MO legislators OK bill to let motorcyclists ride without helmets

No word on where the governor stands. The bill would make it legal for motorcyclists 21 and older to ride without a helmet on any Missouri road, except for the interstates.

Comments

[Obama is the Man]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Freedom is the ability to take actions and be willing to accept personal responsibilty for it.

[kp]

Then why should I have to wear a seatbelt?

I wear one all the time because I was thrown from a car years before it became law, but still isn't this extremely hypocritcal?

[Searching]

You wear one all the time, because you are not an idiot.

Same goes for the helmet wearers

[Marvin]

Helmet laws are pretty pointless anyway, since the standard for what qualifies as a safe helmet is pretty loose. You can cruise around in some gimmicky Brando-wannabe skull cap that won't do jack for you in an accident.

[D-man]

You wear your seatbelt because the state governments get federal highway funds for having state laws requiring seatbelts.
They also like having the ability to pull someone over for a seatbelt violation if they don't have any other reason.

[Mikeybackwards]

I think this is fine. They don't want the state to micromanage their lives. So if there is an accident and a motorcyclist without a helmet suffers a traumatic head injury they should first check to see if s/he has sufficient insurance to pay for his/her injuries. If not, leave him/her. It is more fun that way. Besides, then I don't have to pay higher insurance premiums and health care costs for his/her reckless behavior.

[Mikeybackwards]

Also, if a driver is involved in an accident with a motorcyclist who refused to where a helmet and suffers a traumatic head injury, it should be a directed verdict of no liability for that injury even if the driver of the other vehicle was the individual who actually caused the accident.

[Ron Burgundy]

Google "basal skull fracture and Helmets" and let me know what you find out. It really puts a different perspective on motorcycle helmet laws

[blarneology]

blah blah blah, wearing a helmet is a choice. Anything else said is pure nonsense. We have insurance requirements for any vehicle licensed on our roads in the first place.

Federal law requires seat belts, the gub'mit already took that choice away from the states. I still don't wear one and have never been pulled over for it.

[Mikeybackwards]

Ron,

Just as a seat belt won't always save your live, and occasionally might lead to an injury one would not have sustained, on balance, seat belts and helmets, if correctly selected and used, will save one from increased injury far more often than they will lead to increased injury.

Plus, the assumption is made that those individuals who suffered basilar skull fractures as a result of helmet impact would not have suffered traumatic and potentially lethal skull fractures as a result of the accidents leading to the basilar skull fracture.

But hey - if you want your brains spread out all over the roadway because "it is more fun", more power to you.

[thursday]

Don't see a problem...want to be an idiot, fine, don't wear your seat belt or helmet. Weeds out the idots anyway!

[Sasquach]

Just wait until there is "universal healthcare." Then all decisions that have any impact whatsoever on your personal health will be able to be legislated (if not literally, then at least effectively through administrative decisions and continued fed funds extortion).

[Nemesis]

In my younger years, I put 12-15 thousand miles on my bike every year. I was involved in a really bad wreck in 1981. (my drugged out neighbor ran me off the road 2 blocks from my house) A helmet made no difference in my injuries. A helmet just gives people a false sense of security. Bikers just as likely to suffer serious internal or spinal injuries than only a head injury in a serious accident.

[JewwellsP]

even if the driver of the other vehicle was the individual who actually caused the accident.
Posted by: Mikeybackwards | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Geeze, you are really thinking backwards that is for sure.
If helmets are so great, why is it not required by insurance companies for coverage?
I wear a full face helmet myself it is my choice. The fact remains though, the weight of the helmet itself can cause damaged to your spine & neck.

[blarneology]

Unless they come up with something that will automatically wrap up the body in padding like a canoli the helmet argument is pretty asinine. The body is what takes the most damage during a wreck because of that whole sudden stop thing when hitting the ground or another vehicle. Helmet's don't do a think to help you. Riders pay their taxes, pay their insurance etc and should be allowed to make their own decision.

[Mikeybackwards]

I agree it's a choice. So I should have the choice not to have to pay for your choice.

[JewwellsP]

Don't worry you won't, there are many more uninsured, unlicensed cars running around than uninsured & unlicensed motorcycles.

Guess if you get cancer & need medical care & nursing care that you can't afford, we just let you croak on the street right?

[blarneology]

Mikey you don't, so get over yourself. You pay for everyones choice. When some schmuck walks out into traffic, has a wreck or anything else. Your argument is feeble because of that.

