Missouri’s Helmet Law a Good Thing
Once again there is chatter about repealing Missouri’s helmet law. To do so would be foolish. Like seatbelt laws for adults, I get the freedom of choice argument.
However, in these last few months I’ve also been around so many people with severe head injuries and therefore I know more clearly than others how devastating such an injury can be. It doesn’t take much of an impact to cause brain damage which can result in the loss of speech, ability to walk, etc…
The question is if the government has a compelling enough case to mandate the use of a helmet. First, the use of the road is not a right. In the interest of safety for all, the government mandates safety equipment such as lights. A motorcycle helmet is a natural extension of this.
So why should the government care if you split your head open for not wearing a helmet? Well when you are dead or a vegetable you are no longer contributing to society.
When I can return to my scooter I will wear a helmet regardless of the law — it is simple common sense. Still many motorcycle advocacy groups are working hard to remove helmet requirements in Missouri and 19 other states that require helmets for all riders regardless of age. Another 19 states require riders up to a certain age (18 to 21 depending upon the state) to wear helmets (see list).
There are many types oh helmets on the market and critics of these laws correctly point out that the laws don’t define what constitutes a helmet per the law. Fine, let’s work on a definition but not toss out the requirement all together.
If you are bicycling or riding a scooter.motorcycle please wear a helmet regardless of the law.
Motorists get head start in drive for road safety A report by the Federal Office of Road Safety claims that “bicycle-style” helmets would be as effective as airbags and better than seat belts, reducing the severity of accidents by 50 per cent and saving the life of one in fivehead-injury victims.
The universities concluded that helmets would provide more protection than safety options such as interior padding, side-impact airbags and advanced seat belt designs. “Car occupants are already better protected than cyclists or motorcyclists,… this research shows that safety could be improved quite a lot by using simple, low-cost protection.”
– –
Motorcycling has riders traveling at speeds similar to car speeds, thus exposing the person to chances of significant head injuries. If you don’t ride at high speeds, these risks are reduced. Even more important for cyclists than helmets is the built environment and the impact of critical mass. The more cyclists on the road, the more likely motorized drivers will accept, recognize and share the road. Helmet laws for cyclists reduces the number of riders.
– –
More important is to have Complete Streets but MoDOT’s Rahn killed this important legislation last week and said “trust us”:
http://mobikefed.org/2008/04/modot-halts-complete-streets-bill.php
There is much misinformation being circulated on this topic which is harming progress:
http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131
I have mixed feelings about the helmet law. After having a bicycle accident in which my head bounced off a curb, leaving a substantial dent in the helmet, I wear a bicycle helmet 100% of the time. And in my motorcycling days, I would never have rode without one, not even on the river road to Grafton.
On the other hand, it is a slippery slope to say, “when you are dead or a vegetable you are no longer contributing to society” constitutes an appropriate grounds for regulation. Strokes kill and debilitate people. High blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity are risk factors for strokes. Strokes are the third leading cause of death in the Western world. So should the government prohibit overweight people from buying unhealthy food?
Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. You are right that the use of a road is not a right, and the state only needs a rational basis that is not arbitrary or capritious for passing the regulation. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good idea though. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should (have a helmet law).
While tail-light, brake light and other safety regulations protect others, a helmet law only protects the wearer of the helmet. It makes as much sense as a government regulating seat belt use (none). Can any of us live our lives and be responsible for our own decisions anymore? Let social darwinism and individual responsability have a comeback. This country looks more like a police state every year. I don’t want to tell you what is best for your life, you shouldn’t have a say in what is best for mine.
PS- I alway wear a bicycle helmet, and never a motorcycle helmet (I live in Miami). Wierd, I know. But it is my life, and my choice.
This discussion comes up often, especially in states like California that have laws for wearing helmets. I always wear a helmet when riding a bicycle and while I fully support the helmet laws for motorcycles, there is one interesting point. A person riding a motorcycle weaving in and out during heavy traffic on multi-lane freeways may have a valid point for not wearing a helmet. Who would be better to judge if there is really anything substantial in that head to require protecting. Hang in there Steve, you are making great progress and hopefully, you will be home and riding your scooter with a helmet soon!
I generally favor fewer restrictions. The government is not responsible for protecting me from myself; only from my neighbors.
A point could be made that there are more injuries per rider mile from those riding motorcycles than those in cars not wearing seatbelts. Therefore taking cycles off the road would be more effective than requiring seatbelts.
I know I’m making a stupid argument, but there are a lot of stupid regulations in government too.
