"Let those who Ride ~ Decide" Debate

[tradrockrat]

I prefer that the morons who don't want to wear helmet don't wear em. Evolution in action.

I'm a big fan of "let those who ride decide" as well. I'm really glad for you and I always wear a helmet myself, but about half the time it's a non legal skid lid as opposed to my 3/4 face sheild.

 

[Kacey]

I'm a big fan of "let those who ride decide" as well. I'm really glad for you and I always wear a helmet myself, but about half the time it's a non legal skid lid as opposed to my 3/4 face sheild.

The biggest problem I have with "let those who ride decide" is that when somone decides not to wear a helmet, and doesn't have insurance, I, as a taxpayer, along with all the other taxpayers, have to pay for the resulting medical care... just as happens with people who don't wear seatbelts who get into accidents without insurance, and I have the same problem with those people not wearing seatbelts as I do cyclists not wearing helmets.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The states I lived in always had helmet laws so I never had to make that decision.

But when I first started riding I rode strictly off road, dirt, trails, sand pits, etc. And I wore an open face helmet then, I was very lucky and never tool one in the face riding. But one look at my old helmet with all the nasty scrapes and bangs would have been enough for me to decide to wear a helmet when I started riding on the street.

When I went to street riding I went for the full-face helmet and more times than I can count it saved me from getting hit in the face by various things, one of those things was a Bat, the rodent kind not the wooden kind.

I don't really have a stand on the helmet laws I just am happy that Shaolinwind was not seriously hurt and that the helmet did what it was suppose to do.

 

[Cryozombie]

The biggest problem I have with "let those who ride decide" is that when somone decides not to wear a helmet, and doesn't have insurance, I, as a taxpayer, along with all the other taxpayers, have to pay for the resulting medical care... just as happens with people who don't wear seatbelts who get into accidents without insurance, and I have the same problem with those people not wearing seatbelts as I do cyclists not wearing helmets.

I tell ya why that argument bothers me most about the mandate helmet wearing crowd.

Lets compare the % of resulting medical care we taxpayers have to pay for helmetless riders without insurance with the amount in tax dollars we spend to pay for illegal alien's healthcare, or the healthcare used by welfare mothers who continue having children to produce larger welfare checks... Im sure, if you look at the issues, the helmetless rider one is TINY by comparison... But they choose, instead of mandating say sterilization for mothers on welfare (not somthing I agree with doing, but its an example of taking away personal choice in exchange for saving the taxpayer their healthcare dollars) they get all over manditory helmet laws.

So... yeah. I liken that argument to putting a band aid on scratched knee and being blindly satified with the results, while ignoring the severed artery in the wrist that pumps blood out at a deadly rate...

'Cuz Id be willing to bet that if you do the math, your tax dollars for heathcare wouldnt go downt significantly or at all if we stop all Helmetless riders from riding without helmets.

Lets find a REAL argument for elimination of personal choice... if its medical tax dollars you are really worried about, lets deal with the issues that are REALLY using them in order of greatest to least so it actually has some impact.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Gotta agree with you Technopunk. When did it become the governments job to protect us from ourselves anyways. Something else to consider. The insurance companies lobbied hard to get mandatory seat-belt laws enacted. They really haven't done the same for helmet laws. Why? Because it's actually cheaper for them to pay out any death benefits to helmet- less riders than to pay for long term health care for people who wear a helmet but still get severe head traumas.

Jeff

 

[Kacey]

I tell ya why that argument bothers me most about the mandate helmet wearing crowd.

Lets compare the % of resulting medical care we taxpayers have to pay for helmetless riders without insurance with the amount in tax dollars we spend to pay for illegal alien's healthcare, or the healthcare used by welfare mothers who continue having children to produce larger welfare checks... Im sure, if you look at the issues, the helmetless rider one is TINY by comparison... But they choose, instead of mandating say sterilization for mothers on welfare (not somthing I agree with doing, but its an example of taking away personal choice in exchange for saving the taxpayer their healthcare dollars) they get all over manditory helmet laws.

