See the statistics in the articles that Shadow posted here a few days ago...
https://cbrforum.com/forum/off-topic...y-drum-139487/

 

I think the problem here is that everyone assumes that mandatory helmet laws are just "another way the government is trying to control you". I don't see it that way. I see it as the government trying to save lives, because people are too stupid to do it for themselves. Until motorcycle safety can be taught properly, and people start holding a higher regard for their own well-being, then I have no problem with mandatory helmet laws.

This I disagree with. If the government didn't help protect its people, what's the point if being there in the first place? Government intervention goes far beyond a simple helmet law. A statement such as this is far too broad.

 

it's okay... you just didn't read right. it's not government's job to protect people from THEMSELVES.


and you're right when you say protect it's people. it's totally the job of the gov't to protect it's people. that's why we have a military, that's why we have laws like "you can't kill your neighbor", but in this country, where we value our freedom as much as we do - and that comes from minimal gov't intervention, we don't need to have victimless crimes. and one of those is the "helmet law"

it's your responsibility to gear up, just like it's your responsibility to make sure there's enough air in your tires, to make sure your bike is in a safe and working order.

if you disagree, before you know it, you'll have a MOT like england - where they practically have to get the queen's permission just to change the oil in their own vehicle.

and when you say that it's the government's job to make sure joe schmoe wears his helmet - it comes out of your pocket which practically means joe schmoe's safety is your responsibility

it sure as hell isn't my job to make sure you gear up. and i will NOT give my tax dollars to fund some comission to figure out how dangerous not wearing a helmet actually is, then to pay the beaurocrats in washington (or state gov'ts) to debate and pass helmet legislation when they should be using their wages (our tax dollars) to solve ACTUAL problems.


you'll find that most riders that don't wear helmets fully understand what they're doing. i mean, it's just about as common sense as it gets.

let insurance companies dictate what kind of coverage you get if you're involved in an accident not wearing a helmet. it's quite simple - if you're not wearing a helmet when you go down, you don't get paid for your medical.


i'm not trying to come down on you, but society should not burden itself with the safety of consenting adults who are in no way harming others

 

Should be law.

Just like lights and turn signals, seatbelts and airbags are.

Its not always about protecting 'themeslves'. Sometimes its about protecting 'us'.... the tax payers, the insurances buyers, the general public.

Since they lifted the law here in FL, for no other reason but to gain income thru bike events (Bike Week,Race Week,Bikoberfest) BTW, deaths and head related injuries due to lack of head protection went absolutely THRU THE ROOF immediately. Something like 800-1000 percent increase IIRC.

Who does that impact?

Everyone. From insurance costs, to health costs to law enforcement and all the addtional loads it puts on the system.

It very idealistic to say "We can't or we shouldnt regulate stupidity" but we do and we have. And as society continues to spiral head fast towards the lowest common denominator, we will even more to protect the rest of 'us' smarties.

IMO.

 

(BTW: your stat about florida isn't right. it was 55% (from the CDC), not 800-1000%)

i disagree. it doesn't save any money from a taxpayer's position to have helmet laws. it's nice to think so - and i see the "somewhat" logic in it.

but for the people who do NOT want to wear helmets, they wear this



instead of how we are thinking here where most sporty riders, standard riders, and adventure riders wear this




as you can see - that's not going to save her from very much - but it's DOT approved. and don't you think thats hypocritical? we have a department made to make things safe - they tax helmet companies in order to get their DOT APPROVED stamp, but it's not going to save you anymore than not wearing a helmet. then add that they take our tax money as well to fund their operations. so you pay for it when you buy the helmet and when you get a job and get paid. {not counted in true costs}


then take in to consideration that she's wearing a spaghetti strap tank top (i think that's what they're called). is that going to help her? what's next, mandatory jackets


i'm sure head traumas do go up without helmet laws. but that doesn't mean less cost to taxpayers. take this picture


DOT helmet saves the pee sized brain he has, but he breaks his neck in an accident (oh, btw, the spinal injury risk goes through the roof when you wear a helmet {not counted in true costs}, so that's a pretty good statistical bet about what happens to him)

if he wasn't wearing a helmet, he probably would die at the scene - or at least, the odds are higher. but with that helmet keeping his cerebellum in tact enough to tell his heart to still beat, think about how much more the costs go up when the EMT's ask for that life flight. {not counted in the true costs}

because of how doctors are compelled to act by their hippocratic oath {<-not counted in true costs}, i can guarantee you costs will NOT go down if you have more people surviving the initial accident. think about how much therapy he's going to need. ya, it saved his melon, but his spine will be as crooked as a politician


i want to know who's insurance has gone down because a state added a helmet law? because when michigan added their helmet law the first time - no insurance went down {not counted in true costs (because they tell you your insurance will go down!)}. the costs of insurance related to helmet laws is immaterial when compared to related to the number of accidents. that's how insurance premiums go up - accidents, not injuries. and like i said - an easy thing to say is that if you go down without a helmet on, you don't get paid for your head trauma. and as far as liability, im sure that there are many more costs to people that are severely injured-but survived than the bureaucrats and studies say there are because of how long the scope of a catastrophic accident is.


lights and turn signals do not fall into the arguement because that does affect me. its ways of communication. but come on man, you're in florida, you know that turn signals aren't required on motorcycles. and you only have to have one mirror. shouldn't that be taken care of first?
hell, forget that, don't you think that we should all as riders be forced to buy insurance in florida? because it's not required {not counted in true costs}.... unless you wear a helmet. and if just one rider survives a life of not wearing a helmet - that guy DOES help keep your insurance down more than a guy who gears up every day and rides without insurance, because, at least he's in the pool.


people are going to get torn up in cars and motorcycles, regardless how safe we try to make them and how slow we say they need to travel as a society. but, the seatbelt law and helmet laws are like putting band aids on a much bigger problem





don't get me wrong though. wear your helmet.

 

o... and europe has the laws already. deaths and injuries (even when adjusted for growth of motorcycling population) are still on the rise despite the plethora of laws they have in order to try and make it safer.


they've even tried to make it to where you can't modify your motorcycle - you aren't supposed to run anything other than OEM - even tires!


none of it's worked. not even the helmet laws. you can't legislate safety like the gov't wants you to think they can



and europes motorcycle related medical costs and insurance sure aren't less than ours either.

 

I was just living in a non helmet state, Wearing my helmet half the time. I now moved to Cali. 3 weeks ago dropped my bike and these are the helmet scars. I probably would have had hair loss and brain damage at the very least. Thank god there is a helmet law here. My melon would have been f'd!!

 

The first bike week I recall after the law change something like 15 people died alone which was something like 10 or 12 more than the previous year. The other events throught out the year followed similarly. My brother works in the ER here ,I've heard and seen it all first hand. Its a travesty IMO.

Split all the hairs you like but it cost EVERYONE when people die who should not have.

Take seatbelts and airbags out of cars and get back to me with the results.

 

Its sad to think that way but unfortunately with out certain laws, people tend to be less...... smart whther you like the laws or not.

I'm a HUGE gun owner in a state with virtually no gun laws , I'm sure many would be surprised to hear my views on that too.

 

There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of laws that do just that.

Just because there are some that don't reduce the damage to absolute zero doesnt mean that thousands of others dont work.