Why I Think Helmet Laws Are Stupid

[Yo!Joe!!!]

Helmet Laws aren't stupid. People are.

Sorry but not everyone rides a 100hp sports bike. Most countries require you take a driving/riding course for your license. Education is the key, thisone encourages it. What you do after, that's on you.

I totally agree that a beenie is crap compared to a full-face, but it does protect. I mt bike, and downhill hardcore. I choose my gear adequately, but government can't tell me what i should wear.

Some people ride 6hp 50cc scooters that are not intended to catch air on hillsides. A beenie DOT helmet is minimum to "reduce" the risk of serious injury/trauma. Gov can't (not even a shouldn't - CAN'T) require full gear. Responsibility is on your hands, it is your life, your survival, your a$$.

Hell, it actually bothers me quite a bit to see the "Squids" thread and some ridiculous forumners who are self proclaimed righteous know it alls laughing at people on full protective gear, but on jeans saying "omg what a dumb*** ". Let me tell you ALL, its as dangerous or more to ride a downhill bike, on which you are not required to wear any protective gear, but your helmet, and a crappy one at that.

The rest is common sense. If you go surfing and get cut by your fins then that's on you. (i had 7 stitches on my head once from this). If you want to go kiteboarding and get slammed on the rocks then that's on you (hasn't happened, but does all the time). If you go skateboarding and scrape your kness then that's on you (there, done that). The point is, gov't can not regulate every aspect of our lives. If they do i'll leave the damn country to go somewhere i can ride butt naked. This mentality is baby-proofing everything is WRONG and then you dare say "land of the free". losuperl. Land of the "they have regulate how i have to take a leak: wear plastic gloves... and a mask.. and a radioactive proof suit too".

NO.
Thank you for listening.


*i do drive a 100hp sports bike and wear all my protective gear and my passenger i require she do the same, but that's MY CHOICE and that's my point.*

I concur..!

 

[Marcoose]

You could provide basic healthcare for a hundreds of kids for a year at the cost of one transplant.

Hair splitting bean counting aside, this statement is probably right.

 

[rodr]

Wow, talk about opposite experience. In my almost 30 years as a deputy/coroner I never had a M/C fatality in which a helmet would have saved them. Every fatal I worked the rider died as a direct result of blunt force trauma (being hit by vehicles). As a deputy/coroner I only worked fatals so I can't speak to other TC's.

From http://www.cdc.gov/Features/MotorcycleSafety/:

Was this in California where almost all would have been wearing helmets anyway?

Every single one of them.

Well... if the riders are all wearing helmets, it makes sense that you'd see no fatalities where a helmet would have saved them!

 

[MCSFTGUY]

From http://www.cdc.gov/Features/MotorcycleSafety/:



Was this in California where almost all would have been wearing helmets anyway?

FYI, myself and another BARFer have already discussed this particular piece a few weeks ago. Long story short, the numbers are not consistent with what is published in other places... lots of possible reasons having to do with how the CDC collects medical data.

The 37% effective is from a 2004 NHTSA report. I know of a researcher who has been looking at this report and is concerned with the consistency of some of the things he read in the report. His own preliminary research using NHTSA numbers puts helmet effectiveness at about 24%, which is where the research from the medical community puts it. Why is there such a difference between a match pairs mathematical analysis, 2004 report, and a straight evaluation of the 2009 crash numbers and the reports from the medical community?????

The 41% effectiveness for passengers is interesting and significantly in conflict with a 2007 NHTSA report that says passengers... all passengers, have a 90% survivial rate.

Kind of makes you wonder about what the real info about the whole thing is.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

Wow, talk about opposite experience. In my almost 30 years as a deputy/coroner I never had a M/C fatality in which a helmet would have saved them. Every fatal I worked the rider died as a direct result of blunt force trauma (being hit by vehicles). As a deputy/coroner I only worked fatals so I can't speak to other TC's.

Now this is really interesting.... one possible explanation for your observations, CA is a "universal" helmet law state, and for the last 15 years 70% of the fatal crashes in the state have been the fault of the motorcycle rider... data like this can skew your observations.... I was recently told that in Oregon 80% of the fatal are the fault of the motorcycle rider... as I recall it has been like this for almost 10 years. Oregon is also a Universal Helmet law state and other states are also starting to look at their crash data and find that riders are causing a majority of the crashes.

