Motorcycle Helmet Laws- Yea or Nay?

In light Ben Roethlisberger's recent motorcycle crash (as well as the thousands of bike-related accidents in this country), what's your stance? I get the feeling that if he was wearing a helmet, he may have walked away with only minor injuries. I realize riding motorcycles can be dangerous no matter what, but it's common sense to wear as much protection as possible. Should it be required by law?

edited to be less push-polly.

my parents have both riden motorbiks for 25-30 years and im planning on buying one soon. i would never dream of getting on one without a helmet. however it is personal choice and if someone wants to be a complete fucking idiot and ride without then thats their brains getting smeared on the road so is up to them.

Through higher insurance rates, medical bills that the bike rider can't cover? I think not. Same logic that goes behind seat belts applies to this, imo.

same logic applies there as well except they endanger more than just themselves with their recklessness.

... typically pay higher health insurance premiums.

You think any of them smoke? People that drive are forced by law to buy insurance but that doesn't apply for normal Americans that don't have employers who take care of their health care costs.....

... I don't get your point.

The poster said that many have no insurance so don't in fact pay higher. The costs fall upon the tax payer the same as the person that doesn't wear a helmet. The main difference is that most people that ride don't hurt their heads and make tax payers pay but most smokers do suffer bad health and raise all of our casts.

Many if not most group insurers are now charging higher premiums for smokers. Have been for several years now. The disguise it as a 'good health' discount that non-smoking employees get.

asked me about smoking, motorcycles, sky diving, or scuba diving. Not once. However, they are large groups where the actions of a few are not critical to the rate structure.

Most insurers are nearly all now either reviewing or have reviewed and revised their policies towards smokers. These changes started slowly about 5 years ago and are picking up momentum. The industry is forever seeking ways to increase their profits and 'good health' discounts....ie.....a hidden premium increase is one way to do it.

'Good Health' discounts are also given if a pledge to wear a seat belt is signed.

Smoking, motorcycles, sky diving & scuba diving have long been ratable for individual insurance policies. I am not surprised that group insurers are also looking at such risky behaviour either.

Sid

can be applied to anything that could possibly affect someone else. perhaps the government should pass a law that tells us how we must live our lives in the most cost effective way possible?

also you are missing the point that if someone is such a fucking moron that they are prepared to ride a motorbike without a helmet, then im prepared to pay a few extra pence to clear up their brains as long as they are out of the gene pool.

Besides, society probably benefits ultimately - helmetless bikers are better known as "organ donors." /end semi-serious argument

Now who deserves those organs more, a helmetless moron, or little timmy with heart cancer? Why do you hate children?

Is America about individual liberty, or not?

:shrug:

... that's completely irrelevant, due to the fact that there are many more car people simpliciter.

Got a link that clearly answers the following question:

Given that a car driver and a motorcycle driver are both in an accident, and neither has a helmet (separate accidents - lol) - which is more likely to sustain a serious head injury?


Note that by asking "more likely", the question is EXPLICITLY framed in terms of proportions.

Iraq therefor Iraq is safer.

but just barely, requiring a lifetime of institutionalized care.

Most are uninsured young males.

A lifetime of care on the public dole versus requiring the dolts to wear helmets.

Gee whiz, what to do.

so essentially because some people ride a motorbike without a helmet, and because a small fraction of them get in an accident, and because some of those in accidents end up on life support for the rest of their lives then legislation is required?

i want less government in my life. i like salt on my food, even if it can give me heart disease. i like smoking, even if it can give me lung cancer. i like going out and getting pissed in the pub, even if it can destroy my liver. i like to take drugs, even if they can make me jabber away like and idiot and lose half my body weight through sweat.

Certain chemicals, explosives, guns, and even various forms of animal life. Do you oppose all of those laws that are done for people's safety as well?

but a gun can kill someone else. so can chemicals. and explosives. and even various forms of wildlife. not sure how many third parties are killed by someone not wearing a helmet, do you know?

not to others.

You have an opinion, not an argument.

but my opinion is backed by personal belief in the freedom of an individual to make decisions. i would not say i am putting forward a weak argument, however i have no interest in playing semantic games.

