• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Why I Think Helmet Laws Are Stupid

SFSV650 said:
Actually there are a lot of restrictions on what you can and can't do laying out kitchens, bathrooms and other wet spaces under the California Building Code, occupational health and safety, the Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHPD, etc, often with good reason, much of it to prevent slip and fall injuries which are costly to individuals, property owners, insurers and to social safety nets which (sometimes) pick up the slack.

Some folks pure, unadulterated libertarianism goes out the window when they get hurt and need to get everything put back together again.
Click to expand...

That is the end-game of the point I'm trying to make. In defense of the safety net, four separate bureaucracies have jurisdiction over where you lay your bathroom tiles.

I was kidding about the hazards of the bathroom; and it turns out the government(s) is already "Protecting" us from us.
 
I'm going out on a limb here...

With the new requirement that all Americans buy insurance, the excuse that the lawmakers use; "it is unfair to make the general population pay for the medical care of an uninsured motorcyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed," is now moot. Everybody will have insurance.

If the anti-helmet law people would get their head out of the "nanny state" sand long enough to jump on this twisted opportunity, they might just get what they want. Of course, that would admit that having a health care law is important to their cause, which will be a stretch.
 
Triple Threat said:
...For those that don't agree with the helmet law and knowing that the Gov't prefers money over anything else. Let's vote in a law that states no helmet is required if rider were to put up a 5 million dollar bond.

I'd vote for that!
Click to expand...

Michigan repealed their 40yr old helmet law this year, but the new law requires helmet-less motorcyclists to carry at least an additional $20,000 in medical insurance, which is probably low considering the cost of head injury and long-term care.

The new law also requires motorcyclists who want to ride without a helmet must be 21 and have passed a motorcycle safety course within the past two years.

Kind of ironic , huh? One of the first things you're taught in MSF courses is to always wear a helmet.
 
boney said:
I'm going out on a limb here...

With the new requirement that all Americans buy insurance, the excuse that the lawmakers use; "it is unfair to make the general population pay for the medical care of an uninsured motorcyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed," is now moot. Everybody will have insurance.

If the anti-helmet law people would get their head out of the "nanny state" sand long enough to jump on this twisted opportunity, they might just get what they want. Of course, that would admit that having a health care law is important to their cause, which will be a stretch.
Click to expand...

Obamacare doesn't require you to buy insurance. The supreme court ruled you will be 'taxed' if you don't have medical coverage. It's unconstitutional. You can't be taxed for not doing something.
 
ALANRIDER7 said:
Obamacare doesn't require you to buy insurance. The supreme court ruled you will be 'taxed' if you don't have medical coverage. It's unconstitutional. You can't be taxed for not doing something.
Click to expand...

Way to change the subject away from helmet laws! :thumbup
 
Zenica said:
if laws are there for protection of people than it should be same for everyone. if people can smoke them selfs to death why wouldnt be option for helmets?
Click to expand...
Nice that you understand helmets do work when they work. It's not the lack of helmet that kills the biker, it's the physics of the accident. We allow for people to smoke and to ride motorbikes as much as they want, but don't allow for smokers to endanger other's lives. It isn't much to have bikers care for their own lives.

scimmione said:
Michigan repealed their 40yr old helmet law this year, but the new law requires helmet-less motorcyclists to carry at least an additional $20,000 in medical insurance, which is probably low considering the cost of head injury and long-term care.
Click to expand...
That will buy about 2.5 hours of ER care.

ALANRIDER7 said:
Obamacare doesn't require you to buy insurance. The supreme court ruled you will be 'taxed' if you don't have medical coverage. It's unconstitutional. You can't be taxed for not doing something.
Click to expand...
FYI, Obamacare was single-payer universal coverage, or Medicare and Medicaid for all. Like in every advanced country and even some third world countries. Easy-peasy. The Party of No got us the current law. Thanks, Party of No!
 
InNoHurry said:
FYI, Obamacare was single-payer universal coverage, or Medicare and Medicaid for all. Like in every advanced country and even some third world countries. Easy-peasy. The Party of No got us the current law. Thanks, Party of No!
Click to expand...

Well not exactly, the law requires states to organize "Insurance Exchanges", enticing private insurance companies to compete for your business, minus pre-existing condition rules, contraception carveouts, pluses like the dependant coverage until age 25, some other stuff.

Medicare would be single payer except all the supplemental plans which are purchased by many beneficiaries. Good thing we don't have Medicare-for-all, in it's present form, health care costs would skyrocket.

Medicaid is a program run by states with partially matching federal dollars. The state pays the bills, though usually now the states contract out to HMO-like companies to administer the benefits for profit.

