Motorcycle Helmets, Law Of The Land In US?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In the ideal world we'd just ban two wheeled power-vehicles from being capable of going faster than 35mph on a flat stretch.

Any vehicle is as dangerous as the person driving it, so you might as well say the same thing about four-wheeled vehicles. A motorcycle requires more responsibility simply because all protection needs to be worn, but crashes on motorcycles are just as often a result of idiot car drivers plowing into a bike because they weren't paying attention as it is irresponsible motorcyclists.

It would be nice to install limiters on civilian vehicles so they couldn't exceed 90mph or so, too, if nothing else it would cut down on lunatic street racers and insanely reckless driving on freeways.

[FSTargetDrone]

Rhode Island, while intelligent for requiring a motorcycle driving class, has a pretty weird helmet law. Basically the driver isn't required to wear one, but any passengers are. I think the rationale is that the passenger is more likely to be thrown from the bike during a crash.

In Pennsylvania:

All motorcyclists under the age of 21 must wear helmets.

I don't understand the rationale that says people under 21 need to wear helmets, but riders over 21 do not. Are people under 21 somehow more susceptible to injury while those older are not? The ground or another hard object isn't exactly discriminatory between people of different ages when dispensing head trauma. Methinks it was some kind of compromise between the helmet-optional crowd and lawmakers who want everyone to wear one.

[Darth Fanboy]

I don't understand the rationale that says people under 21 need to wear helmets, but riders over 21 do not. Are people under 21 somehow more susceptible to injury while those older are not?

To nitpick, riders under the age of 21 are going to be more likely to be reckless, just as they are in cars. That isn't too hard to understand, but...

The ground or another hard object isn't exactly discriminatory between people of different ages when dispensing head trauma. Methinks it was some kind of compromise between the helmet-optional crowd and lawmakers who want everyone to wear one.

...youthinks correct. Not even road safety issues are exempt from the scourge of pandering.

[LadyTevar]

In my state, you see more deaths from ATVs (AllTerrainVehicles) than from motorcycles. The majority of them are rollovers, where the ATV lands on the driver/passengers, or they are ejected and hit something solid, like a tree.

((One reason I mention this is a death certificate today, of a man just 3 months older than I who died when his ATV hit a tree at high speed. It took him 7 days to die, and his Blood Alcohol Level at the time of the wreck was 2.15. Gee... wonder why he hit the tree.... ))

[Havok]

I ride everyday. I have no car. I wear a helmet, a full face, racing helmet, and would regardless of if they reversed the law in California.

Just about every motorcyclist that has died in CA since 91 was more than likely wearing a helmet. They still died. It has more to do with speed and where they are riding and what they hit, or what hit them, than the protection they have.

I could be wearing a helmet and full leathers and if a big rig changes lanes in front of me with out signaling and runs me over, I'm still dead. A car slamming its brakes to not hit a squirrel and not caring or knowing that I am behind him and I'm still flying over his car and am dead. A lady pulling out of a Denny's with out looking for traffic that I hit going the speed limit and I'm still dead. (Yes, these all happened. No, obviously not to me )

Helmets help under the right circumstances. Low traffic, slow speeds and decent riding skill and they will save your life. Freeway traffic, freeway speeds and excellent riding skills and I'm still dead.

Another thing that bugs me about the studies and findings is that they usually don't take into account that the numbers of motorcycles sold has increased, doubled last time I checked, from 1997 to 2007. They also don't factor in riding skill or experience which is HUGE.
Especially in the sport bike sector of the industry, the average buyer is a new rider with little to no experience. (They are cheaper, some think cooler and usually faster.) That is just asking for fatalities, but as most salesmen have said to me "We warn them, but once they leave the lot, there is nothing we can do.".

Helmets save lives, that is for certain, however the magic of the helmet doesn't stop a broken neck or massive body trauma. Nothing really does other than just not riding.

[Broomstick]

There's a reason trauma doctors call these things 'donorcycles.' When you get into a fatal crash, the only organ that can't be transplanted is your brain and your skin.

Only half true - cadavar skin does have use for treating burn victims. Yes, it will be rejected eventually but meanwhile it does function to keep the inside in and the outside out. Not used so much any more, but that's not my point.

The point is, the brain is truly irreplacable and unrecycable.

In fact, the only justification I can see for non-helmet wearing on motorcycles is that it does increase the pool of donor organs while eliminating people with bad risk assessment from society.

Hell, I wear a helmet on my bicycle - why wouldn't I wear one on a motorcycle?

[Sturmfalke]

... Helmet advocates say the long-term health effects that accidents have on motorcyclists, and the economic impact of caring for motorcycle injuries, are often overlooked in debate. ...

I'd like to see a calculation of the economic impact. Could it not be that if everyone has to wear a helmet, the number of head injuries rises and with it the costs society faces? This would invalidate the entire economic impact argument (while it would obviously be better to have more people alive).
I remember reading that when European armies introduced helmets in the late 19th and early 20th century, the number of head injuries rose significantly (without a helmet the soldiers would have died) and I thought the same thing could be true in the case of motorcyclists.

