Suitable Headgear?

[BobFV1]

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archiv ... 5local.htm

Don't know if you guys have heard of this case - interesting concept yis a vis "correctable violation"

CHP, Aptos man square off over state's motorcycle helmet law
by daniel lopez

sentinel staff writer

WATSONVILLE — The case that has an Aptos man and the California Highway Patrol squaring off in a legal battle over the state's motorcycle helmet law will be heard by the state's Sixth District Court of Appeals.

The appellate court in San Jose issued a stay Thursday on a ruling made by a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge stating that traffic tickets issued to Richard Quigley, 61, for riding his motorcycle without a helmet are correctable violations. And the court agreed to hear the case.

The CHP disagrees with the lower court's ruling that the violations are correctable. On Oct. 6 they filed an appeal of Judge Michael Barton's decision handed down in May.

Deputy Attorney General Karen Huster, who is representing the CHP, said Monday the two questions at the heart of the matter are whether a helmet law violation is ever correctable and whether a correction could apply in this case.

Quigley, who has been issued at least nine tickets by the Watsonville Police Department and the CHP for not wearing a helmet, has until Nov. 28 to file a reply with the court.

Instead of strapping on a hard-shell helmet, Quigley has for years elected to ride with what he considers suitable headgear — a baseball cap and sometimes nothing at all.

The tickets issued by Watsonville police have been signed off leaving just those issued by the CHP in question. Because the CHP does not consider the helmet violation correctable, it has declined to sign off on his fix-it tickets.

Quigley, who has been diagnosed with terminal lymphoma, said Monday that he will consult with attorneys in Los Angeles and locally before making his next legal move.

"This is a vital interest not just to me but to other motorcyclists," said Quigley.

Contact Daniel Lopez at [email protected].

[Biff's R]

I have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. I always wear one, but I respect someones freedom to choose whether they want to wear one or not.

I personally think that it should be an issue between a person and their insurance company. One rate for those with a helmet, and another for those without.

Part of freedom is the ability to do things that may hurt you.

[darthrider]

I personally think that it should be an issue between a person and their insurance company. One rate for those with a helmet, and another for those without.

How 'bout when an un-helmeted, un-insured, un-sober dude busts his noggin and takes an ambulance ride to the ER, then spends a night or two in the hospital?
I guess just raise the insurance rates for both the helmted dudes, and those with no helmets.
Damn, I don't like *that* option.
Guess everyone will have to chip in...

Biff, I'm really not bagging on you, just being a smart-ass. I was totally on your side until some members on a thread here about 6 months ago convinced me there really is a cost to all of us for that "right to choose."
My position was whichever level of risk someone is willing to accept should be OK as it their right to put themselves at risk.
But now I say "Screw 'em...put that helmet on!"
This is not like giving up the right of free speech or anything really important, more like having to wear a seatbelt...IMHO.

[BobFV1]

Yes - I'm with Darth - put that helmet on and stop talking about civil liberties. We give up many things to live in a civil society. The law says you can't just cross a controlled intersection whenever you want to - you have to wait for a green light. Could I cross safely on a red when there is no traffic? Yes. Do I complain about having to wait? No.

I'm not flaming you either, Biffy, but I disagree with your position on this.

[guest-05]

>I was totally on your side until some members on a thread here about 6 months ago convinced me there really is a cost to all of us for that "right to choose."<

Perhaps you could explain that "cost to all of us"? Is it in higher Insurance rates in states that relaxed all rider helmet laws? Or lower rates when helmets are mandated....?

Some data, please!

[The Kurch Man]

Insurance costs are based on payouts. Plain and simple, if insurance companies pay out for head injuries (or anything for that matter), the costs are spread to all insured people. If a person is allowed to ride without a helmet, any insurance payouts will be spread to everyone. The only way to put a true divide in rates (helmet vs no helmet) would be to not provide coverage if a person is receiving a rate for a helmeted rider, and they crash without one. Then, the general public is going to absorb the medical costs.

I, like probably most of those on this site, am going to wear a helmet no matter what state I ride in. Many of my riding buds, peel off the helmets as soon as we hit the state line in OH. Statistically, one can see what happens when a state repeals the law. I personally pay enough for insurance (we now pay lots more $ due to the MI catastrophic fund) and don't feel line paying more as a result of the helmet law. Opinions are like belly buttons - everyone has one - and now you've heard mine.

[Biff's R]

Darth, Bob, and all,
I did not take anything as less than civil.

BUT, that un-helmeted, un-insured, and un-sober rider affects us very little no matter whether he has a helmet on or not. He would be facing just one more infraction when it comes to settling up with the court. That $75 fine does nothing to reduce the rates for the rest of us.

One smart ass comment could also be that it is less expensive for the insurance industry if the above rider died. Not saying that I would want that to happen, but the odds are that a major injury could lead to weeks in the hospital, months of rehabilitation, etc. He dies they write a check, and the case is over.

