• 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

One can argue about safety or image or choice.

But to me it all boils down to comfort.

Riding in all weather, all roads, traffic, bugs and everything else makes a full face helmet necessary for comfort. Getting beaned in the eye or cheek by a rock kicked up or a bee at 75 mph is awful.
 
Meter Man said:
One can argue about safety or image or choice.

But to me it all boils down to comfort.

Riding in all weather, all roads, traffic, bugs and everything else makes a full face helmet necessary for comfort. Getting beaned in the eye or cheek by a rock kicked up or a bee at 75 mph is awful.
Click to expand...

Well ok, CHOOSE to so wear a helmet.
 
stangmx13 said:
who cares if u hit your chin? whats more likely to be fatal, a broken jaw or an impact to any place that a half-helmet covers...
Click to expand...

Thing is, the lower, front quadrant of my head is pretty much my favorite part. That whole brain thing works ok, when it works, but I use my teeth and eyes all the time. They're the parts I'd least like to have to do without.
 
jdhu said:
Well ok, CHOOSE to so wear a helmet.
Click to expand...

I do.

I just don't get the I don't want to wear a seat belt or helmet crowd.

It always makes me go :wtf when I see an unhelmeted BMW GSA rider with all the farkles and BMW cordura suit, gloves and boots tearing down a Montana highway.
 
TL;DR... But original post seemed to be a Camel's Nose logical fallacy, and a false dichotomy logical fallacy. You can have helmet laws and education.

Helmet laws save lives.

Period.
 
I agree, helmet laws save lives and it also saves guilt.

Imagine you are riding as a passenger with your family in a car and a motorcyclist speeds through a red light. The motorcyclist is not wearing a helmet, your dad clips the tail end and the motorcyclist swerves and hits a pole.

His head hits a light post and brains are gushing out. 1) It is the motorcyclists fault. 2) Does your family deserve not only the imagery of that accident but the guilt of having unintentionally killing someone? No.

It is the same with traffics speeds, bicycle helmet laws, or any other type of traffic law out there. It's been proven that people are better controlled when restrictions are put in place (at least in this country). Why don't you apply the same logic and would rather educate all vehicle operators that speeding excessively is not the smartest thing to do? Take down all the maximum speed zones and tell everyone that if they don't speed too fast, they can react to upcoming hazards in a much more manageable time. Yeaaahhh right.

Those are my thoughts.
 
Meter Man said:
I do.

I just don't get the I don't want to wear a seat belt or helmet crowd.

It always makes me go :wtf when I see an unhelmeted BMW GSA rider with all the farkles and BMW cordura suit, gloves and boots tearing down a Montana highway.
Click to expand...

I don't either (maybe I could see going helmetless for a 3 min ride to the grocery store on a hot day), but so what? That's our opinion.

I think country music sucks, should other people then think that as well?
 
tldr;

Yes, I understand that the people that don't wear adequate gear/safety affect my insurance premium and image, but I'll gladly pay a little extra to rid our species of the dim witted.

My concise view: natural selection in action, as long as I have the right to ride safely.

:ride
 
If a rider eats it and his brains spill out, the cost of that accident will be borne by health insurers and passed onto policy holders or the public - therein lies the origin of helmet laws. Personal safety is a profit and loss dynamic, not government altruism. Since there is no such thing as a rider that cannot crash, there is always the specter of loss to business. Therefore helmets are mandated in California for all riders. This should not be taken as a nanny state intervention into our lives, but rather as a black and white example of how politics is driven by corporate interests and their bottom lines. All that said, it should not be rocket science for riders to weigh the benefits of riding with a helmet vs. the lack of benefits without one.
 
Not Karl Malden said:
If a rider eats it and his brains spill out, the cost of that accident will be borne by health insurers and passed onto policy holders or the public
Click to expand...

I would think a dead rider doesn't cost an insurer or healthcare provider a whole lot; a living but severely injured rider (half helmet, or helmet with no other protective gear) is a far more expensive fix?
 
Last edited:
Meter Man said:
One can argue about safety or image or choice.

But to me it all boils down to comfort.

Riding in all weather, all roads, traffic, bugs and everything else makes a full face helmet necessary for comfort. Getting beaned in the eye or cheek by a rock kicked up or a bee at 75 mph is awful.
Click to expand...

Go ride a big bike like a Goldwing or something. On those you don't need a helmet for comfort. Probably more comfortable without one actually. Not every bike is a sportbile. :party
 
Not Karl Malden said:
If a rider eats it and his brains spill out, the cost of that accident will be borne by health insurers and passed onto policy holders or the public - therein lies the origin of helmet laws. Personal safety is a profit and loss dynamic, not government altruism. Since there is no such thing as a rider that cannot crash, there is always the specter of loss to business. Therefore helmets are mandated in California for all riders. This should not be taken as a nanny state intervention into our lives, but rather as a black and white example of how politics is driven by corporate interests and their bottom lines. All that said, it should not be rocket science for riders to weigh the benefits of riding with a helmet vs. the lack of benefits without one.
Click to expand...

OK, agreed. Now, what if a "no-helmet is OK" law requires that a rider demonstrate say, $5 million (or whatever) in insurance coverage, such as with a special license plate sticker?

The idea isn't mine, ABATE tries to lobby for this every year.
 
I don't like helmet laws. I should be free to kill myself. But I'm not so stupid as to ride without a helmet and act on that freedom.
 
Yep, helmet laws are a good thing, but the as-written helmet law has its weak points.
 
SFSV650 said:
I would think a dead rider doesn't cost an insurer or healthcare provider a whole lot; a living but severely injured rider (half helmet, or helmet with no other protective gear) is a far more expensive fix?
Click to expand...

Risk of death goes up significantly when you aren't wearing a helmet. Risk of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) also goes up significantly.

Even with a half helmet, the risk of TBI is reduced, compared to wearing no helmet.

"I'd rather die than suffer a TBI" is a statement I hear a lot against wearing helmets. It's a ridiculous statement, since helmets reduce the chances of both. We'd do well to kill this argument.
 
Yo!Joe!!! said:
Don't worry. ObamaCare will make you wear a helmet when you ride moto, ski, snowboard, jet ski, skydive, rock climb, skate and ride a bicycle. Or face a hefty fine, I mean tax, no, fine. Shit. Which is it..?
Click to expand...
Agreed! Stupid socialist government. If an adult man signs up to serve in a war that isn't, the government shouldn't put tax payers' money towards helmets, bullet proof vests, etc. Obama is destroying this country!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top