If helmets were optional...
Discussion
freddytin said:
I can't really understand why people perceive the risk to be so much higher than other activities ..When carried out with due care and attention 
Maybe because every study ever conducted proves riding a motorcycle without a helmet results in far more deaths and catastrophic injuries. Maybe what you term perception is actually fact.....
Steve Bass said:
freddytin said:
I can't really understand why people perceive the risk to be so much higher than other activities ..When carried out with due care and attention
Maybe because every study ever conducted proves riding a motorcycle without a helmet results in far more deaths and catastrophic injuries. Maybe what you term perception is actually fact.....
And is it really that risky in the grand scheme of things, ? Compared to Horse riding , for example ?
I can only go from personal experience ..Can't be arsed trying to find true stats that aren't skewed to fit the authors remit
Not wanting to be awkward. Just giving my take on the original question .
Adam_W said:
Id never ride without one, you can trip over and bang your head hard enough to suffer brain injury and become a vegetable so even the smallest accident which you could easily walk away from with a helmet could leave you permanently disabled.. worth the risk? I think not.
Do you wear a helmet for walking?yonex said:
sc0tt said:
Do you wear a helmet for walking?
How fast can you walk?Serious question though. The above poster perceives a certain type of risk whilst walking so why not wear a helmet whilst doing so if he believes he could potentially receive a brain injury.
freddytin said:
And is it really that risky in the grand scheme of things, ? Compared to Horse riding , for example ?
No, but then they also wear hats in horse riding as well. I'm not sure if it is mandatory, but I know that nearly all riding schools make hats compulsory, as well as all competitions.They do this because the risk of falling and hitting your head is high. It is high because you can never 100% guarantee if/when a horse could rear up and throw you off. Quite similar to how you can never 100% guarantee when some t
t in a Saxo pulls out in front of you or clips your wheel whilst out on your bike.As I've said before, I wouldn't be bothered it they repealed mandatory helmet wearing for motorbikes. I would be bothered if my insurance went up to offset the increased risk of life threatening/changing head injuries. Hence why I'd want a declaration akin to security protection for your bike.
It's a moot point anyway through, as it'll never happen.
Steve Bass said:
julian64 said:
Steve Bass said:
stat stuff
Its completely irrelevant to be told its more dangerous to be without a helmet.The interesting point of your stats is the cost per helmet worn. £30 per individual year not worn in mexico, and about £1200 per year not worn in the good old US of A, if I'm reading it correctly
If you did want to quantify the cost to the overall society as your main deciding factor for whether helmets vs personal freedom is worth it or not then you need those stats for the UK cos there is such a bizzare difference between those two costs.
The important stuff is the info relating to numbers of deaths or critical injuries suffered by non helmet wearers vs those with no helmet and the associated costs of medical treatment for those individual groups.
Then look at the fact that once a state repeals the full helmet requirment, there is a consistent and inexorable slide into terrible figures related to the lack of helmet use to the point that some states then re-introduce the full requirement law to stem the tide.
Their figures bear no relation to cost or quality of helmet which as the Sharp figures would tell you, are of no bearing. if a helmet is approved then it's approved.
Those states that have introduced requirements to their partial helmet laws have not stipulated how much a helmet should cost because it's irrelevant. what is relevant however is the requirment for 20k of medical cover. What does that tell you?
Edited by Steve Bass on Tuesday 2nd February 17:02
Your logic if I understand it is that a personal freedom should be secondary to protecting the state from the financial outlay and therefore the burden on society as a whole.
Your evidence is an american study where the state plays little part in an individuals healthcare and the insurance companies value not wearing a helmet as £1200odd per individual helmet not worn per year. You ignore Mexico which rates it as £30.
If the actual difference in the UK was £30 per individual per year NOONE would argue that is worth legislating I hope.
America is a very different cost to the UK. I would suggest the UK is probably closer to Mexicos costs than America. For instance I once had a piece of paper which showed a young patient who racked up a 110K bill for a simple appdx operation in the states!!
However, if your argument is that the figures show an increased morbidity and mortality from not wearing a helmet then you are undoubtedly right but have misunderstood the whole conversation for the last few pages.