Whatever.

Everyone else's opinion isn't based on such noble ideals?? So you're the only noble one here? Laughable.

That and a viable pulse will get you 12,000 free hours of AOL.

decisions" that I have a problem with -- its the part where most of the folks making decisions are clueless ignorant idiots who believe they are immortal.

"The wind in my hair -- the pavement rushing up to meet me -- the crack of breaking bones -- the sting of gravel in my skin -- the punch of an object stabbing into my internal organs -- ah! The freedom!"

In my opinion, the risk-free crowd seem to be the ones with the notion they live safely and always lead perfectly healthy, long lives.

the rest of us shouldn't be made to pay for your shitty decision-making skills.

Drive a car? Wear your seatbelt or face a fine.
Ride a motorcycle? Ditto with the helmet.

What happens to the person involved in an accident with them? Suddenly what might have been a (bad) accident is a death.

What about insurance rates overall when the accidents helmet-less riders are in cause far greater injuries?

There's just nothing isolated about these kind of issues. There isn't a "personal" choice when so many others are affected.

So I voted other.

I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but if someone else wants to, well, go ahead. Think of it as evolution in action.

And we need organ donors.

at least here in illinois- there are two things that a motorcycle needs- a headlight, lit at all times while driving, and eye protection for the driver(or a fairing that provides it).

i would assume it's the same in other states as well, but i could be wrong.

Unless, of course, you want to be in a completely different actuarial group for your health and life insurance.

I get a break on mine by stating that I don't smoke, ride a motorcycle, personal watercraft, ATV, or sky dive. In my opinon, this comes under the heading of personally chosen risky behavior, and if you want to do it, have at you, but don't ask to be in my healthcare insurance group.

Also, people who insist on life-threatening hobbies should be COMPELLED to purchase special policies as a consequence of their activities, the same as insurance is required to drive a car.

have to cleanup the mess are almost unanimously in favor of the laws.

and the docs call any fool who rides one of those things without a helmet an ORGAN DONOR.

is repair the damage (if they can) and console the next of kin.

:sarcasm:

...I also consider giving Darwin awards to anyone dumb enough to not wear one. I feel for Pittsburgh and Steeler fans as they watch this all unfold and I hope for the best for QBer Ben R's recovery but....

When you ride a motorcycle you are NOT the only one out there on the road. In this particular case, I am not sure who was at fault but in general when you ride your motorcycle you share the road with thousands of other drivers (some of them pretty dumbass drivers to boot). I would not want to risk my life knowing that the dumbass heading towards me is some clueless driver chatting on the phone, drunk behind the wheel, distracted because he dropped the CD, etc. etc. etc.

I kid I graduated HS with was a member of ABATE and was leaving an ABATE rally when he ran into a horse while riding his motorcycle without a helmet. He did not survive that crash.

It's a personal choice whether to use a helmet or not but for those who choose not to then I think this is proof of Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest"

if the motorcycle rider is a helmet, he/she is less likely to be killed. Without a helmet, the motorcycle rider doesn't have much of a chance.

I don't know of what the case for a mandatory law would be.

I think only helmets are required if you're under the age of 18

I just meant that I haven't heard a case for making it mandatory. The only thing I can think of is that they would want to protect you by making you wear a helmet. If that is the whole case behind the law, I think it is weak.

21 in PA

:D

However if you don't ride with a helmet on, I think you're a damn fool with some sort of death wish. In addition, I think you are foolish if you don't wear protective gear when you're riding, a protective jacket, jeans at least, and heavy shoes or boots.

I also think that every single driver needs to have a class on how to share the road with any vehicle on two wheels. Apparently from the reports, the car that Roethlisberger hit turned left directly in front of him, my guess is that she either wasn't paying attention or didn't see him. This sort of shit happens all the time to those of us on two wheels. People in cars have absolutely got to start paying attention. A special class on how to pay attention, ie look carefully, stop being distracted by phones, passengers, eating, etc. etc. is in order. It would also help to teach drivers on how to share the road with riders, because from my experience and many others, a lot of drivers don't have a clue.

You've made a sort of push-poll here. The seat belt issue is just the same, and by that
invasion of the nanny state, then another advance must be just fine as well.

