What metrics exist for having a helmet law in MN?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Tim.  Are you asking what evidence there is that a helmet law is ineffective in saving lives, reducing injuries, or having any other "good" effects?

How about a graduated license system like they have in the UK?

Maybe a slight thread-jack, but an interesting question to me.  I personally think a graduated system is an excellent idea, although I don't support increased legal restrictions on motorcyclists.  Graduated licensing seems to be more effective than training in reducing motorcycle crashes, though.

Brent

But saying that, if they did pass a helmet law, i wouldnt really care.

I used to think I wouldn't care, but I have a selfish personal reason to oppose helmet laws.  I think fewer people would ride if Minnesota had a helmet law.  The primary reason some of my students take a BRC is so they can ride without a helmet. 

I agree with Greg that riding with a nice full-face (or modular) helmet is much more comfortable thanr riding without, but not everyone thinks so.  Pat Hahn hoped to demonstrate that if people were given nice helmets, they'd like them and continue to wear them, but his experiment fell short of proving that.  Some people just don't want to wear helmets when they ride.

Does anyone know what a "Yamaha Racer" is?  (Guessing the bike was painted and all decals removed.)

<snippage happened>

    Vehicle 1:
       2012   YAMAHA RACER 

<more snippage>

I wonder if someone told the guy who wrote the report that the bike was a Yamaha Raider and he thought they said Racer.

According to the MN Brain Injury Alliance (http://www.braininjurymn.org/org-pdf/public-policy/Who-Pays-ExecutiveSummary-Final.pdf), motorcycle-related traumatic brain injuries have cost MN taxpayers $40M in hospital charges over the last 10 years.

$40M over 10 years doesn't sound like much money for traumatic brain injuries.  That's around 75 cents per Minnesotan per year.  At that price, I wouldn't call it a problem.  And I sure can't imagine a government solution this cheap.

I make a personal choice to wear a helmet every time I ride.  Even so, the risk of all those motorcyclists who choose not to wear one are priced into my insurance premiums.  Beyond that, my tax dollars fund their care should they suffer a TBI as a result of their decision and can't afford their medical care.

I'm not legally required to carry medical insurance as part of my motorcycle policy.  I would guess that only those who do carry medical insurance on their motorcycle policy are subsidizing riders who don't wear helmets.  Doesn't seem like a problem to me.  If some insurance company wants to deny medical coverage to helmetless riders, or anyone who rides an R6, or riders who've never had training, fine.  If some insurance company wants to provide discounts to riders they deem safer than average,  no problem.  Otherwise, absent a mandate, I'm free to buy or not, based on cost vs. expected benefits.

My first choice to resolve this issue would be to allow the market to take care of it.  Individuals who don't wear a helmet should have to report their decision to their insurance company and carry the extra coverage needed to hedge the extra risk they are taking.

Forcing people to report their decision to their insurance company seems counter to your preference to allow the market to care of it.  Why not let insurance companies decide whether they will impose a surcharge for riding helmetless, or in flip-flops, or in a speedo?

My school carries liability insurance.  My insurers have rules about what my students must wear.  I operate under the assumption that if I ever file a claim, my insurer's going to want to know that the injured student was wearing the proper gear.  I don't see why this couldn't work with all motorcycle policies that cover medical expenses.  They sell me a policy based on my promise to wear gear that meets their standards.  If I get hurt and they can show that I wasn't wearing proper gear, then they don't have to pay.

Brent

So the next question is.....is half of those shards laying in the road actually factory tires that somehow delaminated?

I don't know.  I guess most of us have just always assumed that every tire gator out there had to be from a retread.  Where's the evidence?  How do we know that new tires don't lose tread the same way and with the same frequency as retreads?  I'm guessing we don't.  It just seemed obvious, so we never questioned it.

I have a hard time believing under-inflated retreads are no worse for falling apart than a factory tire under real world application.

I don't have any good reason to believe retreads fall apart any more often than conventional tires when run underinflated.

"The worn tread is buffed away and a new tread bonded to the tire body in a process very similar to the manufacture of a new tire. There are different processing techniques, but the ultimate objective is always the same - affixing a new tread through the application of heat, time and pressure.

"All commercial airlines, as well as military jet aircraft, use retreaded tires. In fact, nearly 80 percent of all aircraft tires now in service in the United States are retreads. More than 100,000 aircraft retreads are used annually with an average of 270 takeoffs and landings per tread life."

Now, that is from TRIB, the Tire Retread and Repair Information Bureau (http://www.retread.org/?page=AboutRetreading), so I'm sure they're putting their best spin on it, but they do use heat to bond the tread to the carcass just as they do in new tire manufacturing.

"Following the inspection and buffing process tires undergoing the hot cure (mold cure) process are covered with uncured rubber and then cured in a mould similar to that used to manufacture new tires. In the cold cure (precure) process a pre-cured tread strip or tread ring is applied to the casing, which is then placed in a rubber envelope under a vacuum and cured in a large heating chamber or autoclave." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retread

I don't disagree with anything there, but it's not "safe" (which nobody has claimed, safer, yes, safe, no) and it's not as controlled as many believe / would have everyone believe;

On the track, we just eliminate a bunch of things -- like oncoming traffic, intersections, wildlife (although I once had to brake hard for a deer in Turn 3 at BIR, and I once saw a turtle on the track at Grattan), pedestrians, really lousy drivers, cars and trucks, debris, guard rails, telephone poles, and long wait times for emergency personnel -- so that if we do crash, the risk of serious injury is less than it would be at the same speeds elsewhere.

your cracked valve stem "proves" that, in my humble opinion.  mid-corner intermediate / advanced and people'd have been affected, potentially very seriously.

I think you're saying that if someone had been riding close enough to me, I might have taken them down.  Is that right?  I had just passed some people at the end of the straight, and I don't know how close they were to me.  No one went down, though.  I would argue that my valve stem leak was probably the result of poor maintenance rather than high speeds, and that getting a flat in rush hour traffic would have been potentially much more dangerous. 

say, what is the primary benefit of switching to the style you picked?  i assume it's easier to use and less prone to failure?

I'm after the "less prone to failure," but the "easier to use" is a nice feature, too.