Mimi- This is a city law Fixedgear brought up. They are not proposing it statewide.
DDH- My dad just got a Texas Motorcycle license and I am pretty sure there is no helmet requirement. I think Texas revoked the law a couple years ago.
Printable View
Mimi- This is a city law Fixedgear brought up. They are not proposing it statewide.
DDH- My dad just got a Texas Motorcycle license and I am pretty sure there is no helmet requirement. I think Texas revoked the law a couple years ago.
Taxes or medical insurance - public pool of money vs private pool of money. It is still others paying for a risk that could be minimized.
I'd rather have those funds available for the "sh1t happens" part of life.
Your right Amanda. I looked it up. I still thought it was required.
This is what it said.
Effective September 1, 1997, persons at least 21 years old are exempt from wearing a motorcycle helmet if they:
have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course, or
are covered by a health insurance plan providing the person with at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating or riding upon a motorcycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SadieKate
What about smokers? Obese people? Drug addicts? Alchoholics? How much are they taking from the pool of money? What about people who choose to have babies, even though they know they will have a high risk pregnancy?
There are all kinds of things that suck money from the pool because of choices people have made.
V.
I'm in the make-it-mandatory camp. Partly it's cuz I work for hospitals that get stuck for the cost of caring for head-injured 23 year old helmetless/insuranceless idiots who thought they were invincible. But mostly it's cuz I love my friends' brains and I don't want them smushed. I can argue with them only so far; I want a law that makes them (and my friends' friends and families that I can't talk to directly) take safety seriously.
Even if it's not fully enforced, a mandatory helmet law will get more people to put one on. I remember when seatbelts became mandatory - lots of people grumbled, but now pretty much everyone wears one. Helmet wearing is one behaviour I'm willing to have legislated.
And, for anyone who wants to know the current law in their area:
http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm
I'm ambivalent.
On the one hand, I think that people are nuts not to wear a helmet. I would NEVER ride without a helmet, especially since I've cracked a few in my time, in lieu of cracking my head.
On the other hand, I agree with those who say that we are already over-legislated and that the existence of such a law won't change a whole lot. All sorts of "minor" and not so minor laws are flaunted on a regular basis without any enforcement at all.
And the talking point that fixedgeargirl mentions is true - Helmets DON'T prevent accidents. Here's what drives me crazy - The news media in Oregon ALWAYS mentions in a story whether or not a cyclist was wearing her helmet when struck. Seems a moot point to me. When hit by a 3000 pound vehicle at any speed above 5mph, the cyclist is going to lose regardless of helmet usage. Soooooo, if you make a mandatory helmet law, and a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet and is struck, does that mean that any injuries will be blamed on the cyclist?? (probably) Even when the motorist is the one at fault? Seems like an easy out for the motorists.
It does happen. As Eden mentioned, we do have two complimentary programs going on here in Portland. One is a volunteer-run program called Get Lit. Community members hand out free lights to folks seen not using them at night. The Police Department modeled their own program after Get Lit. Officers DO stop cyclists without lights, give them a warning, then install the lights on the bikes right then and there. Thousands of lights have been given out this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanci
If there were a mandatory helmet law here, you can be sure the police would stop and ticket cyclists not using helmets. Despite the prevalence of cycling here, cyclists and the Portland Police Dept have a sometimes rancorous relationship. Cyclists are regularly ticketed in Portland for a variety of reasons. The most common is running stoplights and stopsigns. There are regular stings in town. It's typically an intersection-based sting, and all road users (bikes AND motorists) get the same ticket. I think it's about $250. You can also be ticketed for riding without a brake (This is a big deal to the bike messengers, many of who ride fixed gear track bikes). But I guess I don't really have a problem with ticketing cyclists, as long as enforcement effects all road users. Same road, same rights, same rules.
The seat belt comparison is an interesting one. It's my understanding that one can not be pulled over SOLELY for lack of seatbelt use. In other words, a police officer who observes the lack of seatbelt use must have some other reason to pull over a motorist, and can give the seatbelt ticket as a secondary offense. I wonder if the helmet law would/could be similarly enforced.
Susan
In TX you can get pulled over for no seat belt alone. Matter of fact they have stings once or twice a year targeting those not wearing their seatbelts.
I guess every state is different.
I always ride with a helmet, kayak with a PFD on (if you're in a situation to need it, it does no good on the deck my friends), wear my seat belt, try to eat sensibly, and generally do most other things that are aimed at giving myself better odds of staying alive and in good health.
My husband motorcycles (and bikes), and wears boots, helmet, riding pants and jacket now (the pants finally came, but thankfully he's got everything now). We both are amazed when we see motorcyclists without gear including helmets, motorcyclists with helmets but riding in tshirts and shorts, or worse yet, around here since there's no helmet law in NH but they are required in MA, and we're right at the border, a perfectly good helmet, attached to the side of the bike, not the rider's HEAD. Duh, they've already spent the money for the thing! So I guess, on that level, one could make the argument that legislating helmets on motorcycles has worked, but it's also enforced through tickets and insurance hikes, and easily identified. Maybe that's ultimately the difference - there's no wallet effect associated with getting a ticket for not wearing a PFD while kayaking (and BTW, it is legally required to be *worn* in MA between 15 Sept and 15 May), or a helmet while cycling, etc. I also am baffled by those who are obese and still eat supersized ice creams, or golfers who say they love to get out on the greens 'for the fresh air', but drive around in the little carts instead of walking. Ok, so I don't really get golf in the first place... oh well.
