Motorcylce helmet laws
 

What's your opinion? Should motorcycle riders be required to wear helmets?

Only if getting their head split open can result in our city going into depression and bankruptcy. :p

No seriously, considering I only wear my seatbelt about 40% of the time, it'd be pretty damned hypocritical of me to say yes.

Social Darwinism, that's all I got to say.

They were discussing this on my way to work yesterday morning. The morning show guy mentioned this; he thought it was completely bass-ackwards for the state to require ppl to wear their seatbelts but not to wear helmets, and the morning show girl was talking about how she would answer yes b/c she doesn't ever not wear her seatbelt. I am in the group of not ever NOT wearing my seatbelt.

Just as stupid as not wearing helmets is riding on your motorcycle in a bikini top and cut-offs.

Missouri has both seatbelt and helmet laws. Kansas doesn't have helmet laws (i live on the state line)
I do think helmet laws are a good idea-- but I am not sure it should be mandated. I wear my seatbelt most of the time, but again I am not sure that should be mandated either- except in the case of children.
As far as bicycles and helmets, i think that is stupid-- and yes, maybe i am a horrible parents but i don't make my kids wear helmets!

You're in favor of the law, but don't think that it should be mandated? Isn't mandatory part of the definition of being a law? Would you rather they be "Constitutional Suggestions" or "Congressional Resolutions"?

I like Congresentional Resloutions. You can pretty ignore them. That is when they get around to writing down what they eventually will do. And then pat themselves on the back and take vacations.

Here's the problem with the Darwinism thing.

All to often people in accidents without helmets don't die but suffer longterm brain damage. Even with insurance, in the end they'll likely end up on Medicaid... and who is going to pay for that? You and Me. :(

Ben R. was one of the vocal proponents of Pennsylvania's lack of a helmet law.

'Nough said.

True...but at least the shallow end of the gene pool gets a little smaller.:p Although then if these people have already had kids, then we pay for them too.:p

I can't keep up with this quick reply thing. :p

Regardless, I don't understand why people don't wear seat belts or helmets. They save your life in the vast majority of situations. Everyone has the friends uncles cousin who swears that they would have died if they'd had a seat belt on, but in 999 cases out of a 1000 you want to stay in the car and not hit the windshield and/or pavement. Why not wear a seatbelt because of 1 out of a thousand (very conservative)?

Same thing applies with helmets...

No.

A former employees wife was an ER nurse. Whenever she saw a motorcyclist without a helmet she called him/her a "Potential Organ Donor."

More recently, a friend and former collegue was riding his full dress Harley and hit a deer and was nearly killed.

He didn't wear a helmet before then, but he sure does now.

You would get shot in Pittsburgh right now for saying that...

Protect yourself at all times...

Folks in California voted and approved their helmet law at least 15 years ago...

The reason is CalTrans and the CHiPs kept getting sued when unhelmeted folks donated their intelligence to the pavement...

Oh wow so we do have a helmet law...does that extend to bicycles? I see far too many people on bikes on surface streets without helmets...

No.

-Alpha
--Bike Helmets are for wussies.;)

Which is why I think that any state that allows motorcycle riding without a helmet should also provide by law that insurance companies can refuse to cover any head injury resulting from a motorcycle accident if the injured wasn't wearing a helmet. Medicaid should be able to deny benefits as well.

Anyone who wants the "freedom" to ride a motorcycle without a helmet should have to accept responsibility for the consequences of riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Yes in CA you have to wear helmets when riding a bicycle as well.

I am unsure if it was changed, but ALL children under 18 MUST wear bike helmets...

However, adults do not necessarily have to.

That was voted on and approved, too...

I remember that law because President Clinton and Hilary were visiting in Coronado and decided to ride bikes on the beach with Chelsea and her little friend, who were ~13 or ~14 years old, and the kids fell down on the pavement...

The bike cops were ready to write a tickets for lack of helmets, but some bike helmet safety group donated some to the family...

In PA we just amended the law so if you are over 21 and have had your motorcycle license for 2 years you can be free!

I don't have a problem with you not wanting to wear them..just don't be mad when I don't want to pay extra for insurance, medicare or anything that will help your butt if you get injured in an accident and have some permanent damage. That's all.

I think it is the most ass-backward thing I have ever heard..forgive us for wanting to save some folks from permanent head/brain trauma. My mom had a stroke and I used to take her to her support group for people with brain injuries at a rehab hospital. Some of the people there were injured from riding on bikes w/no helmet. One guy was lucky if he knew what day it was. So i am all for you wanting to live your life, just don't expect me to pay for it if you have an injury that would not have happened or would not have been so bad had you worn an helmet.

i don't care one way or the other, b/c if i had a bike, i'd wear a helmet.

