Motorcycle helmet laws

[Darky]

You can tell the arguments that are fairly weak when people start exaggerating things...It makes no sense to say I don't need the gov't telling me what to eat. A helmet law isn't the next step towards Big Brother. I mean come one we can go the other way on this too, broaden our view to other laws. If we don't need the gov't to tell us to wear helmets and keep our brains in place, we don't need them to tell us not to do 150 down a residential street. Or we don't need to be told that we shouldn't keep loaded weapons concealed in our glove boxes. I mean come on we know if we're the type to get pissed and pull it out and shoot the guy who cut us off and we'll know well enough to leave the gun behind if we're a violent person like that. I know its wrong to murder so why should the gov't tell me not to kill? See where I'm goin with this? Yeah, its silly and makes no sense but neither does the argument I don't need the gov't telling me to be safe, or what to wear, watch, eat sleep, whatever. There's many laws around largely to make some money, but they're not there unless they have some benefit for society as well. What I'm seeing mainly is just a mistrust of gov't and such...

 

[copperhead]

Ed A. Stevens wrote:

Can we legislate a federal law that any state that implements a mandatory helmet law is also required to demand all drivers to carry a motorcycle license endorsement (with motorcycle safety training a requirement to gain the motorcycle license endorsement)?

While it would be nice, I realy wouldn't want the governments mandating something like that. Would it help? I think it would do more for motorcycle riders than helmet laws. If the government helmet laws are justified by helping riders, then I see no problem with a law requiring a MC endorcement. Someone else said that since I wear a helmet, the laws realy don't affect me. I have a motorcycle endorsement, so a law requiring people to get one won't affect me.

I live in a state that only those under 18 have to wear a helmet. I still wear a full faced helmet. It is my choice, and should remain my choice.

BlackSport96 wrote:
Or we don't need to be told that we shouldn't keep loaded weapons concealed in our glove boxes.

Your right, we shouldn't be told that. I have kept a loaded firearm in my glovebox on a number of occasions. I have been cut off on numerous occasions and haven't gone after anyone. I was once cut off by some rednecks in a jacked up Bronco. I hit my horn because they weren't paying attention and almost ran me off the road. They responded by, putting their Bronco in reverse and tried to back over my VW Gti. I had a loaded gun on me, and still did not pull it out and shoot them. My life was in danger and they were technicaly assaulting me with a dangerous weapon. Luckily I have quicker responses and managed to get around and away from them.

If we don't need the gov't to tell us to wear helmets and keep our brains in place, we don't need them to tell us not to do 150 down a residential street.
<snip>
I know its wrong to murder so why should the gov't tell me not to kill? See where I'm goin with this?

The problem with these arguments are that shooting/killing someone and excessive speeding in crowded areas directly put other members of the public in danger. Riding with or without a helmet affects the rider, not the public. The argument that it affects the riders family is rediculous, as then you can argue to ban MC riding and off-roading as injuries gained in these activities can affect a family.

Copperhead

 

[Darky]

A law to wear a helmet doesn't restrict you from riding whereas saying no bikes or off-roading does restrict your activities. You wrecking and possibly dying or becoming a vegetable wouldn't affect your family? When I made the argument about the loaded gun in the glove, my point was this: You may have the self-control and smarts to leave it there in a situation like the one you told, however, lets say its reversed and you cut the rednecks in their jacked up bronco off. Who's to say that guys who'll try to run you over wouldn't try shootin at ya? Most laws that tell us not to do this cuz we could hurt are in place for the few idiots out there who need to be told not to do something dangerous. And yes, if they would do it without the law they'd probably do it with the law but then at least the gov't has something to go on when they get caught or do something stupid and put the person away or take their weapon. Anyways, you completely missed the whole point behind what I was saying with those ideas. I wasn't trying to advocate a society with no laws. What I was saying was that people who say take helmet laws and then say the natural progression is for the gov't to tell us what to wear or that veggies save lives by making us healthier but we don't need the gov't telling us to eat them, are just being ridiculous and making nonsense arguments.

 

[copperhead]

BlackSport96 wrote:
You wrecking and possibly dying or becoming a vegetable wouldn't affect your family?