In order for some balance to this discussion we need to have these figures for the UK and comparative figures for other sorts of activities to enable you to say where you'd like to draw the line.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The rate that bikers are killed or seriously injured on a bike in the United Kingdom, even wearing a helmet, is 20 or 30 times the rate at which car drivers are killed or seriously injured. If helmets were not compulsory, then the rate at which riders are killed or seriously injured would increase, but the increase would be small compared to the factor of 20 or 30 increase in risk just by choosing to ride a motorbike instead of taking a car. I wear a helmet, but I believe in free choice. If you want the government to protect you from yourself, you should want them to ban you from riding motorcycles, even with a helmet. julian64 said:
You are making the same mistake twice.
Your logic if I understand it is that a personal freedom should be secondary to protecting the state from the financial outlay and therefore the burden on society as a whole.
Your evidence is an american study where the state plays little part in an individuals healthcare and the insurance companies value not wearing a helmet as £1200odd per individual helmet not worn per year. You ignore Mexico which rates it as £30.
If the actual difference in the UK was £30 per individual per year NOONE would argue that is worth legislating I hope.
America is a very different cost to the UK. I would suggest the UK is probably closer to Mexicos costs than America. For instance I once had a piece of paper which showed a young patient who racked up a 110K bill for a simple appdx operation in the states!!
However, if your argument is that the figures show an increased morbidity and mortality from not wearing a helmet then you are undoubtedly right but have misunderstood the whole conversation for the last few pages.
In order for some balance to this discussion we need to have these figures for the UK and comparative figures for other sorts of activities to enable you to say where you'd like to draw the line.
Unless you're implying without actual costings we cannot conclude that increased mortality or morbidity leads to increased costs I don't see how he has? There's plenty of papers on science direct and Medline echoing the findings as well I assure you. But I do not recall any NHS costings, having worked on contracts for years with the NHS I would be amazed that any accurate ones exists however.Your logic if I understand it is that a personal freedom should be secondary to protecting the state from the financial outlay and therefore the burden on society as a whole.
Your evidence is an american study where the state plays little part in an individuals healthcare and the insurance companies value not wearing a helmet as £1200odd per individual helmet not worn per year. You ignore Mexico which rates it as £30.
If the actual difference in the UK was £30 per individual per year NOONE would argue that is worth legislating I hope.
America is a very different cost to the UK. I would suggest the UK is probably closer to Mexicos costs than America. For instance I once had a piece of paper which showed a young patient who racked up a 110K bill for a simple appdx operation in the states!!
However, if your argument is that the figures show an increased morbidity and mortality from not wearing a helmet then you are undoubtedly right but have misunderstood the whole conversation for the last few pages.
In order for some balance to this discussion we need to have these figures for the UK and comparative figures for other sorts of activities to enable you to say where you'd like to draw the line.
You're losing sight of the woods for the trees here.
1. We have a significant severe injury which results in a large cost to society and the individual.
2. Research shows us we can reduce the risk significantly by wearing a helmet.
3. Helmets are often cheap.
4. Helmets do not impeded your chosen activity in any meaningful way.
5. We know when we let helmet use be down to the discretion of the rider they often do not wear them.
6. We know that if we make a law forcing their use most riders do not have an issue.
Anecdotally I'd be amazed if the wider population didn't believe motorcyclists should wear helmets. But I can't back that one up.
Using your analogies, this isn't like "not letting people run marathons", or, "forcing the obese to eat less", it's more like making the other 50s wear a coloured bib to identify them to the medic on your run, or insisting obese people check their blood pressure regularly at home.
It's not invasive. It doesn't stop you in any way, it's just wearing a hat whilst you do it that stops the rest of us picking up the bill if you have an accident.