I see the helmet and seat belt laws as somewhat separate issues. If you are dumb enough to ride a motorcycle (or bicycle, scooter, etc.) without a helmet so be it. I can’t see how that poses a greater danger to anyone else. Unfortunately, we (as taxpayers and insurance premium payers) often have to pay the price for caring for individuals or their dependents for this “personal choice.” However, where it breaks down for me with automobiles is that I know from personal experience that you are much more likely to be able to recover your vehicle from an accident if your butt is placed firmly in the seat and not bounced out where you have no control — putting many others at greater risk. It may not be a statistically significant situation but it anecdotally saved my life. On the flipside, though, my brother survived a one-car accident by being thrown from the vehicle prior to it being completely smashed after he was ejected. I have no doubt in that instance the seat belt would have taken his life but I feel that was rare enough that I ALWAYS wear my seat belt and require those traveling in my car to as well. My cousin (40-year old widowed mother of 3 teenagers) was killed last year in a car accident. The investigation determined a great probability of survival had she not been thrown from the vehicle and slammed into a tree. Wear your seat belt.
I agree, wearing a helmet makes sense. But I disagree that government should protect us from our own bad choices. Where do you draw the line? Helmets? Prohibit using cell phones while driving? Prohibit texting while driving? Prohibit the use of cycles (motorized and human-powered) of all types on public highways (not enough protection)? Lower the speed limits to 20 mph? Prohibit conversations with the driver? We’re adults – most of us are capable of making educated choices, even if they’re stupid when viewed with 20/20 hindsight.
.
The only real downside to removing the requirement for wearing a helmet while on a motorcycle is that natural selection is not perfect – too many riders who choose not wear helmets don’t kill themselves when they crash, imposing huge financial loads on society when they require long-term care . . .
Using cell phones while driving is often worst than driving drunk as they become easily distracted. An educated public would not tolerate the mixing of heavy drinking with driving nor cell phone use with driving.
– –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305104905.htm
Carnegie Mellon study used brain imaging to document that listening alone reduces by 37 percent the amount of brain activity associated with driving. This can cause drivers to weave out of their lane, based on the performance of subjects using a driving simulator.
– –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080102083801.htm
Strayer’s research group has published studies showing that:
• Hands-free cell phones are no less dangerous while driving than hand-held cell phones because the conversation itself is the major distraction.
• When young adults talk on cell phones while driving, their reaction times become as slow as reaction times for senior citizens.
• Drivers talking on cell phones are as impaired as drivers with the 0.08 percent blood alcohol level that defines drunken driving in most states.
Highway statistics suggest drivers on cell phones are four times more likely to be in an accident, and Strayer’s earlier research suggests the risk is 5.36 times greater. An insurance company survey estimated 73 percent of wireless users talk while driving.
“Well when you are dead or a vegetable you are no longer contributing to society.”
While I agree that not wearing a helmet is stupid, if we allowed our government to function under this mentality we would all live in padded rooms and eat a healthy diet of protein paste. After all, walking on a sidewalk can lead to a cracked skull and eating poorly can cause heart disease and diabetes. But sometimes the best things in life are the things that aren’t good for us.
Who gave the government the right to tell me what to do if I’m not hurting someone else? Didn’t we fight a war with our former motherland for this very reason? I don’t ever recall Thomas Jefferson advocating helmet use while riding a horse.
When someone is seriously hurt in an accident, there are more victims than just the person physically injured. Friends, family, possibly taxpayers, our medical system, insurance companies, all pay a price when a person in injured or killed in an accident. Whose job is it to lessen that risk?
.
In the same vein, government requires car seats for young kids and seat belts for the rest of us. Does someone want to make the case against those laws?
How government in StL-MO lessens risks:
1. Narrows lanes on high speed highways,
2. Builds elevated ramps instead of ground level on/off ramps linking highways,
3. Narrows lanes on arterial roads for more auto-truck traffic volumes,
4. Fails to maintain the additional load factors with adequate pavement leading to unnecessary potholes and risks,
5. Raising highway speed on the New 64 to 60 in an urban environment,
6. Fails to write laws preventing cell phone use and creating more distracted drivers,
7. Refuses to incorporate bike lanes and wider sidewalks for nonmotorized solutions,
8. MOdot’s Rahn rejects Complete Street legislation,
9. Fails to pass laws protecting the rights of nonmotorized road users,
10. Law enforcement, on the streets and in the courts, remain undertrained and biased,
11. Fails to design new roads-highways with adequate space for non-auto alternatives.
– –
Each of these decisions are made and developed to favor one type of road user over another. Our streets and related infrastructure are paid largely from public funds. However, these funds, related laws and their enforcement are managed to increase the risks to nonmotorized users. For those reasons and a few others, leadership in StL greatly increases the risks to all road users, lowers the quality of our living, and fails to address the environmental fallout.
– –
The StL-MO solution? Reduce the demand for alternatives to autos/trucks/SUVs by making such alternatives less desirable. Gas is still way too cheap as demonstrated by these priorities.
Far and away government regulations intended to protect citizens (either from potential injury from machine use, consumption of extracted and manufactured product, or occupation of built structures) is a good thing. I also believe that government regulations intend to maintain the market fairness and operability in our economy is a good thing, but I’m sure those to the political right of me will be less enthusiastic.
Eh, I don’t really care that much. I have owned and ridden motorcycles for over 15 years. I almost always wear a hard hat. In fact, almost have body armor and kevlar gloves and pants.
