Do you think Motorcycles riders should be forced by law to wear helmets in all 50 states?

I'm just curious how the forum members feel about the issue and I'll give my opinion later.

Riders of all ages I meant.

What? Everyone scared to put their opinion down?

i guess it's about the same thing as making people wear seat belts. i definitely think there should be laws requiring kids up to a certain age to wear helmets/seat belts.  after that, i suppose not.  

Only conservative motorcycle riders should be forced by law to wear helmets for their own safety .. and for that reason liberals should be forced by law not to wear them..

I don't think they should be required to but can I add a requirement?

I know somewhere I've heard the term "Hand's off my body."

By all means...lets hear it!

I also strongly believe that the issue is one of personal choice. The issue is one that has affected my family personally, and I still feel the way I do.

My brother, who is 45 years old now, was paralyzed from waist down in a MC accident when he was 17. He T-boned another vehicle at a 4 way stop and was thrown 65' where he landed on his head after breaking both femurs on the handle bars. The helmet he was wearing, NO DOUBT, saved his life. On top of that it was the only time he did wear his helmet after receiving 3 tickets for not wearing previously because Oklahoma, had a mandatory under 18 helmet law.

(DJBROW bear with me because I know you despise personal experiences...just take a deep breath and exhale slowly)

Personally, I started out riding a Honda trail 90 scooter at 16 and didn't own a helmet until 2 bikes later ( '82 Yamaha Maxim 550 ) which gave me my only MC accident experience. I only wore the helmet when I felt like it...when I did slightly rear end the left-corner vehicle in front of me, I had the helmet strapped to the back of the bike. (When the cop asked me if I was wearing it and threatening a ticket I lied and said I was wearing it. He then countered by saying some witnesses had told him they thought I wasn't wearing. I simply told him to try to find a scratch on my face.)   To be continued...

....Luckily, I didn't hit my head on anything at all and came away with only moderate road- rash and strained ligament in my right ankle. (I rolled it under my bike when I laid it down. The bike was completely still drive able and I almost missed the car altogether. The part of my bike that contacted the far left of the rear bumper was the engine fins on the right front of my bike.)

I understand completely that wearing helmets and gear is much safer than not wearing anything. I was surprised to learn that there are a great deal of people that feel as strongly about having helmet laws as I feel there should not having helmet laws for 18+ year old people. This is based on a vlog on a very popular video website.

The issue become relevant for me again because I am purchasing a bike again after going 10 years without owning one. The last bike I had was a Honda CBR 900RR. I am purchasing a CBR 1000RR and I will be purchasing a couple of helmets now that I am older and a little wiser. However, I will still not wear one while just farting around town.

I will post a link to a bike just like the one I'm getting below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmVX5eG6N2Y

I am even strongly considering purchasing a $1500 Skully helmet.
For those of you that aren't familiar...(HUD)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqZtcH1HZ10

I would like to see them paying for extended coverage from their insurance. For example, I am a smoker so I have to pay higher premium for my health and life insurances. I have absolutely no problem with that because that's my choice. By the same token, I don't want to have to pay for someone's choice if his/her coverage is insufficient.

That isn't a bad argument but what is there to ensure a helmet wearer puts a lid on 100% of the time. Insurance companies can't spend the man hours to verify people do as they say they will.

I don't think there should be a law for people over 18. I think you'd be foolish to ride without one but is a choice people should have on their own. I just put 18 cause of minor status. 

That is correct and makes sense. So as crazy as it sounds at first it is the Helmet wearers that cause the insurance rates to be higher.

I don't think there are a whole lot of systems that are 100% foolproof but police report would be a good indication. I do realize the death rate would be much higher in helmetless accidents but there are other emotional issues involved as well.

Bowl - I think your response to bunny is off base. It seems that it would be pretty easy for insurance to determine if a helmet was worn or not. Witnesses, police reports etc... Should not be that hard in most cases.

To answer the question though. I agree with others. Choose as you will but either a) pay higher insurance or. realizing that is difficult cause that would imply that a driver does not wear a helmet 100% of the time then b) adjust insurance payouts accordingly if a helmet is or isn't worn during the accident in question.

It's not required in NH where I live and no one wears them. I say leave it up to the individual.
My buddy had a quick argument one time with a Massholes liberal.
The lib told my buddy it's too dangerous to drive a motorcycle without a helmet or drive without a seatbelt on.
My buddies response was spectacular. He said he would start wearing a heet and seatbelt as soon as the state of Massachusetts installs seat belts in every bus that drives kids to school. For a state with a seatbelt law school buses don't have seatbelts. That's theasshole way!!

Ah, but it makes more sense that the Helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers. So your solution should be flip flopped.

why would riders with helmets drive up insurance rates more than those who don't?

I hate to answer a question with a question but...

Is it more expensive to bury a person or put them in a Hospital for 2-3 months?

The US National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA), one of the most influential government agencies when it comes to public safety on roadways, has stated that current school buses are among the safest forms of transportation available. After studying the results of crashes involving these buses, the NHTSA stated that there was no compelling reason to believe the use of seatbelts should be federally mandated. Most accidents were either frontal or rear collisions, which means that passengers were protected by a safety feature called compartmentalization.

I knew an engineer of school buses for years.  This is basically what he said.  Always traveling the country for court.  Always said school buses were ultra safe.  Never looked it up.  But assumed he was right,  but guess in his interest to say so.

i guess it would depend on the situation, how long in the hospital without dying vs. how long in the hospital and then dying and other factors. 

but it seems clear that if helmets can prevent injuries, which i suspect they can, people with helmets would need less treatment after accidents thereby causing less expense for insurance companies, on average. 

I'd love to see the research showing that people involved in a motorcycle accident while wearing a helmet cost more than people involved in an accident while not wearing a helmet.

For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.

"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.