SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> The Cafe >> helmet laws
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1309851316

Message started by stinger on 07/05/11 at 00:35:16

Title: helmet laws
Post by stinger on 07/05/11 at 00:35:16

Kinda puts a dent in their cause for sure!

http://www.katu.com/news/national/124978164.html

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/05/11 at 06:56:42

No, it doesnt..

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by SuperSavage on 07/05/11 at 09:31:11

There should be varied insurance rates or group riders according to gear worn. No Helmet or gear pays a higher premium. Why charge ATGATT the same as peeps who prefer to have their locks blowin' in the wind and arms tanned and leathery? It doesn't make sense. Just like various bikes have different premiums, why not gear? If you're in an accident wearing jeans and a leather vest and have some serious boo boos due to a lack of armor and Helmet, why should the rest of us foot the bill?

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Z on 07/05/11 at 13:25:46

How do you prove that you wear the gear? Anybody can say "yes I wear ATGATT" in order to get the lower rates but how would an insurance company prove that they really do? Maybe if they were in an accident and not wearing the gear but other than that how would they do it?

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/05/11 at 16:30:23

Maybe if they were in an accident and not wearing the gear but other than that how would they do it?

You answer the question

Do You wear ATTGATT??? "YES" to get the discount & then get hurt NOT wearing ATTGATTm,,, your insurance doesnt cover your injuries,, simple..

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Driller on 07/05/11 at 16:52:17

Sort of like they say in the military..."line of duty-yes or line of duty-no"

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Midnightrider on 07/05/11 at 17:47:10

I wouldnt worry about cost. If you go down without a helmet on over 35mph youre dead unless you've got a gold horse shoe up your a$$. Its a lot cheaper to bury someone than repair someone all broken up.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by scroop on 07/05/11 at 20:02:08

Be careful on adding insurance premiums (taxes) to someone who you consider is engaging in risky behavior. My motorcycle premium is very low and I'm sure that yours is as well, but motorcycling is a very dangerous sport - proper gear or not. The same arguement that you may use for outrageously increased premiums for not "gearing up properly" is the same arguement that someone else may use for riding a motorcycle period - and they would be right.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Midnightrider on 07/05/11 at 20:38:58

Years ago the owner of Ruger firearms refused to provide health insurance to the employees who rode motorcycles. Of course it was taken to court and Ruger lost, but thats what can happen when you ask for more laws.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by stinger on 07/06/11 at 01:01:23

Whether it's a law or not it, wearing a helmet is a good idea. Riding thru the midwest I decided for the very first time to ride without a helmet. My head got cooked and my face was sand blasted with gravel. 5 minutes after I put my helmet back on I had a bird explode on my helmet right above my visor at 65 mph. Another time someone lobbed a beer can out of a car a 100 yds in front of me on the freeway and it bounced up and smacked my visor. No helmet and I am sure I would have went down at a very high speed. If you choose not to wear one, good luck with that!

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/06/11 at 09:46:00

64637E79707265170 wrote:

Agreed, its a good idea & I wear one,, but its NOT okay that someone would be forced to wear a helmet,,

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by drharveys on 07/06/11 at 14:16:07

You can't fix stupid, but sometimes you can legislate against it.

Having personally stress tested two helmets (one each bicycle and motorcycle) I can testify to their effectiveness.

The Hurt report came up with the rather conclusive finding on helmets:
Every helmeted rider fatality also suffered non-head related fatal injuries. Most non-helmeted rider fatalities only serious injury was head related.

Don't let the junk "science", cooked statistics and double-talk interpretations of the Constitution presented by the pro-brain damage faction cause you to qualify for a Darwin award!

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by ALfromN.H. on 07/06/11 at 15:05:16

Helmets are optional here in NH but I wear one all the time. I don't care what other people do. Same with seat belts. Not required here but I use them. If the next guy doesn't want to, thats his decision.

AL

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/06/11 at 15:16:16

202D232377410 wrote:

& the trumpets blare

Dunt Dunt Duhh Duuuuhhhhh!

Thats the Libertarian attitude,, & I support it fully,,

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by joscswny on 07/08/11 at 05:39:39

I'm with Al and Justin on this one.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by scottnj on 07/08/11 at 06:24:57

In general I think people should have the right to wear what they want when they ride, but I think helmet laws may do some good.

