3
motorcycle helmets should be required in every state
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In six states that repealed their universal laws beginning in 1997 — Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida and Pennsylvania — helmet use plummeted following the repeal of the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.
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.
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
I like to wear a helmet while driving my convertible. Add my seatbelt and I'm practically invincible! All the chicks dig it too!
Laws are for criminals!
Laws are for criminals!
see that's what has always confused me about people who either don't wear a helmet or only wear a half helmet... I've been hit by bumble bees, june bugs, dragon flies, lightning bugs, small birds... each one hit my face shield with a THWACK! so hard I thought for sure it would come through the shield and dent my head. I've never ridden in anything but a full face helmet for that reason.Slug said: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.....
Friggin' ouch!
Buster, those are some powerful ads... where did you find those?
i'm in....i never ride without a my lid...
Buster, i'm snagging that ad.
Buster, i'm snagging that ad.
Re: Re: motorcycle helmets should be required in every state
Darwin usually catches up to the people that dont wear helmets anyways in the end. They don't call them squids for nothing.
Darwin usually catches up to the people that dont wear helmets anyways in the end. They don't call them squids for nothing.
Yeah!!!
Let's ban guns too because they're dangerous!!!
Wooooooooo!!!! Sweet!
Let's ban guns too because they're dangerous!!!
Wooooooooo!!!! Sweet!
I dont think there should be a helmet law. If someone doesnt feel the need to wear one don't. I wear mine, and feel naked without it.Unregisturd said:
Yeah!!!
Let's ban guns too because they're dangerous!!!
Wooooooooo!!!! Sweet!
BTW, HELMET ADS aren't exactly a new concept. :laughing
I am all for helmet laws....if I worked for Shoei.:redflip
Cool.Buster said:I found them HERE
And I couldn't help but poke at the first person that commented. I posted the following:
Earlier someone said, "In the USA, the majority of motorcycle accidents are liability cases, meaning that another party is responsible for compensation."
Sure, that's absolutely true.. on the surface. Just remember that in the cases where the expenses go on the rider's health insurance and/or uninsured/underinsured policy, the insurance company has to absorb that expense somehow. Do you know how they do that? They have to raise premiums. This isn't necessarily because insurance companies are doing something bad, it's because they are in the business to make money and to have enough money reserved to cover claims. That means that you and I end up paying more money even if it's not for "public" health care. So in the end, whether the state picks up the tab or not, everyone else ends up paying because someone was too dumb to put on a helmet. I for one find that unacceptable.
I'm not sure this has ever happened before, but.....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.
I agree with you completely! :clap
:laughing :laughing :laughing
+1 for the libertarian aspect.
However...
I would retain the part of the code which requires non-adult passengers to be belted (If they are accepting the adult responsibility to drive, they should also be allowed to make adult decision regarding a seatbelt. AND they MUST also be treated as an adult when they screw up doing an adult function (ie manslaughter with a vehicle ought to carry a MANDATOIRY treatment as adult in the court system))
Why do i retain the seatbelt law for children who are passengers? Because there is no reason to punish the child for the stupidity of their parents. Once they are old enough to make their own risk assessments and choices, let them do so.
Helmets are the same way for me. Require the kids to wear helmets so that if mom/dad screws up the kid doesn't get to eat liquid food for the rest of his/her life.
The one and only reason i even leave those laws in place is because of the general lack of accountability and responsibility most sperm donors and incubators have these days, because in many cases they sure can't be called parents....
I somewhat disagree with this statement:
Otherwise, spot on. Sadly it takes hundreds of dollars in fines for some parents to be bothered to strap their kids into the car seat...otherwise the little rugrats would be bouncing all over hte inside of the mini-van.
PS: What is it about a mini-van that creates a mental void where a seemingly rational human being was standing, merely by them touching the seat and closing the door?
However...
I would retain the part of the code which requires non-adult passengers to be belted (If they are accepting the adult responsibility to drive, they should also be allowed to make adult decision regarding a seatbelt. AND they MUST also be treated as an adult when they screw up doing an adult function (ie manslaughter with a vehicle ought to carry a MANDATOIRY treatment as adult in the court system))
Why do i retain the seatbelt law for children who are passengers? Because there is no reason to punish the child for the stupidity of their parents. Once they are old enough to make their own risk assessments and choices, let them do so.
Helmets are the same way for me. Require the kids to wear helmets so that if mom/dad screws up the kid doesn't get to eat liquid food for the rest of his/her life.
The one and only reason i even leave those laws in place is because of the general lack of accountability and responsibility most sperm donors and incubators have these days, because in many cases they sure can't be called parents....
I somewhat disagree with this statement:
Laws effect those with the morality to obey them, OR those who obey just to not pay the penalty for disobedience.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.
Otherwise, spot on. Sadly it takes hundreds of dollars in fines for some parents to be bothered to strap their kids into the car seat...otherwise the little rugrats would be bouncing all over hte inside of the mini-van.
PS: What is it about a mini-van that creates a mental void where a seemingly rational human being was standing, merely by them touching the seat and closing the door?
Sometimes the government needs to realize people are just not smart enough to make the right decisions and they should make them for us. Seat belts, helmets, guns, gas ratings(size of cars), schooling, etc. This country is filled with a bunch of dick heads that need guidance.
Yeah!!! Like the dick heads who need guidance to realize that riding without a helmet is not amoral and that America was founded on the idea of Freedom.falconeight said:This country is filled with a bunch of dick heads that need guidance.
I don't believe in helmet laws...But it is this section that concerns me
"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.
Anytime a government official tells you that some legislation will "begin the process" bend over and grab your ankles...
"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.
Anytime a government official tells you that some legislation will "begin the process" bend over and grab your ankles...
:wheelie I always wear my brain bucket law or not. But maybe the govt. should require cars to have 5 point hanesses and firesuits.
:clap +1Effing 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.
IMO, if you're a motorcyclist, it is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST to resist helmet laws. Those of you who support these laws must not fully realize the damage that they are doing. Yes, I said it: YOU're causing damage to our sport. How? By supporting these laws, you only make it easier to legislate our sport further. First, make helmets mandatory. Then ABS brakes. Then air-bags. Maybe make some sort of "safety-cage" mandatory next. Before you know it, we have a car!
In fact, why not ban motorcycles altogether? Can't happen? It almost did happen. In 1986, a dill-hole from Connecticut (I think) proposed a bill that would ban superbikes in America. Groups like the AMA and ABATE fought the passage of this bill, and it was defeated.
That was in 1986. Now that sportbike manufacturers are really turning up the hp wars, could such a bill resurface? Will you helmet-law advocates support this bill also? After all, it WOULD be in the name of safety... like wearing helmets.
I'm not for helmet laws etc etc... but I will revisit my earlier statement:AaUuuuGaa! said:Will you helmet-law advocates support this bill also? After all, it WOULD be in the name of safety... like wearing helmets.
Then the ins. companies wouldn't need to promote helmet laws. :shrugI 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 (edit): medical costs and insurance costs
I agree, Insurance companies should be allowed to write policies that limit coverage for those who go lidless, within parameters. Of course if Aunt Bluehair pulls out in front of you and you break your leg and arm in the crash, they should not be able to deny coverage for those injuries because you aren't wearing a helmet
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
Cycle Forums: Motorcycle and Sportbikes Forum
A forum community dedicated to all motorcycle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, reviews, racing, touring, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
