CorticalStack
MSF RiderCoach & Tourer
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Moto(s)
- _____________ * 2008 Moto Guzzi Norge GTS Wiggle: Yes
- Name
- Soleil
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.
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.
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.
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:
Update with Response Summary:
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.
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.
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.
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:
Update with Response Summary:
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
Last edited:
