Cycle Forums: Motorcycle and Sportbikes Forum banner

motorcycle helmets should be required in every state

1888 Views 45 Replies 29 Participants Last post by  FancyBike
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5125888.html

Sept. 11, 2007, 1:50PM
Motorcycle helmets should be required, feds say


By KEN THOMAS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — States should require motorcycle riders to wear proper helmets, government investigators urged today as part of several recommendations that seek to stem a steady rise in motorcycle deaths.

Members of the National Transportation Safety Board unanimously approved the motorcycle safety recommendations, wading into a contentious issue that has pitted motorcycle rights' groups against safety organizations in many states.

"The simple act of donning that helmet can begin the process of preventing that type of fatality and serious injury," said NTSB chairman Mark V. Rosenker.

As motorcycle riding has become more popular, motorcycle deaths have more than doubled since 1997. In 2006, motorcycle deaths increased for the ninth straight year, to 4,810 motorcycle deaths, compared with 4,576 in 2005.

NTSB officials noted that non-helmeted riders were three times more likely to suffer a brain injury in a crash than those wearing a helmet.

Motorcycle groups questioned the ability of helmets to provide complete protection and prevent internal injuries in a crash. They said more rider education programs are needed.

"If a truck pulls out in front of you and runs a stop sign, how is that helmet going to prevent an accident?" asked Steve Rector, state coordinator for ABATE Iowa, a motorcycle rights' group. He also noted that motorcycle registrations and the number of miles traveled by motorcyclists have increased in recent years.

Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said there was "no scientific evidence that motorcycle rider training reduces crash risk and is an adequate substitute for an all-rider helmet law."

Currently, 20 states and the District of Columbia require riders to wear protective helmets, a significant change since the late 1970s, when nearly every state required helmet use. Twenty-seven states only cover some riders, typically those under 21.

Three states — Iowa, Illinois and New Hampshire — have no helmet laws.

In six states that repealed their universal laws beginning in 1997 — Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida and Pennsylvania — helmet use plummeted following the repeal of the laws, NTSB officials said. Louisiana reinstated its mandatory requirement in 2004.

The agency also recommended that federal safety officials develop a plan for states and others to improve motorcycle safety and the government develop guidelines for states to gather accurate data on riders.

The NTSB only has the power to make recommendations, but its staff and board members personally lobby for changes the board considers most important.
See less See more
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
RACER X said:

"If a truck pulls out in front of you and runs a stop sign, how is that helmet going to prevent an accident?" asked Steve Rector, state coordinator for ABATE Iowa, a motorcycle rights' group.

Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said there was "no scientific evidence that motorcycle rider training reduces crash risk and is an adequate substitute for an all-rider helmet law."



Wow. Those two people... Granted - these are only one-sentence glimpes into these peoples arguments, but they both seem WAY wrong in their way of thinking.

Sure a helmet may not help in a head-on collision with the broad-side of a tractor trailer. But a good number of riders die from low-side crashes wherein their head only makes contact with the ground.

And HELL YES motorcycle training reduces crash risk. That's why noobs tend to crash more than experienced riders - or at least more in circumstances where a more experienced rider could have avoided the crash [and I'm equating miles ridden to training]. And riders who take the MSF course or a track school also seem better prepared for handle a situation (or avoid one), where a less experienced rider would crash.

Is training a substitute for helmets? No. But her statement sure seems to make training sound moot.
Like I always say, "if you think you don't need to wear a helmet...you probably don't".

Seriously though, it's not a freedom issue, but rather a safety issue. Helmet use goes a long way toward mitigating risk in an other wise risky endeavor (e.g. motorcycling). You don't see groups formed to protest the mandatory use of seat belt use.

Personally, I'm all for cleaning the gene pool, so I say repeal all laws on helmet and seatbelt use. And while we're at it, let's do away with all warning labels, lawyers ad judges!
NinjaRat said:
You don't see groups formed to protest the mandatory use of seat belt use.
Actually, there are.
http://www.seatbeltprochoice.com/

Here's some of their reasoning...

"If lawmakers believe that they can force us to be safe while driving, then who's to say what will be next. Obesity is one of the leading causes of heart disease, diabetes, and general unhealthiness in the United States today. What's to stop lawmakers from regulating calorie intake for American citizens? It may sound far fetched, but seatbelt laws open the door for any other health related nanny legislation."

:confused
I much prefer this quote off of the seat-belt website:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin.

I'm a libertarian. I belong to ABATE and I would join the "anti-seat belt" group in a heartbeat if it stood any chance whatsover against the estimated 30 Billion dollars annually the insurance companies spend to strengthen and enforce seat belt laws.

If there is ANYTHING that the last 5000 years (since Hammurabi's code) has tought us, it is that laws only effect those with the morality to obey them, and the moral don't need laws to do the right thing.
This is risk reduction. People should be allowed to determine their own risk comfort level. Provide some education, and let people freely choose. Everyone dies.
Effing Limey said:
I much prefer this quote off of the seat-belt website:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin.