Occasionally I don’t wear a helmet, even on the Mo side. You know, being in a pinch, you got a passenger you need to haul, I hand them the helmet. As long as the penalty isn’t stupid high I don’t object to the law, but I am not sure it is all that necessary, for the only person effected not wearing a helmet is the one not wearing it.
Besides, the law is abused by way substandard and novelty helmets that you see guys wear all the time.
There are better laws to have on the books- you know having eye protection required. That would prevent someone from getting in a wreck. We don’t have it on the Mo side, but there is one on the Ill side. You are far more likely to bang up your arms and hands than your noggin. i have had road rash but never knocked my head. Well, not on the bike at least. I was certainly happy I had been wearing my gloves and jacket. I don’t mind wearing the helmet too, but again, it is sort that person’s own hide and noggin that is at risk.
Ultimately though? Out of all the laws it don’t bother me either way.
Now cigarette smoke? That is a whole other story. Nasty, and I am sick of breathing in other’s cigarette smoke. That is a real public health threat.
The energy and money spent to create, argue, and enforce mandatory helmet laws would be better served to promote better and more accessible rider education and driver awareness of motorcyclists/bicyclists. There is an increasing number of inexperienced riders on todays roadways, and the skills developed in a basic or advanced rider course would go further towards saving their lives than a plastic helmet. The fact is that the majority of motorcyclists today are employed and insured, and do not post the monetary strain on society that pro-helmet law advocates would have you believe. Additionally, if personal safety was the primary concern for such legislation, all vehicles would come equipped with NASCAR approved roll cages and 5 point safety harnesses. One of the leading causes in motorcycle accidents is the innatentiveness of car drivers or their inability to see a cycle operator. Efforts to educate and promote awareness, and thereby prevent any accident at all, must by their very nature be preferable than relying on a shard of plastic that may or may not help after the incident has occurred.
I encourage anyone passionate enough about this issue to formulate an opinion to take the time and read literature, both pro and con, regarding helmets and the standards their manufacturers are held (or not held to) before formulating an opinion, and also to remember that people who are against helmet legislation are not necessarily anti-helmet, but rather are interested in preserving freedoms and civil liberties that are being stripped left and right from us as a populace at an alarming rate.
All I have to say is this: Find out how much insurance is in states that don’t have helmet laws. I lived in Oklahoma in the 90’s and motorcycle insurance was outrageous. Alot of the people that want the law removed will be the ones complaining about the cost of insurance when/if it is. If we want to talk about the government protecting us, let’s talk about how they can quit making me and all other working/taxpaying people pay for the quality lifestyle that all of the deadbeats are living. Cable TV, cell phones, internet, etc.. are not a right. Sorry, I got off point but I had to vent a little bit.
Motorcyclists sustaining head/neck injury — 12%
Pedestrians sustaining head/neck injury — 13%
Automotive sustaining head/neck injuries — 62%
So what is with the clamor produced by DOT and NHSTA on saving lives by mandating protective headgear on motorcyclist. We constantly hear that they do this to save even one life. So whats with the hippocrasy on only enforcing their views on motorcyclists. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the automotive public when they are forced to wear protective headgear. Their jobs would last how long??
All the agencies are so set on safer crashing and recovery they have failed to focus on crash prevention. Safer crashing doesn’t work with motorcycles, we lose.
We need to focus more on rider and driver education and awareness.
How many of you out there still have drivers ed offered at school?
Talk to your school board and start educating our young adults in something they will do for the rest of time, DRIVE. Lets do it properly from the start and maybe more will live. I don’t have the current stats on teenage crashes but many of these young drivers are dieing and quite often taking us with them.
I still think safer cars means more stupid drivers. I don’t care if I crash — I will live– big deal.
While it may seem reasonble to say there ought to be a helmet law because there’s a seatbelt law, it isn’t. It’s like saying if you protect your home with a fire extinguisher you should have some obligation to protect it with a gun too. Helmets & seatbelts offer 2 completely different kinds of protection. As a both a motorcyclist & a firefighter/paramedic, I’ve decided not to wear a helmet after seeing one too many helmeted riders paralyzed when their PLASTIC helmets bounced & snapped their necks. Not by any stretch am I trying to get killed on my bike, but I’d rather just hit my head & feel nothing than live the rest of my life in bed depending on a ventilator, g-tube & public aid. Legalize freedom.
I believe in this statement ‘ LET THOSE WHO RIDE DECIDE ‘ !!!
.., i myself agree with the use helmet… i am glad there's a law about the usage of helmet… accidents happen when we least expect it so we need to be ready…
It's my choice to not wear a helmet, you same bleeding hearts that want to break my neck when the helmet bounces off your windshield, 'cause you turned left in front of me…and swore to the cop ta didn't see me!!!! would vote for abortion…, my body my choice
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy Polos,
ed hardy board shorts ， ed hardy men T-shirt,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing
through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value
and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed
hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction.
If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here
is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t
let you down.