[Dan]

I have a buddy who has been through two pretty bad accidents on his bikes. He had an old man turn left in front of him, hit the rear quarter panel of the old guy's truck, flew over the bed and landed square on his mellon. Luckily, he was wearing a helmet and just kind of bounced down the road leaving some road rash and ending up with a concussion. He moved to Phoenix where helmets were optional, but still wore one every time out. He believes it's a choice, but his choice is to wear one.

[Mikeybackwards]

Blarney -

Get over yourself. The schmuck who walks into traffic is breaking the law. So is the uninsured and unlicensed motorist. Both your and JewwellsP's argument is not just feeble but absurd.

You want to carve out a special place in the law to permit you to act in a reckless manner with known costs. Fine. Pay your fecking costs yourself, don't expect us to pick up the tab "because it's more fun".

[Marvin]

You guys knocking full-faced helmets are talking out of your butts. There's plenty of evidence showing that good helmets protect your from a lot of injuries, they don't cause them.

Same for you guys claiming seat belts cause injuries. That's all old wive's tale BS. Just because it's what you've always heard doesn't make it true.

[Keith G. in P.V.]

I hate making helmets optional. The best thing about helmets is they contain the blood and grey matter. Now I'll have to wash the hood and windshield when the next somebody goes "splat."

[blarneology]

"Get over yourself. The schmuck who walks into traffic is breaking the law. So is the uninsured and unlicensed motorist. Both your and JewwellsP's argument is not just feeble but absurd."

And whom do you think pays whatever for it? I'm still not sure what you think you are paying for but you seem convinced you are. LOL! Your argument is feeble since you haven't even explained what you think you are paying for. LOL!

"You want to carve out a special place in the law to permit you to act in a reckless manner with known costs. Fine. Pay your fecking costs yourself, don't expect us to pick up the tab "because it's more fun"

Not wearing a helmet is not acting in a wreckless manner. Poppinng wheelies is acting in a wreckless manner and there is a law against it. So again your argument is feeble and that's at best.

Last I checked unless you are talking about democrats I haven't expected anyone to pay anything for me so again. I now I'm not even sure you know what you are arguing about anymore. It appears like you just don't agree with something and are just lashing out without having any knowledge of the topic. LOL!

[blarneology]

"You guys knocking full-faced helmets are talking out of your butts. There's plenty of evidence showing that good helmets protect your from a lot of injuries, they don't cause them."

Uh, no there isn't.

[Searching]

hate making helmets optional. The best thing about helmets is they contain the blood and grey matter. Now I'll have to wash the hood and windshield when the next somebody goes "splat."

Posted by: Keith G. in P.V. | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Dont worry Keith, there wont be much grey matter in the guy that's not wearing the helmet.

[blarneology]

"Dont worry Keith, there wont be much grey matter in the guy that's not wearing the helmet."

Yea, riiiiiiiiight. LOl!

[Mikeybackwards]

I don't mind making giving people the choice of whether or not to wear a helmet. Thins the herd, improves the breeding stock (although it would be nice to find a way to pre-identify those inhabiting the shallow end of the gene pool before they have an opportunity to breed).

I simply believe as a corollary to this choice, that the individual making that choice assumes all liability and responsibility for that choice.

[blarneology]

You still haven't explained the liability or responsibility. You keep talking about what you have to pay for but haven't actually said what you have to pay for.

If it's just something you don't agree with then say it, but at least nail down what your arguing about.

[JewwellsP]

http://usff.com/hldlhome.html
check out this link above.
5. It is found that helmets have a statistically significant effect in reducing head injury severity. We can reject the hypothesis that helmets have no effect on head injuries in favor of the claim that they reduce head injuries.

6. It is shown that past a critical impact velocity to the helmet (approximately 13 mph), helmet use has a statistically significant effect which increases the severity of neck injuries. Thus we reject the claim that, helmets have no effect on neck injuries in favor of the claim that, past a critical impact speed, they exacerbate neck injuries.

7. As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.

8. Further statistical tests reveal the qualitative nature of this tradeoff. It is shown that an individual who wears a helmet and experiences an impact velocity to the head greater than 13 mph may avoid either severe or minor head injuries and incur either severe or minor neck injuries; all permutations of the tradeoff are equally likely to occur.

[blarneology]

Well from Jewwells link it looks more like marvin was talking out of it's butt.

[blarneology]

This part of Jewwells link is interesting.

