MA - Proposed legislation to make wearing helmets optional....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasnmar

LOL. I'm not *always* a complete ass, just most of the time :-).

I'll try to do better next time.

---

It's winter. Step it up!

My general disdain for people who ride without a helmet is easily overruled by my disdain for the government telling us what to do and mommying us, especially when it comes to actions that generally focus the potential harm on the person electing to take the action. If the potential negative side effect on society is because of society's safety net, remove the net! We have way too many people anyway. Half of our problems are because we just can't stand the idea of anyone ever dying. We all die. If some people choose to accelerate the process, it's their life.

Cancel the helmet laws, and while you're at it, legalize all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. The law's attempt to curb all of them has never worked and is akin to putting your finger in one of 20 holes in a dam that intentionally creates new holes for each one filled. Demolish the dam, accept the damage, rebuild to accommodate the natural waterway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imbeek

...accept the damage...

---

This is the major reason why it will probably never happen. The short-term ramifications for a politician would probably be career ending since people have a hard time appreciating the bigger picture.

Less government regulation! Until I think its something the government should regulate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZX-12R

This is the major reason why it will probably never happen. The short-term ramifications for a politician would probably be career ending since people have a hard time appreciating the bigger picture.

---

Agreed. Politics aren't supposed to be a career...

Should people wear helmets, yes. Should the .gov make them wear one, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garandman

My wife got her license Fall 2013. In response to an HD rider's similar claims, the instructor pulled out the helmet graphic.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...elmet_400w.jpg

But she did not take it at an HD dealer so who knows where he pulled that from. This issue seems to be MMA's sole focus.

Arguing safety issues seems a dead end. Arguing against paternalism has a certain validity.

---

That helmet graphic is from the Dietmar Otte Helmet Impact study. From what I've read, the bill has virtually no chance of making it out of committee.

The MMA is useless to me. I don't care about any of their positions, and they put little/no effort into the one motorcycle related issue I do care about - legalizing lane splitting.

U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oVTo

That helmet graphic is from the Dietmar Otte Helmet Impact study. From what I've read, the bill has virtually no chance of making it out of committee.

The MMA is useless to me. I don't care about any of their positions, and they put little/no effort into the one motorcycle related issue I do care about - legalizing lane splitting.

---

Because lane splitting is not necessary when hopping from bar to bar on your chromed-out HD. When a "ride" consists of an escorted 45 mile parade, it's not an issue.

45 miles in an I haven't even decided where I'm going yet. MMA represents a very small section of riders, and not a particularly useful segment. I'm sure I'll see a lot of them at the Boston Motorcycle Expo tomorrow.

I grew up in Chicago, and go back to visit family every summer. Illinois has never had a helmet law.

You'd think you'd see about half the motorcyclists choosing to wear helmets there, but what's interesting is that you almost *never* see anyone wearing a helmet. I go there for a week and _maybe_ I will see one helmeted rider, but usually I don't. I've always found this observation interesting, because it suggests that the motorcyclists there aren't really making rational decisions regarding their own safety. I suspect there's a sort of herd mentality going on -- the logic is that if nobody's wearing helmets, then riding around without one must be safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottieducati

You'd have to have state-wide data in the same state to make a good comparison, rates in NH will of course be loads less. Far less people, theft, and accidents.

---

I was going to try counter this by pointing out that NH is 2nd for # of registered motorcycles per person. (2nd to SD, way ahead of #37 MA) Therefore people in NH must ride more. Therefore higher accident rates are, in my view, to be expected. I did my own googling and found this to not be the case. NH motorcycle accident rates are something like 50% of MA's across the board, fatal or otherwise.

I also found out that there are almost 2x as many registered motorcycles in MA than there are in NH. (159k in MA vs 79k in NH) Despite this, NH accident and insurance rates are lower.

I think MA's helmet law is a joke. The "protective headgear" requirement spelled out in the law is ambiguous, left up to the RMV to define, and even they fail to do so well. Not that it matters. That aspect of the law is virtually never enforced. So why even bother?! Every time I see a rider with a $0.50 DOT sticker on a novelty helmet that is about as protective as a plastic salad bowl I am reminded that mandatory helmet laws are a waste of fucking time.

Those that are serious about wearing helmets would do so anyway.
Those that aren't don't give a damn and do anything they can to thumb their noses at the intent of the law.

Crack down on this crap or repeal the idiotic law.

We even sensationalize it on TV. :rolleyes:

http://cdn3.bigcommerce.com/s-nhvo63....1280.1280.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imbeek

Cancel the helmet laws, and while you're at it, legalize all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. The law's attempt to curb all of them has never worked and is akin to putting your finger in one of 20 holes in a dam that intentionally creates new holes for each one filled. Demolish the dam, accept the damage, rebuild to accommodate the natural waterway.

---

:plusone:

Here in CT there is no helmet law, and in the middle of summer, it is very rare to see a HD rider with a helmet on, and maybe about 50% of sportbike riders.

People compare helmet laws to seat belt laws. I don't completely agree with that, because in a car, the seatbelt will keep you in position to still be able to possibly control the car after the accident, possibly preventing you from injuring more people. In a motorcycle crash, that's not relevant to whether or not the rider is wearing a helmet.