Me wrecking my bike, with or without a helmet will affect my family. My point is that all activities we do affect our families. Suggesting that riding helmetless will hurt ones family, ignores all of the other possibilities. I ride bikes, climb and rappel, go hiking, shoot, and scuba dive. All these pose a danger that can affect me and my family. Focusing on only riding helmetless is why I think that type of argument has no real merit.

When I made the argument about the loaded gun in the glove, my point was this: You may have the self-control and smarts to leave it there in a situation like the one you told, however, lets say its reversed and you cut the rednecks in their jacked up bronco off. Who's to say that guys who'll try to run you over wouldn't try shootin at ya? Most laws that tell us not to do this cuz we could hurt are in place for the few idiots out there who need to be told not to do something dangerous. And yes, if they would do it without the law they'd probably do it with the law but then at least the gov't has something to go on when they get caught or do something stupid and put the person away or take their weapon.

They might have tried to shoot me, but it is wrong for the government to take away their right to carry because they "might" do something. There are already laws and punishments on the books for unjust shootings.

[QUOTE}Anyways, you completely missed the whole point behind what I was saying with those ideas. I wasn't trying to advocate a society with no laws. [/QUOTE]

Maybe I missed your point. What it looked like you were saying, was that we need the government to pass "common sence" laws to preempt possible illegal activities. I disagree with laws designed take away peoples rights because someone "might" do something illegal. For example: As a US citizen, I have the right to posess and carry a firearm. I do not believe the government has the right to tell me I can't. If I unjustly shoot someone, they there are laws for that. By telling me I can't, the government is taking away my right to use a firearm to protect myself and my family.

I understand that someone stating the government might as well pass laws forcing us to eat greens sounds ridiculous, but it was made to suggest that line of logic could be taken to the extreme. There should be no laws passed that are there to simply protect a person from themself.

-Copperhead

 

[Darky]

I'm fully in the belief that guns are our right and the gov't has no business saying not to carry, but there's a reason they have the whole concealed carry deal going. That way they can at least be sure that the only people legally carrying a concealed weapon within easy reach have been checked out and aren't likely to do anything stupid. That kind of law is to protect us from the potential psychos. I also understand what your saying about dangerous activities and such but the gov't doesn't stop you from riding, it tells you to wear a helmet.
My point was to show that while that line of thought (eat your veggies) can be taken to the extreme so can the line of thought I don't need common sense laws.

 

[thecroat1]

No. Most accidents on race courses do not correlate to accidents outside the course. You could say the accidents on the course are more structured. *grin* Also most helmet makers at one time sold a collar to wear under the helmet to limit the neck accidents. NASCAR helmets incorporate something of this nature today if I remember correctly. (And I may not.)

Never seen neck protection used by any racer. Also, have you ever seen a high side at around 100 mph? Looks pretty unstructured to me. Most land face first or on their shoulder/head. If that doesn't cause the helmet to fracture your neck, I don't know what will. Hell, injury statistics from the Isle of Man (if they are running it still) would be a great way to test helmet effectiveness. As far as comparing NASCAR and motorcycle racing. Apples and oranges. . . . The reason NASCAR drivers need the neck stablization is because their body is strapped firmly into the car which causes the head to snap a lot more violently when the vehicle impacts another object. . . . .

Actually not the same materials. Both the shell and the padding are usually different from a low buck helmet to a high buck one.

Jeeeezzzzzz, go to www.AGV.com and compare their $200 - $300 street helmets with their $500 race helmets. Same materials used in the same method. The only reason the race helmet costs more is because it has Rossi's (or whoevers) paint scheme on it.

Well, Snell asks for at least 4 helmets to test but a lot of times only recieve one. This really doesn't allow complete testing but they go ahead. . .If the maker believes that helmet will pass the test because it's close in construction/design to another he may just slap the certification on the helmet.

Would really love to know where you are getting all of this information and how old it is. Just to set the record straight about how Snell tests helmets:

http://www.smf.org/testing.html

Partially so. I don't like them AND I don't believe that at highway speeds they do much for anyone safety-wise...unless it's in the riders head. I also don't have $200 to spend on a helmet which the maker says you should replace ever few years or if it rolls off the bike.

dmillion sums it well in a short sentence.