Personally, I wold not have a problem with a helmet law, if it were to lead to a significant reduction of insurance rates. Something like 10-20%. A 5% reduction may buy a pizza, but that is about it.

Darth, is this a topic at Peckerhead meetings, or is it too serious?

[guest-05]

>Insurance costs are based on payouts. Plain and simple, if insurance companies pay out for head injuries (or anything for that matter), the costs are spread to all insured people. If a person is allowed to ride without a helmet, any insurance payouts will be spread to everyone. The only way to put a true divide in rates (helmet vs no helmet) would be to not provide coverage if a person is receiving a rate for a helmeted rider, and they crash without one. Then, the general public is going to absorb the medical costs<

That's nonsense! When both California and Maryland enacted an all rider helmet law in 1992, motorcycle insurance rates in those states DID NOT decline! There was however a considerable decline in each states annual motorcycle registrations which resulted in a reduction in state revenue from motorcycle sales and accessories!

Pennsylvania relaxed it's 35 year old helmet law in 2003 and motorcycle insurance rates in Pennsylvania DID NOT increase. To my knowledge, Dairyland Insurance doesn't offer a rate reduction for helmet wear.

So, how does the general public "absorb the medical costs" associated with an unhelmeted biker's accident?

[darthrider]

Biff asked:

Darth, is this a topic at Peckerhead meetings, or is it too serious?

It has been a subject of discussion at a number of our "meetings" although usually more fun when lubricated with cold, foamy beverages.
The discussions run about the same as here..."I always wear one, but/and..."
On rare occassions we get a newbie dumb enough to actually believe helmets don't work or actually cause/worsen injuries. For them there is the helmet "trophy shelf" with some battle scarred life-savers as visual-aids.
If that doesn't work we take 'em to our version of "The Playhouse" and shoot 'em with the Potato Cannon.
We can't do that much anymore though...my nearest nieghbor complained it was scaring his cows.

[The Kurch Man]

This is almost like what came first - the chicken or the egg - arguments for both sides will go on and on. I live in Michigan and we have a helmet law. If they repealed it - I would be willing to bet, the insurance companies are going to look at it as an opportunity to increase rates again. Justified or not - it does not matter.

I can't speak for each state, but my rates go up every year, and I am getting older and the bike is too ... two factors that should have some correlation to the cost of insurance (as well as a clean record). I do the MSF ERC every couple of years to help with safety and it helps with rates, or so I'm told.

As for the spreading of the costs, I'm not emplyed by an insurance company but I don't think I need to be, to understand profitability. Insurance companies don't take a loss. If they anticipate one - they raise rates. If their investments don't yield anticipated returns, they can raise rates ... and they are in the business to turn a profit one way or another.

If a person goes to the hospital and has no coverage, the costs are figured into all of the future billings for everyone (insurance or no insurance).

Again, simply an opinion but someone has to pay for it at some point. Next...?

[guest-05]

>>On rare occassions we get a newbie dumb enough to actually believe helmets don't work or actually cause/worsen injuries<<

According to the NHTSA 52% of all motorcyclists killed in M/C related crashes in 2002 were wearing a helmet. It seems those helmets failed to save lives, eh?

Also.....

Does anyone remember those little stickers we can afix to our fullface helmets:

http://www.reflectivedecals.com/warningsticker.htm

Could it be that newbie isn't so dumb after all?

[Kabusa]

According to the NHTSA 52% of all motorcyclists killed in M/C related crashes in 2002 were wearing a helmet. It seems those helmets failed to save lives, eh?

I am no mathmatician, but that number (52%) makes little sense if you don't state what the percentage of motorcyclist wear helmets.
If only 25% of the 2002 motorcycling population in the USA wear helmets, I could better understand the 'failed to save lives, eh' statement.
The more helmeted riders there are, the more likely they are to be represented in accident statistics.
Anyone know more numbers to nail this down?

[darthrider]

Dear Guest, Oh Five
Are you serious or just pulling my old PeckerLeg?
Must be kidding, no one is really that dumb...

Hey, thanks for the link to the "Do not Remove Helmet..." stickies! I've been looking for more of these. Everytime I find some I buy a stack and give them to friends, affix to new helmets, etc. My favorites are the little red ones shaped like a Stop sign. They say "If Rider is injured do not remove helmet."

Some ways of removing a helmet from a rider down with spinal or head injuries can kill or cripple them. At least one way eliminates or lessens this possibility. Maybe some of our Doctors or EMT's will chime in on this.

If I'm down and unconscious I don't want any untrained Good Samaritans touching my head or helmet. If I'm down and not unconscious the sticker is probably redundant since I will be yelling at them to leave my head & helmet alone until qualified help arrives.

