But imagine how cool you'd look
[video=youtube;CaHorQCtQhM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaHorQCtQhM[/video]
Riding without a helmet
- Thread starter 油井緋色
- Start date
But imagine how cool you'd look
[video=youtube;CaHorQCtQhM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaHorQCtQhM[/video]
This rings a bell... I know I've seen statistics somewhere on fatality rates of accidents with or without helmets. The statistics seemed to support that the healthcare costs of the helmet wearing crowd as a whole were lower than the helmetless crowd. That was at least half a decade ago, though.
I'd like people to have the freedom to choose. I personally wouldn't ever give up my helmet. It's a chick magnet, it looks good, I like my head and brains where they are right now and it saves me from the wind and debris.
Unfortunately the "trial and error" approach wouldn't work with helmets like it does with gear. Tried squidding, loved it, lost some skin, over it. Tried going helmetless, crashed, splattered.
Unfortunately the "trial and error" approach wouldn't work with helmets like it does with gear. Tried squidding, loved it, lost some skin, over it. Tried going helmetless, crashed, splattered.
suprPHREAK
Well-known member
As I recall reading somewhere, if you look in helmet vs no helmet states, the death rate is similar, but the cause is different. Obviously in no-helmet states it is head injury, but in helmet states, the causes result from excess risks being taken. Having a helmet, in short, gives the rider a sense of invincibility, which leads to greater risks taken (excessive speed, stunts, aggressive riding).
So the difference then becomes the circumstances in these deaths, and what we find as a society to be palatable. Take for example:
1- Rider without a helmet, going 40kph through a neighbourhood. This person is a cautious, aware, and law-abiding rider. A child runs out into the street, the rider swerves, hits the curb falls off hits his head, and dies (or becomes a veg).
2- Rider with helmet on doing the Lawrence Ramps at 120kph wipes out, wraps around a guardrail post, broken back, death or veg results.
I'd be willing to bet that example #1 is less acceptable to people as it was so easily preventable and was following all the rules, whereas #2 was being a fool and breaking all the rules. "But supr," you will say, "Rider #2 in your example was an idiot regardless of if a helmet was worn, so what is the point?" Well, the point is rider #1 also took an unnecessary risk. They are both equally fools (both are dead, right?), but as a society we cannot accept it when a "good" person dies, so we put laws into place to make us all feel good. Nannyism? Arguable, because this is not really wrapping your kids in foam rubber, as much as it is a social consciousness to protect good people from themselves.
Sure death costs less to all insurers and caregivers, but the real point is that it hurts more when you cannot put the blame on something else. If anyone here has had a close friend or loved one die in an accident, almost everyone at some points does the "if only I could have done more". In having laws such as those for helmets, and seat belts, that becomes our collective "more". It is really only when you realize the outcome was beyond your control, that you accept the inevitable result. Having laws such as these allow us to reach that end more quickly, because we realize that person's personal choice to break the rules was just that, their choice.
So the difference then becomes the circumstances in these deaths, and what we find as a society to be palatable. Take for example:
1- Rider without a helmet, going 40kph through a neighbourhood. This person is a cautious, aware, and law-abiding rider. A child runs out into the street, the rider swerves, hits the curb falls off hits his head, and dies (or becomes a veg).
2- Rider with helmet on doing the Lawrence Ramps at 120kph wipes out, wraps around a guardrail post, broken back, death or veg results.
I'd be willing to bet that example #1 is less acceptable to people as it was so easily preventable and was following all the rules, whereas #2 was being a fool and breaking all the rules. "But supr," you will say, "Rider #2 in your example was an idiot regardless of if a helmet was worn, so what is the point?" Well, the point is rider #1 also took an unnecessary risk. They are both equally fools (both are dead, right?), but as a society we cannot accept it when a "good" person dies, so we put laws into place to make us all feel good. Nannyism? Arguable, because this is not really wrapping your kids in foam rubber, as much as it is a social consciousness to protect good people from themselves.
