The American Spectator

Stuart Koehl| 3.3.10 @ 7:02AM

I entirely agree, provided that a person suffering severe head trauma resulting from failure to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle is required to pay his medical and rehabilitation costs entirely out of his own pocket, and not with any form of third party payment, whether private insurance or government program.

That way, it really IS his business.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 3.3.10 @ 8:07AM

So, you'd invalidate a private insurance contract, merely because you didn't approve of the fact that the injured party wasn't behaving like a total pussy 24/7? Are you sure you don't work for Obama?

Tom| 3.3.10 @ 8:30AM

Would you be on board for invalidating the contract if specific language mandated use of helmets and stated the insurance company was not liable if the operator was not wearing one at the time of the accident?

Tim| 3.3.10 @ 9:11AM

Sh*t , why stop with helmets? They could just ban motorcycles. And bicycles, skateboards, skiing, water skiing, private planes wow, think of all the good we can accomplish.
The only forms of legal movement will be walking or riding a gubmint subsidized train.

Tom| 3.3.10 @ 10:31AM

Tim,
Did you see ANY indication I wished to force people to wear helmets? However, I do not have a problem with the market dictating that dangerous behavior is penalized. If an insurance company deems someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a greater risk than someone who does wear a helmet then it makes perfect business sense to A) charge higher premiums to those who do wear helmets and B) refuse payment to those who falsely claimed to wear helmets.

I am talking private contracts, entered into by private companies. Not, government mandated compliance.

Tom| 3.3.10 @ 10:32AM

Slight correction I meant A) charge higher premiums to those who NOT do wear helmets

Tim| 3.3.10 @ 11:47AM

Sorry Tom, wasn't aiming at you with the respond to , but I did. I was thinking of the gubmint types playing games with helmets. What they really have a problem with is bikes.
You're right, in a free transaction, the parties can and should negotiate whatever they like, nothing wrong at all.

Tom| 3.3.10 @ 1:21PM

Tim, we are on the same page then. Private actions, whether riding without a helmet or an insurance transaction, should be private.

Stammon| 3.3.10 @ 8:32PM

This is fine and dandy but it's all the wrong argument.
When I was living in CA they had the big fight about helmet laws. One of the stated reasons to force helmet wearing was the need of the state to conserve scarce hospital resources. This was a winning argument until new statistics showed that people without helmets usually died, and people with helmets often lingered on costing the sate hundreds of thousands of dollars in long term care.
Most interestingly this information had NO effect on the true believers who just "knew!" that we should all wear helmets.

Ret. Marine| 3.3.10 @ 7:19AM

Yeah one thing high on the neglect list of the populas these days is personal responsibility. I do not believe it's my responsibility to tell you what to think, nor what to do, or telll you how to do it. It's your responsibility to do as you wish, provided you don't step upon my rights, much as is with the gubmint these days. Damn, I keep wishing those with too much time on their hands find something to do with the mass God put between their ears.

Brian Mc| 3.3.10 @ 7:35AM

My battery was dead in my smoke alarm. I'm sure glad the fire police stopped by for a little chat and quick inspection to make sure I was not a liability to the other neigbors out there. They also noticed that I did not have the requisite windows installed yet, energy savings and all that...again, don't want to be a burden on society. Sure glad they missed the fact that I have yet to install the new replacements for incandescent bulbs and have failed to upgrade my washer and I'm sure glad they didn't have to use the toilet!

They did, nowever, notice that my grass was a bit taller than regulations allow and that I still need to pick up that little brush pile in back and take it to the recycling center and pay that small fee for the good of the people, lord forbid I strike a match and smoke out the yard for a few moments.

Stuart Koehl| 3.3.10 @ 8:03AM

If your smoke alarm battery was dead, you should have replaced it yourself. If you don't have a smoke alarm, you're a fool, and you do pay for it with increased homeowners insurance premiums (eventually, you may pay for it with your life, in the process putting some poor fireman's life at risk).

The rest of the stuff you mention really is nobody's business but your own, and you do pay for your choices out of your own pocket.

Otis, my man!| 3.3.10 @ 8:30AM

Thank you Stuart for that fine comment on Brian's post.

Now, go back to tuning your pocket protector.

Stuart Koehl| 3.3.10 @ 10:49AM

Never owned one. But, in flying school, they did drum into me that "there are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots".