Prof Prolapse said:
1. We have a significant severe injury which results in a large cost to society and the individual.
2. Research shows us we can reduce the risk significantly by wearing a helmet.
3. Helmets are often cheap.
4. Helmets do not impeded your chosen activity in any meaningful way.
5. We know when we let helmet use be down to the discretion of the rider they often do not wear them.
6. We know that if we make a law forcing their use most riders do not have an issue.
The problem with this argument is, other than the financial cost for state-funded medical care in the event of a crash causing injury, not wearing a helmet has no effect on anyone except the rider. So then, a reasonable question would be to ask, what else falls into the same category and has a financial cost to the state and the answer would be riding a motorcycle in general, since we already know it is 20-30 times as likely to result in injury as driving a car. So then we ban motorcycles, we ban horseriding, we ban kayaking, we ban flying light aircraft. Everything is banned, because the state knows what is best for us and we wouldn't want the general community subsidising the medical costs of risk takers. 2. Research shows us we can reduce the risk significantly by wearing a helmet.
3. Helmets are often cheap.
4. Helmets do not impeded your chosen activity in any meaningful way.
5. We know when we let helmet use be down to the discretion of the rider they often do not wear them.
6. We know that if we make a law forcing their use most riders do not have an issue.
creampuff said:
The problem with this argument is, other than the financial cost for state-funded medical care in the event of a crash causing injury, not wearing a helmet has no effect on anyone except the rider. So then, a reasonable question would be to ask, what else falls into the same category and has a financial cost to the state and the answer would be riding a motorcycle in general, since we already know it is 20-30 times as likely to result in injury as driving a car. So then we ban motorcycles, we ban horseriding, we ban kayaking, we ban flying light aircraft. Everything is banned, because the state knows what is best for us and we wouldn't want the general community subsidising the medical costs of risk takers.
Right you've clearly not been following the argument then. As the financial burden on society is repeatedly stated as not the only one, it's just the easiest to quantify and predict, even without figures. The simple fact of the matter is it doesn't effect just you, what about your family that has to wipe your arse for the rest of your life and are taken out of the working population? Their benefits, the hole you have left in their life? What do they fill it with? Your children who fail as a result of your untimely departure? Or your new disabled ramp, your new Zafira contribution. The psychological issues faced by the person who hit you, their social costs, the insurance companies increased pay out, the impact on other motorcyclists, the impact on the industry in response to road deaths... Etc. All impossible to quantify but all very real.
Laws like this which reduce risk, instead of what you're saying this negates the need for laws involving a total ban or even a reduction in power. Due to the perceived, and noted reduction in death. Not only that but, unlike a ban, you can do everything you could before, you can still ride whatever you like, but you just have to wear a hat!
Prof Prolapse said:
The simple fact of the matter is it doesn't effect just you, what about your family that has to wipe your arse for the rest of your life and are taken out of the working population? Their benefits, the hole you have left in their life? What do they fill it with? Your children who fail as a result of your untimely departure? Or your new disabled ramp, your new Zafira contribution. The psychological issues faced by the person who hit you, their social costs, the insurance companies increased pay out, the impact on other motorcyclists, the impact on the industry in response to road deaths... Etc. All impossible to quantify but all very real.
I have been following the argument, I just have a philosophical difference of opinion as I believe in individual liberty over state imposition to make me safer or for my family to have better mental wellbeing. I don't see it is the role of the state to make predictions about the mental welfare of my family in the event of my demise. For the financial costs, there would be additional costs on the state, however as I have pointed out, both you and I have elevated the exposure of the state to these costs by a factor of 20 just by choosing to ride a motorbike even while wearing a helmet. Why stop at compulsory helmets?
An argument for helmets would be that they are cheap and they are effective at preventing head injury, so on that basis they should be mandatory. Infact that's the reason why they are mandatory, although I personally value personal freedom and liberty over state intervention, this is a good argument for helmets. Saying "what about your family or what about increased medical costs" is not a good argument, because following that argument we will be banning motorcycling in addition to a large number of other higher risk activities.
I've read figures suggesting that helmets prevent about one-third of fatalities on motorbikes. Say we take it as one third and say we take the ratio of risk in riding a bike compared to driving a car as 20 with helmets, then the inverse of 2/3 is 1.5 so the risk ratio with no helmet is 30. Is anybody really going to say, holy f
k motorcycling was really risky at 30 times the risk of driving a car, now we have reduced it to 20 it's looking pretty safe? Wow that means driving from London to Moscow is no more risky than riding your motorbike from London to Portsmouth! Edited by creampuff on Wednesday 3rd February 11:35
creampuff said:
I don't see it is the role of the state to make predictions about the mental welfare of my family in the event of my demise. For the financial costs, there would be additional costs on the state, however as I have pointed out, both you and I have elevated the exposure of the state to these costs by a factor of 20 just by choosing to ride a motorbike even while wearing a helmet. Why stop at compulsory helmets?
An argument for helmets would be that they are cheap and they are effective at preventing head injury, so on that basis they should be mandatory. Infact that's the reason why they are mandatory, although I personally value personal freedom and liberty over state intervention, this is a good argument for helmets. Saying "what about your family or what about increased medical costs" is not a good argument, because following that argument we will be banning motorcycling in addition to a large number of other higher risk activities.
I've read figures suggesting that helmets prevent about one-third of fatalities on motorbikes. Say we take it as one third and say we take the ratio of risk in riding a bike compared to driving a car as 20 with helmets, then the inverse of 1/3 is 1.5 so the risk ratio with no helmet is 30. Is anybody really going to say, holy fk motorcycling was really risky at 30 times the risk of driving a car, now we have reduced it to 20 it's looking pretty safe? Wow that means driving from London to Moscow is no more risky than riding your motorbike from London to Portsmouth!
I don't think I understand your point.An argument for helmets would be that they are cheap and they are effective at preventing head injury, so on that basis they should be mandatory. Infact that's the reason why they are mandatory, although I personally value personal freedom and liberty over state intervention, this is a good argument for helmets. Saying "what about your family or what about increased medical costs" is not a good argument, because following that argument we will be banning motorcycling in addition to a large number of other higher risk activities.
I've read figures suggesting that helmets prevent about one-third of fatalities on motorbikes. Say we take it as one third and say we take the ratio of risk in riding a bike compared to driving a car as 20 with helmets, then the inverse of 1/3 is 1.5 so the risk ratio with no helmet is 30. Is anybody really going to say, holy f
k motorcycling was really risky at 30 times the risk of driving a car, now we have reduced it to 20 it's looking pretty safe? Wow that means driving from London to Moscow is no more risky than riding your motorbike from London to Portsmouth! If you're suggesting that introducing laws to reduce risk inevitably leads to a banning of the activity itself based on perceptions of risk that is obviously not true. The law was introduced in 1973, this has never happened.
If you mean the line of social responsibility can be continued until we ban everything risky then again in practice this does not happen. Regulations and laws always try to keep at least one eye on what the impact is. For example, with the roads, reduce the limits to make it safer. The lower it is the fewer the accidents. Yet how many 0 mph limits do we have in the UK? None, it would be absurd.
Same goes for comparing bikes with cars and accidents. Bikes are inherently more dangerous than cars, I would wager we could wait a 100 years of R&D and this will still be the case. So we need to continue to evaluate what is acceptable, and this is very unlikely to be that two vehicles should be the same.
I do strongly think it's very flawed reasoning to think the logical extension of social responsibility is the outright ban one form of transport because it's accident statistics do not mirror an entirely different one.
Individual freedoms versus social responsibilities is the crux of democracy. It's evitable we won't all agree. It's all hypothetical after all, we are where we are.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Wednesday 3rd February 11:58
creampuff said:
Prof Prolapse said:
The simple fact of the matter is it doesn't effect just you, what about your family that has to wipe your arse for the rest of your life and are taken out of the working population? Their benefits, the hole you have left in their life? What do they fill it with? Your children who fail as a result of your untimely departure? Or your new disabled ramp, your new Zafira contribution. The psychological issues faced by the person who hit you, their social costs, the insurance companies increased pay out, the impact on other motorcyclists, the impact on the industry in response to road deaths... Etc. All impossible to quantify but all very real.
I don't see it is the role of the state to make predictions about the mental welfare of my family in the event of my demise. For the financial costs, there would be additional costs on the state, however as I have pointed out, both you and I have elevated the exposure of the state to these costs by a factor of 20 just by choosing to ride a motorbike even while wearing a helmet. Why stop at compulsory helmets?An argument for helmets would be that they are cheap and they are effective at preventing head injury, so on that basis they should be mandatory. Infact that's the reason why they are mandatory, although I personally value personal freedom and liberty over state intervention, this is a good argument for helmets. Saying "what about your family or what about increased medical costs" is not a good argument, because following that argument we will be banning motorcycling in addition to a large number of other higher risk activities.