Fair enough. . . I'm wondering though why you still wear a helmet 50% of the time? I say put your money where your mouth is. Go out to your garage and throw every helmet you own into the garbage can. Aviator goggles and winter head gear should serve you just fine in cold/inclimate weather. Additionally, if you have children that ride throw theirs away, too. . . .

 

[Darky]

I think I know what neck protection Sarge is talking about in NASCAR. They have a harness that straps the head down - not tightly enough to restrict movement, just enough to keep the head from flying around all over the place. Its said that that would've saved Rusty. However it has nothing to do with the helmet causing injuries. Its due to the g-forces inflicted upon the neck where it connects to the head.

 

[thecroat1]

I think I know what neck protection Sarge is talking about in NASCAR. They have a harness that straps the head down - not tightly enough to restrict movement, just enough to keep the head from flying around all over the place. Its said that that would've saved Rusty. However it has nothing to do with the helmet causing injuries. Its due to the g-forces inflicted upon the neck where it connects to the head.

Rusty Wallace is dead? Or do you mean Dale Ernhardt (sp?)?

 

[8Mud]

My Helmet of choice is an old Bell, actually a drag racing helmet. Heavier than heck. Full face, the sides come down almost to my shoulders, shoulders of my leathers are padded to absorb some compression, from the helmet and help some, with compression injuries, on the backbone and neck. I sent my helmet off to Bell ,everytime I´ve had a wreck, they sent it back with a clean bill of integrity.
Just for the cost of the dental work I´ve had (from a helmetless wreck), I probably could have purchased 20, top of the line helmets. The dental and med bills together, I could have probably have purchased, 40 race quality, complete leather, boot and helmut sets.
My last wreck was at 40-45 MPH, came out of it with two dislocated fingers. The helmut, leathers and boots (after I wised up some), probably kept me alive long enough, to gain some experience. I´d learned enough to jump well clear of the bike and roll when I hit, fraction of a second, has to be almost instinctive. Sure didn´t have the knowhow, when I was younger, stupider and helmetless.
Like most other things, falling off a bike, is a learning curve (professionals do it all the time). The trick is staying alive long enough too gain some experience.
I have no stats to back this up, only experience. If you wreck at much over 80 MPH, your probably gonna die or wish you were dead. Doesn´t take much to crush a skull, know a guy that did it, falling off of his skate board. Helmet has to help, at least in low speed wrecks.
Personally I´m glad there is a helmet law, I crindge, when I see the youngsters, make almost exactly, the same dumb assed mistakes, I made when I was young. Least we can do, is try and nudge (with common sense laws) people into the position, to live long enough, to make some new and original dumb assed mistakes.

 

[Sarge]

Never seen neck protection used by any racer. Also, have you ever seen a high side at around 100 mph? Looks pretty unstructured to me. Most land face first or on their shoulder/head. If that doesn't cause the helmet to fracture your neck, I don't know what will. Hell, injury statistics from the Isle of Man (if they are running it still) would be a great way to test helmet effectiveness. As far as comparing NASCAR and motorcycle racing. Apples and oranges. . . . The reason NASCAR drivers need the neck stablization is because their body is strapped firmly into the car which causes the head to snap a lot more violently when the vehicle impacts another object. . . . .

Sorry wasn't clear enough on a few points. I said the helmet makers USED to make a collar. I've seen a few old ads from long ago. The bike racers do not wear and never have worn a collar due to the fact you can't turn your head then. This is why the idea didn't last BTW. And yes, I've seen a highside. It's is different from a road rider simply because in most tracks there are no curbs. There are runoff areas. The helmet will and has caused damage when the body or shoulders hits the ground and the head/helmet land on a curb or elevated surface.

Jeeeezzzzzz, go to www.AGV.com and compare their $200 - $300 street helmets with their $500 race helmets.

I was referring to the cheap helmets. Sorry but 200-300 aint cheap.

Would really love to know where you are getting all of this information and how old it is. Just to set the record straight about how Snell tests helmets:

I'm familiar with how Snell tests their helmets. Two years ago or so I made a living (not a good one) selling leather gear to bikers. At two separate venues I was close to a booth set up by Snell and had a chance to talk to the gent. They request four helmets from every helmet maker wishing Snell certification and usually get the four. But every so often they do not. They will test as they can in those cases. BTW the comment about the g-meters earlier was for neck related injuries not the head impact. They've used those for a while by now. A British company has a headform with g-meters in the head and neck and has shown some tenative results. Now, that was probably 4-5 years ago and I've heard nothing from them since.