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 3.3.10 @ 8:05AM

Any adult man who wears a helmet to go for a casual bike ride is a freakin' joke.

Stuart Koehl| 3.3.10 @ 10:50AM

Right up to the point that he skids out and hits a tree head first. Which is his prerogative. But I don't want to spend taxpayer dollars or see my insurance premiums go up because someone who acted like a drooling idiot managed to convert himself into a literal one.

Roger| 3.3.10 @ 8:41AM

Choice to wear, or not, a helmet should be the norm. I always do but that's me. In Wisconsin we have a seatbelt law but no helmet law. I always wear my belt, and did before they passed a law to force the issue and I'm waiting for the time our nanny-state government goes overboard again and mandates helmet use. The home state Harley Davidson coalition will go insane but they didn't seem to put any effort into stopping the seat belt law, or non that I saw. Thomas Jefferson commented on tyranny coming to us based on good men doing nothing. The Fed's linked highway funds in one fashion or the other to states mandating seat belt use. The only reason we don't have helmet mandates in nearly state is because our congressional leaders didn't link helmet laws to the same funds. With full-time legislators always looking for something "to do" I can't help but believe all our non-helmet wearing friends will soon be getting a dose of government "What's good for you." If you didn't fight seat belt legislation don't complain to those of us who did that somehow it isn't fair. As our President recently said, "That's what elections are for."

Melvin| 3.3.10 @ 9:03AM

Can someone tell me how in the hell did we ever make it as a functioning society before tall these damn nanny-state laws?
Kids rode bikes without helmets with accompanying flashing strobe light, elbow/knee pads, steel toed sneakers with matching gloves, and blaze orange safety vest with JPS signal?
Now a person cannot even pass wind without some government safety vest wearing drone running behind them with a carbon meter and asking, "Good day sir, how do you wish to pay for your excess carbon that you just emitted. We take all credit, debit cards, cash, oh, sorry we don't accept personal checks."

Thomas| 3.3.10 @ 1:31PM

Melvin,

This is funny but so true. We are headed there in a big way. Either this or a revolution when every one with a brain wakes up and votes the idiots out. November would be a start and then ever after.

dcd| 3.3.10 @ 9:31AM

Motorcycle helmets hould be banned entirely. Motorcyclists are the best source of donor organs, which are in constant short supply.

Stuart Koehl| 3.3.10 @ 10:52AM

By any chance are you familiar with Larry Niven's story "The Organleggers"?

Cabermon| 3.3.10 @ 9:36AM

I love the way "Maggot Class" rolls off the tongue like Ayn Rand's "looters", but maggots only eat dead flesh, not live tissue, so this usage disparages them unfairly.
Agree on the government as in loco parentis regarding helmet (and seat belt) laws. Just let me decide. I've worn seatbelts for 54 years since my Dad had them installed in our DeSoto, and my bike helmet helped me "save face" once in a crash.

Giant| 3.3.10 @ 9:57AM

Why do people put so much stock into a product that the manufacturer says is only good up to 15 mph. If you want to wear one, then go right ahead. I notice also, that the people that scream the loudest for their forced use, don't ride themselves. If you want to be a nanny, go get a job as one and leave my safety to me.

Stammon| 3.3.10 @ 8:36PM

What are you talking about?? 15 MPH?? I've seen racing bike crashes at 180 MPH and the guy spinning around like a top for over 100 yards. No damage but for some bruising. Helmets work very well at high speeds.
Sheesh!

Old rider| 3.3.10 @ 10:06AM

Your whole premise is crap. We all have freedom of choice. Don't wear your helmet, maybe you'll get a ticket, maybe not, but you get to choose the level of risk you're willing to accept when you choose to obey the rules or not.

It's not an insurance issue. It's a society issue. If your permanent brain injury as a result of not wearing sensible protection disables you, all us able bodied taxpayers will pay you disability thru social security supplemental income. Despite the fact that we don't want too. And if we're lucky and you die in the accident, then we get to provide for your minor children (who are hopefully smarter than you) thru social security payments as well. Like it or not, your decisions on the public roads do affect all of us financialy, so it is our business. Now stop acting liking a selfish child, with your "I don't want to, and you can't make me" tirade and do something worth while. Like join the military. Oops, they might make you wear a helmet. Damn! OK, learn construction and build something to help mankind. Oops, helmet again. Damn! Oh just quit whinning!

