If helmets were optional...
Discussion
catso said:
As for the poor people that scrape me off the road, it's their choice to do the job or not plus I am intending for them to not have to do so.
The thing is (if I can profile), like most on BB, you're probably a middle class or working bloke, who has been riding for at least a few years. You probably have sufficient experience, maturity, and intelligence to act with consideration and measured risk even if this safety law were repealed. I am very confident, although I don't think we've met, you are not the person this law was made to stop.You are not however representative of the wider population.
Most people, sadly, are are utter morons. If you give them this freedom within hours social media will be full of tracksuit clad morons on scooters and gixers riding with sunglasses whilst posing for selfies. Within 24 hours A&E will be crammed, at huge expense, and then complex and expensive legal battles for damages will begin. As now it is legal to not wear helmets, "chavvy the potato", will need to pay to have someone wipe his arse for the rest of his life.
Repealing the law for most would be like giving a baby a handgun.
moanthebairns said:
So catso or disastrous, you's never have an off day or make a mistake where you might put another road user at risk. Pish if that's the answer. Utter tripe.
Its like arguing with pro independence voters.
Of course I have. My fault, naturally. Not the person who is a victim of my 'off day'. Weird stance IMO.Its like arguing with pro independence voters.
ETA - also seems something of a melodramatic reaction to go from quite literally one reply written in good-natured spirit of discussion to "like arguing with pro-independence voters". I'm not arguing at all; just posting my take on it.
But if you're scared of things then that's fine and you can wear lots of kit to make yourself feel better about that
Prof Prolapse said:
Repealing the law for most would be like giving a baby a handgun.
Broadly agree with this though. I don't think you can ever really go backwards with laws but I'd appreciate them not adding more.Incidentally, in Sicily, they made riding without a helmet illegal (I guess in the 70's) but at the time, motorcycle assassinations were very popular with the Mafia, and as the assassins would comply with the law to avoid attracting attention, they became very difficult to identify in any more detail than "A man on a bike with a helmet".
So they quickly made it illegal to wear a helmet on a bike but they forgot to repeal the law making it illegal not to wear one. So you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't. Brilliantly Sicilian, I thought.
(I'm sure it's an apocryphal tale but was told to me by Sicilian friends so I choose to believe it!)
Once rode my gsxr with jeans and a t-shirt on in a hot Summer, felt great but I didn't half feel vulnerable don't think I went above 50 on an open stretch once but I had a great ride taking in the local countryside. Personally if you didn't have to wear a helmet I'd probably buy a Bonneville and just potter around locally having no protection really made me slow down. I probably do ride too fast sometimes because I feel protected with all my gear on I'd like a choice but still on a decent journey I'd wear a helmet.
moanthebairns said:
Its like arguing with pro independence voters.
I guess it's a generation thing, us oldies accepting the consequences of our actions and not liking being told what's good for us and all that.
Biking like other 'dangerous' activities is one of those choices that, as an adult we make. Whether we run a risk assessment or not first is up to the individual.
Peace.
The whole argument about if you didn't wear a helmet you should have to pay for private healthcare if you crash is ridiculous. I don't have kids but subsidise state schools for others. That sort of approach would make anything deemed "risky" banned or litigated against.
Played football and twisted your ankle? Shouldn't have played.
Granny slips on ice and breaks her hip? Should have looked where she was looking.
Smoker? Pay for your own chemo.
See my point? I would wear a helmet, but you can't de-risk life. Even for all the idiots that need protecting from themselves. I'd also rather have a less nanny state society and make people accountable for their own actions.
Played football and twisted your ankle? Shouldn't have played.
Granny slips on ice and breaks her hip? Should have looked where she was looking.
Smoker? Pay for your own chemo.
See my point? I would wear a helmet, but you can't de-risk life. Even for all the idiots that need protecting from themselves. I'd also rather have a less nanny state society and make people accountable for their own actions.
Here's the thing: much as I would like to ride without a helmet, I wouldn't want to crash without one. As I said earlier, riding a (powerful) Enduro bike across a grass field without my helmet was fun, but the speeds were relatively low, and the ground less hard than a road. While the regulations were quite clear about racing with an approved helmet, it wouldn't have crossed my mind to suggest otherwise.
In my industry it is mandatory to wear a hard hat, steel toe-cap boots, overalls, gloves and safety glasses. Much the same in other industries too, so nothing unusual there. We also have to wear a rather uncomfortable and, in summer, hot and sweaty survival suit for the chopper flight out over the sea. While I've never had to rely on it, in 35 years of going offshore, I'm not sure that I would fly without it, however appealing flying in shirt sleeves might be.
Risk aversion is not quantifiable, therefore we all have a different approach to acceptable risk. If opinions don't match, you're either a loony Darwin Award candidate, or ghey.
As for older riders accepting risk more than younger riders, I think that is nonsense. Things we might have done as children or teenagers as a dare, we are much more unlikely to do the same thing for the same reason. Experience tells us that we might get hurt, so we are less likely to "dare". The difference arises when a law is introduced that is designed to eliminate head injuries, and while the younger rider has known no other period in his life when helmets were not mandatory, and just kind of accepts it, whereas us older riders can remember when there was a choice, and making our own decisions when to ride with or without. It's not quite the same as accepting or declining a dare.
We also need to be aware that for all of the riders advocating riding without a helmet, the dead and the brain dead ones can't take part in this little debate.
Perhaps a little extreme for an analogy, but I'm sure that some of us have fathers or grandfathers who survived WWII, going in to battle without a single scratch, and didn't wear a flak jacket. Would any soldier today try the same thing?