One other possible area of skewing your observations, a 2011 report out of CA indicated that sports bike style motorcycles are involved in a majority of the fatal collision in CA. Riders of this type of bike tend to be pretty good at wearing all of their gear, especially good helmets.

My experience as a recon has been seeing both sides... helmet saves and helmet didn't matter so I can't settle this difference.

 

[CurveSurfer]

In my almost 30 years as a deputy/coroner I never had a M/C fatality in which a helmet would have saved them. Every fatal I worked the rider died as a direct result of blunt force trauma (being hit by vehicles)..

This isn't really the point. Nobody is claiming helmets make you invincible.

The relevant question is: how many people have SURVIVED accidents because they were wearing a helmet, and would have died without one?

I can personally count myself in that category, and there are many others who can too.

 

[Tydive]

Not wearing a helmet=stupid and dangerous

Riding a motorcycle=stupid and dangerous

true, but...

Riding a motorcycle=stupid and dangerous
+ wearing a helmet
+ ATGATT
+ dirt bike experience
+ ongoing training
+ frequent practice
+ situational awareness / "being in the moment"
+ well maintained bike
= not so stupid, still dangerous
I do them, but I don't want to make all those thing mandated by law.

 

[Lovedoc]

Wow, talk about opposite experience. In my almost 30 years as a deputy/coroner I never had a M/C fatality in which a helmet would have saved them. Every fatal I worked the rider died as a direct result of blunt force trauma (being hit by vehicles). As a deputy/coroner I only worked fatals so I can't speak to other TC's.

Apparently helmet use shifts the curve, believe I read a paper suggesting fatal head injuries in helmet users are much more likely to be associated with major injuries to the body as well, helmetless fatalities are less likely to have major injuries elsewhere. Presumeably, it takes a lot less trauma to kill you if your head isn't protected.

Hair splitting bean counting aside, this statement is probably right.

I do the math on my fingers but I used MediCal costs of roughly $1500/child/year, thenthese numbers for perioperative transplant costs. Each kidney transplant is $250K +, a liver, is $500K, a heart about $1mill. Then add the $20K/yr costs of Immunosuppression drugs.

Your liver will probably go to a former IV drug user, your kidneys to a person with chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, some of whom might not have taken their meds conscientously. Virtually all of them are already on disability and I can't remember the last transplant recipient I saw that was working.

 

[Marcoose]

The relevant question is: how many people have SURVIVED accidents because they were wearing a helmet, and would have died without one?

Good point.

Each kidney transplant is $250K +, a liver, is $500K, a heart about $1mill. Then add the $20K/yr costs of Immunosuppression drugs.

Pardon my French; holy fuck!

 

[budman]

Why all the Bagging on Helmut. He makes great leathers.

 

[asthmodeus]

Your liver will probably go to a former IV drug user, your kidneys to a person with chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, some of whom might not have taken their meds conscientously. Virtually all of them are already on disability and I can't remember the last transplant recipient I saw that was working.

tss. whatevzz. my brother had a heart transplant and shouldn't feel bad about it. he paid into the system and when he needed it got something back, with a lot of luck.

oh, and he wasn't and isn't a drug user and always took care of himself- totally idiopathic diseases do occur.

hope if you ever need an organ you remember your shit- who knows, it might come from me or another motercyclertard.

 

[CorticalStack]

This has been (mostly) a really awesome thread and I want to thank those that contributed relevant content. This is a discussion I've been having with friends for a while and most have had a positive reaction to my suggestion of more realistic education in place of or in addition to helmet laws.

