August 24, 2008 at 9:38 pm #1967StarfoxXIIIParticipant
so I was going to Texas to see the metal masters concert in Houston. On the way the way there i saw like 5 people who where riding without a helmet. Now there is no helmet law in Texas my question is why. Why is there no law for helmets?August 24, 2008 at 10:43 pm #11105MunchParticipant
Maybe they believe in natural selection?
I have lived in Houston… dealt with the 610 traffic jams and nightmares…. oh and maybe 5th Ward is also on their minds…
Helmet legislation tends to take a backseat when typical business traffic allows for 30 mph or less travel but #1 on the list for your public protectors is to send a flyer out every 4th July reminding residents not to fire their guns in the air or to not flash your headlights at an oncoming car that may not have theirs on.August 25, 2008 at 1:45 am #11106BuddParticipant
I was told the KY doesn’t have the laws because it is cheaper to pay for a funeral than skin grafts and rehabilitation. I am sure it is a joke but not sure how much of one.
“I am the best there is at what I do, and what I do ain’t nice.”-WolverineAugust 25, 2008 at 7:43 pm #11147MattParticipant
Canada has a manditory helmet law… I grew up with it, so I don’t have the same feelings against helmets that many people south of the border have.
Elwood (and others) make good points regarding natural selection / cost of rehab (it really is only half a joke, just look at insurance pay outs) / and personal freedom.
My issue with the personal freedom line is this:
By allowing people to ride without a helmet you are setting them up to “conform” to unsafe peer and media based pressures (gotta look good after all, don’t want to be laughed at, etc). It is really easy to say “they made their choice”, but how educated is that choice really?
When someone who’s been riding for 20 years and has seen buddies die, he is making an educated risk assessment.
When Young Buck gets on his new bad-ass ultra-cool bike, is it? If he ever needs a helmet, he won’t get a second chance. Lots of people “learn teh hard way” when it comes to leather. Fewer people survive to learn helmets the hard way.
And Young Buck isn’t the only person paying for his mistake. His family and friends will lose someone they love, for ONE mistake he made. Wanna bet Mr and Mrs Buck have a thing against “murder-cycles” afterwards?
I was recently reading a bit about helmet laws in another country… darned if I can remember which (I think it was a commonwealth country, not that that really narrows it down). Basically, helmets are required so long as the person is under 30 years of age or has their restricted/learners license. That seemed to me to strike a good balance between the two view points.
I was also reading that years ago 17 states revoked their manditory helmet laws following the “freedom” argument. I believe they say a pretty noticible increase in the fatality rates of motorcycles where other states (who hadn’t changed their laws one way or the other) hadn’t.
I’d like to find both articles…
“The two seconds between ‘Oh S**!’ and the crash isn’t a lot of practice time.”August 25, 2008 at 7:57 pm #11151ccpharrellParticipant
Under 21 helmet is required.
Over 21 can get a helmet exclusion sticker (like an inspection sticker on the bike) if they can either prove they have over $10,000 in medical insurance coverage or they successfully pass the MSF.
I have a lot of friends and neighbors that ride and they all wear theirs at all times, I haven’t ridden in a while, but I can’t imagine being without a helmet, too many crazy drivers out there. I do like the natural selection theory though.August 25, 2008 at 8:02 pm #11153AndrewParticipant
I have heard the freedom argument used by people who don’t think there should be mandatory seat belt laws. As someone who grew up with both mandatory seat belt and helmet laws (Australia) I just don’t get it. If you reduce the number of injuries then you help keep insurance premiums down. If it’s a free for all and people are getting injured left, right and center then the premiums go up to cover the insurance industries rising costs.
Plus from a personal point of view I don’t want to ever see anyone die in front of me just because they couldn’t be bothered to wear a seat belt or a helmet.August 25, 2008 at 9:53 pm #11159RupmiscParticipant
Look, I would wear a helmet (full face) whether there were a law or not. Still, I hate to regulate any adult (kids are different) without overwhelming reason. I’m not sure insurance cost does it for me. Would you mandate a certain diet because health insurance costs would be lower? How about forbidding any risk. Hell, motorcycles are more dangerous than cars, why not ban them? Freedom is precious, be careful how you curtail it.