Medicaid-for-all comes closest to single payer universal health care as seen in the UK and Canada. It's also the most affordable model, but Americans used to new Cadillac's in health care would never be happy with a used Civic.
 
tixen said:
I've been thinking this over for a while and thought I'd post this here to see what you all think of my thoughts on the matter.

In the state of California, we are required by law to wear helmets while we ride. This isn't any sort of a big deal for the lot of us, as we know how dangerous it is to ride without a helmet.

The helmet must be DOT approved, but that standard is so ridiculous that helmets that do almost no good at all are allowed, and because people don't understand how worthless they are (they're DOT approved! They must be good!), the most unobtrusive helmets are some of the most commonly used.
a99Yn.png

You can hop on your Hardly or Gixxer wearing a pair of flip-flops and a swim suit, strap a beanie on your head and ride off- that's perfectly legal... yet the claim of this helmet law is that it's intended to save lives?

What about the rest of your body? Why stop at the helmet? If the interest behind this is to save lives, then require jackets and gloves! Require footwear that actually covers the feet! If you're not going to be serious about your intentions, why bother legislating it at all? This brings me to my next point, and the main point I want to make here.


Forcing people to do something because it's safer breeds contempt.
Showing them why it's important breeds responsibility.​

I think the helmet laws are stupid. Instead of requiring people to wear helmets that in many cases won't significantly prevent injury (see above), I think we should have mandatory safety courses in which the dangers of riding without protection are displayed without candy coating. Show them what happens when you slide along a road in a pair of "sturdy" Levis. Show them how they can't escape the dreaded Left Turner. Give them a feel for how vulnerable they really are. Hell, even just showing someone that the main impact areas on a helmet that protect you in a crash are the chin bar and lower forehead might inspire people to wear more protective helmets.
Ymp1A.jpg

If they get through all that and still feel like they don't need any gear, they don't value their lives, and no law will stop them from getting themselves killed.

What are your thoughts on this, BARF?

Update with Clarification:
Click to expand...


Of course the law which allows beanie and novelty helmets is useless.
The DoT sticker means nothing... Our Government is broken, every part of our lives is a bad joke...
We are Doomed....Get over it.
 
If you could get an exemption from the healthcare mandate, and instead got to carry a card / necklace that read 'healthcare opt-out, conscientious objector, whatever, please cease treatment above $xxxx", and you got to write in however much money you're happy to be personally liable for in an emergency, knowing that $1 over they stop work, pull out the tubes and wheel you out onto the sidewalk, would you? If not, there's every chance you will become a financial burden on everyone else if you injure yourself while uninsured then suddenly decide you'd like some healthcare. Yes, even if you rack up huge bills and declare bankruptcy.

Bear in mind that if you write $1,000 on that card, it might not cover the 10 miles from Alice's to Stanford Hospital. At $500 they probably won't even check your vitals on the side of the road.

Edit : This hasn't much to do with helmets per se, just with the way this thread has been going.
 
Last edited:
What a great thread... until it got hijacked... maybe I can get it back a little.

I think the big question has been missed, it is not that helmet work, it is how well do they work? If helmets were 90% effective at saving lives would that justify helmet laws? If helmets were only 10% effective at saving lives would guvmnt intrustion be justified?

Looking at the helmet standard, FMVSS 218, drop testing is what is done. What about rotational motion induced due to forward motion when the helmet hits the pavement. I was given a pre-published copy of a study out of Europe that looked at the rotational forces due to this motion and interaction and they found that rotational accelerations are high enough to cause brain injury... I have friend who is a Biomechanics College Professor.... To finish this thought... chances are that the same injuries will occur without a helmet. However, this is a question regarding effectiveness.

Last Draft report I read out of the University of Maryland... impacts to the head account for 16% of the injuries seen in motorcycle crashes... helmets were effective at reducing TBI..... as I recall, TBI was addressed by fatal head injuries were not.

Don't pull the MRO's like ABATE and the AMA into this...... they are not Anti-helmet, they are freedom of choice.... very big difference.... For example... if I am riding in an urban environment where the vast majority of motorcycle crashes occur I can choose to wear a helmet... according to a friend of mine... so would most of the ABATE and AMA members.... However, if I am riding through death valley in 115 degree heat where there has never been a fatal or major injury motorycle crash, then I should be able to decide to ride without a helmet if I choose to.

More and more info is popping up about helmets.... the current media blitz and reports about how good helmets are has been going on for a long time, how effective can we say this has been?

One other question... CA already has a helmet law... as well as all of the other safety measures for riders so what does all of this helmet law stuff do for increasing our safety as riders here in CA?

And before anybody says anything, I have it on good authority that ABATE is moving away from work on repeal of the CA helmet law and moving toward other educational items to help all riders... just thought you all should know...
 
If you don't wear a helmet, you're required to be an organ donor. Fair?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top