And here's what that argument bothers me - because they are two separate issues. Certainly, public money spent on illegal aliens (medical, educational, welfare, etc.) is a huge burden on our society - but simply because that is a bigger burden does not excuse avoiding a smaller burden on that basis. Motorcyclists who don't wear proper protective gear and drivers who don't wear seat belts - uninsured or otherwise - create unreasonable costs to society, in terms of medical care, street closures, emergency personnel, and so on, which could be avoided if they take basic safety precautions, which they choose to not take. That is the part I object to - that they are informed of the greater risk of not using protective equipment, and choose not to use it anyway, regardless of the cost to those around them. Saying that it is a lesser cost than other issues, and therefore excusing it, is, in my opinion, like saying that it's okay to rescind laws against smoking (by children, in public places, etc.) because people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want - despite the consequences to those around them.

If it could be guaranteed that a motorcyclist would injure only him/herself, and would not affect any other people, then I might have a different opinion on the helmet laws - but that's not the case, any more than it's the case with drunk drivers, or drivers who don't wear seatbelts or make their kids wear seatbelts. These people all affect the people around them as well as themselves, and the safety laws that exist are to protect other users of the road as much as the people they affect more directly. That is why I am willing to "take away a personal choice" - not for the motorcyclists, but for the people whose lives are affected by the cyclist's accident and potential (and avoidable) life-long injuries, which affects health care, welfare, and most importantly, the family members who have to watch them suffer and care for them through long convalescences (if they're lucky) or life-long illness or death (if they're not lucky). Not all costs are measured in dollars.

 

[Cryozombie]

And here's what that argument bothers me - because they are two separate issues. Certainly, public money spent on illegal aliens (medical, educational, welfare, etc.) is a huge burden on our society - but simply because that is a bigger burden does not excuse avoiding a smaller burden on that basis.

Spending OUR tax dollars on someone elses medical burden, weather it be uninsured illegals or helmetless motorcyclists are the same issue, not two seperate ones. I hear you about not ignoring an issue because its small, but I think maybe its a good one to address after the major cost is put under control.

Heres an idea... since the issue seems to be uninsured helmetless riders, how about we just mandate insurance? Oh wait... it is most places. So its actually probably helmetless motorcyclists riding illegally... wonder if thats really a helmet issue.

Id also like to point out that the #1 argument against wearing helmets most people make is that they restrict vison. People claim thats BS. It is not. In my State Saftey course I took, the instructors tell you that you should have a full face helmet. So thats what I wear. Most of the guys in my Dojo ride, and we have debated that issue. So Tuesday night I brought my helmet into my MA class, and we tested to see if vision is impared in the helmet. EVERYONE on both sides of that argument agreed, the helmet did indeed restrict vision signifigantly.

(obviously It doesnt stop me from wearing it, but I still feel that should be a matter of choice.)

Mods, this discussion might need to be split to the study.

 

[Kacey]

Spending OUR tax dollars on someone elses medical burden, weather it be uninsured illegals or helmetless motorcyclists are the same issue, not two seperate ones. I hear you about not ignoring an issue because its small, but I think maybe its a good one to address after the major cost is put under control.

What about uninsured legals? Children of uninsured illegals? Etc. There are plenty of issues, I agree - but ignoring the small problems while the big problems continue is not going to fix anything. All of the issues needs to be addressed - not just the big ones, and not the just the small ones, but all of them, and ignoring the small ones while the big ones get bigger isn't doing it; it's just letting the small ones grow in the wake of the big ones.

Heres an idea... since the issue seems to be uninsured helmetless riders, how about we just mandate insurance? Oh wait... it is most places. So its actually probably helmetless motorcyclists riding illegally... wonder if thats really a helmet issue.

The same way that uninsured motorists driving without seatbelts is a seatbelt issue - because people who will ignore one law are more likely to ignore another. Also, it's very easy to see - even at a distance - if a motorcyclist is wearing a helmet; the lack of insurance generally only becomes apparent after the driver is stopped for a violation or accident... by which time it is too late.

Id also like to point out that the #1 argument against wearing helmets most people make is that they restrict vison. People claim thats BS. It is not. In my State Saftey course I took, the instructors tell you that you should have a full face helmet. So thats what I wear. Most of the guys in my Dojo ride, and we have debated that issue. So Tuesday night I brought my helmet into my MA class, and we tested to see if vision is impared in the helmet. EVERYONE on both sides of that argument agreed, the helmet did indeed restrict vision signifigantly.

