| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
....have you ever driven a car while wearing a helmet? That would ensure catastrophic epic failure on every road in this country. What a bone-headed idea. Oh, I'm not saying make helmet use in cars mandatory. Others have called for that, but most people wouldn't go along with it. I remember when the PA state trooper got permission to not wear their "Smokey the Bear" hats in the car, as they claimed neck strain. ( Helmet law state ) It would however save lives. ( after the initial carnage when people who don't remember how to turn their head while driving make Darwin the new buzz word ) Why is a helmet different in a car than on a motorcycle? And HELLO! fellow safety nazi here. I'd enjoy drinking a pop with you on a ride at a gas stop ( I like to walk around a bit after a tank full, I'm old ) mocking the squids who pass by in FF Helmets, shorts, tank tops & sandals. ( I live in a helmet law state ) I didn't learn to ride by MSI or whatever. It was more "here's the brake, here's the throttle, it shift like this. Oh yeah, you gotta wear a helmet in NY." An explanation of countersteering & traction would have been nice.  Having protective gear available that wasn't a weeks salary race leather would have been really nice too. My question still is where do you stop? Would you support a law requiring all to wear full leathers? Back hump protectors? Knee sliders? Full face helmets on bicycles? I'm not going to get more silly ( pedestrian airbags, escalator parachutes etc. ) I just want to know where you stop. Because if you don't stop you get bad & intrusive regulations. | ||
| Crackhead |
you stop were cost and benefits converge | ||
| Chellem |
*sigh* We're obviously not going to get anywhere here. There are people who create safety devices and safety rules. Most are good, some are less good, and some are getting better. Then, there are people who choose to utilize them, and people who choose NOT to, for whatever their reasons are. THEN, there are people who INSIST that everyone wear ALL the safety equipment, because, ya know, it's what's best for them. And why wouldn't they WANT to wear the safety stuff? I mean, they're obviously pathetic, cowardly, and ignorant because they made a choice differently from the safety-conscious person. The simple fact is, in America, we're supposed to be able to make choices like this for ourselves, and we shouldn't have to justify our decisions to anyone. You can think it's stupid, but you shouldn't be able to FORCE me to comply with your will. I have my own will. And that's why you can't even argue with people who want to do what's best for someone else. They're SO sure they're right, and smarter than you, and wiser, and know best, that you can't convince them otherwise. They have statistics on their side, and "common sense" and whatever, and miss the point entirely. So thank you for your concern. I agree completely that helmets make riding safer once you get into an accident. I reserve my right to opine that helmets are uncomfortable, heavy, and make my head hot. I also reserve the right to my opinion that riding is more comfortable and more fun without wearing a helmet. You may continue to insult me, as it is YOUR opinion that I'm an idiot. But you may NOT tell me what to do. Or, at least, you shouldn't be able to. | ||
| Chellem |
And BTW - I have almost hit pedestrians at night, wearing all black. I do feel it would be safer to require pedestrians to wear bright-orange reflective vests if they choose to walk on a public road at night. It's just dangerous not to. Same for those who ride bicycles at night. And if I go out at night, I wear something light in color. Because I'm a grown-up, and I decided for myself that it's safer. So why, again, is that a silly example of potential lives saved? Why is it OK for a pedestrian to risk their lives on a public road with no mandatory safety equipment? Sounds like a perfectly good idea to me. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
I do feel it would be safer to require pedestrians to wear bright-orange reflective vests if they choose to walk on a public road at night. It's just dangerous not to. Same for those who ride bicycles at night. Good point, but unrelated because you don't have to show competency and become licensed to be a pedestrian or bicyclist. Then, there are people who choose to utilize them, and people who choose NOT to, for whatever their reasons are. This is the question still requiring a rational answer- why do so many people have a problem with a requirement for motorcyclists to follow the first, and most basic rule of safe motorcycle operation? "Because we don't want to" should not be a valid reason for the absence of basic safety equipment as a requirement concomitant to the riding privilege. And I certainly hope people don't think that I'm insulting anyone here- that is far from my intention. I thoroughly enjoy the exhilaration of dialogue and debate... this is how I ended up with a B.A. in Philosophy. | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
That's it. I am going for a ride without my helmet on. Because I CAN. On second though, it is cold out, I CHOOSE to wear my helmet, better wear my neck gator, too. "And the angry egos make an appearance. " "I thoroughly enjoy the exhilaration of dialogue and debate... this is how I ended up with a B.A. in Philosophy" Dude. Ok, I understand now, you are just arguing for argument sake. | ||
| Chellem |
