Helmet law protest

[Ned]

Andy
Formal research - possibly not, but talk with or listen to all the reports from doctors in ERs around the world and they all say the same. Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle is serious enough. You can't say with any certainty when or where you may come off and slide into a solid object or bang your head on the road and even at 10mph the effect is often serious. I've landed on my chin just running up a path in the dark and was out cold for half an hour and had a nice concussion for days afterwards. (It was the beer effect that made me trip) I think it has been fairly conclusively proved that wearing a helmet saves a lot of damage. If it's such a big issue with human rights we could argue that having to hide your gonads in public is also an infringement - after all the worst things that could happen as a result of flapping them in the breeze: a dog rips them off, they freeze and drop off, an old lady takes a fancy to you and starts stalking you or they get caught in some machinery.

Second point - if you feel that the family of a victim of serious head injury is not impacted perhaps you need to find someone in this situation and talk to them. The public purse in most countries with anything like a welfare state is always hit by costs. We know in the US you can sue or be sued by anyone for for just about  anything if you can afford a lawyer and that without medical insurance an ambulance will leave you on the side of the road in favour of someone who has insurance but that isn't the case in most places.

Ned

[andyb]

Ned, I'm agreeing with you, to a point.  I'm a nurse, I do see a fair bit of the costs associated.  And yet, I will continue to say that if my neighbor wants to do something stupid, I will defend his right to do it, unless it costs me money (and therefore limits my freedom), or directly limits my freedom.  My argument is simple, that a helmet isn't going to save a fundamentally flawed system that expects people who cannot afford a service to recieve that service.  Skip worrying the helmets, and start worrying the costs.  I think the rest would sort itself out really nicely.  The problem that I have is the slippery slope argument.  More people die from car wrecks, for example, and it was discovered that seat belts can reduce that.  The reason why most of the US has seatbelt laws isn't that it saves lives, it's that it saves costs from those who weren't paying their bills after getting severely hurt.  Making seatbelts mandatory equipment happened, lives were saved and costs were cut.  As of next year, you cannot buy a car in the US without stability control, for the same argument.  I see that as a direct punishment to those who weren't crashing their cars, now they have to directly pay more for something because of a potential cost savings at the healthcare end. Why not go after the other end, and stop providing free services to those who cannot afford it?  Unprotected sex causes children, and that raises costs per capita much, much more than all of the head injury cases in the world.  Rather than ban everything that's unsafe for everyone, I'd rather see costs limited in a way that can raise quality of life for everyone, including those who don't induldge in unsafe practices.

[billwest]

One of my riding buddies had an off about a week ago.  Fortunately for him he was wearing a full-face helmet, because he slid, face down, along the pavement (read: highway).  He would have lost half his face without the helmet.  As it is, he lost a few of his front teeth due to the impact of helmet against his face.

My 2c.

Bill.

[Pat Conlon]

One of my riding buddies had an off about a week ago.  Fortunately for him he was wearing a full-face helmet, because he slid, face down, along the pavement (read: highway).  He would have lost half his face without the helmet.  As it is, he lost a few of his front teeth due to the impact of helmet against his face.

Yea Bill, that was me 4 weeks ago...sliding face down on Hwy 25. I didn't lose consciousness, I remember thinking that the asphalt looked like a giant pissed off belt sander as it was grinding away my face shield.... I shudder to think...

[RichBaker]

I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.

If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.

My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.

Vote for me in 2012  

Sorry Paddy, not on that ticket.....  Maybe if the hospitals weren't required to care for those without the insurance you specified, but I don't agree they should be required to carry that insurance. Nor with the theft of their property......

[billwest]

Yea Bill, that was me 4 weeks ago...sliding face down on Hwy 25. I didn't lose consciousness, I remember thinking that the asphalt looked like a giant pissed off belt sander as it was grinding away my face shield.... I shudder to think...

My mate also lost one of his pinkies, broke 4 ribs, has a badly lacerated knee, had to have a temporary tracheotomy, but is now on the mend.  He is in a spinal recovery ward, just in case.  He (aged late 60's) is looking forward to riding again..............

But, he is happy about the helmet!

[DailyDriver]

My mate also lost one of his pinkies, broke 4 ribs, has a badly lacerated knee, had to have a temporary tracheotomy, but is now on the mend.  He is in a spinal recovery ward, just in case.  He (aged late 60's) is looking forward to riding again..............

But, he is happy about the helmet!

Using the above example one could take it even further and argue that since riding a motorcycle is dangerous, helmets don't go far enough. Therefore all who choose to ride (regardless of helmet laws) should be required to have the insurance requirements as mentioned earlier along with the penalties for not doing so.

But why stop there?  Should a motorcyclist be required to wear certified full body protective gear at all times? The argument is the same IMO. ATGATT should be required in order to be consistent with the helmet argument. After all, a head injury is not the only thing that can rack up high medical costs(skin graphs, spinal cord injury, loss of limb) or cause  a lifetime of misery for the victim and their families and since motorcycles are inherently dangerous.... Those who are ATGATT, more power to you

Again, where does it stop? Do we want government telling us what extreme sports we can engage in or we must meet a government mandate on protective gear and insurance requirements?  People are free to make bad choices. It might not be fair, but I suppose that's one of the costs of living in a free society. JMHO So another question might be; "what freedoms and how much are we willing to give up so the government can save us from ourselves?" Slippery slope?

