Rider Safety

[cv_rider]

I live in a no-helmet state (18 and over) and still wear one every day.

Maybe NH should change their motto to "Live free AND die"?

 

[wrightme43]

A national helmet law would not save 4800 lives. Thats a fact.
I think riding with out a helmet makes you a freaking idiot. Thats my opinion.
Motorcycle Helmets: In 2006 motorcycle helmets saved 1,658 lives. NHTSA says that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets 752 more lives would have been saved. Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries.
This quote is from III instead of the cool chart I had saved from the NHTSA for some reason the website has began to deny requests for date and my links dont go anywhere. Just get a website refused to display this page message.

Oddly enough we have a LAW preventing drinking and driving. Here are the results. I agree 100% with the law and believe the penalties should be MUCH MUCH MUCH higher than they are.

Alcohol use: Motorcycle operators have high incidences of alcohol use. NHTSA says that in 2006, 27 percent of motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes had a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) over 0.08 grams per deciliter (the national definition of drunk driving), compared with 23 percent of drivers of passenger cars, 24 percent of light truck drivers and 1 percent of large truck drivers in fatal crashes. These figures take into account fatally injured operators, passengers and/or pedestrians.

Of all fatally injured motorcycle operators, 27 percent had BAC levels of 0.08 or higher in 2006. Another 7 percent had lower alcohol levels (0.01 to 0.07 BAC.). Fatally injured motorcycle operators between the ages of 35 to 39 had the highest percentage of BACs 0.08 and above (41 percent), compared with 39 percent for those ages 40 to 44. Of fatally injured motorcycle operators age 45-49, 34 percent had BACs 0.08 and above. Forty-one percent of the 1,878 fatally injured motorcycle operators who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2006 (for example, those in which the motorcycle crashed into a stationary object) had BAC levels of 0.08 or higher. On weekend nights, the proportion was higher: 59 percent of motorcycle operators who died in single-vehicle crashes had BACs of 0.08 or higher.

Read that last line again. Right up there. The last line.




Now based on the III and the NTHSA own data it would be more effective to remove and outlaw every helmet in the country and just not let anyone that owns a motorcycle drink alcohol. Does that sound like a fair law? It would be more effective than a helmet law. How can it be unreasonable by the logic used to present a helmet law?

37% effective at saving lives helmets.


41% of single motorcyclist deaths .08 or above on weekdays.
59% of single motorcyclist deaths .08 or above on weekends.

Thats just alcohol, thats not drugs, angry, sleepy, or prescription medicine.

I dont like helmet laws but you will never catch me without one. Education is the key.



I do not and will never like anyone trying to mandate my behavior. I will fight it when I agree with it, and when I disagree with it.

 

[marke14]

Very well said on both sides there SirIsaac. I would add the following bit (you can tell my bias I am sure):

And as a personal aside, I find that a lot of these insurance companies are a bunch of snakes, FWIW.

Seatbelt and air bag laws are not only market driven by the insurance lobby, but also by consumer rights advocates and groups that worked hard for the passage of that legislation too. Perhaps even harder, some would say. I can't think of a single person who I know/knew (older folks) who lived and drove before the seatbelt laws who has ever told me "You know, I remember the good ol' days when you didn't HAVE to wear a stupid seat belt."

I do personally agree at the core of the concept, that government restricting personal freedoms is bad. And I think we can all agree on the basics - no stealing, no rape, no murder, and no dangerous behavior that endangers others, basically. And some collective provision must be made for people who can't take care of themselves.

And certainly I believe that in the name of population control if nothing else, people should be allowed to participate in thrilling if not lethal activities so long as said activities do not endanger the lives of others.

But I believe that the helmet laws are being unfairly challenged on the personal freedom tip, because motorcycles are a historic relic, a form of transportation. They make people wear seatbelts, now they even make auto makers use airbags. It is a transportation safety issue, not a personal freedom thing. The fact that it is twisted into that is a desperate attempt for those who do not wish to wear them to preserve that "freedom."

I dunno. I used to not wear a bicycle helmet when I was a kid, but sh!t I knew kids that knocked their brains around and it f*ked them up. If I could go back, I would have worn one but back then they weren't into making kids wear helmets for bicycles.