Good point, but unrelated because you don't have to show competency and become licensed to be a pedestrian or bicyclist. OK, I think I dig the distinction here. We MUST be safe when we're doing things that require licenses for, but you have no problem with people being unsafe in every other aspect of their lives, and being unsafe while participating in an activity that does NOT require a license does not necessarily make them an idiot, or any of the other names? It's OK to risk your life by walking late at night in all dark clothes, because you don't need a license to walk. Although, TECHNICALLY, you're supposed to be carrying some sort of ID in case a cop decides to card you. It's OK to risk your life while skiing, again, since it's not a license-requiring sport. It's OK to operate a horse in an unsafe matter, since there are no state mandates requiring licensing. But if someone operates a motorcycle without proper gear, THAT is unacceptable, because you need a license? In all the situations, one's health and life are at risk, to varying degrees, although I can think of serious injury that has happened to people participating in each of those activities. So we all agree that these activities can be unsafe. All of these hobbies could lead to injury, and to medical costs incurred that, supposedly, we all share the cost of. BUT - your argument remains that these hobbies don't require safety equipment, and motorcycling does? And the only difference is whether you need a license to participate in the dangerous thing? That just doesn't make that much sense to me. Seems more of an all-or-nothing argument. Either your for ATGATT or you're not? If *I* have to be safe via government mandates, shouldn't everyone? Isn't that the fair way? | ||
| Liquorwhere |
This is the question still requiring a rational answer- why do so many people have a problem with a requirement for motorcyclists to follow the first, and most basic rule of safe motorcycle operation? "Because we don't want to" should not be a valid reason for the absence of basic safety equipment as a requirement concomitant to the riding privilege. I have problem with state mandating anything, mostly because just like when a cop pulls you over for speeding and starts to spout all that BS about saving lives and all that, it really comes down to money, that is it, so state mandated anything comes from someone that lobbied for something to get paid. To be honest, it is a free country and I like it free. I don't want YOU or a politician or my father, or a friend from work telling me how to live my life, how safe I need to be, how much acceptable risk I can take. In Florida, if you carry personal injury insurance, you do not need to wear a helmet, if you do not it is a ticket. I don't think driving or riding is a PRIVILEGE, I think it is a right, this is where we disagree, at first, we disagree a lot more the more you post. I, as an adult, will determine my level of acceptable risk. Period. If I dirt ride in an area that requires a helmet, which I do at Croom, I wear the gear required at that site, if I am out in a field on my dirt bike and I an not required to wear any gear, guess what I do anyway because that is my acceptable risk level. I like the gear on the dirt. On my Buell I always wear boots, jeans, gloves and a lid, wasn't always this way, but I do now, why? Because I WANT to. On my Harley's I don't wear a helmet. Never have, never will. I have never lived in a helmet law state and if this state changed the laws I would move to one that didn't have a helmet law regardless of if I wear one or not. It is MY risk tolerance, I carry insurance, I have catastrophic to take care of my vegetative self should I end up that way, I have a living will with a DO NOT RESUSCITATE written all over it. I guess the real difference is I know I am a dead man walking, have known for many years and maybe you still think with enough gear you can live forever. I don't want to die with a perfectly preserved body, I want to be a wreck, used up, and late for the funeral. You either want to LIVE or you want to be scared of your own shadow. Yawn......anyway....time to go. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Why is a helmet different in a car than on a motorcycle? For many, many reasons. In a car, a helmet would only add to the existing active and passive safety devices, and would really only come into play in the event of extreme cabin intrusion/deformation. The cons to wearing a helmet in a car are: limited visibility, limited ventilation, limited hearing, limited head mobility, limited body mobility, and could pose a danger to any passengers not wearing a helmet. On a motorcycle, although in theory it appears most of the same cons would apply, in practice most of them are counteracted. Limited visibility is offset by the protection from wind, flying objects and debris that one does not encounter in a car; ventilation issues are lessened because motorcyclists are in the airstream; limited hearing is actually a plus because wind noise causes hearing loss; limited head and body mobility are different than in a car because a motorcycle has no space restrictions (no cabin, seats, belts, steering wheel, roof, etc...), rather it's an issue of having a padded polycarbonate or fiber composite shell on your head- which is rather easy to get used to. The main difference is at which point the safety aspects come into play. In an auto accident, the forces involved needed to make helmet use necessary are