As a cyclist (the pedal kind) and a Pittsburgher, riding without a helmet in this city is looking for trouble. The pavement is uneven, the hills are steep, the traffic patterns are nutty, and you've got to deal with the yahoos who drive in this city. I commute 20-30 + miles a day to work on a bike, and if I had a dime for every time I've been yelled at to get on the sidewalk, I'd not have to show up at work. Truth is, I AM REQUIRED TO BE ON THE ROAD! Bicycle=car as far as the law is concerned. But people think because you're not driving a gas-guzzler or driving those suburban assault vehicles known as minivans, your safety isn't important (yes, I know that's an unfair judgement, but I'm venting).

OK, to be back on topic, YES, helmets should be mandatory for bicycles AND motorcycles.

And whoever said bike helmets are for wusses obviously never rode down Collier St in the aero position on a brand new Quintana Roo Kilo tri bike...bike computer said 47 MPH, street monitor sign said 46 (did I mention the speed limit is 30?). The USATriathlon council requires helmets for all racers as well. When all that's standing between you and some really unpleasant pavement is spandex and a carbon fibre frame...you learn to love the brain bucket.

To illustrate my point, here is a pic of the helmet of an aquaintance of mine who was hit by a car this passed weekend (He had right of way, car did not). He survived with just minor scrapes, but his bike frame was completely ruined (to the tune of nearly $9,500...yep, bikes cost that much).

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42...ul/helmet1.jpg

Is this the Collier St. near Carnegie? If so, I live up there in the apartments and you are absolutely friggin' insane for doing that road on a bike. There is absolutely NO shoulder and blind turns. I cannot believe my eyes when I see people riding a bike or walking up and down that.

Very good points on needing a helmet in Pittsburgh.

You seem like a good biker who follows the rules, but there are a lot of your fellow riders out there who drive me insane. Absolutely no attention to traffic laws (i.e. i've seem them zoom right through red lights), riding in blind spots, etc.

Anyway... that's neither here nor there.

after watching my granddad operate on motorcycle riders who had massive head injuries from crashing without a helmet......I would say that everyone should have to wear a helmet.

Yep, that one. I have the unfortunate duty of cycling that hill nearly every day of the week (I work at the apartment complex at the top of the hill). It gets really really bad when they put down fresh oil+chips, which they did one day while I was on my shift. Fortunately, it's closed down right now, PennDOT is taking out the bridge that goes over 279, but the alternative route is only slightly less dangerous and has a longer, steeper grade to it (Heart rate monitor was freaking out!)

And I agree, there are a lot of very irresponsible cyclists on the roads. going from sidewalk/road, no helmets, no signals...all of this makes it difficult for responsible cyclists to ride in traffic and does nothing but confuse drivers as to how to react to them. A dedicated cycle lane would be AWESOME, especially on W/E Carson Street, on the way into downtown. It's the only way for people in the West End to get to downtown, and it would be GREAT to have a safe way of doing it (and that sidewalk on the other side of the barrier has watermellon sized holes in it that make you able to see the 10 ft. drop down to the train tracks!!)

In Michigan it is required for you to wear your seatbelt, and it's required for motorcyclists to wear helmets. Why have one law without the other? It's the same thing... safety.

Some jackass on my commuter campus decided that the afternoon rush would be the perfect time to do some tricks to show off, with his helmet up and not completely on. He ended up slamming into the back of a car, getting thrown 50ft-- in front of the main classroom building so that everyone in their classes witnessed his death. He would have had a chance to survive had he had his helmet on the right way.

That's the way I feel too.

We have laws for so many things regarding motorcycles and cars. If I want I should be able to drive a 5MPG car, pollute the world, remove crumple zones and other safety standards that the world has enforced on manufacturers, and if my SUV hits another car it should allow me to ride over their hood and decapitate the other driver.

Some of you just amaze me with the way you think.

Oh and to the strange girl from the strange school, bikers are annoying. Get off the damn road. Use a sidewalk. Or better yet go somewhere with no cars and use public transport/cars to get around more. I've had many a day dream about opening my car door just as a biker is about to pass.