Let me know when you ban fatty foods, salt and sugar drinks for the primary cause of
death in the US, "heart problems"... its a bullshit argument, all so that the police
have increased powers to shake people down, and more probable cause to fuck with
people's lives.

I'm not calling for the ban or enforcement of anything. This poll is not scientific; it's on a message board for crying out loud.

So you voted no, then?

And the subject of the poll is the creeping police state, and how, during my lifetime,
a bunch of cowardly conformists have eroded the freedoms of our civil society to protect
us from our own decisions.

The drugs laws have been stepped up tremendously, with the same line of thinking, that
the state can protect us from ourselves, that by legislating morality, we're more moral,
when in fact, we are less moral for it. Our muscles of morality are increasingly untested,
and rather morality is to "conform" or to be "criminalized"... that is the new morality.

Here in scotland, i can stand in the garage bay with the mechanic whilst he works on my
car's exhaust, as the laws have not *yet* (its coming i'm sure) been perverted to make them
instituionally afraid for liability that i am not responsible for my choice to stand there
with the mechanic, and should i fall down on some grease, they are not held responsible,
as in scotland still, i make my own choices... and the law does not make them for me.

This civil erosion is a war on the sovereign citizen, and a much worse invasion of the
soul than the republicans, as it is systemic, and pervasive, that most persons here on
this board support this erosion, by your very poll... voting for safety, they don't have
liberty or freeedom... ben franklin coulda told 'em, and sheeple-think is alive and well here
on DU, like it is on CNN.

The regulations should apply, on cars, to having to install the seatbelts, and for motorcycles, the integrity of the helmet should be mandated.

But, if people want to ride helmetless, or drive beltless, i say we let them. We can't protect everyone from their own stupidity.

Now, let it be known that i ALWAYS wear a seatbelt, and when i had a motorcycle (i stopped riding when i developed MS), i ALWAYS wore a helmet. So, i appreciate the safety aspects added by these things.

But, if folks don't want to wear them, i figure they should be allowed to be stupid.
The Professor

Or for that matter any form of state assistance.

Although the state thing seems a bit harsh. Accidents do happen.

A question: Since earlier you said motorcycling is extremely dangerous, if someone WEARING a helmet still sustains head and neck injuries, rendering them paralyzed, would you have the same sentiment. Seems getting killed would have been cheaper. If no, and it's all about dollars and cents, why not?

The Professor

People just riding around with reckless abandon should get fucked in my opinion. They shouldn't get my tax dollars.

I suppose you don't think anyone else who ever does anything risky should be covered either?

:hi:

There is no right to ride a motorcycle on public roads, just like driving a car, it's a privilege that is contingent on certain criteria being met. Criteria that is determined by the government. Insurance, training, testing, licensing, age restriction, all of these mandatory and must be met before a motorcyclist can legally drive. We regulate virtually everything else there is about driving. There is no difference between those regulations and a helmet law. If civil liberties were truly the point here, then wouldn't there be an uproar over mandated testing, licensing, etc.?

Bikes today are vastly different than they were years ago. Speeds are much greater than before, some sport bikes can reach 185mph+. Helmet laws save lives and prevent serious injury. Repealing them costs lives. http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/helmet_use.html

It's not about protecting them from their own stupidity, it's about protecting us. Only approximately 50% of bikers have insurance that would cover an injury from a catastrophic crash. The cost of care for a patient with a traumatic head wound is astronomical. And ends up being covered by state in the absence of insurance. What about their children and families? I believe that they have a right to be protected from their parents' stupidity, even if their parents' don't.

I've seen too many accidents, the last being a sport biker who carried his helmet cargo netted to the side of his bike. He died on the side of the Kennedy. I'm sick of our dealership sponsoring charity events for families of injured or killed bikers. Especially when a large amount of those could have been avoided by a $150 helmet.