exponentially higher than on a motorcycle. There are multiple layers of safety devices a driver would have to overcome (seat belt, air bags, energy-absorbing interiors, etc...) before the added protection of helmet would come into play. A motorcyclist is at risk from simply falling off of their stationary, non-running bike and striking their head on the ground causing possible serious injury or death (yes- stranger things have happened). Once underway, a motorcyclist without a helmet is at such a huge disadvantage it's amazing anyone would ever consider riding without one. A motorcyclist is completely unprotected in the driving position- a car driver is basically in their own private "safety cocoon". And that's why it makes no sense not to require helmet (and full safety gear) usage as a prerequisite of showing competency when exercising the privilege of operating a motorcycle on public roads. I am happy to entertain any reasonable arguments to the contrary, but as of now I have been provided none. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Getting people to think about safety, defend or even question their own views on the subject, and better yet- if it gets one person to wear safety equipment when they might otherwise have chosen not to... allows this thread to serve a valuable purpose. Thank you to all who have contributed. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
Is your real name... Justin Case? why do so many people have a problem with a requirement for motorcyclists to follow the first, and most basic rule of safe motorcycle operation? "Because we don't want to" should not be a valid reason for the absence of basic safety equipment as a requirement concomitant to the riding privilege. Just my opinion: 1. Because it is not a "rule". 2. Because it is not a "privilege". 3. btw: What is purpose for so called "valid reason"? underway, a motorcyclist without a helmet is at such a huge disadvantage it's amazing anyone would ever consider riding without one. A motorcyclist is completely unprotected in the driving position- a car driver is basically in their own private "safety cocoon". huge disadvantage but also has a huge advantage by being more aware of their surroundings. To get your answer.. maybe rephrase the question? Ask.. "Why do you enjoy riding motorcycles" I think you will find your answer and many valid reasons. | ||
| Chellem |
Darn. The debate is over and I didn't get my questions answered. Oh well. It'll come up again. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Safety First, Safety Always..... From the operations engineer of the Titanic  | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
The debate can continue as long as people are interested... | ||
| Chellem |
Oh, I figured once the thank yous went out we were done. No one responded to my above post, as to why the government mandated safety equipment is only important for dangerous LICENSED activities, but not important for dangerous UNLICENSED things, if the true intent is to save lives and limbs. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
It's not a question of what activities are or are not regulated, our discussion is about the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads- which requires proof of competence, licensing, renewal, and a myriad of rules and regulations with enforceable penalties. I simply posited that it makes no sense, and there's no good reason to not include, requiring motorcyclists to abide by the most basic safety rule of riding- wearing safety equipment. | ||
| Chellem |
Dig. I get it. And if I were to hypothetically agree with you that it was acceptable to mandate safety equipment for motorcycling, my question was, and continues to be, is it equally OK to mandate safety equipment for other potentially hazardous hobbies? If the true intent is to save lives, shouldn't we be mandating ALL dangerous hobbies, including skiing, skydiving, horseback riding, etc? Why should it be limited to only motorcycling? Saving a life is saving a life, after all. If it's foolish to allow motorcyclists to live dangerously, surely it's equally foolish to allow others to do the same? | ||
| Nik |
For many, many reasons. In a car, a helmet would only add to the existing active and passive safety devices, and would really only come into play in the event of extreme cabin intrusion/deformation. The cons to wearing a helmet in a car are: limited visibility, limited ventilation, limited hearing, limited head mobility, limited body mobility, and could pose a danger to any passengers not wearing a helmet. Don't forget neck injuries. The added weight increases the risk and severity of whiplash. Race car drivers wear a HANS device to protect against this, but it makes it impossible to look over their shoulders. Should all pilots and their passengers be required to wear helmets, life preservers, full nomex gear, and parachutes for all operations? There's an activity that requires a (rather expensive) license and all that safety gear could conceivably reduce the amount of fatal accidents.... Of course now all that safety gear has to have some FAA standard created for it and in inspections performed and inspectors trained and creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy and makes flying on an airliner that much more of a miserable experience. Say you mandate that riders must wear a jacket. What defines an adequate jacket? Would there be some DOT jacket standard that all jackets would now have to meet; thus driving up the cost of gear to meet this new standard? Here's what I don't get. Do squids think they look good riding around with their t-shirts flopping around showing off their scrawny builds and underwear? Seriously? The leather jacket has been part of the cool/tough guy uniform since the beginning of time! Imagine an ad campaign by the highway patrol and MSF or whatever comparing and contrasting the typical squid to Mad Max/the Fonz. In summary: influencing people's hearts and minds, good; creating a new layer of bureaucracy and legislating behavior, bad. | ||
