[SK]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09....ap/index.html

This recent article on Florida's repealing their helmet law doesn't bode well for other states trying to do the same. Nevada keeps putting a bill forth to repeal their helmet law and it's voted down every time..easily. While I believe in the right to choose, these numbers really make one think. Who's paying the doubling of medical costs for these injuries?

Even when I'm in a state that doesn't require me to wear a helmet, I do any way, especially if I'm going to get up to speed on a highway. In fact I switched from a half-shell to a full-face helmet several years ago while I was still primarily riding a big cruiser. It scares me around Las Vegas to see these people riding a supposeldy 49cc or less (1 hp or less and can't do over 30 mph) scooter without a helmet down the 6 lane boulevards here. I know many of these scooters are up to 250cc or more and can go freeway speeds, but the cops don't do anything about it..because they look like most scooters.

[CD]

SK, can you say "Dr Harry Hurt" three times fast? The debate will always rage on with both sides skewing the facts and the journalists sensationalizing the reports. I read these types of articles with a skeptical and cynical viewpoint. None ever seem to give a break down of the causes of death do they? According to many organizations like ABATE this was the fallacy found in the original Dr Hurt study.
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/ucla.html

NHSTA, the insurance institute and other safety groups will always report the data skewed their way. Bikers rights organizations will debate this and skew it the other way. Both have agendas that are in direct conflict.

I would like to see a report that is based on raw data given to a neutral company. Neither side gets to influence the data and the report is unbiased.

I want to keep my right to choose. I do not believe that companies that are profit based should be allowed to participate or give data to the government that is not verifiable for accuracy. Insurance companies are in business to make money, very large amounts of money and any way that they can reduce costs is considered fair game.

[Killer-B]

You have got to have the right to choose. Isn't that part of being an American? The right to choose and make intelligent decisions for the benefit of my family and myself. Not some would-be big-brother making decisions that affect my life, in my behalf

[SK]

I definitely believe in the right to choose. While I do wear a helmet 99% of the time (I would like to be able to ride around the corner to the grocery store or along a slow winding lonely road sans helmet), I would like..as you say..to see an independent study to validate some of these figures. Why exactly did the number of deaths in motorcycle accidents rise to much? As a taxpayer..is it costing me more to cover health costs?

[chucktx]

im with killer on this....let those who ride decide......here in texas they have implimented a new law, if you dont have a 5.00 dollar sticker on your plate, proving health care or a rider saftey course, you have to wear your helmet.......i have the sticker. i was pulled over for not having the sticker, as i was unaware of the new law. a lot of people like f##king with other people, to see how far they can go. if they get enough money and lobbysts behind them they can do nearly anything they want. i remember a time that you didnt need insurance to drive on the streets. i think helmet companys, insurance co's, lawyers, and doctors are behind a lot of the studys, and the new regulations being forced upon us......i think it is no more than a money game.
all the studies in the world are not going to prove one way or another.....accidents are mostly rider/driver error...period.
kids riding 160 mph crotch rockets, bought by parents....middle aged people trying to get their youth back on big cruisers, and only ride on weekends with no prior expierence,,,,i could go on but this is getting long. the point im trying to make is, most accidents are due to human error....plain and simple......if ya want to wear a helmet or seat belt, that is cool.....if not, that is cool also.
chucktx
ps....sorry for getting on a soap box......i do that alot

[Killer-B]

Well, all I can say is, Yep.

[Big Ben]

There's an interesting thread(http://motorcyclebloggers.com/2005/0...t-to-disaster/) going on about this over at motorcyclebloggers.com where I'm arguing against a statist who thinks the government knows what's best for you.

I would advise against using insurance or helathcare cost arguments to justify limiting people's freedom. Pretty soon these arguments lead to banning motorcycles altogether, since they're more dangerous than cars and no one needs to ride. Smoking, fatty foods, contact sports, mountain climbing--all sorts of activities involve "unnecessary" risks and bring up the cost of insurance and health care, but these activities are often what makes our lives worth living.

Never believe anyone who tells you they're taking away your freedom "for your own good". We don't need the state to be our mommies.

[CD]

Ben,

Interesting Blog and comments. According to gothicbeaST or was it Gothictwit? we all have defective DNA for exercising a right to choose? Talk about pomposity!