Next time someone starts ragging you about how much motorcycling costs the public at large in medical and other costs due to accidents, here are a few statistics to toss back at him, courtesy of the National Safety Council's (NSC) "Accident Facts, 1994 Edition":

Motorcycles represent just two (2) percent of the vehicles in the United States, with an estimated 4 million on the road out of a total vehicle population of almost 197 million. Out of that number, motorcycles account for less than one (1) percent of accidents and under six (6) percent of vehicle fatalities. Compared to the overall fatalities from all causes in the United States, motorcycles account for [only] 0.1 percent of the total.

Compare the 2,500 motorcycle fatalities with 720,862 from heart disease, and you could make a pretty good case that riding a Harley each day for 20 years is safer than eating a cheeseburger a day for the same amount of time. "...Hey, waiter, how about a tofu burger?"

[JewwellsP]

The easy way to stop so many accident's, when a car/truck is the cause of a motorcycle accident. The driver of said vehicle pays double. Since cars & trucks cause the majority of motorcycle accident's, they should have to pay dearly, possibly to include jail time.

[Searching]

I would truly participate in this.. but this is done to death. There is nothing wrong with being a person that wants all the protection that they can get...

I think you should wear a helmet and tons of you riders out there don't want to.

I just don't think it ought to be regulated, I think you should make the right choice on your own.

Oh, and I stand on the grey matter comment! LOL

[Mikeybackwards]

Blarney -

I think this is fine. They don't want the state to micromanage their lives. So if there is an accident and a motorcyclist without a helmet suffers a traumatic head injury they should first check to see if s/he has sufficient insurance to pay for his/her injuries. If not, leave him/her. It is more fun that way. Besides, then I don't have to pay higher insurance premiums and health care costs for his/her reckless behavior.

Posted by: Mikeybackwards | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Also, if a driver is involved in an accident with a motorcyclist who refused to where a helmet and suffers a traumatic head injury, it should be a directed verdict of no liability for that injury even if the driver of the other vehicle was the individual who actually caused the accident.

Posted by: Mikeybackwards | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I think I have made it very clear. If someone choses to ride without a helmet, they should pay all associated medical and/or rehabilitation costs for any injury arising out of that decision themselves with zero liability to any other party.

To expand on the reasoning for the second point, it is because while a someone other than the motorcyclist may have been the cause of the accident, the motorcyclist assumed the risk of head injury the moment s/he decided to ride without a helmet.

Sorry if it is so difficult for you to recall the start of the discussion.

[blarneology]

"I think I have made it very clear. If someone choses to ride without a helmet, they should pay all associated medical and/or rehabilitation costs for any injury arising out of that decision themselves with zero liability to any other party"

that is just ignorant mikey. So someone else slams into a motorcyclist sitting at a stop light and the person is drunk or whatever but the mc rider wasn't wearing a helmet and you think the mc rider should pay. Good to see you used reason...NOT!

You still haven't explained what YOU pay for. I have asked a few times now and not gotten an answer. I have just been trying to cyphere where you are coming from and you aren't coming from anywhere. You have claimed you pay for something yet can't explain it. You claim that others should be responsible for accidents they didn't cause(like that makes any sense whatsoever). You claim that it thins the herd yet haven't shown a statistic to back this up.

You are just rapping off without anything to back up one thing you have said, nor to show any logical route to your conclusions.

Like I said if you just disagree with it and say so, this stuff just makes you look desperate and a little off.

[blarneology]

Can you even show you pay a higher insurance rate because of motorcycle riders not wearing helmets? There have been statistics shown where motorcycle deaths come to about .01% of the accidents. Links have been provided also. You have shown nothing just rhetoric.

Sorry to expect you to backup your statements.

[Mikeybackwards]

Blarney -

Rather than sidetrack into an argument that does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand, I have and will continue to bring it back to the germane topic - helmet use and the implications/liability of the decision to use or not use.

Sorry to disappoint you by not following you down the rabbit hole.

[blarneology]

Nobody is sidetracking anything. You are making all these claims yet haven't backed up a single one. No sidetracking just wanting you to actually backup what you are saying.

Sorry it bothers you so much to be responsible for your statements.

[No One You Know]

Has anyone seen Gary Bussey lately? He should be the poster boy for wearing a helmet.

[Mikeybackwards]

I haven't made a single claim other than that I am fine with people making this choice so long as they are willing to take full responsibility for the consequences of that choice..

Sorry you seem incapable of understanding that simple statement or unwilling to understand it because you are looking for an argument.

[blarneology]

You claim you have to pay for things and you don't want to.

"Besides, then I don't have to pay higher insurance premiums and health care costs for his/her reckless behavior.

Posted by: Mikeybackwards | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM "

"I agree it's a choice. So I should have the choice not to have to pay for your choice.