[Pat Conlon]

Again, where does it stop?
 People are free to make bad choices. It might not be fair, but I suppose that's one of the costs of living in a free society.
JMHO So another question might be; "what freedoms and how much are we willing to give up so the government can save us from ourselves?" Slippery slope?

Good discussion. Again...Don't confuse "freedoms" with "privileges". Everyone should be "free" to engage in hazardous activities......
Except where society deems it important to licence those activities, and grant that privilege to those who qualify, like flying a plane, or driving a car or riding a motorcycle. People are not "giving up their freedoms" by having to get a licence to fly a plane. The same with motorcycling.
IMHO, It is entirely appropriate, even fiscally prudent, for society to try and mitigate exposure to economic loss (along with health and life safety, etc) by putting conditions on that licencing.

The idea from Andy and Rich that strict insurance requirements for helmet less riders is unfair because our society already treats those injuries for free (at the cost of taxpayers) and Andy's concern about possible denial of care, are good points.

The "slippery slope" concern I think is the most valid. We have already started down it, where will it end?
When will health insurance for motorcycle riders become mandatory? Next year?
We already have other insurance requirements, it seems pretty simple to add a couple of new words to the existing law....
How about mandatory ABS brakes? oooops, nevermind.
Mandatory air bags for motorcycles? Honda would love that...

Modern society can not take a laissez-faire approach to motorcycle riding. That horse has already left the barn.

My idea was to strike some kind of balance between society's concerns and the individual's desire to ride without a helmet.
So perhaps, for now the best answer is NO....

That is until we socialize all medical care here in America. Free medical care for everyone, yea, that's the ticket.  

[weymouth399]

I think what Pats trying to say if you want to be stupid, then be responsable also.
You should have the right not to wear it or gear but don't expect me/us to pay for your rights when it goes bad.
Why should I pay for your rights. I respect that you can ride with out a helmet, so respect my rights not to have to pay for someone elses mistakes/rights.
If not, responsable goes to disrespect.

My 2 cents

Bob W

[Pat Conlon]

Succinct ... Thanks Bob.

[RichBaker]

Yep..... If they start adding more restrictions to us, then we need to push for a helmet law for cars. All occupants......
They have head injuries, too.   

[weymouth399]

Nope, but if everyone would take responsibility for their own action (good or bad) this would be a better place.
But because of all the bleeding hearts in this country that will never happen

And they already do put restrictions on us seat belts ring a bell.
You can have any right you think you should have as long as it doesn't cost others, for you to have it.

Bob W

[Ned]

Again, where does it stop?
 People are free to make bad choices. It might not be fair, but I suppose that's one of the costs of living in a free society.
JMHO So another question might be; "what freedoms and how much are we willing to give up so the government can save us from ourselves?" Slippery slope?

That is until we socialize all medical care here in America. Free medical care for everyone, yea, that's the ticket.  

I wouldn't encourage "free" medical care as the answer - you'll end up like NZ with lots of "compo kings" - individuals who live off state provided medical assistanc, paid for several times over by the tax payer, the employer and the motor vehicle owner in the form of compulsory Accident Compensation Insurance. It prevents us from suing anyone who may have caused us to have an accident but gets overused by certain sectors with "bad backs" etc. Many remain on it for their entire lives after serious accidents. It pays for most aspects of recovery except physio' has been removed.
We motorcyclists are often held to blame for the fund always being in the red and hence huge hikes in the fee for riding a bike. Also not a good scenario as we are now heavily penalised, well beyond the real cost and not fair since the majority of accidents it pays for are car and home related - like falling out of trees...
The whole topic of wearing the right gear is a matter of commonsense. Helmets have been compulsory here since the seventies. I've always worn one. It's even compulsory to wear one on a bicycle except it's seldom enforced. If they save you from serious injury then wear one. If you haven't got much to protect then you'll probably choose not to.

Ned

[Arnie]

Its my understanding that Michigan has just introduced a law removing the helmet requirement IF you hold a minimum of $100,000 in medical insurance.  I think this is probably a pretty good compromise for the base arguments of liberty vs  personal responsibility.

It is my opinion (and the case in most of the developed world) that medical care IS a right enjoyed by all citizens.  The US is the one out of step in this regard.  Then again, they still execute criminals, so......

As a "first-responder" that attends traffic accidents, I would rather not have to collect the remains from head impacts.  Containing them within a helmet is much more tidy and less revolting, though it does make CPR more difficult.

Arnie

[Ned]

As a "first-responder" that attends traffic accidents, I would rather not have to collect the remains from head impacts.  Containing them within a helmet is much more tidy and less revolting, though it does make CPR more difficult.

Arnie

....hence the expression "Brain Bucket"

Ned