| Author | Message | ||
     Ted |
British Columbia has made these illegal. only dot/snell approved helmets now. i'm ok with that. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
I like the choice, and choose to ride with a helmet 99% of the time. The 1% is basically reserved for bike event like Daytona where movement is very, very slow... | ||
| Froggy |
Personally, I wouldn't want a drunk Harley rider driving his geezer glide over my head after he rear ends me because he doesn't use his front brake. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
or knocking you and your bike down while you're people watching on main st at the gas station becasue he was so drunk he couldn't fit said geezer glide through an 8ft gap.... i like the choice nad no i don't always wear one but it's not any less dangerous when you're going slow to be honest. from what i've read a lot of the cranial and brain damage isn't from sliding it's the impact from the vertical drop. | ||
| M1combat |
"The 1% is basically reserved for bike event like Daytona where movement is very, very slow..." My whole life I've seen two motorcyclists dead on the road... Both at Daytona over a three day period. | ||
| Syonyk |
What about the "DOT Approved" half helmets? Are those allowed? They're better than nothing, though I think my favorite was someone riding with one on a test ride where helmets were required - with the straps flapping in the breeze. from what i've read a lot of the cranial and brain damage isn't from sliding it's the impact from the vertical drop. Pretty much. You can die from brain damage falling at 0mph and hitting something hard. The impact is roughly the same regardless of the speed, it's just how far you slide. | ||
| Tbolt98 |
I believe you should have a choice.... but i call it natural selection! | ||
| Crusty |
from what i've read a lot of the cranial and brain damage isn't from sliding it's the impact from the vertical drop. Indian Larry will testify to that. | ||
| Crackhead |
There is a reason why you should wear a helmet even when on a bicycle. If it is truly natural selection, then we should terminate the offenders offspring to completely remove the defective genetic material from the gene pool. | ||
| Crusty |
There are intelligent people who choose not to wear a helmet, They've weighed the risks in proportion to the amount of pleasure received and made a decision. I support their right to do so, even though I always wear a good helmet when I ride. Why? How many times have you fallen off a bike while riding on a public road? And of those times when you did, how many times did you hit your head? And of the times that you did hit your head, how often was the extra weight of the helmet a factor in causing you to hit your head? Once you go down the road to requiring a helmet to "protect you from your own bad decisions", how long until the government decides to outlaw motorcycles for the same reason? | ||
| Cataract2 |
because he doesn't use his front brake. You know, I saw on a crusier site a debate about which brake to use. A guy on there said he could go an entire ride and never use his front brake and that the rear was more than enough. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
Crusty the stats are actually in your favor to ride and not get hurt. however when the you're the stat.... | ||
| Preybird1 |
That is a good law. I don't care about the choice as i always wear a helmet. I think it makes the bike look better also as it accessorizes it some. You should see all the people in Florida who wear the full face helmet half way on there head and look like egg heads! | ||
| Whistler |
Here's a 2009 publication from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration entitled "Motorcycle Helmet Use And Head And Facial Injuries" http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811208.pdf | ||
| Stirz007 |
Ok Ok, I am an adult. I understand the potential consequences of wearing or not wearing a helmet: Evidence below - aftermath of my passage through back window of Explorer a few years back. Yep, no helmet... I'm a firm believer in ATGATT. I also think seatbelts are a good idea, but I DO NOT like do-gooder laws. It is a personal decision regardless of the 'cost to society' arguments and justifications. And, it is my position that these laws are passed as much to save insurers money as they are for the stated reasons. (if everyone wears seat belts, rates will go down - riiiggghhht - so we're going to ticket you if you don't wear them for your own good, because obviously you cannot make intelligent decisions yourself). It's that idea of liberty thing. It isn't the gummint's role to dictate all aspects of my life and the personal decisions I make.... I want to smoke or drink? Not their call. Go rock climbing or race motorcycles? My decision. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to not wear gear - my take is that they have never been down and think 'it can't happen to them'. Life is tough - they'll learn or get boogered up eventually. I just really don't need to have some third party with an agenda telling me what I can and cannot do in my personal affairs.... I now see that there are some initiatives out there to not only promote, but require toddler helmets - Seriously? http://www.biaph.com/abi-prevention-education/helmets_on_kids.html http://www.thudguardspain.com/es/index2.php  | ||