I heard once an idea that makes sense. One insurance premium for riders who do wear a helmet, and a higher one for riders who don't wear one. If you lie for the lower premium, and you're in a crash without one, then the insurance co doesn't have to cover you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhbubba

I was going to try counter this by pointing out that NH is 2nd for # of registered motorcycles per person. (2nd to SD, way ahead of #37 MA) Therefore people in NH must ride more. Therefore higher accident rates are, in my view, to be expected. I did my own googling and found this to not be the case. NH motorcycle accident rates are something like 50% of MA's across the board, fatal or otherwise.

I also found out that there are almost 2x as many registered motorcycles in MA than there are in NH. (159k in MA vs 79k in NH) Despite this, NH accident and insurance rates are lower.

---

there is more to the dynamic , also take into account that even though MA has more motorcycles, their ride destination is many times NH, pay attention to the plates you see on bikes in NH, as often as not, they are out of state

Randy, are you suggesting that MA has a higher accident rate than NH because the MA riders ride to NH? I would suppose that accidents are reported in the state they occur, not tabulated by what state the bike is registered in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattR302

I heard once an idea that makes sense. One insurance premium for riders who do wear a helmet, and a higher one for riders who don't wear one. If you lie for the lower premium, and you're in a crash without one, then the insurance co doesn't have to cover you.

---

That would work for me.

Cue "FREEDOM!" crybabies wanting me to pay for their helmetless injuries.

You might be lumping in the Medical coverage (affected by wearing/not wearing the helmet) with the Collision and Comprehensive coverages - major players in the cost of the premiums and not affected by the helmet laws.

Hmm improves hearing..... what happens when you go deaf from all the wind pounding on your ears?

I'm all for natural selection. have at it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carsick

Randy, are you suggesting that MA has a higher accident rate than NH because the MA riders ride to NH? I would suppose that accidents are reported in the state they occur, not tabulated by what state the bike is registered in.

---

sort of, but no, I am suggesting that number of vehicles registered really has less to do with accident statistics and that NH accident statistics are elevated due to out of state riders having their accidents here rather than their home state

how do hey estimate miles ridden in each state? by number of registered bikes, a methodology that is kinda flawed when a significant number of miles ridden is out of state or conversely in destination states a significant number of miles are put on by out of staters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhbubba

NH motorcycle accident rates are something like 50% of MA's across the board, fatal or otherwise.

I also found out that there are almost 2x as many registered motorcycles in MA than there are in NH. (159k in MA vs 79k in NH) Despite this, NH accident and insurance rates are lower.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyO

sort of, but no, I am suggesting that number of vehicles registered really has less to do with accident statistics and that NH accident statistics are elevated due to out of state riders having their accidents here rather than their home state

---

Randy, Bubba is saying NH accident numbers are LOWER than MA both in number and per capita, and you're arguing that the NH accident numbers are inflated due to out of staters who travel to NH to enjoy the state liquor stores and helmetless riding while enjoying the scenery.

I think he was trying to say the numbers support this even more so because nobody from MA would be daffy enough to bother riding in MA; they all travel north to the promised land to do their riding. Everyone in MA travels to NH to do their crashing. Therefore I'm even more righter.

That said, I think it is ludicrous to assume that there is no connection between the number of miles ridden and the number of machines registered. But whatever.

As the population - and population density - of MA is 5X NH, not sure how much can be drawn from any statistics. Particularly since many MA riders vacation in NH, many NH riders work in MA. For cars, the fatality rate in NH is double that of MA, because it's kind of hard to get killed going 20mph on Route 128.....

If you look at when the NH motorcycle fatalities typically occur, unsurprisingly it's mostly clustered around Bike Week. State of origin doesn't seem to be available.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transpo...ity-rates.aspx "86% of people who died in motorcycle accidents in NH were not wearing a helmet." In MA it's 12%.

Fatality Facts

CDC study of costs associated with motorcycle crashes:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...shdeaths-a.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...shdeaths-a.pdf

In NH motorcycles accounted for 21% of fatalities (29 of 140) and $35 million in costs. About $1.2 million each.
In MA motorcycles accounted for 16% of fatalities (60 of 375) and $72 million in costs. About $1.2 million each.

Not sure of CDC methodology as all states I checked show a cost per death of $1.2 to $1.3 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nhbubba;1443236.

Therefore I'm even more righter.
.

---

that is what I was getting at

I don't think anywhere near as many NH riders, ride to commute to MA and MA riders coming to NH for pleasure, but that is just an opinion

yes, there is a correlation between registered bikes and miles ridden, but when crossing state lines, it is not necessarily as direct here in the smaller eastern states as it is in the larger western states, I mean who in fuck goes for a pleasure ride in a metropolitan area

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandyO

I mean who in fuck goes for a pleasure ride in a metropolitan area

---

Are you saying motorcycle commuting is totally insignificant? When I lived in Boston I commuted across town everyday 3/4 of the year on my bike. It added up to a ton of miles ridden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spooler

Are you saying motorcycle commuting is totally insignificant? When I lived in Boston I commuted across town everyday 3/4 of the year on my bike. It added up to a ton of miles ridden.

---

a ton = 100, yes, that is insignificant