I'm a libertarian. I belong to ABATE and I would join the "anti-seat belt" group in a heartbeat if it stood any chance whatsover against the estimated 30 Billion dollars annually the insurance companies spend to strengthen and enforce seat belt laws.

If there is ANYTHING that the last 5000 years (since Hammurabi's code) has tought us, it is that laws only effect those with the morality to obey them, and the moral don't need laws to do the right thing.
:thumb
Here we go again. I'll just resurrect the same thing that I post on every forum every time this comes up, with some minor edits.


Here's my take: For the record, I always wear a helmet, and always have. If you don't wear one, I think you're an idiot. However, I will also fight with every fiber of my being for you to have the right to be an idiot, and here's why:

We're a minority. A growing minority, but a minority nonetheless. Most of the laws regulating our choice of sport are made by non-motorcyclists. So first, they say we have to wear helmets. Then, someone sees all these pictures of rashed-up stunnas on the Internet, and decides that we should be forced to wear gloves. Then they realize that these guys have rash all over, and the law expands to full leathers... and then boots... and a back protector... and an orange vest... and one of those new airbag vests.

You think this sounds ridiculous, but almost 20 years ago, New Hampshire tried to pass a law requiring motorcyclists to wear mouthguards, like hockey players and prizefighters... and it almost passed.

How I choose to protect myself when taking part in risky activities should be my business.


And no, I don't believe in seatbelt laws, either.
old argument. I'll keep on wearing my helmet thank you. :shrug
Helmet laws are the one of the worst forms of oppresion for motorcyclists out there. As for seatbelts they hold the front seat occupants in so the driver doesn't lose control in an otherwise controlable situation. Far more people would be saved if everyone,front seat or back seat regaurdless of age were required to buckle up and the money saved in hospital and insurance bills saved would be astronomical. Un helmeted Motorcyclists don't even put a dent in the fatality numbers of motorvehicles over all.

Having said that and ridden in over a dozen states not requiring helmets i've never not once strapped it on when the bikes engine was started. I got too many plans to let a little mishap ruin em but to each his own and i don't wish to stand in the way of someone elses happieness.
FUCK THAT!

Freedom should be required in every state.

Nazi's should be required to eat a dick.
The government obviously knows what's best for us. Why even question it?
"The government obviously knows what's best for us." Unfortunately, not always. The government always knows best in squandering the tax payers' money.

The discussion about the helmet law will probably never end. So, if you don't want to wear it then don't wear it (i.e. if the law doesn't require you).

I certainly will always wear it. I experienced many moons ago riding without a helmet at 160 MPH (hint, it was excruciatingly painful). Never want to relive that experience again.
I'm kinda torn on the issue. I always wear my helmet, and have no intentions to change my ways. But... I think if a person doesn't want to wear a helmet they shouldn't have to. I hate these "protect me from myself" laws.
We don't have a choice to wear a helmet or not, it's the law in Wa
mno1 said: I experienced many moons ago riding without a helmet at 160 MPH (hint, it was excruciatingly painful). Never want to relive that experience again.
Did you damage your sarcasm detector?
RACER X said:
Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said there was "no scientific evidence that motorcycle rider training reduces crash risk
:crackup :crackup what a fuckwit :crackup :crackup
Well here is a little take on helmets laws. In Michigan we have a helmet law. Well, last year I ate a deer on my wifes motorcycle. I destroyed my $700 Arai TommyGun helmet but I saved my head. The other nice part was that my insurance company replaced my helmet because helmets are required gear in Michigan. I don't think that would happen with out the law.

I always wear mine but I don't have the right to tell some else they need to. Quite frankly I've ridden without one a few times in OH and between the bugs in my face and eyes tearing so much from the wind...I don't know how people do it.
NinjaRat said:
Like I always say, "if you think you don't need to wear a helmet...you probably don't".
+1

I always wear a helmet, law or not :shrug

I could care less if people can choose or not choose to wear a helmet, the only thing that I ask is that there be a seperate pool for medical insurance premiums for people who wear helmets vs. those who don't. I'm tired of paying for dumb people's insurance.
bob12312357 said:
Helmet laws are the one of the worst forms of oppresion for motorcyclists out there. As for seatbelts they hold the front seat occupants in so the driver doesn't lose control in an otherwise controlable situation. Far more people would be saved if everyone,front seat or back seat regaurdless of age were required to buckle up and the money saved in hospital and insurance bills saved would be astronomical. Un helmeted Motorcyclists don't even put a dent in the fatality numbers of motorvehicles over all.

Actually your argument HELPS the helmet law crowd because if you get a bug in the eye or a rock in the face, the helmet prevents that and the driver doesn't lose control in an otherwise controllable situation.....

Where did you pull the 'non helmet wearing motorcyclists don't impact fatality numbers' statistic from?
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top