Rising deaths stir new debate over helmet laws

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/01/03 | Joseph A. Gambardello

[Semper]

crippled bikers ought not to ask or get medical treatment without insurance they have bought.

In most cases no one should get something without paying for it. However, what if the injury was caused by someone else's negligence (as is often the case with motorcycles)? If you do not wear a seat belt and your car is negligently hit by someone else, does that relieve them of responsibility for the accident and any injury you suffer?

[RWG]

Are there states that do not require auto insurance?

[Phaedrus]

I would like to see statistics gathered that detail age, experience, sex and so forth as they relate to motorcycle injuries and death. It's too easy for the authorities to say the lack of a helmet was the problem. I don't buy it. It's just another reason to generate fines revenue. Everything government does it does poorly EXCEPT for thinking of new ways to tax us.

[Phaedrus]

... not have[ing] that helmet interfere with vision and hearing saved me on more than one occasion.

There are many who don't ride who also don't want to hear this. Awareness of the conditions around you is very important in keeping you safe. I ride in fear of all those big ol' blocks of steel around me; i.e. cars.

[Semper]

Are there states that do not require auto insurance?

I don't know and that is not the point. If someone causes injury to you through negligence, it should be their responsibility to pay for the results of that negligence (through insurance or whatever).

[Smokin' Joe]

Tell your wife to thank the car drivers. Two thirds of fatal, multivehicle motorcycle accidents are caused by automobile drivers who fail to yield the right-of way.

That hasn't changed in 30 years. No helmet can protect from basal skull fractures at 60MPH, and helmets may, in fact, help cause them.

[Smokin' Joe]

The Louisiana study, like most others, concentrates on "the crash phase" of motorcycle riding. Very little has been devoted to analyzing the causes of accidents and focusing on prevention outside of the motorcycling community. Non-riders seek helmet laws as some sort of add-water-and-stir bromide to fix the problem, which they regard as the fault of motorcyclists.

In the meantime, the motorcycling community has been stressing rider safety, especially drivers' education for motorcyclists.

You don't need a helmet if you are never in an accident. Awareness and technical proficiency are the key to riding safely and defensively. A helmet is a burden, a distraction, blinders and earmuffs, all rolled into one.

If you want it, fine, but let those who ride decide.

[Smokin' Joe]

I don't disagree with your list, except for the order. You left out intoxication, still a major factor in single vehicle motorcycle deaths.

I agree with the demographic consideration that those who can now afford that large displacement cruiser are sometimes of the mentality that they can handle it if they can write the check, and that they are getting killed (often with helmets on)as a result.

Reaction times suffer with age and only extreme proficiency will overcome that. (Doing exactly the right thing at the right time, even if the initial reaction is a little late.) Like any technical skill, riding suffers with disuse, so whatcha did when means little if a few years have passed since.

[Smokin' Joe]

No problem, as long as that holds for golfers, snowboarders, skiers, water skiers, boaters, people who dive into swimming pools, and everyone else, including automobile drivers, who might hit their wittle head.

[Smokin' Joe]

Something similar in '89: I got a little road rash on one knee, 3 stitches in my face where my glasses frame tagged the pavement and cut me, but a helmet would have done some severe neck damage. My leathers and boots bore the brunt of the slide.

I might be writing with a pencil in my teeth, if at all, had I had a helmet on.

[Smokin' Joe]

This is not about preventing the crash, but about decreasing the risk of fatal or permanently disabling injury.

Precisely the crap we have been trying to fight.

Let's get this straight. If you prevent the crash, you have prevented injury. What is so difficult to understand here?

[Smokin' Joe]

If you own a gun, learn how to use it safely and responsibly. If you own a motorcycle, same deal.

If people on a shooting range practised muzzzle discipline like most cagers drive, the shooting sports would have died out long ago.

[Smokin' Joe]

Seems like someone should investigate the medical industry....

[Smokin' Joe]

My head never hit the pavement, but the hinge of my glasses did. (three stitches in my cheek from the part which holds the lens).

Add an inch less clearance and the snaps common on Bell style open-face helmets then, and I'd be looking at the world much differently, if at all. The helmet would have rotated my face into the pavement, if it just didn't keep going and break my neck.

Cause of the accident? (no one has been talking about that!) Improper braking technique for road conditions.

[Phaedrus]

Avoiding solid objects, stationary or otherwise, is the name of the game. And keeping the rubber downside, of course.

[R. Scott]

Bad luck on the improper braking, good luck on the clearance.

[gunnrmike]

Well said! I just wonder how many bikers "friendly" really knows or has just been watching reruns of the "Wild Ones"

Gunnrmike

02 XLH 883 Hugger

03 FXSTDI Deuce

[Smokin' Joe]

Someone up there was looking out for me in my moment of stupidity (I knew better technique, just didn't use it).

[R. Scott]

It happens, been there - done that. Sometimes God even looks out for fools.

[RWG]

it should be their responsibility to pay for the results of that negligence (through insurance or whatever)

You can't get blood from a stone and you may not be able to get anything from some drivers if they do not have the resources. This is the point about helmets. Why should I pay for medical treatment and maybe even care for life for severly injured bikers who do not wear helmets? Fault is not an issue here. If one or both parties cannot pay any judgement against them, who does? Taxpayers do. If the chances of reducing injuries that are disabling are significantly elevated, then bikers should have to show proof of financial resources for medical treatment and care or wear a helmet.