In my industry it is mandatory to wear a hard hat, steel toe-cap boots, overalls, gloves and safety glasses. Much the same in other industries too, so nothing unusual there. We also have to wear a rather uncomfortable and, in summer, hot and sweaty survival suit for the chopper flight out over the sea. While I've never had to rely on it, in 35 years of going offshore, I'm not sure that I would fly without it, however appealing flying in shirt sleeves might be.
Risk aversion is not quantifiable, therefore we all have a different approach to acceptable risk. If opinions don't match, you're either a loony Darwin Award candidate, or ghey.
As for older riders accepting risk more than younger riders, I think that is nonsense. Things we might have done as children or teenagers as a dare, we are much more unlikely to do the same thing for the same reason. Experience tells us that we might get hurt, so we are less likely to "dare". The difference arises when a law is introduced that is designed to eliminate head injuries, and while the younger rider has known no other period in his life when helmets were not mandatory, and just kind of accepts it, whereas us older riders can remember when there was a choice, and making our own decisions when to ride with or without. It's not quite the same as accepting or declining a dare.
We also need to be aware that for all of the riders advocating riding without a helmet, the dead and the brain dead ones can't take part in this little debate.
Perhaps a little extreme for an analogy, but I'm sure that some of us have fathers or grandfathers who survived WWII, going in to battle without a single scratch, and didn't wear a flak jacket. Would any soldier today try the same thing?
catso said:
And how long before the powers-that-be decide that motorcycling is simply too dangerous? We've already had proposed power limiters, leg-protectors and other silly ideas, eventually they'll ban bikes.
For the record you can legally ride a bike with sidecar or quad without one and they are equally as dangerous (arguably more so?) as you can also a Horse, bicycle, roller skates etc.
As for the poor people that scrape me off the road, it's their choice to do the job or not plus I am intending for them to not have to do so.
I think you'll find it's only the passenger in the sidecar that doesn't need a helmet, the rider and pillion on the bike do.For the record you can legally ride a bike with sidecar or quad without one and they are equally as dangerous (arguably more so?) as you can also a Horse, bicycle, roller skates etc.
As for the poor people that scrape me off the road, it's their choice to do the job or not plus I am intending for them to not have to do so.
I've no idea about quads though.
I missed thee official 'helmet optional' days by a month - it came in on May '73 and I got my first bike (50cc) in June. Still at school though and so much scribbling of 'helmets yes, compulsion no' on my jotters. In retrospect more of a 'look at me, I've bike to get to school on - no more busses for me 
' than any sort of protest.
I look at some of the crazy kids just riding in tee-shirts and trainers, but in truth I did that too - hell I even remember taking my Commando out on a particularly nice day in shorts...and kick-starting it in trainers! So had they not been compulsory than I'm pretty sure as a teenager/twenty-something I'd have been helmetless a fair bit of the time.
Roll forward many years and I won't even wear an open-face or a pudding-bowl - got to be a full face. BUT, that is for 'normal' riding. I take the old GPz for a spin up the [private] road every so often just to keep it mobile (been SORNd for a few years now) and I never bother with a lid, or a jacket. But that's sub 30-mph. Bit I would like the opportunity to do that sort of thing legally on the road.
So yes, if it was allowed I would ride without a helmet now and again, but just plodding up to the shops or to a local hostelry of an evening (lemonades only, as the drink/drive limit in Scotland is now next to zero). So maybe a 30mph / 5 mile maximum. Yes, I know nasty things can happen well within 5 miles from home and sub-30, but I do think it's something I'd do if there was the opportunity. But for anything even approaching open-road riding it would be full-face and armoured gear.
My vote would be to keep helmets compulsory, but then allow riders over a certain age/experience to choose not to. Maybe speed limited too, helmets compulsory over 40 or something. It would be nice to feel the wind in my hair while I've still a little left round the sides. It'll never happen though.
But I'm going to propose a Heinz law - If you're over 57, and keep the speed below 57 then you can choose to go helmet-less.
' than any sort of protest.I look at some of the crazy kids just riding in tee-shirts and trainers, but in truth I did that too - hell I even remember taking my Commando out on a particularly nice day in shorts...and kick-starting it in trainers! So had they not been compulsory than I'm pretty sure as a teenager/twenty-something I'd have been helmetless a fair bit of the time.
Roll forward many years and I won't even wear an open-face or a pudding-bowl - got to be a full face. BUT, that is for 'normal' riding. I take the old GPz for a spin up the [private] road every so often just to keep it mobile (been SORNd for a few years now) and I never bother with a lid, or a jacket. But that's sub 30-mph. Bit I would like the opportunity to do that sort of thing legally on the road.
So yes, if it was allowed I would ride without a helmet now and again, but just plodding up to the shops or to a local hostelry of an evening (lemonades only, as the drink/drive limit in Scotland is now next to zero). So maybe a 30mph / 5 mile maximum. Yes, I know nasty things can happen well within 5 miles from home and sub-30, but I do think it's something I'd do if there was the opportunity. But for anything even approaching open-road riding it would be full-face and armoured gear.
My vote would be to keep helmets compulsory, but then allow riders over a certain age/experience to choose not to. Maybe speed limited too, helmets compulsory over 40 or something. It would be nice to feel the wind in my hair while I've still a little left round the sides. It'll never happen though.
But I'm going to propose a Heinz law - If you're over 57, and keep the speed below 57 then you can choose to go helmet-less.
kers I expect. Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff