Grrrrrr. A helmet law in AL

[MillCreek]

I think it is interesting that AD, the current EMS person, and I, the former EMS person, have much the same opinion.  This is not coincidence.  There is nothing quite like trying to intubate someone whose face is so smashed that you cannot find the anatomic landmarks. 

[Gewehr98]

True.

However, I've responded to crash scenes where the helmet merely provided aforementioned dental records. 

My own risk management model has me wearing my helmet.

YMMV, of course.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Texas doesn't seem to have helmet laws. It's a pretty common sight to see an older guy (late 40s, 50s, etc) running around on one with a bandanna, vest, and sneakers (usually with a full beard, too, FWIW). They outnumber the younger riders by far... and the younger riders are pretty much always in helmet/jacket/boots.

[Monkeyleg]

I don't mean to sound melodramatic when I say that I wouldn't ride a motorcycle if I weren't willing to die. Riding one increases your odds of death or injury substantially. Helmets obviate some of that risk. However, a helmet alone is no substitute for experience, skill and sobriety. Roughly 30% of motorcycle accident fatalities are alcohol-related.

As for insurance companies and helmets, for a while (it may still be the case) Sturm Ruger's health insurance wouldn't pay for treatment for injuries from a motorcycle accident if the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. However, other behaviors were covered. Drive drunk and get into an accident? You're covered. Get squashed while riding your bicycle the wrong way on the interstate? You're covered. Point a gun at your head and accidentally pull the trigger? No problem. Just don't ride a motorcycle without a helmet (which is legal in MA).

lots of times these type laws get pushed through on the heels of a tragedy that personalizes it for the legislators. one of their kids gets hurt

Perhaps. But mandatory helmet laws are mostly the result of states having to knuckle under to the feds to get highway funds. I think it's criminal that the feds take tax money from residents of a state and then threaten to withhold highway money to the state unless certain laws are enacted. The procedure enables congresscritters from one state to effectively enact legislation in another state. I would think this has been challenged at the SC level at one time or another.

[Thor]

I'm an advocate of helmets. Mainly for the same reasons that Gewehr mentioned. The military won't cover a person if they aren't wearing a helmet. They made it a regulation, regardless of the state laws.

HOWEVER.....

I think it's asinine that a state require seatbelts and NOT helmets. I only wish that they'd allow a person to choose or make them ALL mandatory for all drivers/riders. I don't like hypocrisy.

[zahc]

You had better be sure that you can afford to pay for not only emergency care, but possibly long term care, as well as sufficient disability insurance to provide for your family if you turn into a vegetable after wiping out without a helmet.

fixed

[roo_ster]

I'll abuse a George Carlin idea right about now:

Folks who take risks I am not willing to = stupid, crazy, irresponsible, etc.
Folks who don't take risks I am willing to = fearful, square, boring, lifeless, etc.

FTR, I wouldn't ride a MC w/o a helmet.  My kids, while they are under 18YO, living under my roof, or having their way/education paid for by me, can ride a MC anywhere they want-with a helmet-, as long as it is not on the street.

My BIL is 85%-90% recovered from a MC wreck that kills 5/6 who experience it: frontal lobe smacking into and scraping along the pavement at 30+MPH.  No helmet, of course.  No insurance, as he has always been healthy & unemployed.  Probably cost in the millions to get him back this far, ~18months after the fact.  He is alive due to teh grace of God and the fact he wrecked 5 minutes from a level 2 trauma center.

[roo_ster]

Interesting statement for a guy with the handle of "freedom lover".
So I guess if someone enjoys a freedom that you disagree with then they are stupid?
I suggest you educate yourself on the issue before you start calling your fellow forum members stupid.

OK, I'll take the bait WRT the bolded part.

Yes, in many cases they can be stupid.  Part of having freedom is being free to do stupid things...and being able to call folks stupid for doing stupid things.

"I suggest you educate yourself on the issue..." of freedom.  It is a two-way street.

FTR, I find helmet laws & seatbelt laws hateful.

[Gewehr98]

Damn.

I had hoped people wouldn't take the bait, honestly.   

[roo_ster]

Damn.

I had hoped people wouldn't take the bait, honestly.   

G98:

My post was not a primer on how to act, given freedom, just a reminder that the freedom to do/risk as one pleases does not shield one from others exercising their freedom to criticize it.

FTR*, calling folks stupid and using the term "stupid" is not something I would suggest.  There are better terms and means one could choose that are less likely to alienate and more likely to persuade. 


Anyways, does anyone have a link to a good primer on the DOT vs SNELL cert?  I'd like to relieve myself of ignorance on that account.






*  Why does this thread seem to make everyone want to include a disclaimer?  "FTR, though I would never slather myself down with Crisco, run naked through the shopping mall and dare mall security to catch & wrestle me, I support the right of willing adults to "Crisco wrestle" if the property owners do not object."