(Can you tell I feel strongly about this? ;-))

that was very well put! :) Kudos

Uninsured motorists... being sued by someone in a minor crash who was not wearing a helmet, and hit their head on the pavement.. thereby making an accident that should have been minor, fatal? It's not a choice if you want to ride on the roads with cars... like a seatbelt. I still cannot believe that people are stupid enough to drive without seatbelts.. but I see the accident reports all the time. 4 people in crash. 2 wearing seatbelts survive with little injury. 2 without, died after being THROWN from the vehicle. Same thing with the motocycles, exactly the same thing, BEING THROWN from the bike is the same as being ejected from a car... exactly the same.

Do you wear a seatbelt? Then why not a helmet??

statistic doesn't prove the argument as valid, me thinks

Just like it is illegal to sled down certain areas in the winter here in Wisconsin, laws need to be made to protect people from idiocy.

. . .from other people's stupidity. Hence, i support speeding laws, because a reckless speeder can kill others as well as him or herself.

I'm just not big on laws protecting people from their own idiocy. Just protect you or me from THEIR stupidity.
The Professor

In sports, athletes are forced by their teams to wear helmets and other protections. Motorcycling is a very dangerous proposition and as such special rules do need to apply. If not the law then insurance companies should revoke life and health insurance in the case that a motorcyclists don't wear helmets. I don't want these big claims paid to idiots who cripple or kill themselves just to prove how cool they are because when insurance companies have to pay big claims, they raise rates on all of us.

But, by the way, the actual impact of such accidents on all of our rates is really rather small. (Around $10 per year, IIRC.) I sort of think of it as the price of living with freedom. Remember, that insurance rates DON'T go down in states that enact helmet laws. The insurers have already included that in their cost models. If the laws are passed, they just make higher profits. The savings are not passed on to you and me!

But, if insurers said "No helmet, no insurance" then at least gov't isn't playing nanny. And the free marketeers would love it, because if just one insurer was willing to insure, at higher premiums, supplying the minimal demand, at much higher prices.

I just don't like the gov't having one more excuse to intrude on personal choice.
The Professor

a lunch tray? That's illegal too. I suppose you have a problem with that as well.

I want laws to protect us from other people's stupidity. I don't care if stupid actions result in bad things for stupid people.

Nuff said.
The Professor

"We'll tell you what you can do. It's for your own good."

The condition...Universal Health Care with ala carte for additional risky behavior.

I think you should be allowed to do whatever you want to do but not if I have to pay for it. My company is on a very small group plan in PA. Here your cost dependson the makeup of your group. If your group is made of all 50 year old smokers who ride motorcycles and skydive...your premium is insanely high. If you are 25 and in a group with 2 or 3 of those guys it's still insanely high.

The system is the problem.

I personaly think that people should have the freedom to do what they want. Don't wear a seatbelt. Don't wear a helmet. Smoke cigarettes and pot and jump out of a plane without a parachute. Whatever you want to do, in a free society, you should be able to do.

Unless it affects my life.

As long as we put a Health Insurance system in place where people take personal financial responsibilty for their own risks then I have no problem with people doing whatever the hell they want to. Just don't make me pay for it.

Most of them die from severe head trauma, so they should contribute something when they go.

EDIT: Of course nothing can trump their freedom of religion rights, so your suggestion really isn't possible. But I appplaud the sentiment.

(or her)

remember you freedom-loving-hate-paternalism-non-helmet-wearers - it was YOUR choice. Live with the consequences - don't come whining with lawsuits about brain damage that could have been avoided by wearing a helmet.

As at-fault party, I expect, under this helmet-choice hypothesis to NOT be expected to pay for any cost that would have likely been mitigated by the use of a helmet. Which would include things like blindness, death, brain damage, and other things.

Fair is fair.

This is a problem generally with the libertarian position. They want their absolute freedom when things are going well, but then when things STOP going so well (and they DO so stop a certain percentage of the time), they typically become a burden on the rest of us. It's a quite selfish position, libertarian.

but cause the vast majority of car/MC accidents.

The problem with your approach is determining how much a helmet would have prevented injury. Damn near impossible to do. Then there are the classic police reports saying that the a helmet would have prevented lessened injuries when the rider was cut in half by a guard rail...

To stay with your approach, there would also be "if he had a better helmet" argument. For example, if the MC rider you made the improper left turn in front of was wearing a 3/4 helmet and had facial injuries, would you want to escape paying for them since he was not wearing a full face?