| Benm2 |
You need to crash more often. Go autocrossing , and try telling them you're going to rely on your airbags & seatbelts. Better yet, since cars are already so safe, go sign up for a NASA or SCCA race and go in with no helmet, no roll cage, no neck restraint, and what the heck skip the fire suppression system too. But the track isn't the same as the road, right? The risks are inherently higher? Nah, I don't think so. There's no semi's at the track, and a lot less stuff to run into. I would put money on a massive reduction in automobile injuries if EVERYONE had to wear a Nomex fire suit, gloves, shoes, a full face helmet, and have a nice 8-point roll cage. ATGATT should be a personal choice. It's always been mine, but I don't force it on others. I don't take their cigarettes, I don't take their cellphones at stoplights, I don't steal their butter & pototo chips. Since the unlicensed pedestrian was brought up, I propose that such licensing needs to take place. The license must be prominently displayed on the orange vest. You can get your learner's permit when you're 4, but you can't get the privelege of walking alone until you're at least 16. Imagine the massive increase in safety, and potential reduction in abductions. We are a society fraught with risk. Some take more than others. If protection from risk goes too far, we all may as well plug in to the Matrix. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Actually, I finished second overall in B Stock in 1990 for the Buccaneer Region of SCCA. I'm sure you can attest to how challenging it is to drive while wearing a helmet. And yes, the track is much safer than the road, yet the safety requirements for motor sport are more rigid than on the street- strange, huh? | ||
| Chellem |
still no answer to my question though | ||
| Hex |
I believe in full face helmets for all motorcycle riders, but that's just me... | ||
| Benm2 |
Redbuell: congrats on the B-stock finish. My budget has always been more FSP. My neck hurts way worse after a trackday on the bike than it ever does in the car. There's a lot more buffeting & dynamic movement on the bike. With the car, its always the same, just look through the corner. I don't have an issue with the track requirments being stricter than the street. Oddly enough, I EXPECT stupidity on the street. I would never expect standard street behavior from anyone at the track who's done more than 3-4 events. To me, the safety requirements for trackwork amount to herd-thinning: you simply can't show up for a trackday in flipflops & shorts, nor can you race your car without a decent cage. To me, it gets back to free will. GENERALLY, screwing up on the street has its own consequences. They often suck, but I've been lucky enough not to have been subjected to too much of others stupidity. (and my own experiences have also been mercifully singular) I'm continually amazed at the sheer flaunting of the laws of the land (and those of physics) demonstrated by the average cell-phone-weilding-tailgating-at-80mph driver. Likewise though, they think I have a deathwish by riding on the track. I figure I'll leave them alone, and they don't tell me I can't race.
The argument to me here is pretty basic: leave me alone. I have dangerous hobbies, motorcycles are one of them. Please don't deign to tell me how I need to prepare for them, I can figure that out for myself and always have. If that's not good enough for you, then please allow ME to tell YOU to put down that ***** donut and get on a treadmill. Outside of that, I expect Darwin will take care of the rest: both the flip-flop wearin' "biker" and the donut-sucking couch potato will get their just rewards. In either case, I expect to be footing some of the bill (higher insurance premiums)and the subjects to be equally indignant about someone else telling them how to live. | ||
| Aesquire |
Redbuelljunkie, I need clarification. Which equipment would you deem mandatory? I'm unclear where YOU draw the line, I sure am anxious about where THEY are going to. The argument isn't if people would be safer in a helmet. That's a big DUH! It's not the gear, it's the arbitrary politicization of rules. Now it's not Congress that may determine your helmet use, but an unelected group not answerable to you or reality. When the excuse "it's for your own good" can be used for everything, and it has been, abuse of rationality is close behind. The discussion is not ... about the privilege of operating a motor vehicle... it's Who should regulate it & How. Now it's the govt. soon it may be something much worse. An insurance company, of power mad appointees. | ||
| Phelan |