And I have a friend who won't wear a full helmet because she's claustrophobic... but she wears the smaller one (despite how much she dislikes it - no helmet laws here in Colorado) because a coworker of ours had a motorcycle accident that split his helmet (he was hit by a drunk driver who jumped the median), and he got up and walked away with bruises and scrapes (he was wearing leather riding gear as well). There are pros and cons to everything.

(obviously It doesnt stop me from wearing it, but I still feel that should be a matter of choice.)

As I said, there are pros and cons to everything - but why should I, as a taxpayer, pay for someone else's poor choice? Oh wait... that's called the prison system - or is it Welfare?

Mods, this discussion might need to be split to the study.

I agree - please split this thread.

 

[Lisa]

Moderator Note:

Post split from another thread so that discussion can continue without disruption of the original thread.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator

 

[Cryozombie]

What about uninsured legals? Children of uninsured illegals? Etc. There are plenty of issues, I agree - but ignoring the small problems while the big problems continue is not going to fix anything. All of the issues needs to be addressed - not just the big ones, and not the just the small ones, but all of them, and ignoring the small ones while the big ones get bigger isn't doing it; it's just letting the small ones grow in the wake of the big ones.

Well, maybe Im WAYYYYY off base and these numbers are signifigantly higher than I was led to believe, but somehow I dont think you will see a notable reduction, if a reduction at all, of the amount of tax money you pay into the medical system if we stop people from riding without helmets. I really think that its such a small issue you are talking pennies compared to hundred dollar bills.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I go for personal choice on the issue. For me I always wear a helmet because that is how I started riding and in Michigan there was no choice at all. I like the full face helmet having almost been blind sided on multiple occasions. (I just want to protect my pretty face : ) Really though, if you are in an accident with a bike there is a pretty good chance that you are not going to make it so helmet or no helmet alot of it is just luck!
(maybe that is why I do not ride as much anymore)

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[tradrockrat]

to the people who get upset over tax money going to crash victims:

1. do you have a problem with us tax paying, legal, insurance carrying riders riding without a helmet?

If yes, your argument goes right out the window because we're no tax burden on you at all.

If no, then put your anger where it belongs - with those who drive illegally and without insurance. Helmets have nothing to do with it - they're just a symptom. Try curing the disease - get rid of the illegals.

 

[Drac]

try curing the disease - get rid of the illegals.

Well said..I don't wear one 90% of the time...I've buried friends who wore their helmet constantly and probably would have lived if the weight of the helmet hadn't snapped their neck..Let those who ride DECIDE....

 

[tradrockrat]

posted by a very good friend of mine in a different forum:

This is the testimony given by Lawyer Larry Katkowski from Detroit. He has been representing Abate members in helmet cases since the 1980's. I know because I was one of the first. Not trying to discourage anyone one way or the other, just sharing the knowlege of a man whom I respect and feel is on top of the helmet issue.


Here is the testimony that I gave to the House Transportation Committee the day before the vote:

I am a trial lawyer from Bingham Farms, Michigan specializing in motorcycle and ORV litigation statewide and nationally. I have investigated more motorcycle accidents than probably anyone in the country and I am also a certified motorcycle safety instructor in southeast Michigan. I have dealt with the Michigan motorcycle helmet law since the mid-1970s. I have also engaged in litigation involving motorcycle helmets and their relationship to head injuries for many years and am personally acquainted with most of the experts on the subject in the United States. I have personally observed testing of helmets at DOT approved laboratories and participated in many seminars on the subject.

The perspective that I wish to bring to the hearing this morning is one of the trial lawyer being confronted with proving or disproving whether a head injury could have been prevented by a DOT “approved” helmet. The subject generally comes up in two contexts:

1. A helmeted rider is involved in a crash and the helmet fails. If the helmet had not failed, would the rider have survived in a non-vegetative state?

OR

2. A rider wearing no helmet or one which does not meet DOT standards is involved in an accident and dies or suffers a head injury which places him in a permanent vegetative state. If the rider had been wearing a DOT “approved” helmet, would he have suffered the injury?