Read up on the egg shell skull legal theory. If you are at fault, you/your insurance company is paying.

And figure that you do not see 30% of us.

No reasonable person tries to run riders down. Even the repuke from SD did not intend to hit anyone, but it does happen.

and a sheer blouse she bears at least some responsibility if she is attacked.

You are responsible for your actions while driving. If you are at fault when you hit a motorcyclist, bicyclist, or pedestrian you should be prepared to indemnify them for loss and injury. If you lack the ability to do so (no insurance or bond), don't drive. Anything else is irresponsible.

First, the mandatory remark about how stupid helmetless riders are.

Then, the mandatory joke--yuk, yuk--about organ donors.

Then, the ghastly and meanspirited insistence that unhelmeted riders be left to die if they are injured.

Then, the hyper-actuarial concern that one might pay an extra nickel because of unhelmeted riders.

I WANT TO INSPECT YOUR LIFE STYLES TO ENSURE THAT YOU NEVER MAKE A BAD CHOICE--AND I DON'T PAY FOR IT. BACK AWAY FROM THE COFFEE; IT COULD GIVE YOU CANCER. STEP AWAY FROM THE DONUT; IT COULD MAKE YOU FAT. STAY OFF THAT MOUNTAIN TRAIL; YOU COULD FALL. DON'T ENGAGE IN SPORTS ACTIVITIES; YOU COULD BE INJURED. AND DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GETTING ON THE HIGHWAY; THERE MIGHT BE AN ACCIDENT.

The non-helmet-wanters do.

Fine. Freedom comes with responsibility. In this case, no one but the beneficiary of the freedom should have to bear the marginal cost of said freedom.

As usual, the libertarian folks COMPLETELY disregard the "responsibility side of things, demanding nothing but freedom. And they leave it to society/others to pick of the costs of their selfish freedom.

I agree that helmet laws could save lives. I agree that motorcycle riders should, in fact, wear one.

However, I also think it's none of the government's fucking business whether or not people wear helmets. Period.

Hey, you know what else would save lives? If the government passed laws that we all had to remain indoors at night and check in with a government agent every morning. You know, just to make sure we're all OK.

What a bunch of crap. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and the like are far too easily made ridiculous by a simple slippery slope argument. It's tragic that some people don't wear helmets, but there's nothing the government should be able to do about it, because such laws should be beyond its purview.

Forcing people to wear a helmet is no different than forcing people to have insurance in order to drive a car.

Forcing them to have insurance protects YOU & ME from something THEY did wrong. If they hurt one of us, they have the means to pay for our return to health (assuming the worst hasn't occurred).

Laws that force people to protect themselves from harm are, it would seem, quite different than those that are intended to protect other people from harm.

Like i said in the other reply, there are other ways to do this, without gov't involvement.
The Professor

the disabilities they incur. Fair enough. I don't care if they have 200 children.

Why should the government force me to be insured? To safety my vehicle? To get my license? To use a child car seat?

If someone can put up a million dollar (or whatever) bond to cover all potential medical, administrative, legal, and burial expenses, I say let him or her decide whether or not to wear a helmet.

Have the law, but you can be exempt from the law if you sign a waiver stating that you would forgo state medical treatment if your injuries stem from not wearing a helmet. And you would be liable for rescue and emergency treatment costs.

... damages that could have been mitigated by wearing a helmet.

AND you agree to not do anything that hurts your childrens' futures (like draining your bank account to pay for injuries that could have been mitigated by wearing a helmet.)


Canuckistanian's notion was to prevent libertarian-i'm-my-own-man-don't-need-no-one-tellin-ME-what-to-do folks from becoming a burden to the STATE by their choices.

Here, I'm following up that thought by trying to ensure that they don't become a burden to (a) whoever hit them, and (b) their kids.

If you stick-it-to-the-man-don't-tread-on-me types want the freedom, rock on. Accept the responsibility. You don't get to pass the buck onto ANYONE else - it stops with you.