I've read figures suggesting that helmets prevent about one-third of fatalities on motorbikes. Say we take it as one third and say we take the ratio of risk in riding a bike compared to driving a car as 20 with helmets, then the inverse of 1/3 is 1.5 so the risk ratio with no helmet is 30. Is anybody really going to say, holy f
k motorcycling was really risky at 30 times the risk of driving a car, now we have reduced it to 20 it's looking pretty safe? Wow that means driving from London to Moscow is no more risky than riding your motorbike from London to Portsmouth! Banning motorcycling outright is excessive and actually counter productive. The iducstry supports thousands of jobs and generates millions in tax revenues. Bikes, like cigarettes, aren't illegal. But they can mandate the conditions of use for the good of society as a whole, such as the ban on smoking in public areas. But when it comes to motorcycles, having proven the use of a helmet can substantially reduce the severity of head injuries, the mandating of helmet use strikes a reasonable balance between personal freedoms and state requirements.
Lots here bang on about how they feel they are capable of mitigating any risk they may encounter, how only they can judge any particular risk to themselves and no one else can have any idea, which is fine if you were the only road user. So whilst controlling your own risk is fine, how do you go about controlling everybody else? And thats the rub. We, as riders take responsibility for our actions, but what when events completely out of your control cause an accident? How did you not control the risk of the errant, careless, texting, distracted driver? You can't and never will so that arguement kinda falls flat.
And the fiscal impact cannot be overlooked. If you had the slightlest inkling of how much it costs to support a severely injured or brain damaged person for rest of life you'd s
t a cat. Or are you happy that your wife or children become your carer? Or what if the wife leaves, as is often the case, who looks after you then? And remember that you've gone from a net contributor to a net consumer so who pays the difference? And for the price of a helmet? Seriously?Sadly, there is no single decision we make that affects us and us alone. We're connected, to friends, to family and to the state. If you are now sucking up resources because you chose not to wear a helmet, that's money thats not going somewhere else. So your personal freedom or choice IS impacting others, suddenly it's not a standalone decision with zero 3rd party consequences.
So, back to the original question, what if helmets were optional?
Like I said before, fine, if people want to not wear a lid so be it, but then that choice should be countered with an accepted reduction in support or care from the state or you must have a substantial private medial scheme that will cover such incidents. You don't go skiing without specific ski holiday cover, do you?
Every choice has consequences, why should this be any different? You are a part of the matrix. Accept it and move on
Edited by Steve Bass on Wednesday 3rd February 12:05
Steve Bass said:
And the fiscal impact cannot be overlooked. If you had the slightlest inkling of how much it costs to support a severely injured or brain damaged person for rest of life you'd st a cat. Or are you happy that your wife or children become your carer? Or what if the wife leaves, as is often the case, who looks after you then? And remember that you've gone from a net contributor to a net consumer so who pays the difference? And for the price of a helmet? Seriously?
t a cat. Or are you happy that your wife or children become your carer? Or what if the wife leaves, as is often the case, who looks after you then? And remember that you've gone from a net contributor to a net consumer so who pays the difference? And for the price of a helmet? Seriously?
I've seen some mental things written on PH but those questioning 'personal freedom' and 'citizenship' in respect to wearing a helmet is way up there. How much personal freedom do you think you will have with half a head missing? How much do you think full time care will cost for a couple of decades, it'll surely be more than you have ever contributed through the tax system. As has been stated the laws of the country are there to protect the general population. Riding without a helmet is perfectly legal off road, those that feel that their personal freedoms have been impinged upon can happily take that as an option. Otherwise, tough. It is what it is so deal with it.
catso said:
Steve Bass said:
You don't go skiing without specific ski holiday cover, do you?
Yes.Or you're fine with not being able to cover these costs and suffer whatever this may cause.
Or do you believe you should get the same cover or care as those who do pay but gratis?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff