why have helmet laws?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>they really do make a difference in EVERYONE'S auto liability insurance rates in that state.

OK, so how about a compromise:

You can go on a government website and click on a box that says "I hereby waive my rights to insurance coverage and to collecting against other drivers/bikers, and I hereby state that I do not want extraordinary medical care in the event of an injury I incur while biking without a helmet." Then let em wear whatever they want.

That's not really a compromise.

When cagers insist on making left turns in front of oncoming traffic, they're still at fault. There is only a narrow set of accidents where the helmet makes a dramatic difference in the outcome.

If they need to wear the helmet, then add on the steel tip boots, the armored leather, the kevlar gloves, and the protective cup.

---
It does seem like the best solution for this guy is a turbanned helmet.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>they really do make a difference in EVERYONE'S auto liability insurance rates in that state.

OK, so how about a compromise:

You can go on a government website and click on a box that says "I hereby waive my rights to insurance coverage and to collecting against other drivers/bikers, and I hereby state that I do not want extraordinary medical care in the event of an injury I incur while biking without a helmet." Then let em wear whatever they want.

Can we do that with canopy wing loading rules too?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Seatbelts should absolutely be the law. You are not in control of your vehicle going around a sharp curve at 60mph if you're being thrown against the door or halfway across the seat.

As for helmets, if you've got no brains, you probably won't need a bucket to keep them in.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Prof,

Quote

Can we do that with canopy wing loading rules too?

Ha, Ha; I was just thinking about that with some of the replies about 'They're adults, let'em do what they want.'

Once again, if they are adults and I do not have to pay ($$$) for their mistakes, then have at it.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Or maybe I should say 'thinking adults' as some adults have yet to grow up.

[billvon 2,991]

>if they are adults and I do not have to pay ($$$) for their mistakes . . .

That's the key right there.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The story in the media was about a guy in Ontario. When you add universal government health care to the equation it really does become a different question. This truly is the price of socialism.
I was actually quite surprised to see the case go the way it did; Minority religious rights and freedoms are generally very well protected in the Canadian courts. The government just canceled a program to pay for people who want to challenge laws based on their charter rights so he will have to find an organization with some bucks if he wants to appeal.

[FreeflyChile 0]

I don't ride a motorcycle, though someday I'd like to learn.

I think that while there's a lot of truth to the whole 'they're adults, it should be their choice' thing, i don't think the comparison to wingloading/rsl/aad debate in our sport is valid.

The biggest reason I would support a helmet requirement is not the safety of the rider - I agree there that it should be the rider's choice. I think that the helmet requirement is something to protect another driver from excessive liability in case of an accident. If I am driving a car and get into an accident with a dude on a motorcycle, I'd rather have the case against me be that the guy had to go to the hospital with a few broken bones than to the morgue with a slight case of death.

I don't think that it compares to skydiving because wingloading/aad/rsl mostly will only affect the canopy pilot. Helmet/no helmet affects more than just the motorcycle rider in case of an accident.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The biggest reason I would support a helmet requirement is not the safety of the rider - I agree there that it should be the rider's choice. I think that the helmet requirement is something to protect another driver from excessive liability in case of an accident. If I am driving a car and get into an accident with a dude on a motorcycle, I'd rather have the case against me be that the guy had to go to the hospital with a few broken bones than to the morgue with a slight case of death.

It seems to me that if someone is operating equipment in contevention to the manufacturer's operating instructions, the liability for the extent of the injuries in excess of what otherwise would have occurred falls to the negligent user.

[freethefly 6]

This is a very good read concerning helmets.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1481582/posts

The vast majority of mc fatalities are not head related. The vast majority of injuries are not head related. How many idiots have you seen blasting down the hiway in shorts and sandals while wearing a fullface helmet? Also, read the disclaimer in your snell-DOT approved helmet. That's in there so you cannot sue if or/and when the helmet fails.
The arguement that some make that they pay for those who do not wear a helmet is also stupid. Insurance is required in order to put plates on a bike. Also, the arguement that shifted blame from an idiot who hits a motorcycle to the helmetless rider is also stupid.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[FreeflyChile 0]

Yeah, but in court you're still more likely to get charged with the guy's death if he died w/o a helmet while trying to hypothesize that the guy wouldn't have died wearing a helmet than if the guy doesn't die because he HAD been wearing a helmet.

I'd rather not put that decision at the mercy of a jury that could feel sorry for a widow or now-fatherless children.

I guess my point is that my feeling about this is the same feeling I have about legalizing drugs (from pot, which i find harmless, to other, more altering drugs) - I don't care what you do as far as it relates to yourself. That's your business. However, when your decision to do something/not do something affects me, then it becomes my business.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

If the injuries are not to the head then failure to use a helmet is not a mitigating factor. If the injuries are to the head, whether fatal or not, then blame can rightly be cast upon misuse of the vehicle by the operator.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Well, yeah, I guess I should have made it clear that I was referring to cases where the helmet would have been the difference between life/death.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Yeah, but in court you're still more likely to get charged with the guy's death if he died w/o a helmet while trying to hypothesize that the guy wouldn't have died wearing a helmet than if the guy doesn't die because he HAD been wearing a helmet.

I'd rather not put that decision at the mercy of a jury that could feel sorry for a widow or now-fatherless children.

If I was in that position I would likely opt for trial by judge; depends on the local laws. I don't disagree that it is a drawback of the jury system, but that is a different discussion.
If the guy dies from a head injury but his body isn't really fucked up then it is a good argument the helmet would have probably helped (remember whether in criminal or civil court probabilities are still what count; it's just a difference of degrees), likewise a broken leg, some skin abrasions and a permanent brain injury.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

If we let Darwinism take it's course, the government will be over thrown by the survivors.

This is not a bad thing.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

The arguement that some make that they pay for those who do not wear a helmet is also stupid. Insurance is required in order to put plates on a bike. Also, the arguement that shifted blame from an idiot who hits a motorcycle to the helmetless rider is also stupid.

I can agree with that. When a rider decide not to wear a helmet he automatically assumes a greater share of the responsibility for any head injury he may incur, but the idiot who hits him is still liable as before.

Quote

The vast majority of mc fatalities are not head related. The vast majority of injuries are not head related.

Could be because helmets prevent a large number of injuries? Just could b worth investigating.

The article you presented was an interesting read, but I did find one fault with it. The entire argument was made over the G-forces encountered by the brain during an accident. While all well and good, it is only half the story of what a helmet does. A helmets also, and maybe even more importantly, distributes a blow over a much larger area than the head would see without a helmet. This greatly reduces the stress on the skull and by that greatly reducing the chance of a fracture or localized closed-head injury.
Another point I'd like to bring up is injury tolerance of the human body. Our bodies can tolerate massive injuries to the limbs and torso and still recover. Even repeated trauma is survivable. The brain is another story. It is not nearly as tolerant of injury and can, in fact, be destroyed by a microscopic injury such as a stroke or aneurism. That is why ANY helmet is better than none for protection against injury.
But, as I said before, I don't always wear one and I don't fault anyone who chooses not to wear one. As far as the law is concerned I think the best compromise is to require a helmet for the first year a person has their motorcycle permit/license/endorsement. (And no passengers during that time either!) That is when the risk of an accident is highest.

[billvon 2,991]

>When you add universal government health care to the equation it
>really does become a different question. This truly is the price of
>socialism.

And the price of our current system. You will pay for an uninsured accident victim, even without socialized medicine. Again, there are no perfect answers, just answers that are less bad than other answers.

[cocheese 0]

It was from the government point of view.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think that the helmet requirement is something to protect another driver from excessive liability in case of an accident. If I am driving a car and get into an accident with a dude on a motorcycle, I'd rather have the case against me be that the guy had to go to the hospital with a few broken bones than to the morgue with a slight case of death.

As I've posted before, the costs to society of unhelmeted riders is insignificantly LESS than the cost of helmeted riders who get in accidents. The reason being they often die either way (chest injury versus head injury - both of which would be fatal), and slightly more of the helmet less ones do.

So if it's cost to the government, it's pretty neutral.
Now liability to the driver for wrongful death would be higher in the US system, but it's a bit simplistic to base their liability based on the victim's use/non use of a helmet when so many other factors contribute to the final outcome.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

I think that the helmet requirement is something to protect another driver from excessive liability in case of an accident. If I am driving a car and get into an accident with a dude on a motorcycle, I'd rather have the case against me be that the guy had to go to the hospital with a few broken bones than to the morgue with a slight case of death.

As I've posted before, the costs to society of unhelmeted riders is insignificantly LESS than the cost of helmeted riders who get in accidents. The reason being they often die either way (chest injury versus head injury - both of which would be fatal), and slightly more of the helmet less ones do.

So if it's cost to the government, it's pretty neutral.
Now liability to the driver for wrongful death would be higher in the US system, but it's a bit simplistic to base their liability based on the victim's use/non use of a helmet when so many other factors contribute to the final outcome.

My opinion wasn't based on cost to the government. It was based on cost to the liable driver. I agree that a helmet/non-helmet doesn't cover every or even most instances - so how about a sort of strict liability-contributory negligence hybrid - a strict contributory statute that bars recovery for the additional damage suffered by a motorcycle rider who dies w/o a helmet if it can be determined that the rider would have likely/possibly/pick your own standard lived had he been wearing a helmet. Therefore, the added penalties associated with death are not assessed.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

My opinion wasn't based on cost to the government. It was based on cost to the liable driver. I agree that a helmet/non-helmet doesn't cover every or even most instances - so how about a sort of strict liability-contributory negligence hybrid - a strict contributory statute that bars recovery for the additional damage suffered by a motorcycle rider who dies w/o a helmet if it can be determined that the rider would have likely/possibly/pick your own standard lived had he been wearing a helmet. Therefore, the added penalties associated with death are not assessed.

Why not just relieve drivers of responsibility for any damages which would not have been sustained if their victims were driving H1 Hummers?

Driving cars which get decent gas mileage, riding motorcycles, or even pedaling bicycles aren't constitutionally protected rights.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My opinion wasn't based on cost to the government. It was based on cost to the liable driver. I agree that a helmet/non-helmet doesn't cover every or even most instances - so how about a sort of strict liability-contributory negligence hybrid - a strict contributory statute that bars recovery for the additional damage suffered by a motorcycle rider who dies w/o a helmet if it can be determined that the rider would have likely/possibly/pick your own standard lived had he been wearing a helmet. Therefore, the added penalties associated with death are not assessed.

To tie this into the other raging thread - a few decades back, a woman that dressed 'slutty' and got raped was asking for it.

Ultimately what you're arguing here is that motorcyclists ask for it. If they don't (pick your level) wear a helmet, a DOT helmet, a non fraudent DOT helmet, a 3/4 shell helmet, a full face helmet, leather assless chaps, full leather, or full armored leather with kidney protection, motorcycle with ABS and airbags (well, the English are working on the latter), then its their fault that someone else can't obey the rules of the road.

You realize that if you suffer an injury skydiving, there are plenty of people with the exact attitude about how you asked for it. Are you willing to eat the entire loss if you fly a canopy with a WL over 1?

If the real goal is safety, and not bossing a segment of people around (CA helmet law shows a lot of the latter), the most effective safety measure for motorcycling has been the MSF program. Funded by the big makers, subsidized and mandated in CA for younger riders, it IMO has been more important than the helmet law. Just as many would argue for skydiving - education trumps mandates.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

>they really do make a difference in EVERYONE'S auto liability insurance rates in that state.

OK, so how about a compromise:

You can go on a government website and click on a box that says "I hereby waive my rights to insurance coverage and to collecting against other drivers/bikers, and I hereby state that I do not want extraordinary medical care in the event of an injury I incur while biking without a helmet." Then let em wear whatever they want.

That's not really a compromise.

When cagers insist on making left turns in front of oncoming traffic, they're still at fault. There is only a narrow set of accidents where the helmet makes a dramatic difference in the outcome.

If they need to wear the helmet, then add on the steel tip boots, the armored leather, the kevlar gloves, and the protective cup.

---
It does seem like the best solution for this guy is a turbanned helmet.

Helmets are great for open caskets

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[CornishChris 5]

far as I am aware the only people exempt from helmet laws here in the UK are turban wearers...

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people