Tom| 3.3.10 @ 10:43AM

So does government have an interest in what I eat? Whether I smoke or drink? Or even if I drive at all? How about denying people making less than 100K/yr the right to have sex because they may not be able to care for their children and those become a burden on society at large.

There is very little behavior that does not pose some risk. If we allow government to control all those behaviors eventually there will be very little it does not.

Stuart Koehl| 3.3.10 @ 10:53AM

If the government provides your health care, it does--another reason to vote down Obamacare.

Pete| 3.3.10 @ 10:59AM

SK,

That is exactly the point, and what the author was getting at with his steak remark. If they ram through this bill, this type of inane regulation is what we are headed towards. At some point, the government will decide that steak causes high cholesterol, which imposes extra cost on the system, thus it must be regulated. This bill opens the door for the government to touch every part of your life (and death). It is insane.

Edo| 3.3.10 @ 10:18AM

Bikers like ABATE have always made the argument -- and referred to a U.S. Navy study -- comparing the helmet chin strap to a hangman's noose. Broken necks being more prevalent when wearing a helmet because of the weight of the helmet and it's tendency to catch on things in an accident situation. So, it might be a trade-off: crack your head or break your neck.

George S| 3.3.10 @ 10:25AM

Helmet and seat belt laws are examples I use to counter arguments that the dangers of nationalized health care are exaggerated. These two laws essentially say that failure to comply exposes the rest of us to increased medical costs in the form of higher taxes of insurance premiums. If only you had complied, you may have escaped tens of thousands of dollars of health care consumpti0n.

There's your precedent for banning almost every form of human activity that is assigned a risk threshold by the Maggot Class -- especially when everybody is paying for everybody else.

Matt Morehouse| 3.3.10 @ 10:42AM

The only time I DON'T wear the brain bucket is when I duck walk the Harley out of the garage to wash it. My choice. Same with seat belts.

I do not like or support the idea of the Central Government telling me to wear a helmet or how many gallons I can use to flush my toilet.

Mike M| 3.3.10 @ 11:15AM

Q. What do the workers in Emergency rooms call helmetless motorcycle riders??
A. Organ Donors.

Sheila| 3.3.10 @ 11:35AM

Oh for heaven's sake, Peters was making a point about government control and the nanny state and the do gooders; motorcycle helmets were merely the example he chose to use. The do gooders are all wee-weed up about "selfish" people who don't want to do as they're told; the bike riders want the choice to be bold or reckless on someone else's dime. My teenage son's bumper sticker shows more understanding than you all: Your life is not my fault; my life is not your business. Decline and fall.

Sheila| 3.3.10 @ 1:25PM

Sheila,
I admit I do not exactly know what your point is. Do you think Peters used a good example to demonstrate his views? Or a bad one?

I happen to agree with his premise: the government intrudes far too deeply in our lives. But how an argument is framed is important. If you do not present a clear and compelling argument for your views the only people you will 'convince' are those who already agree with you.

Francis Beckwith| 3.3.10 @ 11:39AM

As a citizen of a Republic that ought to respect the intrinsic dignity of persons, people in my community ought not be subjected to the site of your brains--or the brains of others--splattered across the pavement.

Riding a motorcycle is not a private activity, for you ride on roads built by your community and its citizens. It is part of what was once called "the commons." You may, of course, have an argument if you were riding on your own property in the middle of nowhere.

If, in fact, not wearing a helmet is a bad thing, as you seem to suggest, then it what sense can one have a "right" to do it. For the implication of your reasoning is that one has a right to do wrong, or one ought to permitted to do the impermissible. So, on one level your position is incoherent.

John Navratil| 3.3.10 @ 11:58AM

Rubbish!

One may not be permitted to do the impermissible but be free to do so, nonetheless. Your argument defines individual freedom in terms of obligation to others and restrictions based on those obligations. It is the very antithesis of freedom.

Where is the logic in saying that I may kill myself on my "own property in the middle of nowhere", but not in "the commons?" Is it merely to spare you the sight of my brains? Perhaps a set of blinders would help.

John Navratil| 3.3.10 @ 11:40AM

Anyone riding without a helmet doesn't have a brain to protect.

Seriously - as a rider, a pilot and a scuba diver I seen every rider on insurance policies there are. We have become a nation of risk averse domestic felines.

That we even countenance the argument that my risky behaviour impacts your pocket is a measure of exactly how socialist we have become.

