What d'ya reckon ... :)

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:28 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/col ... r-all.html

I've ridden lidless in the south of France when the Bol was at Le Castellet and whilst it was a novelty I quickly found going much faster than 30 mph meant pain and suffering as bugs hurt at speed

I can kind of see May's point tho'

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:45 pm

part 2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/col ... aw....html

jeznewsome · Post by **jeznewsome** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:25 pm

I have certainly enjoyed helmetless riding on a number of occasions. Crete, Oman and the oddest of the lot in Fort Worth Texas (where compare to other 'backward' places it just felt wrong, though I was legally riding an insured bike).

TBH as long as it is warm, dry and you have decent shades on it's magic. Speeds are definitely down on normal, but I find can creep up as you get used to it.

If I had a Harley, it was allowed and it was warm and dry I'd even do it every now and then in the UK, but bearing in mind the general weather conditions I doubt that would be often. A helmet has the benefit of keeping at least part of your body warm and dry!

Hayden · Post by **Hayden** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:58 pm

I reckon you educate people then give them the freedom of informed choice as adults, so as far as protective gear goes its up to them. But, I draw the line at helmets.

If you fall off a bike it bloody hurts, but gravel rash, a broken bone or two will eventually heal, ok if you can afford to be looked after and the boss doesn`t mind you being off work, its only a minor bill/inconvienience for the NHS, and afterall you do pay your taxes.....

Falling off and seriously banging you head though can be life changing, ask my brother in law, ( he wont be able to answer the question though) he fell off at only 40 ish, 30 years ago, a handsome bloke the girls loved who had the world at his feet cannot look after himself now, is barely understandable when he talks, needs constant care...its called being brain damaged

ok, he was very unlucky, ( lucky the police said, he should be dead) but it happened, the law is to stop it happening to others?

I think James May just broke one of his `Pratt` laws by writing that article, but each to there own.

sorry for the sermon, but thats just how I feel

Grip Fast · Post by **Grip Fast** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:01 pm

I like the idea of a single 'don't be a prat' law. I've believed for a few years, that the only law you need is, 'thou shall not steal'. Not my idea, I hasten to add, but it covers everything from murder (theft of a life), through nicking stuff, to being late for an appointment (theft of someone's time).

Not wearing a crash helmet and getting my noggin bashed in could be theft of a husband and father, I suppose.

I didn't always wear a helmet when I was a teen, but I wouldn't go out without one now. The reason is that I realised the consequences of getting it wrong were unacceptable to me, not because of the law.

My wife and I watched, Don't look down, last night after Speed with Guy Martin. It was scary stuff, especially if you don't like heights. But we wondered if kids are doing it because we have a need to take risks, and life is too wrapped in cotton wool these days. So dangling off cranes and tall building is what satisfies that need.

Grip Fast · Post by **Grip Fast** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:24 pm

Hayden wrote:I reckon you educate people then give them the freedom of informed choice as adults, so as far as protective gear goes its up to them. But, I draw the line at helmets.

I agree with you Hayden, up to the point where you draw the line at helmets. I completely understand why you draw the line there, and under similar circumstances I might feel the same. But we're back with the thin edge of the wedge if you draw the line anywhere. Who's line do we stop with?

Interesting debate.

Hayden · Post by **Hayden** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:46 pm

Grip Fast wrote:
Hayden wrote:I reckon you educate people then give them the freedom of informed choice as adults, so as far as protective gear goes its up to them. But, I draw the line at helmets.
I agree with you Hayden, up to the point where you draw the line at helmets. I completely understand why you draw the line there, and under similar circumstances I might feel the same. But we're back with the thin edge of the wedge if you draw the line anywhere. Who's line do we stop with?

Interesting debate.

very true, one persons experience and opinions are not necerssarily right for others, I don`t insist that`s the case, you can only inform people and where possible allow them the choice, I suppose as far as helmets go accident statistics dictate that this is one choice that should not be available?

I saw the programme about the `crane climbing`, at first I thought idiots, then I had to remind myself that I was young once, maybe back then I would have thought it was cool, sometimes opinions aren`t right or wrong, just different at different times of our lives.

Now, I can`t type anymore, I have to go and tell my 17 year old to turn his music down again, drives me nuts.............I loved loud music when I was 17!........

Steve1200S · Post by **Steve1200S** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:52 pm

Always wear one. Sure it could be fun at slow speeds, and you may enjoy it, but you come off at those 'slow' speeds and you must have at least quadrupled your chance of serious injury or death. Then it wont be fun or nice for anyone...

I'd like to think most adults and experienced/sensible riders know how important it may be, but the laws are for the protection of the inexperienced and vulnerable (say a 17 who's being egged on to ride his scooter helmetless by his mates - "don't wear that, you look like a twat!").

I know people don't like being told what to do, and everyone's line is different, but my lines drawn way above (past?? :S ) not wearing a helmet. Its not a law to make money, or to keep you down or what not, just to keep you safer.

on a less serious note, good article, but I'm also gutted that Clarkson won £100!