...are paying the cost when motorcycle riders crash and suffer costly injuries.

turning in front of them etc? Also that helmet protection drops significantly above 15 mpg (between the helmet and a hard object, not between the vehicles).

on the one side you have plain old commonsense: put a protective object between you and the point of impact.

on the other side you have the rights of the individual.

My issue is that there are far too many ways for a human being to harm him/herself via stupidity that if laws were passed to protect folks from their own bad decisions, the people would be smothered with rules and regulations.

(on purely a motorcycle level): where does it stop? helmets today. tomorrow? how about specific pants? gloves? ear protection? eye protection? foot protection? hand protection? how much protection is enough? what other private motorvehicle operator has the same level of personal restriction and/or equipment requirements?

Now, extend it even further: you are probably aware that a child on a bicycle can attain fatal impact speeds, not to mention an adult powered one. Will the same level protective equipment requirements be put in place there? if not, why not? I would hazard that there are more bicycle riders than motorcyclists.

IMO, it is not governments role to protect every person from every enventuality.

at the point of injury the taxpayer becomes part of the ''choice''.

and that ''choice'' today can mount up to hundreds of thousands of medical bills.

besides, if they're that stupid as to ride without a brain bucket- they probably vote repuke anyway. let them thin themselves out.

I support the right to be stupid.

about the specifics of motorcycle riding and accidents. Those that are claiming M/C helmets are the difference between life and death need to read the Hurt Report. Seminal document on MC accidents. Uniformly recognized as unbiased.

Subsequent to the report, there has been some spinning of the statistics. Numerous reports (which I can not verify) of cops being told to state that a helmet would have lessened injuries regardless of accident results (rider cut it half, etc.) Again, I can not find back up for this in print.

If you read the helmet testing standards (Snell and DOT), you realize that much above 15 mph in an impact with a hard surface, helmet protection is quite limited. While Snell is recognized as the higher standard, there is a growing opinion that in some cases Snell approved helmets are less protection that DOT or European approved helmets. This is quite controversial.

There is some concern that wearing a helmet is asking for a whiplash or other neck injury. There is some validity to that. Another oft heard concern about field of view is not valid. One item that almost everyone ignores is hearing damage, which motorcycles are great at. Despite that, there are laws in many states against wearing earplugs.

Going back to the Hurt Report, most MC/Car accidents are the fault of the driver, not the rider. Classic left turn/I did not see them. In those situations, Helmets are of moderate value at best.

What is often overlooked is the value of protective clothing. Ive seen more than my share of blood smears on the asphalt. Hot dogs who were wearing a helmet, with shorts and sneakers. One can bleed out from road rash and other non-cranial injuries. Lots of links for gory video and stills all over the 'net.

As for those concerned about having to pay for injuries that might have been preventable, look up the egg shell skull legal theory. You were going to pay anyway.

The military seems to have the best approach. It REQUIRES:
- Rider training (single biggest accident preventer)
- Long sleeves
- Gloves
- Reflective/bright colored outer garment or vest
- Over the ankle shoes with a heel
- DOT approved helmet
- Eye protection

I ride daily in Wash DC area traffic (50 mpg and no batteries). Helmet, boots and full protective gear. Even with that, I know one of these days, a stupid driver will get me, and claim its all my fault...

excellent post:

The MAIDS study in the UK, other than accounting for national differences (like driving on the other side of the road), mirrors the Hurt report pretty closely.

Helmets: The Snell and DOT testings do not really account for new changes in technology and make the adoption of new helmet technology a very slow process.

I too champion Rider training and beleive that it should be a mandatory component of the motorcycle licensing process. many states already support rider training thru an additional fee (usually very small) attached to motorcycle endorsements and registerations (in NC, an M endorsement costs $5 more than a "regular" license and the bulk of that goes to rider training subsidies)

One positive thing that has happened under Bush, in the latest highway bill, there is a provision to fund another "Hurt" style report (Dr Hurt has stated on numerous occassions that the study needs to be updated).