Using his logic, each and every individual rider that ever rode without a helmet, is middle aged and rode after drinking at all has defective DNA? Well, we all know how that argument could be carried over to any activity or even some occupations or hobbies. For example, were you to be a blog poster that blindly believes that the NHSTA does not skew reports to meet their agenda and fails to verify the data using some method like a peer review study must have defective DNA.

From the very nature of his post, I would assert that the intent was to belittle any poster not in agreement.

[Big Ben]

Yeah, I kind of get the feeling that he mostly just wanted to bash on his stereotype of the Harley riders he doesn't like, and the Florida stats were just a convenient hammer to do it with.

I can see how someone who has never been on a bike might not understand, but to see a fellow biker making these arguments is always kinda depressing.

[Killer-B]

That was a good one CD. It is scary all the mindless thinking going on for our benifit.
The blind leading the blind.
Who is guarding the guards???

[Doc1953]

Do all states require you take safety courses before you can get your motorcycle license? They have that here in Minnesota and I think it does make a difference. We have no mandatory helmet law and I think overall, requiring the classes is better than requiring a helmet. If you are thinking about safety and riding defensively, you are much safer than being reckless becuase you think the helmet will save you.

Doc

[maxpower_hd]

Originally Posted by Doc1953

Do all states require you take safety courses before you can get your motorcycle license? They have that here in Minnesota and I think it does make a difference. We have no mandatory helmet law and I think overall, requiring the classes is better than requiring a helmet. If you are thinking about safety and riding defensively, you are much safer than being reckless becuase you think the helmet will save you.

Doc

No. You are not required to take a safety course in MA. Although, if you do and pass you get a discount on your insurance and you get your license through the class instead of going to the DMV for it. Not a bad deal really even though I didn't take one. I got my license years ago before anyone really heard of rider's courses. If I was starting from scratch, I think I would go. I know several who have including my brother and my sister. They all said they were worth taking.

[Doc1953]

The Rider's courses are definitely worth taking and re-taking (the Advanced Course) periodically, just to freshen up skills you hopefully don't normally have to use.

I have also taken the Accident Scene Management courses that are offered in some parts of the country, which are also good for learning how to handle emegencies. If those are not available, a regular Red Cross first aid course can be helpful, although it is not motorcycle specific.

Doc

[Harleywyld1]

If we allow them to continue the only "freedom" we have left will be speech and it will probably be in Spanish. I agree with the right to choose. First they mandate a hellmet next it will be full face, next gloves, next full leather suit..... you get my drift. People die from smoking but do they ban cigarettes? NO. They warn you. Ok warn me about riding with out a lid and leave me the heck alone.

[Doc1953]

I agree Harley. You should get to choose and be prepared to accept the consequences. My fear would be that, like with cigarettes, someone would eventually sue becuase the state, the feds, Harley Davidson, etc., did not make them wear a helmet.

Doc

[voodoochild]

Originally Posted by Harleywyld1

If we allow them to continue the only "freedom" we have left will be speech and it will probably be in Spanish. I agree with the right to choose. First they mandate a hellmet next it will be full face, next gloves, next full leather suit..... you get my drift. People die from smoking but do they ban cigarettes? NO. They warn you. Ok warn me about riding with out a lid and leave me the heck alone.

They don't ban cigarettes because they make lots of MONEY from it!!! Can't understand the helmet thing though, leave us alone!

[Panthera]

It is interesting that the bikersblog quotes the USA Today article and the NHTSA information. I had written a letter to USA Today about their shoddy reporting and how in 15 minutes on the internet I was able to show that the information was just plain wrong. The article showed in various gray scale levels the fatality rates per 10000 registered motorcycles. On the internet I discovered that of the states with the lowest fatality rates, only 25% had mandatory helmet laws, and of the states with the highest fatality rates, 60% had helmet laws. Based on that alone one could conclude helmets kill! Of course that is not the case, but misusing statistic can be fun!

The other things the map did point out is that states with longer riding seasons had the higher fatality rates (more riding, more deaths), and states with the least amount of rider education requirements had the higher rates.

I wear a helmet most times (I had a bird hit my helmet once and though "that would have really hurt if I hadn't been wearing the helmet"), but unless there is overwhelming evidence, not just a few warped and misrepresented statistics, the government should stay out of the helmet business.

[Doc1953]

Thanks for the revealing stats Panthera. I do beleive that the government is inclined to use statistics of convenience and mostly shoddy research to prove their points. This is just one example to demonstate that this is true. I wear a helmet too, but don't try to impose my feelings about helmet use on my friends. They have the right to choose, just like I did.

Doc