Helmets: a victimless crime

I live in the state of Iowa where we luckily are given the choice whether to wear helmets, but are required to wear our seatbealts. I never ride without a full face helmet, but seldom wear my seatbelt. Go figure. I am all for personal choice, and do not believe any government body should tell us how to conduct our lives, but it's done all the time. Speed limits are in place for public safety, OSHA sets safety standards for the work environment, governments pass smoking bans to protect us, gun laws are enacted...I could go on and on.

The point is that most people are responsible, but there is always the small percentage of the public that is not. There is no truly "free" society. If your state has a helmet law that you vehemently object to, organize and do your part to repeal it. In the meantime, put on a helmet, thumb the started button, and hit the road. Be glad that we have this great hobby and lifestyle to take us away from the realities of everyday life.  

OSHA standards are to protect people who might not have a choice.  If your choices are going into a situation where the air is dangerous, and the company refuses to issue protection, your choices are go in, get sick and maybe die, or refuse, guaranteed lose job, lose house, etc. Not exactly a free will scenario.

That said, I agree, I don't wear my seatbelt all the time (skip it in the city where side impact is possible, and the seatbelt could be a detriment, because, it could hold me in place as a car center punches me on my side).

Flip side, I haven't figured out any scenario under which I could be safer without a helmet.  

As far as I know most states don't allow you to take your own life either.  There is a line where I think the government should step in, and while it is nice to have the option instinct tells me wearing a helmet is the right thing to do.  
2008 Suzuki C50T Black

Otter,
If one of us has an accident, and we aren't wearing a helmet, who should pay the medical costs?

If you tell me, the rider, I'd agree.
If I tell you the rider doesn't have enough money to cover the costs of the treatment, and ask you NOW who should cover the treatment.
If you tell me that if the helmetless rider can't afford the insurance, and should be denied treatment, under the helmet/no helmet rules, I'd agree.
I suspect under that is the real point of contention. Most people have the expectation that no matter what, they're going to patched up, whether they can afford it or not.

I'm a little more libertarian. I firmly believe you have the freedom to make any choice that you're willing to pay for. Relying on a social safety net to bail you out is not free will, or choice. It's an attempt to shift the costs of a bad choice to someone else, while claiming they have the right to make the bad choice.

I think either half is accurate. You either have the right to make bad choices, or, you have the right to expect support when something bad happens.  

Frbock,
I have to agree with you about who pays when someone isn't wearing a helmet. I firmly believe in the freedom of choice. Of course, that freedom comes with a price. If someone does not want to wear a helmet or seatbelt, then their insurance should cost them more and all other parties would would not be held liable. Why should we all have to pay because someone "chooses" not to wear a helmet or seatbelt? I think this is a fair solution for all parties concerned. Unfortunately, our elected representatives don't have any common sense so none of them have come up with the idea.  

Of course, it's also a matter of finding someone to insure you.
Years ago my dad's boss bought a hot air balloon (needed a hobby after the 3rd heart attack). Of course you need insurance.

Lloyd's of London was perfectly willing to insure the balloon, but, would not carry a life insurance on him, and I believe his work policy didn't cover him either while he was in the balloon.

He went ballooning anyway.  

On a personal note, I agree. The government's job is to protect us from the actions of others. Unfortunately, I think we've been outvoted by the ambulance chasers.

Best one (to prove point), about 20 years ago, a man took his rotary lawn mower, picked it up to trim his hedges. He slipped while his leg was under said flailing mower. You can guess the rest of his day.

The mower manufacturer was sued, and lost. Why??? Simple, there was no warning label on the mower that said to keep the wheels on the ground.

I think it all started with juries feeling sorry for the victim, and wanting to help them (the safety net). When the courts started doing that, the legislators decided that's where public opinion lay, and wrote laws in that vein.  

My husband shares your view. In Texas we pass a safety course pay a $5 fee / show proof of 10,000 medical insurance to avoid the helmet.  However I ride the highway to work and my lid with visor sure comes in handy for thrown rocks / bugs /rain. I like to leave the lid under my seat (scooter yamaha) in the neighbor hood and to the store.  MY sugest is we all need to be careful how we vote and who we vote for.  Tessaroo  

This has actually been a great thread of discussion!  I understand the position of needing to defend a person's right to make their own choices -- I sure as heck don't like being told what I will or will not do when I feel that a choice should be left to me.  Yet, I don't think I could say that the issue of helmets is indeed a victimless crime inasmuch we ALL suffer a financial penalty of some sort through our insurance premiums.  