Fair enough. . . I'm wondering though why you still wear a helmet 50% of the time? I say put your money where your mouth is. Go out to your garage and throw every helmet you own into the garbage can.

The 50% figure was from factoring in winter riding. I do ride year round. I'll wear it in temps under roughly 40F. If our group (Bikers Against Child Abuse) rides to visit a child I wear the helmet simply to prevent some LEO from pulling over the entire group to get to me. I usually wear a ballcap with the bill ripped off and a pair of "Sun, Wind, Dust" goggles from the military. No garage BTW. *grin*

Sarge

 

[Sarge]

view to other laws. If we don't need the gov't to tell us to wear helmets and keep our brains in place, we don't need them to tell us not to do 150 down a residential street. Or we don't need to be told that we shouldn't keep loaded weapons concealed in our glove boxes.

Now those are just two very stupid arguments. The law against doing 150 in a residential is to protect the many from the few. As is intended. The law for the loaded weapon in a glovebox has many implications. It may discharge in an accident. It's accessible by a minor or someone not trained in its use. A very different issue altogether.

Sarge

 

[thecroat1]

Sorry wasn't clear enough on a few points. I said the helmet makers USED to make a collar. I've seen a few old ads from long ago. The bike racers do not wear and never have worn a collar due to the fact you can't turn your head then. This is why the idea didn't last BTW. And yes, I've seen a highside. It's is different from a road rider simply because in most tracks there are no curbs. There are runoff areas. The helmet will and has caused damage when the body or shoulders hits the ground and the head/helmet land on a curb or elevated surface.

Plenty of curb, cobblestone, and rock walls at the Isle of Man. Additionally, dirt track events (AMA) usually have very little in the way of run off areas and are very unpolished. Hell, one of the tracks had a barbed wire fence running along the back straight until the mid 90's if I remember correctly. . .

I was referring to the cheap helmets. Sorry but 200-300 aint cheap.

Buy a Geo and you get Geo level performance and safety. . . .

I'm familiar with how Snell tests their helmets. Two years ago or so I made a living (not a good one) selling leather gear to bikers. At two separate venues I was close to a booth set up by Snell and had a chance to talk to the gent. They request four helmets from every helmet maker wishing Snell certification and usually get the four. But every so often they do not. They will test as they can in those cases.

They should receive four helmet for initial certification, but they also continue to do random checks with helmet purchased through retailers.

"Every so often"? How long is that? Also, no mention whether they actually pass them. Great reasoning and logic, "Some guy at some motorcycle venue snell booth told me once that 'every so often' they only get one helmet to test that they may or may not certify. And if they certify they will spot check at a later date; therefore, most helmets do not meet standards."

I find it ironic that you have enough money to buy/sell, and I assume, wear "biker leathers", but don't have enough money to buy a decent $200 helmet. . . . . :doh:

BTW the comment about the g-meters earlier was for neck related injuries not the head impact. They've used those for a while by now. A British company has a headform with g-meters in the head and neck and has shown some tenative results. Now, that was probably 4-5 years ago and I've heard nothing from them since.

These are the studies that I keep asking for? Weak. . . . Maybe, just maybe, their tests showed that there was no significant risk of neck injury from the helmet. I know it is crazy, but just imagine for a second. . . .

The 50% figure was from factoring in winter riding. I do ride year round. I'll wear it in temps under roughly 40F. If our group (Bikers Against Child Abuse) rides to visit a child I wear the helmet simply to prevent some LEO from pulling over the entire group to get to me. I usually wear a ballcap with the bill ripped off and a pair of "Sun, Wind, Dust" goggles from the military. No garage BTW. *grin*

Sarge

Sarge, my fellow brother of the moto wheel, just admit it. There is no 'partially' about it. You don't like helmets for purily aesthetic reasons. . .