[Havok]

... Helmet advocates say the long-term health effects that accidents have on motorcyclists, and the economic impact of caring for motorcycle injuries, are often overlooked in debate. ...

I'd like to see a calculation of the economic impact. Could it not be that if everyone has to wear a helmet, the number of head injuries rises and with it the costs society faces? This would invalidate the entire economic impact argument (while it would obviously be better to have more people alive).
I remember reading that when European armies introduced helmets in the late 19th and early 20th century, the number of head injuries rose significantly (without a helmet the soldiers would have died) and I thought the same thing could be true in the case of motorcyclists.

That has always been how I and others (bikers) that I know look at it.

[Marko Dash]

i don't get why people don't like to wear helmets, even if safety was not an issue its far more comfortable at road speeds to wear one.

[FSTargetDrone]

i don't get why people don't like to wear helmets, even if safety was not an issue its far more comfortable at road speeds to wear one.

Freedom. Freedom to let the wind in one's hair, the bugs in one's eyes and mouth and, by god, the freedom to further increase the risk of catastrophic injury if one's head should strike the ground or some other rigid object.

[Havok]

In the ideal world we'd just ban two wheeled power-vehicles from being capable of going faster than 35mph on a flat stretch.

Any vehicle is as dangerous as the person driving it, so you might as well say the same thing about four-wheeled vehicles. A motorcycle requires more responsibility simply because all protection needs to be worn, but crashes on motorcycles are just as often a result of idiot car drivers plowing into a bike because they weren't paying attention as it is irresponsible motorcyclists.

It would be nice to install limiters on civilian vehicles so they couldn't exceed 90mph or so, too, if nothing else it would cut down on lunatic street racers and insanely reckless driving on freeways.

Haven't you said that you like to drive "fast" cars at over 100mph?

[Napoleon the Clown]

It would be nice to install limiters on civilian vehicles so they couldn't exceed 90mph or so, too, if nothing else it would cut down on lunatic street racers and insanely reckless driving on freeways.

Speed limiters and rev limiters are a nice idea and all... but too commonly removed or disabled. I could be mistaken, but most cars these days have RPM limiters. I do know that many sports cars have speed limiters. Which are relatively easy to disable. Especially compared to tricking out cars in the manner street racers do.


Helmets wouldn't merely reduce fatalities. They'd also make it so that meeting Mr. Asphault at 40mph+ would be less likely to cause permenant harm to your head. It can be the difference between Mr. Asphault's Partial Lobotomy and a "mere" concussion and really bad roadrash elsewhere on your body.

In regards to the "let them get themselves killed" camp... What about their families and friends? Or, in the case of those with little or none of either, your tax money? Somebody will have to pay for the dumbass getting a nice ER visit, even if it's only to try and get them into intensive care before they die. Or their trip in a meat wagon if they're DOA. If they have no insurance or any relatives to pay, it's up to the tax payer.

And the tickets could bring in revenue for the police, making them more able to do the whole protect and serve bit. Helmet sales would also be good for the economy.

[Eris]

Wait, allow me if you will to step back in this discussion and ask a stupid question as a matter of clarification. It was, and in many cases still is, still legal to drive a motorbike without wearing a helmet?



I was under the impression that this was on par with, oh, seatbelt laws, except more so. I'm quite aware that a lot of people didn't wear them, but I was always under the impression that this was such an obvious thing to make an infraction, that it already was one.

I keep saying I'm a pessimist, but nevertheless seem to be continually overestimating the people that live around me.

[Broomstick]

Wait, allow me if you will to step back in this discussion and ask a stupid question as a matter of clarification. It was, and in many cases still is, still legal to drive a motorbike without wearing a helmet?

It varies from one state to another. Some states require them for everyone, some for those under 21, some don't require them at all, and there are several variations of the above.

Over the last 5-10 years several states have repealed their helmet laws.

[Darth Wong]

It's still totally amazing to me that Americans have such hostility against seatbelt laws and helmet laws, yet they accept restrictions on something much more personal and private, like sexuality.

[Broomstick]

>cough<

You do mean Americans in a general way, I presume - I'd hate to think that you think we're ALL that stupid.

(Proud seatbelt and helmet wearer, believer in sexual freedom, etc. etc.)

Yeah, you're right, it IS stupid. For the life of me, I do not understand why people get so bent over this issue. ESPECIALLY given how safety-paranoid the US is the rest of the time.

[FSTargetDrone]

Part of it, with these non-helmet wearers, has got to be that idiotic macho attitude of ignoring the danger, or rather, showing how tough they look by not wearing this minimum of safety equipment. I just think they look (and are) stupid.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Haven't you said that you like to drive "fast" cars at over 100mph?

I did it once just so I could say that I did, on a rural freeway with continuous straight stretches in the middle of nowhere that was basically empty. I would have lived my life quite normally having never done so, and I will live my life quite normally never doing so again.