I don't think it says what you think it does about helmets:

Reprinted here for your information and use are the findings. The final report is several hundred pages. If you choose to have this document in your resource library, the order information is: Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report) This document is available through: The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures" Findings Throughout the accident and exposure data there are special observations which relate to accident and injury causation and characteristics of the motorcycle accidents studied. These findings are summarized as follows:

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most usually a passenger automobile.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In the single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

6. In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

9. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

10. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

11. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

12. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

13. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

14. Fuel system leaks and spills were present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire.

15. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

16. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three-fourths of all accident hazards are within 45deg of either side of straight ahead.

17. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

18. Vehicle defects related to accident causation are rare and likely to be due to deficient or defective maintenance.

19. Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented. Although the majority of the accident-involved motorcycle riders are male (96%), the female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

20. Craftsmen, laborers, and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders. Professionals, sales workers, and craftsmen are underrepresented and laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.

21. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data.

22. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

23. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

24. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

25. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

26. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.

27. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

28. Passenger-carrying motorcycles are not overrepresented in the accident area.

29. The driver of the other vehicles involved in collision with the motorcycle are not distinguished from other accident populations except that the ages of 20 to 29, and beyond 65 are overrepresented. Also, these drivers are generally unfamiliar with motorcycles.

30. The large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.

31. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

32. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

33. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

34. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely overrepresented in accidents.

35. Likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

36. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

37. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

38. The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, which are frequent but rarely severe injuries.

39. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

40. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

41. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

43. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

44. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

45. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

46. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

47. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

48. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

49. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

50. There is not liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

51. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

52. Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site. Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use.

53. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

End of Hurt Report Summary

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html

Those that work with the aftermath of motocycle accidents will tell you.. helmets save lifes. no helmets create organ donors.

the humidity is above 70 I would require ALL citizens to wear governmentally approved
overcoats, mittens and earmuffs because I'm sick and tired of my insurance rates rising
from the colds that often turn into pneumonia requiring hospitalization. (sarcasm aside,
I've been a rider for decades and a helmet saved my noggins twice from assholes in cars
pulling into my travel space). My answer is NO. Let evolution run it's course.

Why not let the helmetless morons de-select themselves?

By that standard why don't we just find everyone who has an IQ below 95 and put a bullet in their head? Let evolution run its course meanings killing off the weak in society. That's disgusting.

But allow me to back-pedal. Whether or not we should require helmets could be determined by a mathematical formula.

Legislate if:

Money from tickets collected + Value of organs donated > cost of cleaning up bloody mess + cost of caring for those who survive.

Insurance? Don't insure helmetless riders. I guess they could require additional care for the rest of their life, but the immediate trauma and injuries from the crash should not be covered at the very least.

He wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed. The impact caused fatal head injuries. This was in Dallas, Texas, circa 1985, when there were no helmet laws, and where drivers act as if they aim for the bikes on the road.

Riding to work here is a daily exercise in terror.

You might also want to consider that at speed while the cause of death may head injuries, helmets are far from perfect protection, and other injuries could well have killed them 30 seconds later. I have seen the coroner's report of a rider who died from a crushed skull while wearing a full face helmet and lost a leg as well (semi ran him over). Cause of death was head injury, but had his head been untouched, he was not going to survive anyway.

Helmets are also only one piece of protective gear. A friend went down recently in Wash State. He was saved by his armored riding suit, his helmet helped too, but without the armor he would have been ground to nothing on the pavement.

If you are interested, check out:
http://www.aerostich.com/catalog/US/Roadcrafter-One-Piece-Suit-p-16133.html

What's a good liberal to do? The folks who are stupid enough *NOT* to wear a helmet should probably be weaned out of the gene pool, anyway, but at the same time, I'm probably going to end up paying the cost of scraping them up off the street.

This seems to be in the "it should be common f*ck*ng sense" category (like wearing a seat belt, and using a child safety seat), but since at least half the population is "below average" in intelligence, it sounds like one of those things we need to make "a law" for because people really don't seem to have grasped that whole MASS TIMES VELOCITY = SPLAT concept (also known as "physics").

Maybe one of the requirements for getting a motorcycle license should be passing a high school physics course, and detailing out how impacts at what speeds do certain things to metal, bones, and brains?

:shrug:

Here's a cool link to get things started: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mflow.html

if they carry sufficient insurance to cover thier increased risk of brain injury. I'm okay with that, though I still think anybody riding without a helmet is a world class moron. People have the right to be stupid if they can sufficiently protect others from the risks of thier stupidity.