[Monkeyleg]

Jfruser, DOT certification means almost nothing. The manufacturer simply has to tell the DOT that the helmet meets DOT standards. Helmets that are Snell certified must be submitted for testing and evaluation by the Snell foundation.

We can debate the merits of motorcycle helmets, seat belts or sugar-free drinks all day long. What I find interesting is how accepting people--and certainly not just people on this forum--have become of mandatory-anything laws.

Proponents of said laws have framed the argument in terms expressed on this thread: the cost to society, or to those enrolled in health insurance plans, the increased likelihood of death or severe injury, and the "stupidity" of not accepting the mandate.

Unless you live alone on top of a mountain in Idaho, and never leave that mountain, something you do is going to have an impact on those around you, whether it's riding without a helmet or methane from a fart.

Insurance companies are in the business of assessing the costs of behaviors, spreading the various costs across their pool of insured, and then arriving at a price that still provides them with a profit. You may not ride a motorcycle, but something else you do is costing the company more money than the "perfect" person.

We prattle on and on about "freedom," but many of us are quick to throw another's freedom under the bus if it doesn't directly impact us. Many, if not most, members of this forum came from TheHighRoad, and have been lamenting the loss of 2A freedoms for decades. During that time, though, we've had other freedoms quietly taken from us without protest.

The frog has been simmering for a long time, but it's only in the last few months that we've seen demonstrations by ordinary people about government overreaching. These folks aren't upset that government is taking over their lives, as that's been going on for a long time. Rather, they're shocked at the pace at which the Obama administration is moving. He just turned up the heat too quickly and the people noticed.

Do-gooders and control freaks have been stripping us of our freedoms for decades, and precious few have yelled "stop!". It's only now, when we see the potential for government to not only control our lives but our deaths, that the people are upset. If Obamacare withers on the vine, I have no doubt that we'll return to the simmering water.

[Ben]

FTR*, calling folks stupid and using the term "stupid" is not something I would suggest.  There are better terms and means one could choose that are less likely to alienate and more likely to persuade.

This was well said and bears repeating for consideration as the thread progresses. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[Paragon]

As a fairly new rider (about 2k miles under my belt) I'm going to chime in here as well.  I personally will not ride without a full face helmet on.  I like my life more than I like not being sweaty.  I can speak of being sweaty with great experience after sitting in stop-and-go traffic on 95 many a times on rather hot, humid days on my black motorcycle with my black jacket and black helmet on.  Now, that being said, there's nothing stopping me from opening my visor, and I've found that lets in some wind which is a huge relief.  The thought of taking my helmet off never went through my mind, but I have a full-face with quite a few vents on it.

I don't think that those who choose to ride without helmets, or even those who ride in shorts and tee-shirts, are stupid.  It's their choice to make, and it doesn't affect me, so I don't get upset about it.  What I despise is seeing people ride without regard to others.  Those who weave in and out of traffic, split lanes, pull wheelies, and just race down the roads are the stupid ones, IMO.  I've ridden in states that don't require helmets, and my helmet stays on the whole time.  To me, it's just not worth the risk, but to others it may be. 

The reason I don't have a problem with the law requiring that all wear helmets is the number of people that are affected by the aftermath of an accident.  Police, EMS, hospital staff, families, and even the people driving by are hugely impacted.  I for one don't want my kids to see someone's brains spread across 50 feet of the road.  I also think a rider without a helmet IS a hazard to others.  I've heard rocks bounce off my helmet a few times, and they did nothing more than surprise me.  Now, had that rock hit me in the eyes, shattering my sunglasses, what could have been no more than a simple "thunk" is now an impaired rider, with a much greater possibility of going down.  Now, if this happens in moderate traffic, cars are going to swerve as the rider goes down, and could cause secondary accidents, affecting even more lives.  Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth. 

[Monkeyleg]

The reason I don't have a problem with the law requiring that all wear helmets is the number of people that are affected by the aftermath of an accident.  Police, EMS, hospital staff, families, and even the people driving by are hugely impacted.  I for one don't want my kids to see someone's brains spread across 50 feet of the road.  I also think a rider without a helmet IS a hazard to others.  I've heard rocks bounce off my helmet a few times, and they did nothing more than surprise me.  Now, had that rock hit me in the eyes, shattering my sunglasses, what could have been no more than a simple "thunk" is now an impaired rider, with a much greater possibility of going down.  Now, if this happens in moderate traffic, cars are going to swerve as the rider goes down, and could cause secondary accidents, affecting even more lives.  Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

I've been riding since 1966 and have put on hundreds of thousands of miles. In that time I've seen one motorcycle accident. I've seen untold numbers of auto accidents caused by all manner of factors, but I can't think of any new laws that would have prevented the accidents. The fact that something might cause drivers to have secondary accidents seems like a stretch.

[Viking]

I don't own a motorcycle (yet), but when I do, bet your ass I will be wearing full face helmet and good protective clothing. I managed to go down once when I was riding my moped. Got a few scrapes from that one...