[salm]

Speed limiters and rev limiters are a nice idea and all... but too commonly removed or disabled. I could be mistaken, but most cars these days have RPM limiters. I do know that many sports cars have speed limiters. Which are relatively easy to disable. Especially compared to tricking out cars in the manner street racers do.

Are you sure that they are commonly removed? Most German car manufactureres (all besides Porsche AFAIK) as well as Volvo and Jaguar have speed limiters. They limit at 250 km/h (155 mph). But i´ve never heard of them being removed on a large scale.

[Darth Wong]

If you built the speed limiter into the engine control computer, it would be difficult to remove. You'd have to replace the engine control computer with an aftermarket unit: an expensive proposition even if you assume that there are no removal fines to back up the legislation. I think the people who say this are assuming it's some kind of bolt-on module that you can remove with a Philips-head screwdriver.

[Flagg]

It's still totally amazing to me that Americans have such hostility against seatbelt laws and helmet laws, yet they accept restrictions on something much more personal and private, like sexuality.

I can tell you the thought that goes into that mentality because when I was younger I felt the same way. It was basically "It's my property, it's my safety, what business does the government have in demanding that I utilize a safety device if I choose not to?". Of course at the time I had no issue with them requiring those under 18 to wear them.
Part of this was because of some of the retarded arguments I had been hearing for seatbelt use. I actually heard one person argue that wearing a seatbelt means you're less likely to actually get into an accident.

Of course now that I realize I'm not invincible and that if I'm seriousely injured in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt others have to pick up some of the slack, I can see why seatbelt laws make sense. The same goes for helmet laws.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, the no-seatbelt people are a lot like Christians in the sense that they have arguments they swap amongst themselves and arguments they present to the public, and they're different arguments. In public, they talk about "freedom" and "individual rights" (as if driving a car is a "right" in the first place). But in private (and I've known a few examples of the breed), they talk about how seatbelts and helmets are vastly overrated and do not really save lives. I've lost count of the number of imbeciles who have told me that they think it would be safer to be thrown clear of a car, or who say that if you don't wear a helmet you can avoid an accident because you can see and hear better.

[Flagg]

Yeah, the no-seatbelt people are a lot like Christians in the sense that they have arguments they swap amongst themselves and arguments they present to the public, and they're different arguments. In public, they talk about "freedom" and "individual rights" (as if driving a car is a "right" in the first place). But in private (and I've known a few examples of the breed), they talk about how seatbelts and helmets are vastly overrated and do not really save lives. I've lost count of the number of imbeciles who have told me that they think it would be safer to be thrown clear of a car, or who say that if you don't wear a helmet you can avoid an accident because you can see and hear better.

My favorite was always the "seatbelts kill more people than they save!" line of horseshit that I never bought in to. Yeah, in some instances seatbelts can kill you. If you're wearing one improperly it can cause serious internal injury in an accident. If your car goes into a river or lake, your seatbelt can get stuck and trap you while you drown. But having your entire ribcage crushed by the steering wheel or flying through the windshield and into a pole is so much better.

My reasons were always pretty much the libertarian "don't tell me what to do!" along with the stupid pro-seatbelt arguments I always heard.

Interestingly, the anti-helmet people have a pretty good argument against the full face helmets. They actually do limit your ability see and hear your surroundings if you always wear it with the visor down. Of course the obvious solution is to not wear it with the visor down.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

((One reason I mention this is a death certificate today, of a man just 3 months older than I who died when his ATV hit a tree at high speed. It took him 7 days to die, and his Blood Alcohol Level at the time of the wreck was 2.15. Gee... wonder why he hit the tree.... ))

2.15? Please tell me you mean .215. 2.15 you'd be pretty dead, if my health classes serve me well.

My favorite was always the "seatbelts kill more people than they save!" line of horseshit that I never bought in to. Yeah, in some instances seatbelts can kill you. If you're wearing one improperly it can cause serious internal injury in an accident.

For example, the numerous idiots around who put the shoulder belt behind them and only wear the waist-belt that cuts you in two? I hate that shit. "It's uncomfortable." Horseshit. I don't even notice it anymore.

I go up to New Hampshire and see many bikers not wearing helmets, and I hear a lot of complaints about how they have to stop at the border of Massachusetts and put on their helmet. Maybe if their brains weren't vestigial organs, they'd realize that it'd be easier, safer, and smarter to wear the helmet the whole way.

[Civil War Man]

Interestingly, the anti-helmet people have a pretty good argument against the full face helmets. They actually do limit your ability see and hear your surroundings if you always wear it with the visor down. Of course the obvious solution is to not wear it with the visor down.

I wear a full-face helmet. Prior to getting it, I wore open-face helmets since my workplace didn't have full-face helmets that fit me (I have a large head). My full-face helmet doesn't affect my hearing, since it doesn't cover the ears any more than any open-face helmet that would actually pass DOT testing. As for vision, I have a better time seeing while driving with the visor down. It doesn't block any part of my field of vision, plus it does a better job blocking the wind and insects.