-TheCroat "I'm a helmet Nazi" 1

 

[Darky]

I think the main difference in view here isn't wuite the law itself but those who want the choice not to wear a helmet haven't yet realized that not all people are as smart as them. I mean, should we legalize heroin and sell it at Wal-Mart? Cuz I mean come on we should have the choice. Why should the gov't outlaw drugs and tell me not to take them? If I shoot up with some heroin an OD, yeah I'll die, but it'd be my choice. We don't need no one making common sense laws saying that drugs are bad, m'kay? Who's it gonna hurt? Just me and that's ok.

 

[8Mud]

Was doing some rough number crunching the other day. I´ve probably got a half million miles on a bike.
Would be interesting to do a group photo of say 30 riders, with there MC, gear on, with a half million miles. Then another at say 250,000 and maybe a series in 50,000 mile increments. All the way down to people that didn´t live through the first year. Would probably give a person, a good idea of what works and what doesn´t.
Somebody mentioned the Darwinian process. Trouble with that reasoning is, if you choose to ride with flip-flops, shorts and a wife beater undershirt, your little brother will probably do just the same.
I see a guy riding with no helmut, or some plastic piece of junk on his head. I see the glow in the eyes of the young guys standing on the curb, watching and thinking about how cool it is to ride a bike and always wonder, how many are gonna live long enough to reproduce.
If you really think, you have the talent or are lucky enough to survive, riding a bike for decades, without a helmet, fine. Ignore the law, take your chances, for whatever reason. But you might stop and think for a minute or two, about the guys out there, that want to be just like you, without your skill and/or luck, that are gonna copy you and just might not make it, because of your example.
Personally, cool for me, is survival. Un cool is staggering in the middle of the street, spitting teeth and bleeding all over the place.
Seen a buddy have a really cool wreck awhile back, went through the back window of a station wagon. Full leathers, helmet, gloves and boots. Walked away from it. Went in the back window, opened the rear passenger door and stepped out onto the street, cool. :thumbup:

 

[Darky]

Went in the back window, opened the rear passenger door and stepped out onto the street, cool. :thumbup:

Now that would be something to see...
As for the rest of the post, agreed. What works for those who have the skill, won't work for those who don't. Thinking you're the only affected by your actions in any situation is foolish. And yes there's other dangerous activities but they aren't on gov't owned and maintained roads, that's why they can step in and say wear a helmet.

 

[Sarge]

Great reasoning and logic, "Some guy at some motorcycle venue snell booth told me once that 'every so often' they only get one helmet to test that they may or may not certify. And if they certify they will spot check at a later date; therefore, most helmets do not meet standards."

He was one of the Snell testers, had his business card but have since lost it. I seem to recall that the smaller helmet makers are the ones who tend to not send 4 helmets. If the ones or one they do send manages to survive the testing they cert it. Most don't make it.

I find it ironic that you have enough money to buy/sell, and I assume, wear "biker leathers", but don't have enough money to buy a decent $200 helmet. . . . . :doh:

I sold for a company. I worked the brickfront store here in St Louis and went on the road to various rallys, swaps, etc. as needed. They provided the inventory, the transpo, the fuel, credit card and so on. Worked commission so it was a real incentive to sell. Usually slept in the truck or a dive as I had pay for the room. I made money on the road. As for my leathers, I bought the chaps almost 5 years ago for under $100. The vest was a present but I know where it was bought and the cost since they used my discount ($45). The jacket is a present also and is a cheapie ($99). All my boots are over 5 years old. I went thru a divorce about 3 years ago. Since then money is a luxury.

Sarge, my fellow brother of the moto wheel, just admit it. There is no 'partially' about it. You don't like helmets for purily aesthetic reasons. . .

Not only of the wheel but didn't I read you were/are a Marine? OK, my reasons for helmet hates/dislikes if I were to list by order of preferrance/percieved importance:

1. Shouldn't be required to wear the damn things. Get the gov out of my life for little things.

2. Not convinced they do much to protect the rider. Don't believe most helmet makers care either.

3. Uncomfy for me on any ride over a few miles. Give me headaches and a sore neck. Can't frickin' see to the side in full faces either.

4. Looks? Aesthetic? Not me dude, don't care who thinks I look wierd, odd, funny, whatever. If I like it I wear it. Ask my wife bout my taste in shirts. LOL!!!