[Gewehr98]

I've been riding since 1966 and have put on hundreds of thousands of miles. In that time I've seen one motorcycle accident.

Dude, next time I hit the road on my bike, I'm riding with you.  I've only been riding since about 1989, and in my assignments all over the USA and the world, I'veve seen many motorcycle accidents ranging from scratched chrome to fire trucks hosing off the pavement.  You're charmed, IMHO. 

[Monkeyleg]

You're charmed, IMHO.

Why thank you. Oh, wait. You said "charmed," not "charming."

Yeah, maybe I am. I hope my point wasn't diluted by that.

This is starting to feel like a dead horse.

[Gewehr98]

Charming, charmed, same same.   

It just struck me as odd that somebody keeping the rubber side down for 40+ years had witnessed only one motorcycle accident.

Speaking of data points, I've only had one equestrian accident, myself.

Luckily, the K-Mart employee ran out and unplugged the ride before I hurt myself too badly. 

[Paragon]

I've been riding since 1966 and have put on hundreds of thousands of miles. In that time I've seen one motorcycle accident. I've seen untold numbers of auto accidents caused by all manner of factors, but I can't think of any new laws that would have prevented the accidents. The fact that something might cause drivers to have secondary accidents seems like a stretch.

You don't think a bike going down at 70+ MPH on the interstate in traffic wouldn't cause other drivers to nail their brakes, swerve, or anything along those lines?  Then clearly you've not ridden/driven around MD/VA, because around here I think if you sneeze too loudly in the car it could cause an accident.  Drivers around here are HORRIBLE.  All it takes is for the weatherman on the radio to just say the word "Rain" and traffic comes to a dead halt during rush hour. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

thats why i quit riding i live in fredericksburg and at the time i hung up my helmet i worked in alexandria

[RevDisk]

Now, I have been on scenes of motorcycle accidents.  With and without helmets/other protective gear.  Personally, I would never ride a motorcycle in traffic without at least a full face helmet and probably leathers and good stout boots.

However, seatbelt and helmet laws reek of nanny-stateism.  Personally, I think that it's your choice whether you ride with or without either...  BUT.  You had better be sure that you can afford to pay for not only emergency care, but possibly long term care, as well as sufficient disability insurance to provide for your family if you turn into a vegetable after wiping out without a helmet.  Because I've seen that one.  Primary income earner gets seriously injured, ends up in a vegetative state.  Insurance pays up to the max of their requirements for coverage, which doesn't even cover the ICU stay.  Family is financially wiped out, and they end up turning to the state for help.  Would a helmet have prevented it from happening?  Impossible to know for sure, but it sure would have improved the odds.

This sums up my feelings quite nicely.

I'm debating getting my motorcycle license.  I'm not a fan of motorcycles per se, but I'm tempted to learn.  If only for the sake of the knowledge itself.  I'd probably not ever go without a helmet, protective gear, et al.  That said, safety gear is not magic.  Old friend of mine that I met up with in Vegas, she managed to get two compound fractures (both of her bones in her forearm) when she spilled her motorcycle.  Folks wonder why I keep a tourniquet in my medical kit...

Helmets and safety gear are good ideas.  Increasing state power to regulate 'good ideas' is not so good.  Life is dangerous.  If it wasn't, it would not be worth living.  I've done stupidly dangerous activities.  Playing with a couple hundred pounds of C4, making wind chimes out of mortar rounds, allegedly attempting to train bears to eat officers, getting drunk at mafia establishments in Eastern Europe, rock climbing, sky diving, dating a redheaded Irish chick, etc.  All very risky, dangerous, life threatening activities.  But it's the stuff that makes life worth living.  I wouldn't trade my memories for anything in the world. 

Should it be illegal, for my own good and safety?  The greatest evil is when a collective proclaims: "We are taking from you (whatever).  For your own good, because We know better than you do."

[Lee]

Back to the OP.  So you have to wear a helmet in those states?  Big deal- you can still marry you're 15 year old first- cousin and have her pick up smokes and booze for you at the local 711. 

As far as helmets go -I have always worn one (mom and dad made me starting in 1970), and always will .  I feel naked without one.  Besides, there seems to be a target right between my eyes for sparrow sized bugs.  Now, I need just need a windshield washer and a uni-wiper. 

[Chuck Dye]

"...For your own good, because We know better than you do."

Isn't that what they told the tom cat just before the Big Snip?

Returning to the OP

I expect helmet laws in nanny states. But Alabama and Tennessee?

Just another example of stereotyping Bubbaland, nu?

[RoadKingLarry]

[Yoda]Strong with fascism this thread is.[/Yoda]

[Monkeyleg]

GW98, I've seen crashes after the fact (during cleanup), but only one up close right after it had happened. I had an accident myself in '66, but fortunately I was just banged up a bit.

Paragon, I haven't ridden in the Maryland area, but IMO San Francisco drivers are even worse than Chicago. There's no lack of places to get run over.