Anyway, neither of us support manditory laws around common sense. I don't wear a helmet because politicians or police officers, say I should. I don't think most of these laws do anything other than make a politician feel like they did something good (all the while ignoring bigger problems, such as a $14 billion roadway system that is already falling apart, ah but I digress).
I wear a helmet (and a PFD) because I value being alive, and if I can help myself to achieve that with reasonable precautions, I will. I don't know how to keep people from themselves, but as Veronica has pointed out, there's always something better waiting around the bend to be legislated. After all, the pols think that's what they're in office to do - make more laws!
In my Country wearing it is the law. and when we were kids wearing a "Stack Hat" was cool!Quote:
Originally Posted by mimitabby
Then again, the $40 fine introduced when I was a kid is really not much these days... Which I guess is why I passed so many kids without helmets on today
The New Zealand compulsory helmet law was the result of one mother's crusade after her son (aged 12 at the time) got totally head-injured and vegetative. She just went and spoke and spoke more and wrote letters and wrote more letters to schools and pollies and councils till it got passed. Got so as she was known as The Helmet Lady!
Which is a different kind of compulsory from the US descriptions of passing laws in the objective or theoretical.
I only started wearing one when I was 45.Out of responsibility to the children .(And not wanting to give the SO the chance at finding someone better! rofl !)
Now I think - ok,so you have a 0.000whatever % chance of it happening to you; but if it *does* it happens to you 100%. Now I wouldn't ride without. You get used to it. And feel nekkid without it.
And recently I did have a crash on my head and it would have been very bad (tho' not in the DeniseGoldberg league!) if I had not had a helmet.
I would rather legislate who can and cannot have pets or children instead helmets. Of course I also believe that I am the best person to make the procreation/pet owning decisions - apply to me in triplicate.
Seriously I think that Americans have gone mad with trying to protect themselves and in particular children from life. I do usually wear a helmet - but would be no more or less inclined if it were another stupid law. I have been known to run with scissors.
Well, as Margo has pointed out, and Light Saber - helmets are compulsorary in the Antipodes.
The health statisics in New Zealand tell the story - since the introduction of the helmet law whereby you HAVE to wear a helmet on a bicycle, the head injury and head trauma admissions related to bicycle crashes has dropped significantly.
The same applies since to motorcycles (compulsorary to wear a helmet).
The same applies to the change in injuries since the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsorary in cars. The serious head and torso injuries have been reduced. The children flying through the windscreen from the back seat have been reduced.
The simple fact is, if most people dont have to, they wont. And we are not just talking about personal injury - the health system and taxes and families are affected by a serious crash.
Now, New Zealand is one of the most over-regulated countries in the world - but I think the helmet law is a good one - particularly when children cannot advocate for themselves and go out and buy themselves a helmet. If it is cheaper for parents to buy a helmet than to pay a fine - then they will buy a helmet.
Road *stepping-off-her-soapbox* Raven
:D Well here is, California's helmet law is Unconstitutional again. Already helmet tickets are getting dismissed based from the August 16th, 2006 ruling. If you’re citied for not wearing a helmet, you can immediately get your ticket dismissed by going to the clerks office, depending on what county in California. A memo seems to have been sent out to other courts declaring a Unconstitutional ruling. CHP says they will continue citing motorcyclist regardless is the law is declared unconstitutional which this decision was based from the California Highway Patrol violating several Court decisions and this one has it off the books. CHP is already in hot water and Governor Schwarzenegger supports the ruling and the repeal.
The point has been argued and argued the helmet Laws are unconstitutional period, since California passed it law back in 1992, it has made loads of published cases used throughout the States and those challenges were used in different States that even had a unconstitutional rulings based from California and many modified their helmet law because of the mass interests of what came from California. If California never passed the helmet law, it would of had less impact on several areas through Congress and the courts, something the California legislature didn't realize when they passed the helmet law it would benefit in repealing helmet laws in other states but also impacted other countries due to the massive data collected from California and written opinions or sparked interests (protests).