| M2statz |
Spend a major holiday weekend in a trauma center...Should clear the debate up for those on the fence about when to wear and when not to wear a brain bucket. 20+ years in health care and I have never seen anybody die from road rash. Strangest helmet related death was several years in Oregon when a Darwin award participant, while driving a moped drunk, rear ended a 12 year on a bicycle. During her flight from the scene, she lost control of the moped and drove under a parked semi trailer breaking her neck and killing her. She was wearing a helmet. | ||
| Daves |
How about the thing the ins companies are pushing now that you plug into your car and they can tell how you drive? Screw that! But, just wait, I see mandatory coming soon. You know, for our own good. Speeding cameras, Red light cameras, insurance doo dads that track your every move, helmet laws. Not cool. | ||
| Reepicheep |
People are crazy if they think a helmet is only protecting them from the "vertical drop at 0MPH". Even assuming your forward momentum will not be at all interrupted. It is an insane assumption on the street, as if there was nothing to interrupt your forward progress, you would never wreck in the first place. And even on a big open parking lot, what about a high side? I'm tired of trying to legislate out stupidity though. It's a loosing war. | ||
| Crackhead |
Shit happens, http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3865627/ Antelope-rugby-tackles-cyclist.html | ||
| Slaughter |
I also err on the side of personal freedom. My problem is that very many people who crash do NOT die and do NOT have insurance. | ||
| Glitch |
One word Gary Busey  | ||
| Aesquire |
Gary is now a helmet fan. Right after his crash, when he slid down the road and hit his head on a curb, ( sideways, btw ) he announced that helmets are dumb or some such. Years later, I saw him talk about that and he now favors helmet use. When asked about his previous comment, his reply? "I was brain damaged!" I too wear a lid. I too dislike nanny laws. How many people each year would be saved if you required full face helmets in all cars? 10,000? 15,000? wouldn't it be worth it? How about helmet use in showers? Many people fall and injure themselves in showers. While we're at it, a neck brace and full face helmet would save countless thousands. Just in the bathroom. Full body armor, head to toe, would save many lives. Just for pedestrians alone. There is no end to how careful I can force you to pretend to be. Only the residue of good sense left in America keeps us from cotton wool tyranny. That and the MAJORITY won't vote for sensible things like mandatory helmet use in cars. Because it would annoy them. However, voting for OTHER people in a MINORITY to do annoying things in the name of safety....that happens all the time. Trow in the money influence of insurance companies you got what we got. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
Glitch, that's two words! | ||
| Fast1075 |
I have been in three crashes that absolutely without a doubt I would be dead if I had not been wearing a helmet. In one of them, my head was run over by the front tire of a VW beetle. One I high sided into a ditch when the transmission in an RD400 seized, and one at the drag strip when the bike I was riding suffered a frame failure at around 135 mph. I puttered around the infield at Daytona sans helmet. But I wear gear on the road at all times, even on the mighty Elite 110. | ||
| Ulyranger |
Helmets could be made mandatory from birth, every waking moment. Heck there is new report out regarding tornado related deaths from the last year, seems like over 25% of the deaths could have been avoided if some kind of helmet was worn. I have always worn a helmet riding on the public highways, but believe it should be my choice. It is not a societal issue, it's a money issue, pure and simple.....well, maybe not pure... | ||
| Rich |
A helmet might have saved Indian Larry. The NC helmet law didn't. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
certainly the drop protection isn't the 'only' function of a helmet however that is it's primary job secondary is to keep 'things' out of your noggin whether by grinding impalement or other means. lastly there is a measure of comfort provided by a helmet from flying debris bugs rain noise sun etc | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Glitch, that's two words! Take it Easy on him, he rides without a helmet too.  | ||
| Stirz007 |
"A helmet might have saved Indian Larry. The NC helmet law didn't." That may be - but then again, doing this may have contributed as well..... (RIP Indian Larry)  | ||
| Jaimec |
Canada uses OUR "DOT" standard?? I'm surprised... I would've thought if anything they'd use the ECE standard. |
