Helmet Laws

[Ray916MN]

Nothing is free. Everything is a tradeoff. When the cost for something becomes too high "market forces" tend to correct the situation. The same is true for personal freedoms.

Using the numbers from MN BIA as an example, I think most people don't think a $40M cost to society over 10 years is a significnt price to pay for the freedom to ride without helmets. OTOH, if the cost to society were $40B, I think allot more people would be more inclined to create a law to protect society from the cost, and if the price were $4T, people would probably be saying anyone against helmets laws was a fiscally irresponsible bleeding heart liberal. While individual rights are important, I think we all recognize that the health and well being of our country as a whole is important, and at a certain point, the interests of a few, must yield to the interests of many.

If we want don't want motorcycle helmet laws to be forced upon us, it is incumbent on us to use helmets when appropriate and to get others to do the same to keep societal costs from motorcycling related traumatic brain injuries at acceptable levels.

[Deplorable, thank you!]

 I feel everyone should wear a helmet all the time. But I do not feel the government should have the right to tell me that I have to....(but that may well end up being the only way many will wear a helmet, and what will they buy, full face that actually will protect...of course not-it'll be some 1/2 or 1/4 helmet that does little to nothing for true protection....so the law would have to be more specific if at all)
 Government is already too big and too powerful, when an inch is given they take 10 miles...So no do not give the inch....

[mikey]

so if wearing a helmet is the safest, and the govt is going to make a law requiring riders to wear a helmet, why stop there?  lets make sure everyone in any type of vehicle is safe.  5pt safety harnesses, fire retardent suits, gloves, boots, the whole nine yards for anything moving faster then a 2hp lawn tractor.  just think of the savings in the long run.

[tk]

"What makes you opposed to it?"

My libertarian side comes out on this issue. I think adults need to be allowed to make their own decisions on individual safety gear. It may be that in some activities (horseback riding, motorcycling, bicycling, etc.) people get seriously injured and some of the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation gets passed on to the taxpayers. It is a tradeoff. At this point I am willing to absorb slightly higher taxes and insurance premiums in order to allow individuals to make their own decisions on protective gear.

I'm completely in favor of helmet use. I think peer group pressure is the most reasonable way to get others to wear helmets.

[Elk]

This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.

The only thing I can add is a small legal point.  In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries.  That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.

Oddly, while seat belts are mandatory, a defendant is prohibited to mentioning that the plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt.

[tk]

This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.

The only thing I can add is a small legal point.  In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries.  That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.

Oddly, while seat belts are mandatory, a defendant is prohibited to mentioning that the plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt.

That is interesting. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

[pkpk]

This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.

The only thing I can add is a small legal point.  In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries.  That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.

Is this still true if the defendant violated the motorcyclists right of way?  Seems like the argument should not come into play until there is an arbitration phase, where fault is divided up.  A motorcyclist should argue that the helmet wouldn't come into play, had the defendant not caused the accident to begin with.

[vince]

This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.

The only thing I can add is a small legal point.  In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries.  That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.

Oddly, while seat belts are mandatory, a defendant is prohibited to mentioning that the plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt.

I don't think this is true at all.

[Elk]

The section prohibiting recovery for injuries preventable by wearing a helmet was added at the same time helmet use became discretionary.  My guess is that it was a legislative trade-off/compromise.  As a caveat however, my current work does not involve personal injury claims.

The seat-belt gag rule was, of course, passed after a great deal of pressure by plaintiffs' lawyers; they did not like it when the defense argued that their client would not have been seriously hurt if she had worn a seatbelt.  Then a plaintiff tried to argue that a seatbelt was improperly designed, causing injury.  Amusingly, the court held that the rule goes both ways and a plaintiff cannot claim their injuries were caused by a seatbelt.  Another great example of being careful what you wish for.

[carlson_mn]

Eh, even though I'm a Libertarian I think there should be a helmet law.  I rode through Missouri again yesterday and there were a ton of motorcyclists out and about, all happily wearing a helmet.  It's all fun and games to talk about how it's nice to have the personal choice but when someone you know dies due to a stupid head trauma I'm sure that would change my view. 

Once they actually put a helmet on they will realize it's not a big deal.  It's a pretty mute point politically to me so I don't mind admitting I'd like to see a helmet law as long as there is state funded health coverage, of which there is and it is hugely expensive. 

[Greg]

In the half dozen or so times I've ridden without a helmet (a few blocks at best, usually in Arkansas running to dinner or something) I found it very uncomfortable. Noisy, windy, a feeling of being very exposed. IMO, helmets make riding a motorcycle a much more enjoyable experience from a comfort perspective.

[slh7d]

In the half dozen or so times I've ridden without a helmet (a few blocks at best, usually in Arkansas running to dinner or something) I found it very uncomfortable. Noisy, windy, a feeling of being very exposed. IMO, helmets make riding a motorcycle a much more enjoyable experience from a comfort perspective.

Honestly, this is one of the major reasons I like to wear helmets, comfort, and the bonus is, it protects your brain.    Not sure what being a librarian has anything to with anything....  HAHA jk.  I believe that personal choice is a right and we are losing that battle inch by inch.  But saying that, if they did pass a helmet law, i wouldnt really care.  If they get around to banning giant chocolate bars, its ON!(or I will just buy 3).

[beedawg]

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.

[aschendel]

greg, you should post that ironic image from the other forum...  the wants more gvmt / more gvmt one.

a.s.

[Greg]

greg, you should post that ironic image from the other forum...  the wants more gvmt / more gvmt one.

a.s.

Per request. I'm not responsible for the consequences .....