-Rudey
--Kudos to you all

Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists alike. Sidewalks are far more uneven, and with the number of obstacles (garbage cans, driveways, annoyingly large strollers, kids on rollerblades, dogs on and off leash, etc), extremely dangerous to an adult cyclist going 20 + MPH. According to PA State law, adult cyclists must be riding with the flow of traffic, as far to the right as is practical (Note: This does NOT mean the shoulder, shoulders are not practical due to glass/debris/drainage grates), and are to be treated as a vehicle equal to a car.

And you should be thankful that some of us are cycling to work, because we're not sucking up gas or taking up space on the Parkway West (where cycles are restricted). That means that there will be more gas for the rest of you because I drive my car only 2 days of the week. Of course you can always chose to take your gas guzzler onto the highways and other roads where non-motorized traffic is prohibited.

My bike is far more reliable than Port Authority any day. Even if I drop my chain or pop a tire, I have the know how to fix them and get going in under 10 minutes, rather than waiting another hour for a bus to *maybe* stop. Plus there are no bus routes to the places I work.

Fine. Learn to run. Buy a segway. Either way, drivers are going to hate bikers for a long time. We don't want to worry about you coming up the side or worrying anytime we turn.

-Rudey

Whenever I see someone on a Segway, I want to push them over. They look like such easy targets!

I always thought the rule was going against traffic, this way motorists could see you coming. Cars have a lot of blind spots, even more if it's an SUV or even a semi-truck, and a lot of cyclists think they own the road. Even if cyclists have the right of way, sometimes it's impossible to see one coming up on your right when you are trying to turn. My suggestion? Ride on the sidewalk carefully, and if you want to do the kind of riding you do, find a less busy road. (this is no offense to you, but to those cyclists who act like cars don't exist)

Walking = Against traffic
Biking = With Traffic

Helmets
 

About a year ago, there was an accident in which a motorcylce t-boned a jeep leaving the parking lot of the store at which I worked.

If not for the fact that the was an ER-trama room nurce at the diner next door, he would have been DOA.

Besides being very lucky, he was wearing a helmet.

He was very dumb to be driving/riding at about 55+mph on a major, main shopping road.

And look what happened the other day to QB in PA. He too very lucky and is now saying that if he ever rides again, will be wearing a helmet.

Agreed, to an extent. I don't think that my tax dollars should pay for someone else's "right" to have their hair blow free while on a motorcycle. ER doctors & nurses don't call them "Donorcycles" for nothing.

Uh, the post was about insurance, not MedicAid or any other tax-funded program - do taxes often pay for this sort of thing?

If they are permanently disabled, they sure do. Once that insurance runs out, they're being treated and living on our dimes. Also, you can bet that our insurance rates go up if there are too many very expensive claims.

I am in favor of the law because I think it would also be unethical to let a human being die because their insurance wouldn't cover their injury and the government wouldn't pay the bills either. Hospitals shouldn't have to absorb any more free care than they already do (the health system I work for absorbs $100 million in free care every year). Hospitals have to treat life endangering injuries whether a person is insured or not and whether they get paid or not.

There is a bill in the Michigan congress now to repeal our helmet law but the governor says she will veto it and I don't think it has enough support for her veto to be overridden.

I had a friend in Oklahoma who was an orthopedic surgeon who rode his damn motorcycle without a helmet all the time and finally crashed. He was in a coma for weeks and will never practice medicine (or hold any job) again. I will always wonder how an orthopedic surgeon could have been so dumb.

OK - makes sense . . . I guess I completely disagree with the insurance part, but don't know enough about the gov't assitance portion to do anything other than defer to you.

As far as insurance - motorcycle helmet laws probably do very little to affect your rates, and using your personal rate as a reason for creation of this kind of law really doesn't make sense to me (that whole 'constitution' thing). Either way, if it's a big deal, then insurance companies can 'play the market' and lower rates to people who don't ride motorcycles in exchange for not covering motorcycle accidents, etc . . . the free market should take care of this, not laws that restrict personal liberties (however stupid) to try to save a nebulous amount of money.

What if, instead of 'dumb', we think of it as a 'calculated risk' . . . if the person's risk of catastrophic injury is less than the enjoyment gained by riding without a helmet, isn't that the antithesis of dumb?

I don't ride at all, and I would probably wear a helmet regardless, but why the derision for those who choose not to? They're adults . . . it's not like this is some endemic problem, either; it's relatively niche compared to other social health issues.

I'm not sure about the insurance part either. I do know that after Katrina my flood insurance (in Michigan) went up $200 a year, so even if they say it shouldn't affect my rates if I don't ride a motorcycle, I'm wary. I just don't trust insurance companies :)