Motorcycle Deaths Up...

[neJeff]

No uniformity

The problem, I think, is there is no uniformity. Since my son now rides safety on a motorcycle has literally become my number one responsibility. The original point of this thread was "motorcycle deaths are up" and that's what I (and I'm sure all of you) are trying to avoid for ourselves, our loved ones, and each other.

Lets start with government, its too big & ineffective. Politics I despise and could not care less about. Debating issues and getting nowhere doesn't seem productive generally and I don't like to partake in it. With that said I would like to see uniformity for driving laws on public roads on a federal level instead of each state deciding what they want to do. The Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration dictates the laws on commercial transportation and has established Federal safety standards and it seems to function well and (without sparking more debate) generally truck drivers are among the safest group of our drivers in the US.

Instead of the feds "suggesting" we enact state laws that they want (or they'll withhold fed dollars for roads or whatever) quit jacking around and put forth some damn general guidelines across the board. Now I'm not saying I care if you wear or don't wear a helmet or not but if the feds did the following things everyone would be safer and all would benefit from it.

1. No cell phone (talk or text) use while operating a motor vehicle
2. Motorcyclists all where helmets
3. Everyone who drives must take a drivers course when they first get license and a refresher every 4th year for each endorsment they have
4. Every driver wears a seatbelt, every passenger wears a seatbelt
5. You operate a vehicle under the influence you lose license for 2 years and do 30 days jail. Second time its 10 years and 6 months in jail

Simple and easy to follow. You mandate those 5 things and in 30 days you'll find the death rate drop nationwide guaranteed. And isn't a life more valuable than anything else? I could go on and on but those are five simple "influences" the Fed's could mandate that tomorrow that would make a huge immediate impact on safety.

[DGXSER]

Right, now that has an enforcement fiasco written all over it.
Let's see, maybe an armband issued by the state, (with imbedded micro chips, so as not to be counterfeited) for those over 2 years experience. But wait! Is there a difference between an armband and a helmet?
Since driving is a privilege, if you don't want to pay the premiums to cover un helmeted riders, then forgo the privilege of driving.
This is getting circular, and my head aches. CZ

Interestingly enough, this is State law in Ohio. A novice rider, less than one year of experience, must wear a helmet at all times. Your license will note that your endorsement is NOVICE. So, should you get pulled over for any reason, and you are not wearing a helmet, it is an additional fine. After the first year, it is your choice. It is nto a primary offense, so the same as wearing a seat belt, LEO can not pull you over for not wearing a helmet. But just like the seat belt, if you get stopped for speeding, failure to stop or similar, the other offense gets added on.

It is implementable, and enforceable, at least to the extent any law is enforcable.

[jimbyjimb]

1. Absolutely. This activity causes a driver to split attention while driving endangering all surrounding individuals.

2. Me not wearing my helmet in no way effects your physical safety. Argue costs all you want, we already have. It's a personal liberty because it has no immediate effect on the physical safety of any other person in the vicinity.

3. Great idea. I like this A LOT. I also like more stringent standards AND the ability to comprehend English to a satisfactory level.

4. Could be argued that bodies flinging around inside the car is an endangerment to the other passengers in the vehicle. If you're an adult I still believe this is your choice, or the driver's at least. It's a personal liberty for legal adults, just as number two above.

5. Great idea. I think if vehicular manslaughter occured the second punishment should be for the first offense. No bail, no fines. Jail time. Period.

It seems to me the main argument is that #'s 2 and 4, being they have no immediate impact on the safety of those outside of the vehicle, are and should remain personal liberties. Every time any personal liberty is lost I lament as it takes us one step closer to dictatorship. We're still very far away, as in lightyears, but it's still a step in the wrong direction. Lightyears tend to creep up on you at lightspeed, however...

See the recent anti-smoking laws as a prime example. Sad. Interfering with personal property and businesses. Freedom of choice to enter or exit those businesses. Freedom to open a non-smoking estabilshment to cater to those individuals who care to partake in a smoke free environment.

In essence the real argument or disagreement lies in principal. America is a land where we are supposed to pursue liberty. When that liberty has no effective physical consequence to another person at what point should the government intervene?

It's a deep question. The money part I see as a ridiculous argument when at this very moment there are billions of dollars going down the garbage chute that are much more of a bleed on our tax dollars than seatbeltless and helmetless MV operators. That's a debate for another website, but it's a fact.

Either way, I'm still wearing my full face helmet. All the time. And it's the smart choice, but should we not have the freedom to be stupid?

[Bonz]

This freakin' laughable!

The logic being bantered about on this thread proves that Darwin is alive and well.

Good luck to those to which it applies.

[neJeff]

In essence the real argument or disagreement lies in principal. America is a land where we are supposed to pursue liberty. When that liberty has no effective physical consequence to another person at what point should the government intervene?

Were talking about riding safety, not rights/priviledges/pursuit of happiness. You can't pursue those if your dead

[DGXSER]

OK, I just had this discussion over the weekend with a non-motorcyclist. Seat belt laws fall into another category, as in they do protect the health and welfare of others not in the car. If I am strapped into the seat, and for some reason get off the road or the road gets rough, whatever, I am much more capable of maintaining control of the vehicle than if I am being flung about it. In that way, the seat belt has the ability to keep the car in trouble from involving other vehicles.

Again, I believe in using a brain bucket, however, whether or not I have one on will in no way contribute to others being involved in the incident. So, let Darwin work his magic.

[BA80]

Were talking about riding safety, not rights/priviledges/pursuit of happiness. You can't pursue those if your dead

Once again I'll say, It is safer to have sex with a condom. You think the lawmakers should create a condom law?


Your or my personal safety is no ones business but our own.

[neJeff]

Once again I'll say, It is safer to have sex with a condom. You think the lawmakers should create a condom law?


Your or my personal safety is no ones business but our own.

Again, I was talking about saving lives only. The helmets in some cases will save lives. I don't care if anyone outside my personal family or circle wears a helmet but when I read of a cyclist dying under any circumstances it does make me sad (or mad) as the case may be. I prefer all of us live to ride a long time and I just know if helmets can keep one us alive it's worth it. Carrier enforcement is very strong here and I got pulled over one day for something ( think it was a tailight on a 20ft trailer) and thought what a damn waste of time but when you really think about it the DOT has really streamlined commercial truck transport laws in the US and saved lives along the way. If a traffic officer is driving and sees you without a seatbelt he should just be able to give a $25 ticket. No secondary violation crap. People will start wearing them everytime including myself who just got a speeding ticket with seatbelt violation a few months ago. People will care less about their so called "rights" than they do about their $$$ and it won't take long to get people inline...and yes, save lives in doing so.

[crazy steve]

...but should we not have the freedom to be stupid?

Generally, no. Our entire legal system is designed to protect you and others against the results of stupidity and dishonesty, whether it's your own or others. All the shouting about 'rights' is self-serving (as is usually the case) while ignoring some basic facts about human nature. It's interesting that nearly no one here has any problem with banning cell phone use or tweeting while driving while 'free speech' is enshrined in the constitution as a basic right, but you won't find any mention of helmets...

But let's ignore the whole 'rights' thing on this; we're not getting anywhere with it anyway. Both 'sides' have a position, and neither wants to budge from it so that part is totally non-productive, and wasn't the point of my posting this thread anyway.

We (motorcyclists) are on the 'radar'. Whether it's 'helmet rights' or 'loud pipes save lives', we're drawing attention from various groups, most of it negative. Right now you have dueling 'experts' and/or vocal citizens with antidotal evidence from both sides arguing over these issues. As a group, we are a tiny part of the population (>3%) so in terms of numbers we don't have much power. Right now, the general lack of accurate information on helmet useage is working in 'our' favor, but that can change. Don't forget for a minute that we disproportionately account for 14% of all highway deaths which is what put us on the radar. Yes, riding is inherently more dangerous than driving a car; nobody denies that. But at what point does that risk cross the line into unacceptable status? And who decides?

As a cautionary tale, I suggest you recall what happened to the tobacco industry. Again, ignore the 'rights' issues; in the end result, they didn't matter. HUGE money involved, they had lots of 'power' in government, but in the end they lost. The societial cost data became overwhelming and while there hasn't been an outright ban, you've gotten pretty much everything else.

So while there's very little data on the 'costs' to society of riding without a helmet now, that can change and probably will. If helmet law opponents succeed in repealing even more of these laws and the death toll goes up (for whatever reasons), somebody is going to take a harder look, if this isn't already in motion. And don't look for serious help from the motorcycle industry; the big players are all carefully straddling the fence, which isn't earning them points with anybody except the vocal minority.

I posted this hoping riders would think about the 'big picture'. Self-policing ourselves should be the answer, but what I fear is outside forces doing it for us. I'll readily admit, I'm in favor of mandatory helmet laws but not because I believe in a 'nanny state' or I don't think you're smart enough to decide for yourself. I see them more as a very large brick in a wall of protection of our other rights to ride, demonstrating to the general public that we take safety seriously. Looking at this pragmatically (again, bleating about 'rights' is rarely productive), if the other 97% of the population decides (or a smaller group convinces them) we're using more than our fair share of societial resources, those rights will be gone and we all may be faced with restrictions none of us likes...

[dpotter58]

Again, I was talking about saving lives only.

Do you smoke Jeff? How do you feel about cigarette sales? Think mandating no more smoking would save more lives? How about fatty foods or sugary drinks? Cutting down on heart disease and obesity would save lives…
Where do you draw the line at government interference? *OK, now I’m taking off my Greg hat and going back to work*

[Bonz]

+1

Great post above!!!

Once a right is taken, it isn't coming back, and by the same token, if a right is limited, then that becomes the new standard, and complacency sets in. Then the next chink in the armor is pursued, whatever that may entail, and it gets a little easier to take a little more.

[trbig]

This freakin' laughable!

The logic being bantered about on this thread proves that Darwin is alive and well.

Good luck to those to which it applies.

I'll keep ya in my prayers, hbonser.

[BA80]

Do you smoke Jeff? How do you feel about cigarette sales? Think mandating no more smoking would save more lives? How about fatty foods or sugary drinks? Cutting down on heart disease and obesity would save lives…
Where do you draw the line at government interference? *OK, now I’m taking off my Greg hat and going back to work*

Couldn't have said it better myself DuWayne.

[Bonz]

trbig, where have you been all my life? Does Ada, Oklahoma know you are missing?

[Bonz]

I'm going to pre-emptively aplogize to trbig... I'm sure we would come across as pretty good fellows to each other in person.

Yeah, we are all fired up about our point of view, but hey, it all comes down to agreeing to disagree about whether helmets are worth wearing to protect your head or not.

Have a good one, let's put this one to bed, eh?