I think it's OK to force people to comply with basic safety measures, like seat belts and helmets because we're talking about massive vehicles flying around at high speeds with idiots behind the wheel more often than not. Bicycles and skateboards, even for kids, I can see the criticisms (kids won't comply, it makes the industry to some degree dependent upon the helmet manufacturers and product availability, etc.) because you're talking more about an activity you choose to do, and you're more importantly on foot - you're not in a powered vehicle.

I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, but I think that equating helmet laws with forced dietary restrictions is a false argument.

I’m sure this has been beaten to death, and I can’t add anything that hasn’t been said before. Also, like religion and politics, I don't expect to convince anyone holding other views, but I’ll jump in anyway.

First off, the only reason that there is a nationwide seatbelt law is because the insurance industry lobbied the federal government to blackmail the states to either pass seatbelt laws or lose their federal highway funds. If there were as many bikes on the road as cars, I’m sure that our insurance friends would pressure the feds for helmet laws. Basically, just a money issue.

But this is not the main issue, of course. The main issue is, who is responsible for your well-being, you or the State? I believe that you are primarily responsible for your own well-being. However, in certain cases, the stakes are high enough or there are other factors which justify having the State override the individual’s right to self-determination. For example, I see no problem with laws requiring child-restraints or seatbelt laws for minors in automobiles. This might appear to conflict with parents’ rights, but in actuality parents do not have the right to endanger their children, and if they are too ignorant to protect their children properly, then the State must step in. This does not interfere with the childrens’ rights, as they do not have freedom of choice until they become adults. In my opinion, there must be very compelling reasons for the State to step in and enforce its judgment over yours. The “cost to society” argument is often put forth as justification, generally stated as all or some combination of medical costs, long term care costs, or cost of the lost contribution to society that the injured/killed person would have otherwise made. Sounds reasonable, except since when does “society” have a right to my services? If I have no medical insurance and society chooses to care for me after I hurt myself, does that give society the right to dictate my behavior? If I have insurance, and by using that insurance for care after an accident I increase medical costs for society in general, does that give society the right to dictate my behavior? If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, who gets to decide which behaviors are acceptable? To you, it is reasonable to require motorcyclists to wear helmets. To the non-motorcycling majority, it would make more sense to ban motorcycles altogether. They really serve no use that could not be served by an automobile. If you play the gas-mileage card, I’ll just say that a) is the difference between 20 mpg and 40 mpg worth the cost to society of all of the unnecessary motorcycle deaths and injuries and b) a large percentage of motorcycle riding is non-essential travel anyway. Like it or not, you cannot legislate intelligence or responsibility. Unless some behavior is likely to lead to harm to someone else, society really has no right to exert any control. We do all live in a society in which we all depend on one another, but again, this does not give society the right to dictate individual behavior. I won’t claim a “slippery slope” argument or argue that it is inevitable, but if you believe that the societal costs justify helmet and/or seatbelt laws, then it would be logically consistent for the State (acting on behalf of society) to: ban alcohol – the negative health and other consequences of alcohol abuse are well known; ban any activity with a physical risk beyond strolling through the park; require citizens to engage in a State-approved low-risk exercise program; require everyone to get at least 8 hours of sleep every night; require restaurants to serve only State-approved low-fat, low-calorie meals of proper portion size; ration cookies, doughnuts, chips, and all manner of other “useless” foods; identify each person’s best use to society in terms of career and require that they follow that career. I could go on, but you get the picture. These may sound extreme, but please tell me how they are inconsistent with the idea of “cost to society” argument in favor of helmet laws. Personally, I like a statement that I read somewhere on the internet, I don’t recall where or who said it - “Freedom is dangerous. You can either accept the risks that come with it or eventually lose it all step-by-step. Each step will be justified by its proponents as a minor inconvenience that will help make us all “safer.” Personally, I’d rather have a slightly more dangerous world that respects freedom more.”

I have never ridden without a helmet (full-face) and never will, and I used my seatbelt before seatbelt laws. I do both because in my judgment it would be stupid to not do so. If you think differently and don’t care to wear a helmet or use a seatbelt, that’s your business, not mine. (I also have no problem with requiring riders under 18 and novice riders to wear a helmet, and requiring riders to take the MSF course before they get their license. Those are relatively minor and short-lived intrusions of the State’s judgment.)

Not sure if I should post this, but oh well, here goes….