I also think that driver training for operators of cars should include more information about sharing the road with motorcyles, because some people do very stupid things around them when they see them at all.

I beleive Arkansas, Kentucky and Texas are the states that have the insurance compromise

correction, FL and TX are the 2 states

That's life in America.

I draw the line at making kids wear Helmut's when they ride their bicycles. That's a parental decision.

Kids should always see adults wearing helmets when they ride motoercycles so that they will be encouraged to wear them on their bicycles. If not, they argue that they shouldn't have to and we get unnecessary kid head injuries.
Beyond that, I have heard arguments when helmet law and subsidized health care issues issues were both at issue that it was reasonable to do away with both. If a person is not wearing a helmet- no health care if they are uninsured.
While, I can understand that they were trying to deal with the fact that a person who was irresponsible should not benefit from state health services, I have a problem with the idea of just letting them circle the drain and die.
If that's how they're going to deal with it, I would rather they mandate people wear helmet, both for the purpose of role modeling and because I fear that some believe that we are at a point where simply staying alive is actually a priviledge.

And more deaths = less motorcylcists = less noise

bans. We have fallen into the trap of being okay with our own opinions being legislated. If we are okay with this...then we should be okay with Roe V. Wade being overturned. I'm not ready to do that.

:hi:

then they had BETTER have a helmet on! You know, even if the motorcycle is at fault, you will still be sued. And.. statistics clearly show that even in a 35mph crash, a motorcyclist thrown onto pavement without a helmet, will usually suffer critical or fatal injuries. A car in the same collision.. the other driver would have minor injuries from an airbag. And.. the costs of medical care for severe motorcycle injuries not only drives all of our insurance rates up, but taxes (because of uninsured riders), as well.

It's like smoking.. or not wearing a seat belt. Do some people just organically have the inability to grasp basic common sense about mortality? You fly off of a moving vehicle at on a hard surface, and you land on your head.. you're probably going to die. Is it worth having the air whip through your mullett? I've lost friends in motorcycle accidents.. years ago when there were no helmet laws in California, and it was a filthy shame.

Rothliesberger was lucky, because he hit the windshield first, and did not have full impact on the ground.. it saved his life. Though seven hours of reconstructive surgery on his face is not exactly something to be happy about.

Let's legislate no busses.

They're not worried about having their brains splattered all over the pavement, but they're worried about a little traffic ticket?

Pfff.

Please don't regulate me like a freeper would.
It's a myth that your taxes will go up due to some asshole w/o a helemt having an accident.
Let them "thin the herd" on their own if they want, but don't bug me.

If you've ever ridden a bike, once in a while you've imagined the freedom involved with going sans helmet, but you were paranoid about it because you were giving johnny-law a reason to mess up your day.

While I don't totally agree with the no helmet law (in contrast to "buckle up - it's the law"), I do appreciate the freedom of choice, but I do cringe when I see a biker (I'm sort of brainwashed)

And if some a-hole wants to abuse the privelege and rip it in downstown traffic or catch bugs in his or her teeth or eyes - so be it.

As one who has ridden, please don't force this shit upon me like big brother.

You can bitch at me about my logic, but the bottom line is, I don't need the regulation where I am affecting myself.
If you are affected (your personal safety due to my ignorance - then that's a different matter).
If you want to bitch, lobby for car safety inspections in the state of Florida (where there are none) for example. (The guy beside you on A1A might have home repaired brakes or no emmissions testing).

I wear a helmet every single time I ride. I'm ATGATT (all the gear, all the time). To paraphrase an ex-girlfriend, the diaphragm still in your purse is highly ineffective.

BUT I won't tell you to wear one. I reserve the right to withhold pity when you're sipping life through a straw.

Many people who ride aren't commuting or riding in traffic. If you want to take an afternoon ride down a breezy scenic highway with little traffic, and want to feel the breeze in your hair, WTF is the problem?

If I were commuting on a bike, I sure as heck would be wearing a helmet. But if I were pleasure riding somewhere safe, I'd want the option not to wear one. My body, my choice.