I was once riding third behind a Ducati and Norton rider who got together in a fast curve and went down hard in a double low-side crash. One of them was OK, one was semi-conscious after getting his bell rung pretty hard. Two other well meaning riders started to remove his helmet. I stopped them and we *carefully* loosened his chinstrap so he could breath easier. Then another rider from mid-group came up who happened to be a Doctor. As he was running up he yelled "Don't remove his helmet!"

Doc drafted a helper and we got to see him remove the helmet differently than we would have. Turned out the guy was fine and had no injuries but his helmet was deeply gouged and had to be replaced.

Good thing he hadn't interpreted those stats like you did...he would have had to just go ahead and croak.

No PeckerHead patch for you, Dickhead!

Sorry to go off on you Old Bean but you did sort of start it...been in a ripper of a bad mood the last couple of days due to some of the BS happing on the board. Probably be better in a day or so...

[guest-05]

>>I am no mathmatician, but that number (52%) makes little sense if you don't state what the percentage of motorcyclist wear helmets.
If only 25% of the 2002 motorcycling population in the USA wear helmets, I could better understand the 'failed to save lives, eh' statement<<

Twenty states and District of Columbia currently have all rider helmet laws in effect. All pacific coast states and most eastern seaboard states. According to NHTSA *estimated* helmet law compliance in those states range from 70% to 90%.

Other 30 states have modified helmet law or no helmet law. Helmet use *estimated* at about 50%, according to NHTSA. Perhaps someone with lot's of time could crunch some numbers.

NHTSA does not reveal their method of gathering motorcycle helmet use statistics. NHTSA is also vague on motorcycle vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

[guest-05]

>>Hey, thanks for the link to the "Do not Remove Helmet..." stickies! I've been looking for more of these<<

Yer' welcome!

>>No PeckerHead patch for you, Dickhead<<

Now, be nice!

[NoRRmad]

Guest --

If 100% of all riders wore helmets, the percentage of fatal accidents with helmets would be 100%. (Sometimes the bear eats you.)

The question is how many fatal accidents would there be if nobody wore helmets. The statistic you cite is completely meaningless.

[The Kurch Man]

The interesting thing, is that at least in my situation, the friends that pop off the helmet when we ride into a non-helmet state all agree that riding with a helmet is safer. They just choose not to do so. They don't try and cite any numbers to support not wearing one - they all know better but they are making a choice.

My point - who knows ... but when I read 'numbers' that might lead some to believe that helmets are no safer than not wearing one ... well, that just ain't so. Numbers can make an argument for anything. You don't have to crash to benefit from wearing one. Everyone on this site has had something bouce off of their helmet (other than pavement). Sure beats having that item bounce directly off of my head.

For those that find them uncomfortable, perhaps it's the helmet or the fit. I know of some guys that have been refitted properly and don't find them as uncomfortable. That might be something to consider if comfort is the issue for not wearing one.

[guest-05]

>>My point - who knows ... but when I read 'numbers' that might lead some to believe that helmets are no safer than not wearing one ... well, that just ain't so. Numbers can make an argument for anything<<

My *numbers* cited came from FARS/GES, a federal accident reporting department that gathers crash statistics from individual police agencies.
Those numbers are then passed on to the NHTSA who makes annual motor vehicle crash publications available to the media. So if you have an issue with those *numbers*....well, now you know who to contact!

I believe helmets are a safety item, along with formal rider ed training, annual motor vehicle mechanical inspection, motorcycle lights on all times, bright colored clothing for bikers, TWO motorcycle rear view mirrors, operating turn signals, loud horns and frequent motor vehicle operator license renewals for ALL drivers. However, click onto the American Motorcyclist Association page sometime and read each state motorcycle safety requirement.

I believe the late Roger Hull once summed it up when he said:"Helmets are a safety item. Helmet laws are politics".

[rdsmith3]

I believe the late Roger Hull once summed it up when he said:"Helmets are a safety item. Helmet laws are politics".

You can believe what you want, but if other people choose not to use a safety item, then how can you say it does not increase the costs for the rest of us?

I also do not understand the logic by which people accept mandatory seat belt laws, but not mandatory helmet laws. It took years to get over the anecdotes about someone's friend of a friend who was trapped in the car because of a seat belt, and therefore died. I think virtually everyone now accepts that seat belts reduce injuries.

The same goes for helmets. Just ask Indian Larry.

[guest-05]

>>You can believe what you want, but if other people choose not to use a safety item, then how can you say it does not increase the costs for the rest of us?<<

Once again I ask, show me proof where our Insurance costs have risen due to a relaxed/modified helmet law? Which state, insurance carrier?? OR...Which Insurance companies lowered their motor vehicle rates in states that enacted a helmet law? Some data to back your *social burden* argument, please.

>>I think virtually everyone now accepts that seat belts reduce injuries. The same goes for helmets<<

State approved motorcycle rider training has PREVENTED more motorcycle related accidents then all of the helmet laws since 1966.

>>Just ask Indian Larry<<

Let's be respectful of the dead!! Indian Larry tried to perform a dangerous stunt when he fell off his bike.