I think it all boils down to people having the freedom to make their own choices and then being held responsible for them...something sorely lacking today.
Given the car/helmet issue, if insurance companies provided rates based on helmet (or other safety device) use there, I'm sure you'd see people wearing helmets in cars.
"I'm not at all clear how that can be interpreted as a multi-tier system."
Fair enough. Since I found the literal meaning of what he said to be silly, I may have over-reached in my interpretation. Unless a policy specifically excludes injury claims resulting from helmetless riding, there is no legal or moral basis to not pay a claim. It sounds silly even to have to state the obvious which is why I can't believe he was being literal, but I see your point: that is what he said, and perhaps that is what he meant.
As far as your mental exercise, of course helmets would prevent head injuries in cars. As they would while bicycling, flying in airplanes, using a wheel chair, rock climbing, showering, using the sidewalk, being attacked with a baseball bat, etc. What is your point?
Diminishing returns keep us from going in "that direction". A seat-belted driver in a airbag / curtain bag equipped vehicle with chassis designed to absorb crash impacts traveling at normal road speeds with other vehicles traveling at normal road speeds would receive very little benefit from wearing a helmet: so little benefit that the additional impairment to vision and hearing may actually lead to a negative gain with respect to safety.
The difference in safety utility gained between a motorcyclist wearing a helmet and a car driver wearing a helmet is astronomical. There is so much more for the motorcyclist to gain from wearing a helmet which is why we won't find these types of discussions on a Prius forum.
Sorry, studies have shown that helmet use in cars could save tens of thousands a year. It's true.
Also, wearing body armor while in a war zone, like Detroit, or Chicago, can save many lives.
Better yet is to mandate all people stay away from the bathroom, since so many injuries happen there.
I'm pro helmet use.
I'm anti helmet laws.
I'm mostly against coercive measures to enforce safety equipment use.
Think of it as Evolution in action.
Seriously, helmet use in cars would save a lot of lives. Airbags have limits. I'd also suggest moto style chest protectors.
To really reduce crippling injury in car crashes, you might consider Greaves and Poleyns. ( knee and shin armor ) Those are the most commonly injured parts.
What about the argument that wearing increased body protection (or, for that matter, having the side guard beams/air bags/ safety cell/ ABS in your car) actually promotes risky behavior? The (very) few times that I've ridden without a helmet, I've been slower and super-attentive. My sister drives a Volvo, and is a careless, crappy driver... Rest my case.
That argument, that safety gear promotes irresponsible behavior has been around a long time.
While there is certainly some truth to it, in many cases, it's a flawed argument.
Yes, me naked on a motorcycle, ( it was to win a bet, only for about a mile, and not a habitual thing ) besides being a horrible image, is me being super cautious. ( except of course, for the lack of clothes. I DID wear a helmet. It's the Law. )
Folk who feel invincible in Volvos have been around a long time too.
Pretty sure some folk complained that wearing clothing made you noisy and clumsy walking through the forest, since you no longer cared if branches scratched you.
To me it's all armor.
But I've also heard that argument about parachutes, that giving parachutes to pilots "makes them" do risky things because they can abandon the plane if they lose control or break it. This was an argument in WW1. The Brits & French ( and Americans flying Brit and French planes ) didn't have chutes, the Germans did.
The Germans didn't lose more planes to this notion, but they did save more pilots.
The same argument was used in the 1980's when hand deployed, then ballistic & rocket deployed 'chutes were developed for hang gliders, then Ultralights, then Experimentals, then Factory built planes.
In reality , safety gear like that DOES have a few folk that abuse it. There are test pilots that have used ballistic 'chute recovery systems multiple times while pushing the envelope on experimental aircraft.
The vast majority of folk that are saved by safety gear however, are not abusing some illusion of safety, but are now alive because of the gear.
Very few folk WANT to use safety gear out of a sense of immortality. A cynical jerk like me thinks that evolution exists for a reason.
A Ballistic chute repack can cost $800. My newest helmet cost over $400, and was $200 off. IF I use it, I have to replace it.
That doesn't even mention the damage to the vehicle, or the very real probability that even with the most advanced safety equipment, you still can be seriously injured or die.
Using the safety gear has saved countless lives. In the case of BRS's ballistic chute systems, they actually keep a running count in their ads. I wonder what Shoei's or Suomy's ads would show? Vanson's?
Finally the flawed logic of the "safety gear promoted stupidity" argument has been extended to such insanities like "if we don't bomb enemy missile sites, the enemy won't shoot missiles at us" and "if we prepare for war, the enemy is more likely to attack us". Ask the English in 1940 how well that worked out for them.
