths on the roads is going to skyrocket.

I suppose that my desire to let people kill themselves crosses over into your desire for personal freedoms. So I guess, ultimately, I agree with the no helmet low, but I still also think it's reasonable to ask of it though.

Something just occurred to me, the why of seat belt and helmet laws. Do you think it has to do with minors? It's a flat law for everybody so that children have to abide by them, with no squabbling over the age issue?

More often than not, the "think of the children" mantra is used incorrectly, but in this case, perhaps not.

 

[DOMS]

This is where your factual argument and your subjective argument part ways. The precautions in a car are what you deem to be reasonable because it is the status quo.

Automobile accidents are the only cause of US deaths that are not health related in the top 5 causes of death. So many people die each year on the highways that it is a top killer in the US. So are the safety precautions "reasonable"?

You're ignoring a simple fact in the pursuit of your side of the argument. A person in a car has seat belts, airbags, and the reinforced frame (with crumple zones) going for him. That's quite an amount of reasonable protection. How much does an helmeted rider have? None. Asking for one precaution is reasonable.

In regards to wearing a helmet in a car: the person in a car already has a reasonable amount of protection. Why not demand that all motorcycle riders use helmets, skid and impact resistant jackets, grieves, gloves, and boots? Because it's not reasonable. However, a single device to protect your face (follow bandaidwoman's link) is.

Reasonable is a completely subjective word, and subjectivity should not be a part of the law-making process. Everyone should be given the same rights, not just the majority.

There are objective ways to make these decisions.

For example, a study should be done in automobile accidents to determine the most relevant factors that lead to death and then pass laws forcing solutions to reduce those most relevant factors.

They have. That's how we have seat belts (for ejections), airbags (head trauma from striking the steering wheel or dash), safety glass (deep glass cuts), and reinforced frames with crumple zones (crush damage).

The same thing has been done to motorcycle accidents. The single biggest factor that can be affected is head wounds. This has been proven in numerous studies. So, I'm hoping for the last time, helmets are in fact reasonable as laid out by the facts regarding motorcycle accidents.

 

[DOMS]

They a restrictive, hot, smelly, gay, they obscure my peripheral vision, l and they prevent me from being able to hear. I wear them when they are useful, and that is only when I am going faster than 40 mph.

I am true rider. I ride because it is as much a part of me as anything else. I ride because I love to ride, and not because of the image. I grew up riding. I had a 50cc junior when I was only 5 years old. When I am on a motor-cycle the bike becomes an extension of my body. A helmet feels like an obstruction to my senses.

It is something only riders really understand.

There are helmets that provide for peripheral vision. The rest of your reasons are aesthetics. Not a really compelling argument.

 

[DOMS]

This is specifically for Doms, but may be interesting to anyone who likes this topic.

Doms: I am not saying I agree with this article, but it is a great read if you have the time and inclination. Check it out and let me know what you think.

The Wild One - Forbes.com

Not bad.

I'm all for helmet laws for those under 21.

Having said that, and not having read the transcript of the debate, the issue of being on public roads, and thereby somewhat the responsibility of the local government, was not addressed. More importantly, neither was the issue of not having an adversary while surfing. There aren't hundred of inattentive surfers, surfing with you, whose merest touch can result in your death.

 

[Zaphod]

So how much riding experience do you have that makes you qualified to speak on the subject? Seriously. How much?

 

[KelJu]

There are helmets that provide for peripheral vision. The rest of your reasons are aesthetics. Not a really compelling argument.

That is completely wrong on all accounts. You are going to a lot of effort to downplay anything we say just because you don't understand it.

There is no helmet that offers 100% true peripheral vision. Even if the entire helmet is made of clear plastic, if you look at piece curved plastic at the corner of your eye, you get distortion and glare.

Hot and smelly are not aesthetic. Hearing, and this is a big one, is completely fucked with a helmet on. A car horn could be beeping at you, but you have no idea from where. The helmet distorts your ability to discern what direction the sound is coming from.

I have nothing against the aesthetics of a helmet. As a matter of fact, I have an awesome Fox Racing helmet. I got it when I was 15. I couldn't wait to use it when I got home. I used it for abotu a month before I finally said fuck it.

I couldn't wear the damn thing. It seriously got in my way. I sweat a lot, and the damn thing smelled like my football locker, and trust me that shit stuck to high heaven. I couldn't see out the corner of my eye for shit.

And on top of everything, the fucking thing felt restrictive. I don't like restrictive. I don't fucking like it. That's why I don't buckle up. I can't explain it. It fucking makes me uncomfortable.

 

[DOMS]

That is completely wrong on all accounts. You are going to a lot of effort to downplay anything we say just because you don't understand it.

There is no helmet that offers 100% true peripheral vision. Even if the entire helmet is made of clear plastic, if you look at piece curved plastic at the corner of your eye, you get distortion and glare.

Hot and smelly are not aesthetic. Hearing, and this is a big one, is completely fucked with a helmet on. A car horn could be beeping at you, but you have no idea from where. The helmet distorts your ability to discern what direction the sound is coming from.

I have nothing against the aesthetics of a helmet. As a matter of fact, I have an awesome Fox Racing helmet. I got it when I was 15. I couldn't wait to use it when I got home. I used it for abotu a month before I finally said fuck it.

I couldn't wear the damn thing. It seriously got in my way. I sweat a lot, and the damn thing smelled like my football locker, and trust me that shit stuck to high heaven. I couldn't see out the corner of my eye for shit.

I've read plenty of studies done on the topic of helmets and it's affects on hearing and vision. Nothing conclusive has been determined from those studies. The difference, if any, was too small to measure.

Of course, you're gonna chime in with "but I do it every day!". Which, I suppose is a fair statement, but a very heavily biased one. Just as your so quick to spout out with "non-motorcycle riders just want to hate on an activity they don't take part in!", it's fair to say that people that do partake in the activity are just as biased.

On a related note, you can, in fact, turn your head.

Hell, there are people out there that advocate not wearing seat belts despite the multitude of evidence that it saves lives. Which brings me to...

And on top of everything, the fucking thing felt restrictive. I don't like restrictive. I don't fucking like it. That's why I don't buckle up. I can't explain it. It fucking makes me uncomfortable.

Try not to get into a car accident, you're not going to like it. I speak from personal experience.

 

[DOMS]

Also, a valid concern that hasn't been brought up yet (in favour of not having helmets):

"When sitting on a spotlight under 100% humidity with the sun heating up so hard and heat coming off the road, one may even pass out. There have been reported cases of motorcycle riders passing out on the spotlights with their helmets on."

 

[Zaphod]

I'll take you lack of an answer as "no riding experience." In other words you're just talking out your ass.