I remember that before the seat belt laws that were passed in the early 80's nobody in my family ever wore seat belts. After the law passed and cops started to hand out tickets, we started wearing them and now we do it without thinking about it. I am pretty sure seat belts have saved us from serious injuries more than once in the last 30 years. I'm not sure we would ever have gotten into the habit of wearing them every time we got in the car if not for the seat belt laws.

Here in OH there's a helmet law for "novice" motorcyclists that requires us to wear helmets until we've had an endorsement for a year. After that you can decide for yourself. Strikes me as a decent compromise. Just my $.02.

When riding I'm a ATGATT type (full disclosure: I'm a noob). I don't tell other riders what to wear when they ride, but I'm not convinced helmet laws are a bad idea.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Paladin. on 07/10/11 at 09:12:50

7451565050475D5F4A0C0E0F0F3E0 wrote:

There should be varied insurance rates or group riders according to gear worn. No Helmet or gear pays a higher premium...

Hello? Insurance companies can and do vary insurance rates according to various reasons -- how many miles you ride, reason for riding, age, gender, where you live, the motorcycle you ride, license and for how long, married . . . but they do not ask about ATGATT or even just a helmet. Because it does not matter -- it is not one of the factors that causes them to cost money.

Helmet laws save automobile insurance companies -- automobiles pay out when the driver hits a motorcyclist. A car-car the fault is even. Motorcyclist are better drivers -- car-motorcycle is generally the car driver's fault.

Automobile insurance companies have paid for helmet laws because helmet laws reduce the number of motorcyclists. When California passed its helmet law the number of motorcycle deaths dropped 40%. Because the number of motorcycles dropped 40%. Fewer targets, fewer deaths.

Personally, I do not want the Government telling me how I must live -- I must drive a safe car, not a motorcycle, a slow car, healthy food, exercise, brush and floss twice daily, etc. etc. etc.. I especially do not want laws that are based in lies.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by jdeluca on 07/10/11 at 09:22:05

I'm with Paladin and JOG on this one...I'll wear a helmet because I choose to wear a helmet, not because I'm told I have to wear it. Of course in MA, we aren't allowed to choose because those in the lawmaking position feel that it is their position to decide for us. Just like how they rule that fireworks are illegal because they're unsafe, or the hoops you have to jump through to get a firearms permit, because guns aren't "safe". Nothing is safe when you get right down to it, it is up to the end user to act intelligently use their head.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Serowbot on 07/10/11 at 09:42:04

The stats speak for themselves...
You can argue about the right of government to regulate safety,... but the evidence that helmets make you safer is indisputable...

Paladin uses selective stats to support his personal opinion... but he also believes it is impossible for him to be involved in an accident...

Much info here... including the few selective parts Paladin quotes...
Read for yourself, if you are interested...
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

Quote:

How effective are helmets?

Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care. They are designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets cannot provide total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the incidence of both. NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.2 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.3 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.2 A recent literature review estimated that helmets are 42 percent effective at preventing death and 69 percent effective at preventing head injuries.4 While no real-world crash studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of novelty helmets, or helmets that do not meet federal performance standards for preventing injury or death, NHTSA laboratory tests suggest that head injuries are much more likely with these helmets than with ones certified to the U.S. Department of Transportation standard.5 A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of different styles of helmets, including half-coverage, open-face, and full-face.6 Crash-involved riders wearing half-coverage helmets were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than riders wearing open-face or full-face helmets.

Quote:

In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries rose.

In two recent studies, researchers modeled state motorcyclist fatality rates by helmet law type, after controlling for various factors such as per capita income, population density, and annual precipitation. Death rates were lowest in states with helmet laws that cover all riders. Rates in states with helmet laws that cover only some riders were lower than those in states with no helmet law, but not as low as rates in states with helmet laws that cover all riders. These results held for all three types of rates considered: deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, deaths per 100,000 population, and deaths per 10 billion vehicle miles traveled.13,14

Some examples of helmet laws and their effect on helmet use and death and injury rates:

When California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992 helmet use jumped to 99 percent from about 50 percent before the law,15 and the number of motorcyclist fatalities decreased 37 percent.16
Nebraska reinstated a helmet law on January 1, 1989, after repealing an earlier law in 1977. The state then saw a 22 percent reduction in serious head injuries among motorcyclists.17
From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect, the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and had risen to 98 percent by June 1990.18 Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent.19 But in September 1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.20
Kentucky repealed its universal helmet law in 1998, followed by Louisiana in 1999. These actions resulted in lower helmet use, and quickly increased motorcyclist deaths in these states by 50 percent and 100 percent, respectively.21
In 2000, Florida's universal helmet law was weakened to exempt riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage. An Institute study found that the motorcyclist death rate in Florida increased by about 25 percent after the state weakened its helmet law. The death rate rose from 31 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements before the law change (1998-99) to 39 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements after (2001-2002). An estimated 117 deaths could have been prevented during 2001-02 if the law had not been changed.22 An evaluation of the Florida law change by NHTSA found a similar effect; motorcyclist deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations increased 21 percent during the two years after the law was changed compared with the two years before

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Paladin. on 07/10/11 at 12:53:08

4751465B43565B40340 wrote:

Paladin uses selective stats to support his personal opinion... but he also believes it is impossible for him to be involved in an accident...

I have never said it is impossible for me to be involved in a accident.
I do not like liars.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Paladin. on 07/10/11 at 13:23:53

The Government are the ones who are using selective static

Quote:

When California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992 helmet use jumped to 99 percent from about 50 percent before the law,15 and the number of motorcyclist fatalities decreased 37 percent.

Selective Stat. California passed the Helmet Law and deaths decreased 37 percent. They are careful to actually say it because of saving helmets. So let's look at the truth:

California Motorcycle Registrations,

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1991-06.pdf Table 1035
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1992-05.pdf Table 1001
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1993-06.pdf Table 1018
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1994-06.pdf Table 1006
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab1995_2000.html: Year 1995 Table 1023, Year 1996 Table 1000, Year 1997 Table 1005, Year 1998 Table 1029, Year 1999 Table 1027, Year 2000 Table 1026
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab2001_2005.html: Year 2001 Table 1087, Year 2002 Table 1065

1989: 628,000
1990: 641,000
1991: 651,000 15.6% of motorcycles were in California
1992: 623,000
1993: 587,000
1994: 542,000
1995: 519,000
1996: 513,000
1997: 441,000
1998: 390,000 10.2% of motorcycles were in California
1999: 406,000

Here is the TRUTH. After the California Helmet Law California motorcycle registrations dropped 40% -- from 651,000 to 390,000.
A 37% deaths with a drop of 40% of registrations means that rate death rate per registrations increased.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Serowbot on 07/10/11 at 13:48:48

You've successfully drowned me in B.S....

I see nothing to back up your assertion... just a flood of random census PDF's and a couple of bad links...

,,, and then another unattributed statistical quote... :-/...

(cough)(cough),bullshit!(cough),...

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/11 at 13:53:00

Paladin said,

Here is the TRUTH. After the California Helmet Law California motorcycle registrations dropped 40% -- from 651,000 to 390,000.
A 37% deaths with a drop of 40% of registrations means that rate death rate per registrations increased.

&, since I happen to like heck outta both of ya, Im gonna take a step back & hope you guys play nice..

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Serowbot on 07/10/11 at 13:59:33

JOG,... I know he said it,... but where did it come from?...

Did his own study?...

Wanna' hear mine?...
Put on yer' helmet, then hit your head with a hammer...
Now, take it off and try it again...
100% of participants wish they'd skipped the second part... :-?...

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/10/11 at 14:18:31

Well,, thats just funny, BUT,, hear m out, okay?

Ive totaled 3 bikes,. once, I was wearin a helmet..

First pass, if I had a helmet on, Id BE DEAD,, cuz I landed on the side of my head & right shoulder,, layed my head over so hard it cracked 3 vertebrae in my neck,, didnt know that till 3 years later.. but if I had been wearing a helmet, it would have been a speacer between shoulder & head, & would have separated my neck, like a noose,
2nd crash,, I didnt hit my head, busted the engine case off on the left end, bent the crank, I broke the bars where the thigh meets torso,, damage done to thingy was painful & took about 3 years to heal,, but,, I didnt have a helmet on, & I didnt hurt THAT head..
The lat time a stuffed a bike, I slammed my face into the cab corner of a pickup, helmet flexed in & busted my upper lip, 2 or 3 stitches worth,, took 3 weeks to swallow w/o discomnfort,