Now we have a helmet law that has been declared unconstitutional, not once but a dozen times since 1992 in California as the court will now turn it over because the CHP violated it continuously and just continued violating the law when there would civil ruling placed. The FMVSS No. 218 is just a DOT pamphlet. These tests does use nothing for safety (Penetration, impact attenuation and retention; that’s all it is), so technical that you can submit to DOT a homemade 6-pack styrofoam cooler as the brain bucket with a strong string as a strap system for testing and as the matter of fact, it was tested and passed!! DOT has not perfected the FMVSS No. 218 at all and to think they have not provided a list of approved helmets from the 100,000 different helmets sold in the USA for any of our States that enacted helmet laws to comply back in 1967 from the Congress Highways Act and also in 1991 when it was repealed twice in 1996. Did you know that helmets sold today are 2 out of 10 of a partial recall because of the testing standards and they are being sold daily? However what good does it due, the FMVSS No. 218 stinks, it does use nothing for helmet safety. How do I know? Because I have seen the data and the actual accidents from people killed wearing DOT approved helmets which are sent to NTSHA. Nothing gets done to improve it; I have seen dead victims wearing full face helmets from reports collected from highway accidents, photos and all. It nothing to due with high speed and faster motorcycles of today, data has been seen from accidents at 15mph with DOT helmets, which is just a sticker any manufacture can put on, DOT sees nothing, they only make a random call which helmets they might be interested in testing (it is like picking a jury).
There is nothing dumb with riding without a helmet as there are many other dumb things you can be compared to what you could do as well so don't judge a lidless rider compared to something similar that is also dumb you do. Some people HOV lane, they are people who speed and drink at the sometime, free styling, race, ride in the rain, snow or ice wearing a helmet that is more dumber than an individual riding safely without a helmet doing nothing but riding. There are more countries in this world that do not require helmet use to state there is dangers in these countries because no helmet use as data is available to saying nothing more or less than a helmet requirement country as well. If you road your motorcycle, fell and your helmet saved your life, wonderful, there is also the same data that people which are dead today that cannot say this in a result of wearing a helmet as well too.
There is tons of data available to review from helmet accidents at your finger tips before you judge people are stupid about riding lidless. Sure helmets do provide some sort of protection and have saved lives but also the same result of this is on the other end as well. The National Department of Safety Highway Administration does not like to publish information containing to helmet related accidents, it simply is not passed along as the push is to promote helmet use. There are bi-annual reports from non-relevant parties who write reports on these matters which NHTSA does not like to comment about when anytime there is publish case findings to testify on. Have you read data of this sort or just from a safety pamphlet? If you have, you haven’t seen real available data from helmet accidents to comment about this unless you have friends and yourself who suffered from an accident to tell your story. If so, submit the evidence so others can be informed, we benefit from this than people trying to sell us dangerous products
The California helmet law has reduced DMV registrations by more the 68% since 1992, it has impacted State taxes and so forth due to the protest of disliked laws that forced people to stopped riding. It screwed up the state completely as this law is now being taken off the books as Governor Schwarzenegger supports the ruling and the repeal. There was nothing saved in hospital costs from headless injuries, there is no data, only data exist is less registrations, it killed the motorcycle population is what it did because of the hate of helmets. Sure the helmet law saved lives but less motorcyclists were on the road, that’s all there is to say that helmet laws save lives. If there is a registration population of the same number before and after the helmet law passed, then there would be some true statistics to verify the data but there is nothing. I have studied this years ago and learned this is a big hype of crooked facts by police agencies and NHTSA so they can lobby to dumb politicians who don’t read anything but vote.
Thank you Richard Quigley for fighting the CA helmet law for 14 years, now we have our freedoms back. God bless you
Scott M.
Ducati Paso (104 CA helmet tickets since 1992)
San Luis Obispo, California
I'm with Susan on feeling conflicted. We have a helmet law for children 16 and under, and I have no problem with that. I think minors should be made to do certain things like protect their heads and wear seatbelts until they are old enough to make their own choices. I wear a helmet myself about 95% of the time. If I'm riding around slowly in my low speed, low traffic neighborhood on quiet streets with all the Portland bike facilities that it contains, I don't wear it. I'm an adult and after careful consideration, decided the risk in that situation was low enough for me, though not completely nonexistent. I am sure that there are plenty of other places throughout the state where other adults could make a similar well-considered decision to go bare-headed. So, all in all, I don't think I would support an mandatory law for adults.
I would be happy to sign a health insurance waiver excluding coverage for head injuries while not wearing a helmet when everyone in my plan who smokes, lives with someone who smokes, drinks alcohol to excess, eats poorly, and does not exercise chooses to sign one that excludes coverage for lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, etc.
I think there's a small problem with your logic having to do with low speed, low traffic neighborhoods and not needing to wear your helmet. Accidents happen when we least expect them. The fact that you are moving at a low speed on your bike does not protect your head when you fall. A helmet does.Quote:
Originally Posted by donnambr
And your willingness to sign a waiver so that your health insurance does not have to pay in the case you you having a head-injury type of accident on your bike while riding without a helmet - well, do you have any idea of what a head injury can cost from a hospitalization standpoint? Are you aware that the insurance companies have negotiated discounts with health care providers, but that as an uninsured consumer you will not be offered a discount. (Yes, that is incredibly stupid, but unfortunately that's the way the system currently works (or doesn't work)).
Helmet law or no helmet law, I feel very strongly that we should all be wearing our helmets whenever we ride our bikes - no excuses.
--- Denise