Opinions

[morbid]

Here in Puerto Rico there's a law that state if you're in a car you MUST be wearing your seatbelt, if not and you get an accident you'll get injure or die, if you don't have an accident and get cought by the police you win a ticket. Is the same with the helmet when you're in a bike. I love my bike, and in an ocation an agent stoped me because I was with my helmet not fully down, just on top of my head. He tried to give me a mulct but I refuse to give him my license because some people run four trax on the street and they aren't stoped by the police for a mulct. I told him that when he gives a ticket in that circumstance to a four traxer, I'll allow him to mulct me. I remember I was cruising slowly, there were guys on four traxs doing the same and it was 4 of July at the beach. I know that in some states is not compulsory to wear a helmet, and in some it is. What do you think about that? Is there anyone who refuse to wear a helmet in a bike? Why? [img]graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Opinions

Originally posted by morbid:
Is there anyone who refuse to wear a helmet in a bike? Why?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I grew up in a state that didn't require helmets and lived for several years in another state that didn't require them. Now that I live in California I have to wear one but the way traffic is out here I'd probably do it most of the time anyway.

To me it's no big deal either way. In my years of riding I've been tagged by cars a couple of times (both w/o helmet) and walked away each time. Whether or not you walk away from an accident has a lot more to do with the decisions you make under pressure than whether or not you're wearing a lid.

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

Re: Opinions

I think every state has the seatbelt law and only a couple of states you can ride with out a helmet. In Washington state you must do both. As much as it rains here, you may as well wear a helmet.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Opinions

Actually there're quite a few places where you can ride w/o a helmet if you're 18 or older:

[fett]

Re: Opinions

The reason these laws were established is that when a biker crashes and burns his little head gets cracked like an egg. Then his insurance runs out while he is vegging. That means the state and or his family has to take care of a breathing corpse. When his family has run out of money, the state has the deep pockets to keep the big dumby alive. Just remember, most motorcycle racers don't ride on the roads. They know that it's just a matter of time before they get smacked by some car. As for the rubes that think that a pocket-rocket is cool, just wait until they hit that one turn with no place to go but a ditch or a barbed- wire fence. Just make sure that your helmet makes a fashion statement.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Opinions

Same reasoning should be true for automobile drivers fett. I've seen statistics showing that well over 95% of all sever head injuries suffered in accidents are suffered by automobile drivers thus they're at least a 20x larger public burden than are motorcyclists yet for some odd reason lids aren't required for cage pilots. Sort of makes that old public burden argument seem kind of silly doesn't it?

[morbid]

Re: Opinions

I must say that the seat belt have saved my life some many times, and I always wear it, is it law or not. In the helmet thing I do the same, the same day I was trying a bike that was for sale, I fell off it crashing a wagon, fracturing my right femur, and if it wasn't for the helmet my head would hit the concrete hedge of a house that stoped me. The ticket day I wasn't wear it at all because I was at the beach riding very slow, and the policeman tried to pissed me off, and I didn't let him doin' it. But here there is these type of guys who think they are "figuring" out to be more "macho" to impress girls or something like that having their helmet crossed by one of their arms while riding. Maybe their ego is so high... and they think they are Evil Kenivel the motorcycle master... or a super hero [img]graemlins/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] .

[fett]

Re: Opinions

Not really. The public and legislators consider motocyclists more like gnats than sharers of the road. The rational may go something like this: These people ride two-wheeled highpowered vehicles without the surrounding "security" of a body. When they hit the dust, their heads are the first to pop. Why should the taxpayer pay for the long term care of some fringe driver who should have been wearing a helmet in the first place?

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Opinions

Fact is that the legislators are wrong. Helmets just don't work the way many think they do. They're useless to protect riders from impacts at normal Bay Area freeway speeds of 80+ MPH. Matter of fact, try calling any helmet manufacturer and inquiring about whether or not any of their products will protect riders from impacts at speed. Try a range of speeds, keep asking until they tell you you'll be protected. None of 'em will claim protection for crashes over 15-20 MPH. I'm not saying they're not a good idea because they'll normally keep you from peeling the skin off of your face/head as you slide down the road but the stated reason (public burden / protection from blunt trauma) is a ridiculous exaggeration.

[fett]

Re: Opinions

It doesn't matter how logical your argument is and how factual it is. The fact remains that helmet laws probably save lives and it makes those politicians feel good. And there is nothing like a fat-and-sassy feeling good politician to take the wind out your hair.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Opinions

I'm 100% certain that you're correct that the only reason we're saddled with helmet laws is that it makes politicians feel good. Fact is that the statistical evidence indicates that they don't really save lives. None of the 5 states with the lowest per capita m/c death rates have mandatory helmet laws for adult riders while several of the states with the highest per capita death rates do have mandatory helmet laws.

[fett]

Re: Opinions

This begs the question. Football players wear helmets; hockey players wear helmets; rodeo riders are wearing helmets. Even Helmut Schmidt has one. Common sense dictates that you protect your head. If that doesn't work, then they pass a law. If that doesn't work, then knock yourself out.

[morbid]

Re: Opinions

Originally posted by fett:
This begs the question. Football players wear helmets; hockey players wear helmets; rodeo riders are wearing helmets. Even Helmut Schmidt has one. Common sense dictates that you protect your head. If that doesn't work, then they pass a law. If that doesn't work, then knock yourself out.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's right... My two cents on that.

[RacerX]

Re: Opinions

I've ridden for over 18 years. In SoCal. IMO, any MC rider who goes without is a friggin' moron. I wear a THICK leather jacket, leather gloves, Italian leather MC boots (not Wellingtons, not fashion boots), a DOT approved helmet, and a kidney belt.
Also denim jeans, but on longer tours I'll wear my Vanson leather jeans.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Opinions

Originally posted by fett:
This begs the question. Football players wear helmets; hockey players wear helmets; rodeo riders are wearing helmets.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which moves faster fett: a football player, a hockey player, or a motorcycle operating on a public road? The faster you go, the less protection you have. That too is common sense. Helmets have been proven to provide some (not perfect) protection from impacts at relatively low speeds but higher speeds they simply can't provide effective impact protection though they do continue to provide some protection from abrasion. Michael E. Holt, P.E. of American Eagle Engineering, Ltd. produced a report based on physical testing on various helmets showing the helmet thickness required to completely protect a 170 pound rider from impact at various speeds:

Velocity / Req. Helmet Thickness
4 mph / 1"
10 mph / 1.8"
15 mph / 4"
20 mph / 5"
30 mph / 15"
40 mph / 29"

Sort of puts into context the relative effectiveness of our currently-mandated 1" helmets doesn't it?