Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Ah, another "religious argument" thread, where no one will convince anyone of anything. Just as fruitful as discussing the merits of HHO, magnets around fuel lines, and similar eco-hoaxes. What is the point? This very same topic has been beaten to death in 100's if not 1000's of other forums.
This topic has nothing to do with ecomodding motorcycles (that is the section it's in, right?) and is at best an emotional political discussion, with very little data being brought to the table. Moderators, please just lock this topic before it degenerates into personal attacks.

Well, no. Scam fe gadgets can and are quickly debunked by science.

And the reason I started the thread was to notify of the new threat of fed intervention, not to do the endless pro/con thing again.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Clev

The seat belt laws I agree with, though. In an accident, the driver can be knocked out of the driving position without a seat belt, making their vehicle a missile that endangers others. A motorcycle helmet protects nobody but the rider.

And the motorcycle passenger, hopefully.

One could argue that flying debris that is solid enough and fast enough to chip a windshield would be at least as distracting as using a cell phone to the helmetless rider that gets the same debris in the face... maybe even more so. So having a (full face) helmet would help the rider retain control in that situation.

I don't have any data supporting this argument, other than my own experience of getting hit on the right front of my helmet by a chunk of tire from an 18-wheeler... it scared the cr4p out of me and left quite a mark... can't imagine getting struck in the face by that without a helmet and still have the necessary control over the bike. Gritty dust that gets into the rider's eyes is nearly as bad.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Well, no. Scam fe gadgets can and are quickly debunked by science.

And the reason I started the thread was to notify of the new threat of fed intervention, not to do the endless pro/con thing again.

Fine, then like seat belt laws, gun control laws, abortion laws, cell phones while driving laws, drunk driving laws, red light enforcement, and a dozen other controversial legal topics that are endlessly debated based more on emotion than facts.

Nobody has posted any "science" debunking the need for the law. The only 'con' has been the emotional "OMG, my freedoms are vanishing!!" Yes, we'll be another step closer to a socialist state In the meantime, no one ever touches their emissions equipment, no convicts ever get their hands on guns, no one ever drives drunk, no one ever tries to scam another person. What's this? People still do that?? How is it possible? Aren't there laws against that??

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

This topic has nothing to do with ecomodding motorcycles (that is the section it's in, right?) and is at best an emotional political discussion, with very little data being brought to the table.

The topic was one of a political nature from the get-go, ("Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets") and the moderators allowed it. Now, after much discussion (with no incivility), you want to terminate it? I wonder why?

Moderators, please just lock this topic before it degenerates into personal attacks.

This invocation of censorship is the equivalent of imposing martial law before anything bad 'might' happen. What if it doesn't happen? Will you be disappointed?

Authoritarians and dictators love draconian measures that curtail freedom. So do Nanny Statists.

[gspong]

Don't have enough posts to quote the link...

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Hospital costs much higher for motorcycle crash victims who dont wear helmets
The internet has the answers!

The U-M researchers' approach differs from that of previous studies that tallied health care costs for every victim of motorcycle crashes in a given state -- including those who died at the scene or before they reached the hospital, and therefore lowered the overall average cost of care.

Sounds to me like helmets increase health care costs. Without a helmet, frequently all the medical care required is a ride to the morgue, keeping costs down.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Fine, then like seat belt laws, gun control laws, abortion laws, cell phones while driving laws, drunk driving laws, red light enforcement, and a dozen other controversial legal topics that are endlessly debated based more on emotion than facts.

Unfortunately, that statement is not a complete sentence. All it seems to say is that enacting more laws do not make for a safer or better society. (But it will keep legislators busily employed.)

Nobody has posted any "science" debunking the need for the law.

So what? That seems to bother only you, exclusively.

The only 'con' has been the emotional "OMG, my freedoms are vanishing!!"

Yes, they are, bit by tiny bit. The 'straw man' of emotionality is your addition.

Yes, we'll be another step closer to a socialist state

That is indeed what fabian Socialism aspires to do: erode freedom tiny bit, by tiny bit.

In the meantime, no one ever touches their emissions equipment, no convicts ever get their hands on guns, no one ever drives drunk, no one ever tries to scam another person. What's this? People still do that?? How is it possible? Aren't there laws against that??

So the cure for too many laws is to make more laws?

Freedom is akin to health. I don't think it possible that anyone might suffer from having too much health...

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by gspong

Sounds to me like helmets increase health care costs. Without a helmet, frequently all the medical care required is a ride to the morgue, keeping costs down.

Total costs are the same, it's just that if you include the dead riders then the average goes down. If you have extra costs of ~$600,000 w/ 100 helmetless riders that make it and exclude 100 others that die at the scene then that's $6,000 per rider for a total of $600,000. If you include the riders who die then then it drives down the average to $3,000 but with 200 people the net cost is still $600,000. Either way your net cost is still going to be your net cost, it's just the average that drops if you include the riders who were DOA.

[gspong]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Total costs are the same, it's just that if you include the dead riders then the average goes down. If you have extra costs of ~$600,000 w/ 100 helmetless riders that make it and exclude 100 others that die at the scene then that's $6,000 per rider for a total of $600,000. If you include the riders who die then then it drives down the average to $3,000 but with 200 people the net cost is still $600,000. Either way your net cost is still going to be your net cost, it's just the average that drops if you include the riders who were DOA.

Yes, I understand that.

I should have read a little closer. I had assumed that mentioning the differences meant that the earlier studies had had differing results, but they don't explicitly state that.

If the average cost(including DOAs) is greater for helmeted riders than unhelmeted, then requiring helmets is going to raise total costs. Of course, that ignores any value of "Not being dead."

[ShadeTreeMech]

although it seems a bit macabre discussing the positive side of people dying when with a helmet, I understand the viewpoint.

But how many people not wearing a helmet would have lived if they had worn a helmet? And I don't think the loss of a life considers all the aftershocks from such a death. Supposing this dead person was a breadwinner; how are the family going to survive? Of course there are the what-ifs but it's ridiculous to go down that path.

This line of thinking is similar to the line of thinking that gives abortion its credence, that a life not lived is more profitable for society than a life lived that will require a constant input of money to sustain. Although I consider all life sacred, it seems more logical that if a child is unwanted, it would be better off sent to sit in the arms of the creator than to suffer this planet of ill repute.

But the similarities ends when the people who depend on the dead fool without a helmet are deprived of their resource. An unborn child doesn't have anyone depending on them for survival.

[Piwoslaw]

Can you imagine a tattooed, beer-bellied, leather-clad Harley biker in a full face helmet? Really? It's all about image! Screw the macho image, make all helmets pink, because they're more visable