As for the studies and such, I really don't get to spend much time on the web so I don't have time to look them up for ya. I spent some time with our local MRo and compiled the studies then. They have decided to use the argument of freedom of choice instead in pursuing the issue BTW.

Sarge

 

[Sarge]

Was doing some rough number crunching the other day. I´ve probably got a half million miles on a bike.

Welcome to the company. A lot of folks can say that.

Would be interesting to do a group photo of say 30 riders, with there MC, gear on, with a half million miles. Then another at say 250,000 and maybe a series in 50,000 mile increments. All the way down to people that didn´t live through the first year. Would probably give a person, a good idea of what works and what doesn´t.

Well, the one who didn't survive the first year would most likely be young (17-24), male, either unlicensed or newly licensed, on a new or borrowed bike (most often borrowed), and alcohol is involved in more than 50% of those cases. Riders for so long said that the biggest danger was from an inattentive driver. Seems the numbers don't agree. Don't get me wrong, it's still one of the top items. But alcohol is number 1. Believe it is with cars/trucks as well.

There are folks who have lived in helmet free states for many years who have never wore a helmet and only own a bike. They ride many, many miles and seem to still be kicking. Not dead as you seem to believe.

Hell, look at most Asian countries. Bikes are a huge thing there. Doesn't really matter if the bike is a little bitty thing or a big ol' Hog. They rack up incredible miles, most without helmets, in some of the most appalling traffic around and manage to keep their heads.

You want to help new riders? Stress riders training courses. Tell them to start small and work up. Don't trust anyone with four or more wheels and don't trust most of the folks out there on two or three either.

Sarge

 

[thecroat1]

Not only of the wheel but didn't I read you were/are a Marine?

Nah, never a Devil Dog; I believe "BlackSport96" is a Marine. I'm ex-AF, so I guess more like your snobby cousin that you can barely tolerate at the family reunion.

Thanks for a pretty good debate, man. . . I hope you rack up another 500,000 more miles (you just better be wearing a helmet if I come across you ) .

Later

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

I´ve probably got a half million miles on a bike.

Good civil discussion (where people can agree to disagree).

I probably come up short on the half-million miles, but with many years on two-strokes (on and off-road) riding all through high school and college and touring in the years after school the tally is well into the six figures (with the luck of only small seat exits).

Is it interesting how things change over time (like what is acceptable attire for the budding motorcyclist)? I have been riding since I was a wee tyke (I had to search for a photo of me on a bike without a helmet).

Yes, I was too young to own a bike but not too young to experience the acceleration of a dry clutch (old H-D's combined with a lack of respect were death traps). I am the seated tyke, an Uncle is the proud owner of the (then new) 900cc H-D special (who still rides H-D's, and has well over a million miles of seat time).

Who else has photos from the pre-helmet age of riding (and is still alive)?

 

[8Mud]

From a very early age, I raised my kids with a few, non negotiable rules. No drugs, no driving (or riding with) a driver that´s been drinking, no touching my guns, both feet on the floor when looking out the second floor window (for the younguns), no unprotected sex (for the teens). There were a few others, non negotiable, no arguement, guaranteed ass whipping rules.
Most everything else was negotiable. If my son ever gets a bike, I´m gonna add, a quality helmet to the non negotiable list.
When I´m 80 and he´s forty, if I can catch him, I´lI still whip his ass, for riding without a helmet.
Was a kid with a new Yamaha, crotch rocket. Made it a point to ride by my garage, no helmet, hair in the breeze, while I was wrenching on my junk. Used to hit the corner, fire it up and go through the first three gears like and idiot. More than a few times, I thought, I should go talk to him and maybe try and wise him up some. Came down the street, looked in my garage, hit the corner, never made it to third gear, T-boned a car, killed him and the car driver (left two orphans), always felt, if I would have said something, he may have lived at least a little longer. Possible a helmet, would have helped him live long enough to grow some smarts.
But then, I think about the youngster on another board, he was posting, about removing the track bar on his YJ. Told him it was a bad idea. Two months later he rolled it and died.
Figured out a long time ago, you can tell them, but you can´t make them listen.
Of the six friends I´ve burried, that died on a bike, a good helmet could have probably saved two of them. Raising your survival quotient by thirty percent, seems like a good thing to me. Granted my sampling is a little small, but the numbers are probably indicative.