Comments on: Motorcycle helmet laws

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:18:27 +0000

@John David Galt–

I heard of (but never saw the cite of) a study citing the social benefits of smoking: Smokers tended to die early, but mostly near or after retirement age, at a huge profit to Social Security

By: nhrpolitic13

nhrpolitic13 — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:38:35 +0000

For the record DEM, climbers and the like who require rescue are commonly on the hook for the cost of said rescue (which can run to several ten-thousand dollars if helicopter operations are involved). In any case, other than the general feeling that society should not be required to foot the long-term care bills resulting from the self-inflicted follies of other adults, I could care less whether motorcyclists go helmeted or not – I for one regard those who do abstain as an assured supply of hearts, lungs, spleens, and other parts, should I someday require a spare.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:49:35 +0000

To JDG:

don’t know if this helps, but that study sounds like it dates from the Joan Claybrook era (JC was the famously motorcycle- hostile head of the Federal highway administration (or whatever it was called back then) under Pres. Jimmy “Rabbit Killer” Carter. She drew a lot of hostile press from Cycle World and other hobby publications. See, e.g., the backwards -steering motorcycle, a federal project paid for with our tax dollars.

By: John David Galt

John David Galt — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:57:52 +0000

I seem to recall that NHTSA once sponsored a study that wound up showing that riding without helmets saves taxpayers money (because a helmet is much more likely to reduce the harm resulting from a collision from instant death to quadriplegia — requiring expensive, lifelong care — than from serious injury to non-serious). Naturally, the agency made the study disappear afterward. (Would appreciate it if anyone knows more specifics.)

Besides, more deaths of this sort mean more people’s lives saved through organ donation.

But even if neither of these economies were true — the bottom line has to be that being an adult means you get to make your own risk/reward decisions individually. Anyone who would tell you differently is a tyrant.

(For what it’s worth, I’ve got better sense than ever to ride the darn things unless it’s in farm country.)

By: VMS

VMS — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:27:00 +0000

Which brings up the success of the cottage organ donation industry that is largely based upon motorcycle riders not wearing helmets. Motorcycle riders are affectionately called “organ donors” by many ER physicians and staff.

By: Cjohn

Cjohn — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:16:50 +0000

Why not repeal all the helmet laws with this one caveat: in order to receive a permit to ride helmetless, you’re required to be an organ donor?

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:10:23 +0000

@gitarcarver:
Amen.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:52:17 +0000

I don’t know about other states, but here in Florida the level of insurance one must carry when riding a motorcycle is based on whether the rider wears a helmet.

I think it is a given that riders that do not wear a helmet are more likely to have more medical expenses when involved in a crash. Therefore to me, having the rider being able to make the choice and bear the consequences of that choice (higher premiums and more coverage) is a win – win for all.

By: mojo

mojo — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:47:56 +0000

My bright idea: airbag suits.

By: OldNaugaHerder

OldNaugaHerder — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:05:09 +0000

Hoover said: “I’m sure that there are activities that you participate in that are inherently dangerous – maybe we should similarly apply the “i don’t want to pay for your choices” argument to them.”

Continuing that thought – Just remember that half of all activities performed by people are more dangerous than average. We had better ban all of them, then everyboby will safer than average.