Sure death costs less to all insurers and caregivers, but the real point is that it hurts more when you cannot put the blame on something else. If anyone here has had a close friend or loved one die in an accident, almost everyone at some points does the "if only I could have done more". In having laws such as those for helmets, and seat belts, that becomes our collective "more". It is really only when you realize the outcome was beyond your control, that you accept the inevitable result. Having laws such as these allow us to reach that end more quickly, because we realize that person's personal choice to break the rules was just that, their choice.
Well...if that's true, why is there no gear law?!
I don't really care if anyone wears gear, helmets, diapers, or whatever. However, if it lowers the cost of something we all pay for...=)
So long as I don't have to pay for ANY of the expense, care and bills (short and long term, and even things such as increased insurance premium because insurance has to pay for it and off-load it on to me) as a result of sans helmet - I'm cool with it. Unfortunately (in this regard), this is Canada.
So actually, this nannyism-law (as you call it) of keeping you safe from yourself is partially incorrect. It's keeping the rest of us safe from those that would ride sans helmet and making everyone else pay for it - quite literally.
Last edited:
油井緋色;2180591 said:
This isn't the one I was thinking of, but this is more recent.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6123a1.htm
I rode without a helmet a few years back while in Ohio and will say it did feel weird. Personally I wouldn't do it again.
I quickly realized I missed that protection... the wind at higher speeds made it difficult to breathe properly and it hurt the eyes, but I think worst of all was being hit by bugs, rocks, etc.
I quickly realized I missed that protection... the wind at higher speeds made it difficult to breathe properly and it hurt the eyes, but I think worst of all was being hit by bugs, rocks, etc.
That's very interesting. I'll try to look for a cost break down in the future.
Btw....is your picture from my little pony? lmao
油井緋色;2180687 said:
fav.me/d5swt8u
油井緋色;2180591 said:
Where would it start/stop? Need to wear jeans and gloves? Jeans are pretty much useless in a crash anyways (not saying the kevlar/motorcycle stuff; just regular jeans) and a lot of cheap gloves are going to disintegrate in a crash anyways.
XenoVibe
Well-known member
The fact that the car is so damaged and motorcycle relatively fine, holy ****. What a lemon. Daewoo Lanos?
I really wish I knew which country(s) did this, but I know it's European at least
. I think the requirement was every piece had to be CE rated gear.vociferous
Well-known member
it hit a soft spot.
It's a Peugeot 106, aka "coffin on wheels".
I really wish I knew which country(s) did this, but I know it's European at least
Interesting... Thanks for posting this...
I like the CE rating system. Like Snell/ECE on helmets it gives you some level of comfort to know that the gear has actually passed/met a standard. I wish there was a CE level 2 on knee, elbow, and shoulder armor like there is for the back protectors.
I read somewhere recently about a CE rating for abrasion resistance. Would love to see this implemented in a series of ratings.
starboy869
Well-known member
I'm trying to find a video of that guy who keep doing 360 turns while his bike slid down the road. The one with a deep road rash mark all the way around.
Wearing a helmet for me isn't worth the risk of being helmet less. Also maybe it's so engraved into my head as a kid with dirt bikes.
Then again on anything I don't ride w/o full gear. The aftermath of being injured isn't worth it or I just know better. Hell one time I was checking out my cute neighbor while moving my bike in, and I missed with the kickstand. Fawk. Having a foot peg dig into my shin with a 500lb bike sucked balls. No way some fruit tart slamming into at a stop light and do some damage.
Wearing a helmet for me isn't worth the risk of being helmet less. Also maybe it's so engraved into my head as a kid with dirt bikes.
Then again on anything I don't ride w/o full gear. The aftermath of being injured isn't worth it or I just know better. Hell one time I was checking out my cute neighbor while moving my bike in, and I missed with the kickstand. Fawk. Having a foot peg dig into my shin with a 500lb bike sucked balls. No way some fruit tart slamming into at a stop light and do some damage.
This.
Get em while they're young like the cigarette companies do. Once used to lids most people wouldn't go lidless. Unlike tattoos, mostly there are no do overs from smashed mellon.