There is no risk-free lunch.

Houston Rao| 3.3.10 @ 11:56AM

As a daily commuter on a motorbike, riding 50 miles each day, in a city dominated by trucks, I believe in ATGATT - All the Gear All the Time. I am aware that all the gear is minimally protective in crashes at high speeds - but very effective at low speeds which account for a majority of falls. I would not however like to be forced into wearing helmets and sure would not like to be forced into supporting someone who chose not to wear one. Next we will have laws mandating the use of gloves while cutting vegetables.

PAT| 3.3.10 @ 12:46PM

It’s a picture to make you smile, this aging Peter Pan, Eric Peters, riding without his helmet, Tinkerbelle on the back in full leathers – we all hope Peters and the other Lost Boys on their Harleys will never have to grow up. But, there’s definitely a stupid streak which runs through some Conservatives, many men and the odd woman or two who can be counted on for their foolhardy courage, their bravado in the face of danger, their unthinking bluster in the company of men far more powerful than themselves – but, sadly, they’re dumber than a bag of rocks. In certain motorcycle crashes, even helmets won’t save you from brain damage or death so, naturally, there are those who wish to ride without helmets – is there a special Darwin award for dummies who can afford motorcycles?

Here in California, we ride our motorcycles 12 months a year and I’ve seen young men on their Yamaha or Suzuki sport bikes wearing their helmets, but also dressed in tank tops, shorts and sandals, weaving through heavy commuter traffic at high speed – if they hit the pavement at any speed, the asphalt acts like a cheese grater and peels the skin from their bodies. They have to wear a helmet by law, but they blithely thumb their noses at common sense and skip the other safety gear – they will either eventually grow up or spend much of their future incomes on plastic surgeons. And we have many bicycle accidents as well - spandex, while colorful and even sexy, doesn’t protect you from broken bones. You wouldn’t think bicycles would be in frequent accidents – but riding in packs of 6 or more spandexed hard bodies, locking hubs, swerving into traffic, touching your front wheel to the back wheel of the rider in front of you, it all makes for some interesting accidents and resulting injuries you can brag about.

Smart bureaucrats hit their knees each night thanking whichever deity they pray to for these daredevils who stand on their “right to risk”, many apple martinis and porterhouse steaks will be consumed in the company of motorcycle equipment lobbyists crafting legislation to protect these perpetual adolescents from themselves. We’ll create even more unnecessary government, give the cops something else to waste their time on and preserve those who, in earlier eras, wouldn’t have lived to contribute to the gene pool. I’ll gladly provide the flaming ring of fire and the ramp, Peters, you can provide the bike.

tdiinva| 3.3.10 @ 1:01PM

I am sympathetic to Peter's argument but riding a motorcycle on public roads is an activity that requires state sanction, i.e., a license. The state has every right to impose requirements, wise or unwise, upon granting that license. If you really want to go libertarian on this then you can argue that operating a motorvehicle should not require a license.

Tom| 3.3.10 @ 1:29PM

The difference is the primary reason for requiring a license is to protect other people while the primary reason for requiring a helmet is to protect the operator. Leaving aside monetary issues, whether an operator is using a helmet does not impact anyone else on the rode when he crashes whether that operator can safely operate the vehicle does.

tdiinva| 3.3.10 @ 1:56PM

Tom:
Your statement is precisely wrong. The state sets the terms and conditions for licensing and operating a motor vehicle. Wise or not it is within the state's authority to do so. Until you change the restriction through legislative action your options are to comply with the law or stop riding your bike on public roads.

Stammon| 3.3.10 @ 8:44PM

No, you are wrong. The argument comes down to "Who are they to tell us what to do?"
Give the government as little power as you can, for they will use it against you.
The argument that driving is a privilege, not a right has it exactly backward. As a free American, I have to right to do as I wish, the right to fight the government and force it to obey me. Everything we let them do for us, they will use to enslave us.
Woof, I think this is one martini too many.

tdiinva| 3.4.10 @ 9:50AM

Stammon:

If you feel that you have right to do as you wish on the highway then I suggest you work to get licensing laws repealed or declared unconstitutional in your state. Until this happens driving is a priviledge and not a right.

Good luck with that though, because as long as state finances, builds, and maintains roads then state has control over who uses those roads. If some billionaire wishes to finance a set of private roads in your state then you will be able to drive under his rules and not the state's.