When confronted with these questions I and every other trial lawyer like me, plaintiff or defense, takes the facts to an expert on helmets. The facts usually consist of a police accident report, a reconstruction of the accident to give the attorneys the speed of the collision, the speed of the head of the rider with the impacted surface, the nature of the impacted surface, the medical records and/or autopsy reports and the helmet itself.

In every single case that I have ever had where the impact was 35 mph or over every expert, plaintiff or defense, have told me that a helmet would not have prevented the closed head injury or fracture which caused the death or the injury of the rider.

In 95% of all cases where the impact was 25 mph or over the case is rejected by the expert because, even though the impact was to the head, the helmet still could not have prevented same because a helmet cannot prevent injury to such places as the cerebellum, the facial areas, and cannot in any way prevent basilar skull fractures.

The upshot is that I, as a seasoned trial lawyer with a particular expertise in motorcycle products in cluding helmets, only can accept one in fifty of all motorcycle helmet cases referred to me involving a failed helmet, because I cannot obtain the testimony of a reputable expert who will testify that the helmet would have prevented the injury in that particular case.

To close my testimony I wish to relate to you the story of Tom Kanthak who was involved in a motorcycle crash in Battle Creek in August 1997 when a car turned left in front of his motorcycle which was traveling at about 25 mph at the time. Tom was wearing a DOT “approved” full face helmet which had been appropriately sized to his head. Upon the collision Tom flew into the air over the car, did a somersault, and landed on his shoulder blade, skidding along the pavement. As he skidded his helmet, which was fully fastened, rotated forward off of his head and his unhelmeted head struck the curb causing severe skull fractures from which Mr. Kanthak succumbed 12 hours later.

Experts on both sides agreed that the helmet was defectively designed and should not have come off as it did. But the helmet manufacturer, a well-known Canadian manufacturer, in a desperate move, engaged the services of L. J. Dragovic, M.D. , the Medical Examiner of Oakland County and a nationally prominent forensic pathologist. Dr. Dragovic submitted a which stated, in part,

As a result of being airborne upon the collision of his motorcycle with the automobile the back of Mr. Kanthak’s head impacted an unyielding surface resulting in brain lag within his skull. This phenomenon [known as “coup counter-coup”] is a physical characteristic of a human head in motion, and is in effect with or without ANY helmet on the head.

*********************************

While Mr. Kanthak sustained a non-displaced fracture of the occipital bone which was an integral part of the injury pattern, it was not the fracture lines in the bone of the skull that caused his death; rather, it was the severe brain swelling resulting from the subdural bleeding and the contre-coup contusions in the front part of the brain that caused his demise.

The described mechanism is invariably present in this type of head trauma and is irrelevant of [sic] presence of a helmet on the head.

In other words, the helmet manufacturer as its ultimate defense, stated that it doesn’t work!

Thank you very much.

 

[Makalakumu]

Wouldn't helmet laws cause insurance premiums to go down because they would decrease the amount of money corporations had to pay out because of serious injury?

At first glance, I would say yes, they would get lower, but I can also see how wearing a helmet would actually prevent alot of people from dying from serious injuries and it is also possible that insurance premiums could get higher.

I wonder if there is any data on this?

 

[Kreth]

Aren't DOT helmet ratings only valid to 30 mph?

 

[tradrockrat]

some important factors to consider.

1.

DOT positions a helmet on a test headform and then drop that helmeted head form onto fixed steel anvil. Impact severity is a matter of head mass and drop height, the higher the fall or the heavier the headform, the more severe the impact. Each test helmet is impacted on at least four different sites against either a flat or hemispherical shaped anvil.

Unfortunately, it’s not the fall that does the damage, it’s the sudden stop. Both Snell and DOT measure the suddenness of the stop with an accelerometer fixed inside the headform. When the helmet smacks into the anvil, the accelerometer measures the headform deceleration throughout the duration of the impact event. This acceleration pulse is generally plotted as G’s versus milliseconds. The testers analyze the acceleration pulse to determine whether the helmet passed or failed the test.

