Wow, no comments on this one yet? I'd have thought there'd be a flame war in the first five minutes, or maybe we're all just smart enough here to know this would be the outcome without having to have CNN tell us.
What a shock! I would have thought that the skull would do a much better job at absorbing energy than that hard material in the outer helmet shell and that impact-absorbing layer in the inside. Go figure. Live free AND die.
Okay, this should surprise no one. Helmets come off, fatalities and injuries go up. That's a given. However, those people made a chose not to wear their helmet. Repealing the state law did not prevent them from donning a helmet; it gave them the choice to wear or not to wear. All that means is those who decide not to have accepted the possible consequences and risks associated with riding minus the protection helmets affords.
I do not consider this a reason or valid argument to reinstate the helmet laws, but rather as ammo for education courses on why helmets should be worn. The choice should still be left in the hands of those taking the risk. As far as the increased medical costs, bill them. Might sound cold, but thats what insurance is for.
And before someone (we all know of whom I'm thinking of) points the finger and asks the questions: I wear a full face helmet, I don't support for your own good laws, and I don't claim allegiance to either political party since I'm tired of their loss of perspective.
Natural selection at work. I agree for choice but we live in a work where people don't have to be responsible for their actions. Helmet laws make sense even though some morons that ride never will. Still, it's good to have the gene pool flushed once in a awhile.
That's what a lot of people feel and say about people riding motorcycles in general; even those clad in full leathers and donning a helmet are considered too dumb to live. Congratulations, you've created a reductionist perspective on motorcycling... At least reducing it to the point where you feel safe. But life ain't safe, even while riding in a suit of armor. But you take the best precautions you can and weigh them out against your idea of living a fulfilling life and that is your own personal decision. And yeah, I ride with a helmet, gloves, and much more (even a back protector; oftentimes full leathers). But if you think that's gonna stop my face (helmet and all) from coming out of my a$$ when the Peterbilt crosses over the solid yellow, then the gene pool is more stupid than those that are leaving it. Regardless of the action taken, or of the safety precautions taken around it, one fact will always remain: You can git killed walkin' yer doggy... But that's livin fella, that's livin...
By the way, are you really a Buell employee or is that some phantom domain in your email address? If so, maybe you should tell Eric that he should be responsible for his actions by not building motorcycles that people will inevitably die on... I'm sure he'd really appreciate it.
I would like to se further studies on cause, as simple causality does not necessay say much.
As long as freedom not to wear helmets goes along with associated responsibilites for that, fine.
But I would not like to take that too far as many might say riding a bike is more dangerous, so fully accept the responsibility of any outcome of that, reagardless of blame. Same as driving a car is more dangerous than many other things.
"As far as the increased medical costs, bill them. Might sound cold, but thats what insurance is for. "
You might not be aware of this Hutch, but having motorcycle insurance is not the same as having medical insurance. In fact the study I saw shows a high percentage of injured bikers didn't have medical insurance. So who picks up the tab? Medicaid? Generous Conservative Do-Gooders(1000 points of light)-kinda doubt it.
damn guys...the report is written to get exactly what most of you guys are giving. Helmet laws are needed to control you, protect you, blah, blah. The part they left out is that there are five times more riders now than the last study. Chances are accidents will go up. This is the kind of slant CNN puts on most things and people are too blind to see. They love to omit the most important item and make the story read they way they want. It's b u l l $ h i t
By the way, I live in SC, no helmet laws and I ride with a helmet.
Actually, your choice to ride a motorcycle at all costs us ME more money. They are nowhere near as safe as even the smallest auto, yet I bet you wouldn't consider banning them on that fact, would you? If you want to try out my theory, you gear up on your BMW, and I'll wear a t-shirt and shorts in a VW Beetle, and let's play bumper tag and see who gets hurt. So is your freedom to ride an unsafe motorcycle going to win over my freedom to pay less money? Think REAL hard on that one.
"New motorcycle registrations in Florida spiked from 219,000 in 2000 to 417,000 last year - a 91 percent jump, according to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Meanwhile, new car registrations in that period rose only 18 percent."
Does anyone think that a 91% jump in registrations might also create a 91% jump in accidents and fatalities? Nah. I guess CNN didn't have the time to report this. The "stunning" jump in deaths is all they had space for.
In the story look at the death rate reported by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 30.8 deaths per 1000 crashes (helmet law) vs. 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes (no helmet law). Using the death rate would consider that there are more bikes on the road in FL now.
There's more than the law that can be used to affect people's behavior. For example, there's already financial incentive to take a MSF course (reduced insurance rates). The insurance industry is probably looking hard at the "mounting health care costs for injured bikers." What about a health/medical insurance company having a policy like: "if you're not wearing a helmet when injured on a bike, you're not covered?" If you don't like it, get insurance elsewhere (at a higher rate). I used to work for a company that was self-insured and you weren't covered if you were hurt riding a bike!! Always comes down to $$$.
This may be where we're heading vs. changing the law to require helmets.