Don Hudnall| 3.3.10 @ 3:52PM

I just read the article about helmet laws. As a motorcyclist, I have long argued against such laws for several reasons. Before helmet laws became de rigeur in most states, the most common injury to motorcyclists was to their extremities, namely arms and legs. Since the advent of mandatory helmet laws, the frequency of head and neck (spinal) injuries has greatly increased. Why, you ask? Helmets are made of plastic, and plastic BOUNCES when it hits something. Personal story: I was riding my Harley-Davidson one day when a drunk cut a curve short and hit me head on - combined speed:100+ miles per hour. I flew one hundred and sixty-eight feet in the air and landed on the pavement. The impact with the car nearly severed my left leg, and the impact with the pavement tore off my left hand. There was not a scratch on my (small, minimal, and yes - technically illegal helmet). All the EMTs and cops kept asking me if I was wearing my helmet. I would reply yes, but it's not my head that's injured. Stop the bleeding from my multiple compound fractures. I finally threw my helmet at one derisive cop before I was flown out on a HealthNet helicopter. The fact is that people who want helmet laws to protect motorcyclists from head injuries actually CAUSE more head and neck injuries. And the argument that motorcyclist injuries are paid for by the public ignores one very big and basic fact: Over 90% of all head injuries are suffered in AUTOMOBILE accidents. So, if someone is serious about preventing head injuries, they should push for mandatory helmet laws for everyone who rides in a car. The hypocrisy is glaring. To end on a good note: I sold my old Sportster for parts, and when I recovered enough to ride again I bought a Tour Glide. Next time it'll be the car driver that is injured.

Jim| 3.3.10 @ 4:35PM

Geeeeez, I want a cigarette.

Richard Baker| 3.3.10 @ 7:14PM

Had an accident 5 years ago on my H-D Sportster 883. The reason I'm writing is I was wearing a helmet. That said, get the government out of our lives. Whether I choose to or not wear a helmet is my choice. I, for one, am fed up with a mother-may-I bureaucracy telling me how to live my life. I was also a 23 year skydiver. Waiting for someone to tell me that we can't do that because it's dangerous. I didn't jump to die, I jumped to live. Finally, anyone noticed the proposal to regulate the shape of hot dogs? How ridiculous. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Occam's Razor| 3.3.10 @ 8:32PM

Unfortunately, the logic behind helmet laws stems from another law: EMTALA. If you don't know what EMTALA is or how it affects hospitals in trauma cases, you have no knowledge base to opine on this issue. Remove EMTALA, and you will be free to remove helmet laws. In the absence of this action, all of your comments about "freedom to choose" are bloviation, bnecause the caregivers don't have that freedom, even if you can't pay for your head trauma care.

Skookum| 3.4.10 @ 3:43AM

Don you beat me to my point. People in cars would be much safer with helmets: how well would that fly with people, especially women.

I've ridden for nearly fifty years and dang tired of dodging cars trying to kill me.

Helmets are useful in the winter, they keep your face and ears from freezing

Lukas Clarke| 3.4.10 @ 4:09AM

It should be a matter of personal preference.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-.....id=3860999

Busbar Processor Machine| 3.4.10 @ 8:10AM

Fivestar Tools,Manufacture Busbar Processor Machine,With busbar cutting tool,bending tool and punching tool.

Rick | 3.4.10 @ 1:05PM

In Texas, there is a helmet law, but you don't have to wear one if you have taken a motorcycle safety course or have adequate insurance. I find seatbelt laws much more intrusive and unconstitutional. I can ride legally on my motorcycle without a helmet, yet I can't drive around surrounded by metal with airbags on all sides of me in a car without a seatbelt.

Jerry | 3.8.10 @ 11:18AM

I would love to see Eric do some research into the ubiquity of bike helmets over the past 25 years or so and whether it has any connection to a significant problem with head injuries on bicycles. My gut feeling is that it's been a triumph of marketing to a safety-crazed public rather than a response to an actual problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more head injuries sustained while driving than while riding a bike. If so, shouldn't we be putting helmets on when we get behind the wheel?

Arai| 1.9.12 @ 10:30AM

I'd have died at least twice by now if it were not for wearing a helmet and still suffered severe head injuries. I think people are mad to want to go out without a helmet. I used to prefer Shoei and they've saved me in the past. But love the new Arai RX7 GP.