I live in Kansas - a no helmet law state.  My own choice is to always wear a helmet, gloves, long pants, a protective jacket, and good closed toe shoes.  I live with that choice even when it's 100 degrees out (you should see some of the looks I get from other riders!) because I know that I can not choose when an accident is coming my way.  Why do I make that choice?  Simply stated, I enjoy ALL of my freedoms too much NOT to make that choice.

the shared financial burden aside, I would encourage everyone on a bike to protect themselves as much as humanly and technologically possible.  I think protective equipment is a damn good thing, smart, and responsible.  But, in the end, it really is an individual choice and should not be made law by the state - but then forgive me for saying that it should be an individual law for every rider that each rider willingly enforces on themselves.

Just my few cc's on the topic -- Ride Safe! Ride Smart!  

Welp, my niece who is an emergency room doctor has worked in Miami, FL and Washington DC just calls motorcycles "Donorcycles" if you get my drift.  And my sister a cardio nurse for many years says some things are worse than death and one thing she means by this is being in a vegetative state for the remainder of you putrid life.  These thoughts are all the reason I need to wear a helmet and also my seatbelt.  

Interesting that this thread went 6 months without further comment, only to be revived with such a valid comment and warning as to the possible dire consequences of choosing freedom over responsibility.  The victims of the so-called "victimless crime" were riding the "donorcycles" and are no longer able to speak for themselves.

Here in Canada we have the luxury of knowing that every person has access to medical care whenever you need it and to whatever extent you need it, at no cost other than the very affordable medical insurance every working citizen pays to support and provide.  I can tell you from the personal experience of myself, my wife and our family, the physical and emotional relief this scenario provides is a blessing never more appreciated than the days you need it.

That said, it only makes sense to me that mandatory helmet laws and seatbelt laws exist, as much as anything, to protect us from ourselves (see reference to "donorcycles").  If you can't make the decision for the well-being of your own personal safety (and clearly some can't or won't under the banner of "freedom to choose") and for the calm and comfort enjoyed by your families and friends who know you're doing everything humanly possible to stay safe and well, then somebody has to do it for you.  If it's government and/or insurance companies, so be it.

The machoism of freedom of choice means very little when you're either dead or in the vegetative state described above, with the inability to feed yourself or wipe your own butt.  Not for me, thank you!

Cheers.  Herb.  

redrider,i had a friend who used to ride on the back of her BFs custom V-twin.no backrest or helmet.i asked her once why she didnt wear a helmet.she said he BF thought it didnt look cool.she didnt look very cool holding onto his waist either.at least i didnt think so.i ride with one alot.sometimes without on a sunny day.BUT.id rather have one on if i went down.  

Herba,
Here's one other thing that I think is interesting.
You live in Canada, and neither DOT or Snell are conforming standards. Both generate very hard helmets (High G deceleration). Europe and Canada don't do the 2x in the same spot test, lets you control the 1st impact more fully.
Of course, it seems to tie in, European countries, and Canada have universal health care.

I do have to wonder if it's coincidence.  

frbock, you're going to have to fill me in on what you're referring to when you say "in Canada....neither DOT or Snell are conforming standards".  Do you mean they don't conform with one another, or don't conform with Canadian requirements, or what?  I'm not informed as to the nuances of the technical aspects of each of these two definitions of safety compliance requirements, so the "Europe and Canada don't do the 2x in the same spot test..." means nothing to me either.

I can tell you however, that when you enroll at a Canada Safety Council certified motorcycle instructional school, you are required to wear a DOT certified (an apparently universally, or at least a North American recognized standard of protection) 3/4 or full-face helmet, and nothing less (Snell certification optional, which I infer means that the Snell certification suggests a slightly higher standard of protection).  They will also check to make sure that the helmet you are wearing fits you properly, and if it doesn't, they will recommend the necessary change to get one that does fit.

As for the connection (good or bad?) between these issues and universal medical coverage here or Europe or anywhere else, you lost me there.  I have to ask you to log back in and connect those dots for me.   Cheers.  Herb.  

My mistake on Canadian helmets. I thought CSA CAN3-D230-M85 was close to the European standard ECE 22.05.
I appear to have been mistaken.

The healthcare/helmet connection (looked good on paper, but, got blown out by Canada having Universal health, AND hard helmets) was that ECE helmets are a little better at keeping the g-force down compared to the other standards (.
Since head injury is very expensive, it would make sense to try to reduce that by as much as possible.

If you want a long discourse on motorcycle helmets, here's a link.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

I would say don't accept the tests as gospel, nor the response from the Snell Foundation. It does make an interesting if somewhat long read.
I cut out the piece provided by a spokesman for Snell that lists the G-forces for different standards:
"The fact is, all the major crash helmet standards call out G figures greater than those in the article. It's 300 G for Snell, BSI 6658, and FIA 8860, the Advanced Helmet Specification set out by FIA in 2004. It's 275 G for ECE 22-05. It's all of 400 G for DOT. Yes, yes, I know they said 250, they said a lot of things. Their rationale is that DOT's "time duration criteria" effectively set a new G limit of 250 rather than the 400 G limit in the standard..."