Ah, but the flip side, Patrick, is how carefully would you drive or ride if there was an inherent threat to your well-being in the event of a mistake? For example, TIC of course, I've always thought that instead of an airbag in the center of the steering wheel, a stout spike would inspire cautious driving...
And how else am I to explain my sister's lousy driving, except that she touts the safety of the Volvo (or "OVLOV" in your bike mirror!) as the primary reason she bought the car... :-)
"Sorry, studies have shown that helmet use in cars could save tens of thousands a year. It's true."
Where? All over the world, or in the US? Each year or over 100 years? I don't doubt that such a study exists, but that result seems a bit dubious to me, or at least unqualified without other metrics to define it.
Regardless, my point was that if you are wearing a seatbelt while driving a modern automobile, then you are taking some very reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk of injury in the event of a crash. I'm sure you could take it a step further with a helmet, fire suit and ejector seat, but the precautions in place are already very reasonable unlike the "ban bathtubs" kind of crap that some people seem to think makes a valid point.
I get the whole bureaucraphobia thing, and it isn't an unfounded fear. I really want to see a cultural change in this country with respect to helmets the same way we saw one with seatbelts. I think there are more "American", if not more effective, ways to do that than with a helmet law, but lawmakers know the effect of a helmet law will be instantaneous AND significant. That fact alone stacks the deck in the "greater good" vs. "individual freedom" battle. I'm just saying that if the motorcycling community doesn't start implementing a cultural change from within regarding helmet use, then we WILL be left without a choice in the end.
I'm just saying that if the motorcycling community doesn't start implementing a cultural change from within regarding helmet use, then we WILL be left without a choice in the end.
I agree with most of what you say, except the above. And the Ejection seats. ( more dangerous than you'd think. Take a car crash & add a plane crash. ) The Fire suit makes lots of sense. ( especially in the context of the battery fire thread )
The Cultural issue isn't with the ego-fashion driven bikers but with the Ego-driven politicians. These genetic defectives with their need to interfere in other's lives will not only mandate helmet use, but eventually a full on motorcycle ban, based, OF COURSE, on "it's for your own good". With the added hammer of using the socialization of healthcare to legislate non-conformist behavior.
If you riding a motorcycle increases MY tax costs to the System, You must be stopped. Climbing trees, flying, biking, mountain climbing, boarding, skiing, etc. etc. etc.
Naturally you think that can't happen here. Really? Let's play Jarts.
I think we should eliminate automobiles and only have motorcycles and shifterkarts. Then I'd go with mandatory safety gear. And unlimited speeds in all left lanes.
What I see the issue being here is the CDC and other bureaucracy departments are trying to make laws} which is reserved for the CONGRESS! These department are supposed to be advisory only. If the senators and or representatives have not asked for their input they are wasting our tax money coming up with these advisories.
Folk who feel invincible in Volvos have been around a long time too.
Many since the days when Volvo got caught faking rollover and impact safety claims.
OTOH, they do hold up pretty well:
My son crashed on I-85 two days before Thanksgiving. Car apparently hydroplaned at ~65 MPH, bumped the BMW SUV in the lane next to his, bounced off the center divider, setting off the airbag, clipped the front of an 18-wheeler and came to a stop. He was able to drive it out of the road. He had one scratch on his right ankle and no bruises. The only un-bent piece of sheet metal on the car is the roof.
I didn't buy another Volvo (son was a bit tired of driving a brick after 4 years), but somehow I doubt most cars would fare as well.
Again, I reiterate that if people decided not to start riding or to stop riding because of mandatory helmet laws- they probably shouldn't be on motorcycles. Period. It doesn't matter what can be inferred from a CDC report, or how the AMA weasels around their wording on voluntary helmet use overshadowed by their "crash prevention" rigamorole. There is not one single good argument for anyone to not wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle on public roads- everyone knows it, everyone understands it, and "I don't want to" doesn't cut it as an excuse. This AMA press release was just another scare tactic to rile the uninformed masses into blindly fighting any attempt to require basic safety competency by motorcyclists. And with this, the AMA again shows how bad we are at taking care of our own. What's the AMA's stance on voluntary helmet use at any AMA-sanctioned competition? Not the same, you say? How is it different? Are competitive riders' lives somehow worth more in a race than AMA members riding home on the street? Is closed-course riding more or less safe than riding on the street? How does it make sense to have rigorous safety requirements for one set of riders while fighting tooth-and-nail to keep many, many more riders from having any safety requirements at all? It just doesn't make logical sense. And if you can be really honest with yourself... does it make sense to you?
So.... you're going to be good on wearing a full face helmet in your car, right?
It would be interesting to see statistics on how many children died back in the ancient days when we were just put on a blanket on the package shelf in the rear window.
Perhaps that relates to the discussion that lack of safety gear makes you "act more safe"?