I am pro-choice in this arguement, even though I wear a FF helmet 90% of the time. The reason I don't want the government to mandate it is as ben said- leave me alone. The laws can only be legislated so well and then executed even worse. Not all the people in charge of enforcing these laws are biker friendly. The more laws they have on MC'ers, the harder it is to comply with them, and the easier it is to be pulled over in the first place. I know it may sound funny, but it's an issue. Here in TX, the helmet law is that you are required to wear one unless you are over 19 and have a $10,000 life insurance policy, but they can't pull you over just for not wearing a helmet. however, if you are wearing a helmet, they can pull you over solely to check and make sure it is DOT approved. So if you wear one, you are on open-season to be randomly pulled over and harrassed by any of the (low%) of bad cops in Texas. Then, they can give you a ticket for aftermarket exhaust or whatever they feel they can pin you with. Doesn't sound like my government represents me well on that. Also, as other stated, where does it end? If they go on to making requirements on jackets, pants, gloves, and boots, not only will prices skyrocket even more, but it will be illegal to ride with, what the govt. considers to be, inadequate gear. So of I can't afford $100 for gloves, $200 for pants, $300 for boots, then I can't ride. That don't even sound attractive.. | ||
| Easy_rider |
it makes no sense, and there's no good reason to not include, requiring motorcyclists to abide by the most basic safety rule of riding- wearing safety equipment. "Because we don't want to" should not be a valid reason for the absence of basic safety equipment as a requirement concomitant to the riding privilege. I disagree completely. You suggest that because it's a safer condition everyone should be required to adhere to the idea. Everyone has a different comfort level when it comes to risk. The fact that I am comfortable with a greater level of risk than the majority does not mean I should be held to their level. In fact, studies have shown that if you make something safer, individuals will find a way to get back to their risk "comfort zone". (You're going to make me support that aren't you?  The study was based on highway safety, but the rationale stands.) That being said, I should accept paying a premium for that enjoying that greater level of risk. Health care shouldn't be completely withheld due to my choice. But, just like any other insurance actuarial table determines a level of cost to the insurance company/world at large, define my premium based on my lifestyle. At that point I'll pay the price "because I want to". As Phelan points out, where does it end. When we're all driving Volvos? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
is it equally OK to mandate safety equipment for other potentially hazardous hobbies? Only if the "hobby" is regulated (competency, licensing, rules and penalties) and if it already utilizes safety equipment due to the potential for injury or death. I do not believe there should be bureaucratic witch hunts for the purpose of finding "dangerous" hobbies in order to mandate regulations on them. What kind of ninny would support something like that? | ||
| Mmmi_grad |
Helmets kill people too. As a Matter of fact if i was wearing one in the motorcycle accident I had two years ago... IT would have snapped my neck like a pretzel. Thats DEAD for some of you. I have refused to wear a helmet every chance I can for the last 22 years of riding a street bike. I will continue to disregard helmet use. Even if I fly through the air 40 feet and land in a grass ditch AGAIN! | ||
| Chellem |
Are you sure you didn't major in PolySci? Because you're avoiding my questions like a true politician. Any hobby could be regulated as soon as a government entity got a political bug up his ass. One famous person getting killed doing something dangerous could draw attention to the sport, and soon to follow, after all the "what about the children" folks get their say, safety regulation. Who would get up and say, OK, you need a license to ride a bike, but NOT to ride a horse. Yes for boating, no for jet skiing. No for waterskiing. Yes for being a pilot, but no for skydiving. Who decides? SO. I will repeat my question one more time. I'll use small words: How can you condone forcing people to use safety equipment for some sports, but not for others, solely based on whether or not some bureaucrat has decided to regulate it? And who should decide which sports or hobbies SHOULD be regulated, and therefore, have safety equipment forcibly required?? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Which equipment would you deem mandatory? Full face helmets, full coverage armored clothing, gloves, and boots. Helmets- all DOT and international safety ratings (Snell, JIS, ECE, BSI, SHARP, etc...). Clothing- abrasion resistant textile or leather covering from neck to hands to feet, with armor/padding in shoulders, elbows, back, hips, and knees. There is an entire industry currently making clothing for this purpose, and it is available for all size riders and for all climate conditions. There should be no reason to be any more specific than stated above. Gloves- abrasion resistant textile or leather covering the hands with armor/padding/reinforcement in critical areas (palms/fingers/knuckles/wrist). As stated above, the products are already available to the public. Boots- abrasion resistant textile or leather above the ankle motorcycle specific boots with armor/padding/reinforcement in critical areas (ankle/heel/toes), steel shank in footbed, and oil/slip resistant sole. Again, this product is readily available in all sizes/shapes/colors and in all price ranges. |