The DOT Standard requires that the peak acceleration not exceed 400 G’s but they also put duration limits on the acceleration pulse. The period of time for which the pulse exceeds 200 G’s must not be longer than 2 milliseconds. The period of time for which the pulse exceeds 150 G’s must not be longer than 4 milliseconds. Duration criteria was taken from the 1971 ANSI Z90.1 standard. This criteria was dropped by ANSI in 1973 prior to the DOT standard going into effect.


The DOT certification is done on the honor system. The helmet manufacturer determines whether their helmets satisfy DOT requirements and then claim the qualification for themselves. There is no reporting or proof of testing required. The government does conduct very, very limited spot checks at commercial and private labs.

2. The helmet only protects the head - not the rest of the body, so they are no gaurantee against permanent disability by a long shot
3. Helmets protect against abraision and light contact. Big time head smacks cause damage through "coup - counter coup" reaction. In other words, the brain bounces off the inside of the skull causing the severe damage. Helmets do NOTHING to prevent this.
4. Completely non-scientific but - how many would be fatalities are turned into permanent disability because of helmets preventing death? It would be interesting to see that number verses the number of permanant disabilities caused by lack of a helmet. I wouldn't be surprised to see them equal out.

 

[Kacey]

Do I see valid points on each side? Certainly... but it is the uninsured driver (car or motorcycle) who is making a poor decision to begin with (driving without insurance) who is more likely to make other poor decisions as well (driving in an unsafe manner, without a helmet/seat belt, etc.). Anyone care to take bets on the insurance status of the unhelmeted cyclist I saw yesterday, driving his motorcycle down the freeway at 65+ mph, in a t-shirt and jeans, standing up on his foot supports - and I mean, standing at his full height, with his hands at least several feet from his handlebars?

It's not those of you who are making informed decisions, who are presenting reasoned arguments against helmets, that I am concerned about - it's idiots like this guy who was grandstanding his way down the freeway, at high speed, taking amazingly stupid risks because he thinks it can't happen to him. But there are no helmet laws in Colorado, so he can't be stopped for that, and, while I called 911 to report him, he was moving too fast for me to see his plate, and I certainly wasn't going to try to catch up with him; I settled for as good a description of his clothing, bike, and actions as I could manage, as well as his then-current location. Would a helmet save this idiot? Possibly not... but doing the type of research you all have done about the pros and cons would hopefully at least decrease his hotdogging - at least around other people.

 

[tradrockrat]

Anyone care to take bets on the insurance status of the unhelmeted cyclist I saw yesterday, driving his motorcycle down the freeway at 65+ mph, in a t-shirt and jeans, standing up on his foot supports - and I mean, standing at his full height, with his hands at least several feet from his handlebars?

It's not those of you who are making informed decisions, who are presenting reasoned arguments against helmets, that I am concerned about - it's idiots like this guy who was grandstanding his way down the freeway, at high speed, taking amazingly stupid risks because he thinks it can't happen to him. But there are no helmet laws in Colorado, so he can't be stopped for that, and, while I called 911 to report him, he was moving too fast for me to see his plate, and I certainly wasn't going to try to catch up with him; I settled for as good a description of his clothing, bike, and actions as I could manage, as well as his then-current location. Would a helmet save this idiot? Possibly not... but doing the type of research you all have done about the pros and cons would hopefully at least decrease his hotdogging - at least around other people.

I am in full agreement with you here - those idiots need to do one of two things - grow up or get out of the gene pool. They are the ones who make it so hard on the rest of us bikers. They are the ones who contribute to that negative image and stereotype of bikers that is still so prevelant today. They are the ones who give the polititians and non-riding public the amunition to take away my personal freedoms.

I hate these people. And it's not just sport bike stunt men either. It's the idiot with his 75,000 dollar garage ornament built by OCC who revs his bike to the redline at midnight to show off, or the dirt bike rider who jumps into traffic doing a wheelie from the side of the road, or the weekend badass with any bike who thinks leather equals tough...

but that's a diferent thread, I guess.

 

[Kacey]

And unfortunately, it's people like this who lead to this debate, and every other debate about personal freedoms taken away by law - those few who are not responsible with vehicles, or substances, or actions, and so on, cause a societal reaction, which usually leads to laws which restrict those who follow them way more than the people they are designed to control... because the people who follow the laws are not the ones who incite the law. In many cases, new laws are not the answer - just better enforcement of the ones already in existence.