MY personal conclusion? Sometimne a helmet will kill you or just make the injuries worse,, sometines it dont matter at all & sometimes itll save yer LIFE.
Like Popeye said,

Ya pays yer money & ya takes yer chances,,, & everyone has the right to do exactly that. I am NOT the right guy to ride a bike & do it the way Palladin does,, I tend to play too close to the edge, HE, OTOH, has demonstrated that he has a different attitude & rides differently & is safer, without a helmet,, I respect his position,, its not for me, but it works for him,, Does that mean some idiot wont run a light & kill him? No,, But, he is a grown man & feels comfortable doing things th way HE does them, & I , as libertarian thinking kinda guy, Have to REspect that & say,, Cool Dude.. thats good for you,, its not for me, cuz I have a history of screwin up, I believe I NEED a helmet .. so I wear one,, Could my helmet actually kill me? Yes,.,, I just think Im an odds on favorite IF I wear one,, I could be wrong,,

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Serowbot on 07/10/11 at 14:38:50

Fair 'nuff...

I quit...

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by scroop on 07/10/11 at 14:47:04

I don't get it. Without even changing a comma, most every arguement made on this forum for legislating against riding a motorcycle without a helmet can also be made for legislating against riding a motorcycle at all. Believe it or not, the purpose of government is not to legislate safety!
I greatly respect the opinions and ideas of other people, even when I sharply disagree with them. But what we have in common is the fact that we all ride motorcycles and we love it. We can unite together on that cause or we can each subdivide into a catagory so specific to our own style of riding that we will become too ineffective to preserve it. The choice is ours.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by Paladin. on 07/10/11 at 20:29:40

6C7A6D70687D706B1F0 wrote:

The PDFs are from "The Statistical Abstract of the United States, published since 1878, is the authoritative and comprehensive summary of statistics on the social, political, and economic organization of the United States." http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

I have been using the Statistical Abstract for many decades . . . a good public library will have the paper issues, so that you can verify that the Internet version is a correct copy.

I cited the pages, every table, so that you could read the truth. The numbers published each year, so that you can see yourself the numbers I listed.

You can read the truth, that in 1991 there were 651,000 registered motorcycles in California. The Helmet Law was 1992. You can read that by 1998 California was down to just 390,000 registered motorcycles, a 40% drop. Yes, the (automobile) Insurance Institute for (automobile) Highway Safety states, factually, states that motorcycle deaths dropped 37% when California passed the Helmet Law. The lie is in what is left out -- that the number of motorcycles dropped even more, 40% down. The helmet law had a *higher* rate of deaths/registrations.

I do not like liars -- and the IIHS lies about motorcycle helmets.

You can ignore the truth -- I cannot. You call it bullshit, but you refuse to look at the truth. Not my problem. I have looked. Since the push of sport motorcycles and helmets and ATGATT is assocation with a more than triple the rate of deaths per accident, over the past 30 years.

--------

Bottom line:

Helmet Laws Save Motorcyclists Lives -- but only because they are not riding motorcycles. There is no way to see if the lives were killed in cars instead.

Helmets do not save Motorcyclist lives. Statistically, the States that have mandated all helmets have a *higher* rate of deaths/accidents. This is why the IIHS uses weasel words, why the "NHTSA estimates" deaths since they cannot show the numbers helmets save lives.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by SuperSavage on 07/10/11 at 22:58:12

Helmets and gear will and do prevent the sanding and grinding down of various appendages that come into contact with road surfaces. I work in a hospital as an ultrasound tech. I have seen those who wear ATGATT and those who don't. Suffice it to say, I wear ATGATT. How many NFL players suit up with nothing but a leather helmet and their skivvys and have a go at it? I like my skin and teeth right where the good lord grew them.

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/11/11 at 00:03:35

MY personal conclusion? Sometimne a helmet will kill you or just make the injuries worse,, sometines it dont matter at all & sometimes itll save yer LIFE.
Like Popeye said,

Ya pays yer money & ya takes yer chances

& I didnt even have the stats to back that up,, just some experience,, p[ainful experience,, I might add..

Title: Re: helmet laws
Post by stinger on 07/11/11 at 01:57:10

My riding buddy fell asleep on his motorcycle at 70 mph and went end over end. Broke about everything in his body except his head. His helmet split on contact but held his head together at least. He is riding today because of the helmet. i don't like wearing them either, but I do, just because I feel safer.