Posted by: Mikeybackwards | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM "

"You want to carve out a special place in the law to permit you to act in a reckless manner with known costs. Fine. Pay your fecking costs yourself, don't expect us to pick up the tab "because it's more fun".

Posted by: Mikeybackwards | Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM "

Yet you still haven't shown one example of you having to pay for anything. Sorry you are incapable of understanding your own statements and lack the ability to admit you just made up that part up and would rather just try to deflect now instead of backing it up. It's obvious you were merely talking out of your butt for lack of anything of value to actually add.

[blarneology]

Shoot you couldn't even explain how not wearing a helmet was acting in a wreckless manner.

You are just making statements about something you obviously know nothing about because you just really really wanted to be in the conversation.

[Nemesis]

Mikey, not picking a fight or anything, but since you like statistics so well, you might notice that the number one cause of a motorcycle accident that causes death or serious injury is a car or truck turning left in front of the biker, who t-bones the turning vehicle. The government should make people wear helmets while driving a car to avoid the flying bikers.

[blarneology]

I'm not picking a fight with mikey either I just want to see what makes him even think he's paying for anything to do with motorcycle related deaths, health costs or anything else?

[Nemesis]

In the bike accident I posted about earlier, my uninsured motorist had to cover losses because my neighbor had none. I suffered the injuries and then my insurer hiked my inurance for the loss. Insurance companies may try to spread overall fiscal year losses to all their insured's, but insurance companies try to recover specific losses from the guilty party through subrogation or from the insured directly. My spouse is an underwriter.

[blarneology]

Nemesis, you are correct. Saying you don't want to pay for that is like trying to say you don't want to pay for the electricity the alarm clock in the spare bedroom uses and if anyone uses it they should be billed seperately for it. It's just really a feeble argument like I originally said.

It's like saying you only want to pay taxes for I70 because that's the one you use but you don't want your money used for 435. The argument is void of actual logic because it just doesn't work.

[Marvin]

Jewells,

You cited an article from an anti-helmet organization. I took 10 minutes to look up J.P. Goldstein whose research is used for the bogus neck injury theory. He's FoS and his claim is widely rejected. If you oppose helmet law on Constitutional grounds, that's a legitimate argument. But, don't claim that helmets cause injury. Google this guy and see what reputable sources say about him.

"Claims have been made that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries and reduce peripheral vision and hearing, but there's no credible evidence to support these arguments. A study by J.P. Goldstein is often cited by helmet opponents as evidence that helmets cause neck injuries, allegedly by adding to head mass in a crash. More than a dozen studies have refuted Goldstein's findings. A study reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1994 analyzed 1,153 motorcycle crashes in four midwestern states and determined that "helmets reduce head injuries without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma." "

[blarneology]

Cool marvin uses a private source to counter your private source yet Marvins private source doesn't actually have cites in his whereas Jewells does. LOL! Go Marvin, this is getting funnier.

[blarneology]

Some quick searches shows the JP Goldstein will show that he is actually very respected in europe just not so much here with our government and the people who want helmet laws. No real reasoning since they couldn't disprove or prove his theory. This basically means that he isn't FOS but the iihs really wants him to be since he doesn't go along with their view.

[blarneology]

This article says that wearing helmets do save lives but the actual percentages of lives save is negligable.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125791.html

In terms of fatalities prevented each year, the effect estimated by this study is not very impressive. In 2004, for example, "an estimated 135 (or 5.8%) fewer fatalities would have occurred" in the 31 states without universal helmet laws had those states forced adult motorcyclists to wear head protection. That's just a handful of fatalities per state each year.

___________________________________________

This article from easyrider is obviously anti helmet but they do list out some excellent stats on if helmets really make a difference or not.

http://www.easyrider.com/faq.htm

In terms of fatalities prevented each year, the effect estimated by this study is not very impressive. In 2004, for example, "an estimated 135 (or 5.8%) fewer fatalities would have occurred" in the 31 states without universal helmet laws had those states forced adult motorcyclists to wear head protection. That's just a handful of fatalities per state each year.

____________________________________________

http://www.bikersrights.com/nhtsa/video/07reducing.html

What all these articles work out to is that yes a helmet might save your life or it might not. Head injuries are actually a small band of motorcycle fatalities and because of this the increase safety or risk just isn't that great in either direction. It doesn't save people from the more frequent things like blunt trauma to vital organs, spinal damage and things like this which are much more frequent.

What it works out to is Helmet laws are kind of like hate crime legislation. It's feel good laws that sound great but really don't make a difference either way.