Harry Lime · Post by **Harry Lime** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:03 am

Deleted.

Blackal · Post by **Blackal** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:59 am

If someone wants to ride without a helmet - fine by me. As previously opined - it affects only the rider (directly).

But - I would expect insurance premiums to be weighted directly against those who do ride without helmet.

In fairness to insurance underwriters - I think it is something that the rider must declare - so they know the risk they are underwriting.

I suspect that the premiums would be rather large, and cause more complaint (like the youngsters who complain that they are being discriminated against).

They ride wholesale without helmets in places like China, where it has to be said - there is not widespread carnage, but people are travelling much slower, and getting run over by a bus or truck will have the same effect - helmet or no helmet.

Different people have different perceptions of risk. Not to say anyone is right or wrong - as the risk itself has a tangeble figure, but their perception is what is different.

I've stated my opinion on Chinese "Pazzo" lever copies on forums, and got replies like "we all take risks".

But - No-one has replied to the question:

"You can buy cheap Chinese Arai Corsair helmet copies - would anyone consider wearing one of them? If not - why not?"

Crash your bike with no helmet, end up in a vegetative state - and publically people will be completely sympathetic...........

Privately - they will be muttering "well - there's a bloody surprise

"

Remember Princess Diana........ One person survived that crash - the fella wearing the seatbelt.

Phew!

boxerscott · Post by **boxerscott** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:49 pm

Blackal wrote:.

Remember Princess Diana........ One person survived that crash - the fella wearing the seatbelt.

Aye only cos of the privacy screen in the limo, otherwise he would have had royalty giving him serious head

Blackal · Post by **Blackal** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:47 am

Unashamedly lifted from another bike site, quoting The Economist

Feel the wind in your hair; bill the taxpayer for your injuries
Nov 16th 2013 | LINCOLN, NEBRASKA |From the print edition

STAFF at the Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska can sometimes guess the home state of the motorcyclists they treat. Nebraska obliges all riders to wear helmets; neighbouring Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota do not. The helmetless are distinctive, says Dr Lori Terryberry-Spohr: they suffer “diffuse” internal bleeding and cell death across large areas. Such patients typically run up $1.3m in direct medical costs. Fewer than a third work again. A study of helmet-shunning bikers admitted to one large hospital, cited by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), found that taxpayers paid for 63% of their care.

During the 2013 legislative session, 19 bills were introduced in 11 states to repeal all-rider helmet laws. None passed. Appeals to thrift can take some of the credit. For years, helmet-advocates stressed human suffering when giving evidence to state legislatures. Now they also stress costs to taxpayers. Libertarians often demand: “Let those who ride decide,” says Jacqueline Gillan, who heads Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an insurer-funded lobby group. Her retort is: “Let those who pay have a say.”

When states repeal or weaken motorcycle-helmet laws, as dozens have, helmet use falls, fatalities rise and head-injury hospitalisations soar. Biker deaths rose 18% after Michigan repealed its all-rider helmet law in 2012. A rule obliges unhelmeted Michigan riders to carry at least $20,000 in medical-payments coverage. That does not even cover initial stabilisation in intensive care after a nasty crash.

Helmet-haters claim that increased deaths merely reflect a jump in miles ridden after laws are repealed, as bikers enjoy the wind in their hair. Not so. Some studies measure death rates by motorcycle-miles travelled: deaths-per-bike-mile rose 25% when Texas scrapped helmets, for instance. In Washington Tom Petri, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives committee that oversees highways, wants the CDC to stop researching motorcycle safety. The agency seems to have “an anti-motorcycle agenda”, he growls. Asked about accidents involving the helmetless, he says: “I don’t think there’s that clear a correlation.”

Earlier this year Dave Bloomfield, a Republican state senator in Nebraska, sponsored an abortive bid to make helmets optional for adults. “We don’t know that there will be more deaths,” he argues, before offering an anecdote about a biker who took a three-state detour to avoid riding through Nebraska in a helmet, depriving the state of his spending on food and fuel. Mr Bloomfield will try again in 2014. Asked directly, he concedes that—personally—he thinks it “silly” to ride a motorcycle without a helmet on the highway. “But government shouldn’t tell people what to do,” he says.

How about taxpayers?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:49 am

So, is it a moral issue, or an economic issue?

Also, did our income tax go down, after the helmet law was introduced?

Grip Fast · Post by **Grip Fast** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:20 am

Steve1200S wrote:Its not a law to make money, or to keep you down or what not, just to keep you safer.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but why on earth would you care about keeping me safe? I have a tendency to distrust folk I don't know, who claim to care about my safety.

I believe it is the financial aspect, as argued in the post by Blackal. That is a much more acceptable argument (to me). Why should you be happy about me spending your tax money to fix me up after my stupidity. Yes, I get that.

I still want to rail against nannying.

Harry Lime · Post by **Harry Lime** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:53 pm

Deleted.