There are a few points that were brought up here that I wish to highlight:


Arguments Against Helmet Law

I Should Have The Right To Choose (even though most of us choose to wear gear)
As an American citizen, it should be our right to choose whether or not we should wear protective gear. The government should not have the right to make that choice on our behalf.
Ozymandias, sv2007, jdhu, TheRiddler, psychospeed, nebulous, mrmarklin, Zenica, Brown81, etxxz, assmodeus

Natural Selection / Darwin's Law is Being Hindered
Requiring helmets keeps the stupid safe, thus allowing them to breed and spread their stupidity.
Karbon, assmodeus


Arguments in Favor of Helmet Laws

Helmet Laws Save Taxpayer Money & Lives
Based on a study from UCLA[pdf], Helmet Laws drop severe motorcycle related injuries by 25%, and reduce fatalities by at least 30%.
eddiet204

Not Requiring Helmet Laws Increases Healthcare & Insurance Costs
The increased death rate caused by not requiring helmets makes these services more expensive, as the payout of an accident tends to be much larger (and probably more frequent).
assmodeus

"Free-Riding" Medical Insurance Shifts Medical Bill to Taxpayers
When an individual without medical insurance gets into an accident in which they are sent to an emergency room, if said individual is unable to pay for the procedure (or in many cases when the un/insured individual dies in the process of being worked on), Taxpayers foot the bill. This in conjunction with the argument that the helmet law does in fact save lives means that a helmet law saves taxpayers money in the long run, thus countering the argument about individual choice with financial responsibility.
Based on a study from UCLA[pdf], helmet laws result in a substantial reduction of cost to taxpayers- from 40M (1991) to 24M (1992) in the first year of the law.
jdhu, Jello_Biafra, Not Karl Malden, ALANRIDER7, eddiet204

Saves Guilt on the part of the Other Individual(s) Involved in an Accident
This was an interesting perspective- if a motorcyclist without a helmet smashes into a car and dies the driver of that car is now left with a face shaped dent and blood-splattered halo in their car, and the image of the dead or dying motorcyclist for the rest of their lives. They did nothing wrong, yet are punished with eternal guilt for not doing something to prevent it.
NoTraffic

Helmet Laws Keep Helmets From Becoming "Uncool"
An interesting and very valid point- requiring helmets forces the cool kids to wear them, which forces society to define "cool" helmets. If you drop the requirement, helmets stop being cool and people are less likely to wear them.
Corb


Arguments In Favor Of Education

Severely Injured Costs More to Fix Than Dead
This coincides with the "Free-Riding" Medical Insurance argument above- if you're not wearing proper gear but you are wearing a helmet, you'll be more likely to live, but in way worse condition. This incurs large medical bills you may not be able to (or live to) pay.
SFSV650

Learning Pain/Death By Example Trumps Learning Through Experience
Speaks for itself.
sanjuro

 

[rodr]

You didn't mention my point of "how important is the argument?".

In my opinion, not very. It's a question of legislating something that sensible riders will do anyway. I'd rather see other battles fought, like saving our OHV parks, increasing public access to public lands, and improving awareness of motorcycling in a positive way.

 

[CorticalStack]

You didn't mention my point of "how important is the argument?".

In my opinion, not very. It's a question of legislating something that sensible riders will do anyway. I'd rather see other battles fought, like saving our OHV parks, increasing public access to public lands, and improving awareness of motorcycling in a positive way.

I think you missed my original point -- that blunt, serious education about why protective gear is necessary would do more to keep riders safe more than helmet laws do. The argument of whether or not helmet laws are helpful sort of took the thread away from this.

Whether or not education of that nature would help significantly is an argument I consider very important and necessary, personally.

 

[rodr]

Nope, didn't miss that point.

 

[boney]

I think you missed my original point -- that blunt, serious education about why protective gear is necessary would do more to keep riders safe more than helmet laws do. The argument of whether or not helmet laws are helpful sort of took the thread away from this.

Whether or not education of that nature would help significantly is an argument I consider very important and necessary, personally.

My opinion is that education only works to a point. Let's look at the general public and cell phones. Studies show that talking on the cell phone is akin to driving drunk. And even worse if you're gonna be texting. A huge amount on money has been spent on the issue to educate people but when you look around, it hasn't changed anything.

They made it illegal and attached a monetary disincentive and it still hasn't slowed anyone down.

So, if you suggest that showing pictures of dead, mangled, and smashed heads to people and instructing them that "you're more likely to survive a motorcycle crash if you wear a helmet" is going to change people's minds, I'm going to suggest that it's not working for other safety related issues and it's not likely to work for this one.

I'd like to think that motorcyclists, as a group, are brighter than the average person out there, but I'm pretty sure we're not.