As a practical matter, do helmet laws decrease insurance costs? It seems like a dead person costs less than saving a live one. I remember a news article about a consulting group that did a study for a country in eastern Europe. As I recall, they cited smoking for shortening lives and reducing expenditures on care for older citizens. As far as I know, the recommendation was not implemented.August 25, 2008 at 10:01 pm #11161smokeizfireParticipant
But I don’t know how up to date the information is
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINSAugust 26, 2008 at 1:53 am #11174ilnamParticipant
interesting site. I’ll have to take a closer look when I have more time…like at work!August 26, 2008 at 6:20 am #11184nau_lax21Participant
I live in CA but go to college in AZ. In CA theres required helmets for all riders and passengers, but in AZ (im pretty sure) there is absolutely no helmet law. I see a lot of the local cruiser types riding around with no helmet all the time, and a couple of students commuting around campus not wearing helmets.
but like its been said in previous posts, whether theres a helmet or not, its definitely a good idea to wear oneAugust 26, 2008 at 11:45 am #11190rtParticipant
This is a beginner’s bike site right?
So please allow me to give some advice…. at least here in the U.S of A.
The average experienced biker, rider or whatever you want to call us, won’t appreciate folks condescending them or speaking against their’ freedoms concerning helmet wear.
This goes for gear nazis, those who never wear helmets and most everyone in-between.
Me? I got enough gear to fit out four people. Lol!
But that’s not the point.
Where I’m from, there is not a helmet law in the entire tri-state area and we’re proud of this.
No caustic “natural slection” cracks or poor taste “rehab” jokes.
It is a “freedom” thing. Maybe those who don’t know about this freedom don’t miss it? I don’t know because I can’t relate.
Ever hear of “Let those who ride decide” ?
Flame away, I can take it. No offense meant.
Just saying how it is. Take it or leave it.August 26, 2008 at 1:40 pm #11200BuddParticipant
It is a slippery slope from seat belt and helmet laws to bacon eating laws. I don’t want my bacon messed with.
“I am the best there is at what I do, and what I do ain’t nice.”-WolverineAugust 26, 2008 at 4:09 pm #11207WeaponZeroParticipant
I grew up in a state where the helmet law was lifted before I became old enough to even get a driver’s license (Florida), and when I moved away from there, I came to a state (Pennsylvania) also with no helmet law. Well, there is one, but it’s weird:
If you only have a motorcycle learner’s permit, or have had your Class M license for less than a year, then you are required to wear a helmet. If your bike only has liability insurance (bare minimum legally), you are required to wear a helmet. Otherwise, no legal requirement.
I don’t believe in seatbelt laws because when you choose not to wear a seatbelt the only person you’re endangering is yourself. Helmets are a different story. While riding I have been hit by debris that hit my helmet hard enough to make a very loud sound. If I wear not wearing a helmet, that debris would have hit my head and it likely would have hurt a lot and I would have lost control of the bike. For that reason and that reason alone I do believe in helmet laws, despite never having lived in a state that had one.August 26, 2008 at 7:10 pm #11211MattParticipant
“I don’t believe in seatbelt laws because when you choose not to wear a seatbelt the only person you’re endangering is yourself.”
Again, a matter of opinion, but I think that view is too short sighted. It assumes your death or maiming only affects you. The simple fact is, if you die a lot of people will suffer (spouse / SO, parents, children, siblings, close friends).
If you are maimed, you will suffer for the rest of your very long loooong life.
Even someone as unrelated to you as the person who hits your car will suffer. Most people don’t deal well with learning they’ve just killed another human being, even if they can rationalize it as “it was his own fault for not wearing his seatbelt”.
With freedom comes responsibility. I consider wearing a seatbelt and preventing my unnecissary death and injury a responsibility to my family and friends.
As for stuff hitting your helmet, I’ve had rocks and june bugs hit my helmet so hard it snapped my neck back… I have no idea how people can ride without a face shield… I like my teeth!
“The two seconds between ‘Oh S**!’ and the crash isn’t a lot of practice time.”August 26, 2008 at 7:41 pm #11212WeaponZeroParticipant
What I meant was that a person not wearing a seatbelt could never be the cause of the accident, thus not presenting a danger to other vehicles on the road, while a rider not wearing a helmet could be the cause of an accident, endangering others on the road.
If the law were to start worrying about things like remorse and how it affects the family, then they might as well ban motorcycles, bungee jumping, skydiving, or eating fattening foods, because those can be a lot more hazardous than making the morning commute without your seatbelt on.
My point of view in this matter comes from where the law should be looking: immediate danger to other motorists.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.