Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Misc News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-22-2003, 05:35 AM   #91
captainwhoopass
Founding Member
 
captainwhoopass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,670
Default Re: Helmet Debate in Arkansas

Yes, but (totally my opinion) this argument isn't applicable to bikes because the rider's body is not restrained by a seat belt in a crash. What happens in a car wouldn't happen on a bike.
__________________
<blockquote>
\"I knew it. I\'m surrounded by a$$holes.\" [b][i]Lord Helmet, Spaceballs
captainwhoopass is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 01-22-2003, 05:50 AM   #92
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Good post but technically

Yes you are correct it takes a force to stop your body & bike which causes an acceleration is this case a decelleration Thus a the stopping force F=ma. But the point I was correcting was it is Newtons conservation of energy law that and it is energy that varies with the square of the velocity. Thanks for your further clarification point about the "during a collision, isnt it masssive accelerations/decelerations that will cause the injuries? " Excellent Point.
KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 05:59 AM   #93
KPaulCook
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,752
Default Re: Good post but technically

Thanks I just had breakfast. But seriously I hadn't really thought about what massive decelleration/impacts would do your internal organs. I guess the human body was not really designed for this huh. Until we put airbags in your body cavity we are left with trying to design cars that slow the deceleration i.e. crumple zones which try dispate the energy rather than transfer it directly to the occupant.

KPaulCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 08:59 AM   #94
PistolPete
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
Default Re: Helmet Debate in Arkansas

The helmet issue will probably never die. Wearing appropriate head protection always descreases your chance or the severity of an injury. That is why it is called "head protection". For best results, the head protection should be matched to the activity. This is not rocket science.



However, phrases like "anyone who doesn't wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle is an idiot" offers nothing to a discussion on helmet laws. All they do is anger others. People who write those things are using the same reasoning as a the person who says "anyone who rides a motorycle is an idiot". They might even use the freind with the bat anology. Would you rather wear a helmet and take the blow, not wear the helmet and try your luck, or put your happy ass in a steel cage away from the bat? To the driver of a car the choice is clear. They wan't a level of protection in a wreck a motorcycle cannot offer. The issue is not whether people should wear a helmet or not, but whether they should be offered the choice. Calling someone and idiot or a moron only offers your opinion on their actions, and does not seek to understand theirs. Apparantly they ride without a helmet because they enjoy it. Whether that reflects on their intelligence, only they can know.



Creating a new law infringes on our personal freedoms. To protect personal freedoms we need to take personal responsibility for our actions. It's a give an take. If the voting public feels a group of people are abusing freedoms and not being responsible for the consequences, they have the right in this country to take those freedoms away. The important thing to remember is once they are gone, it is very unlikely those freedoms will ever be restored without a significant restructuring of our government.



The examples are countless. Because a handful of yahoos drive monster trucks on the street, your state passes a maximum bumper hieght law. Does this law keep people from driving monster trucks on the street? Probably not. Does this mean you have to worry about getting hassled by the cops if you put a moderate lift on your truck? It might. In my area kids are required to wear helmets while riding bicycles, using skate boards, or roller skates. Will this prevent some injuries? Of course. Did the law go too far? There are people on both sides of that issue.



I can only recommend you be careful of what you support and why. Do you support mandatory helmet laws because they decrease the chance of serious injury in an accident? A governor on your motorcycle would do the same thing. Of course, a state liscened track could disable the governor for track days. In the view of the average public, this would offer a reasonable infringement of a small portions of the populations personal freedoms. Would the motorcycle community support that? What about mandatory air bag vests tethered to your bike? What about mandatory ABS? All these issues could be passed in the name of safety.



A five point harness, proper helmet, a fire supression system, and roll cage would all increase safety in car accidents. Who decides what is reasonable and what is excessive? In our government, it is typically the legislators that make these decisions, usually after pressure from a group of people be they constituents or not. Once lawmakers get a taste for taking away freedoms, they seem to hunger for it. Just look at cars. In one generation we went from shoulder belts being an optional accessory to mandatory driver and passenger air bags. Who knows what is next? I dislike any foothold the lawmakers have to take away my personal freedom.



I for one always vote freedom first. I wear a helmet when I ride, even when I am in Illinois, which does not require it. Hell, I wear a helmet when I play hockey, where the speeds are much slower.(of course the chance of having something hit you in the head is higher playing hockey.....) I have compromised my freedom and chosen a helmet that offers reasonable protection. I'm glad it was my decision. I would make the same decision again.





PistolPete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 10:20 AM   #95
Ken_Packard
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 86
Default Re: Helmet Debate in Arkansas

You made several very good points in your post.



The bat analogy simply sought to illustrate the magnitude of the choice to not wear a helmet. Individual motivations for that specific decision will differ and are quite frankly irrelevant.



You are correct that the non-riding public can also point the finger with equal or greater disdain towards motorcyclists in general, questioning the validity/logic/intelligence concerning our overall choice to ride. It boils down to different levels of risk and what the individual is willing to accept. We all accept the overall risk involved with riding in general, while only some of us choose to accept the "heightened" risk of riding sans head protection. The cagers don't understand our choice (or don't care), while some of us don't understand the decisions made by some within our own "group". This, "I don't understand why you do what you do" cycle can go on forever and be applied to basically every aspect of life. So you're right...don't go there, because there is no end.



We appear to agree on this issue on many levels, namely that it should ultimately be a matter of individual choice. In addition, every choice has a consequence and everyone should be ready to answer for their actions.



Lastly, I believe that I essentially made the same point that you made (in a much abbreviated form) concerning government intervention and our choices/freedoms. There have been comments on this thread, and several others in the past on this site, concerning government regulated training for riders and "stepped" licensing. This issue of government interference (which is ultimately what the helmet issue is about, no?) is a Pandora's Box that will never be shut once it is opened.



Indeed, who decides what is just and for the public good, versus what is intrusion of persoanl freedom? That's a scary question for me, and one that I'd prefer to answer persoanlly. Trust is not something of which I have a surplus, especially for politicians.
Ken_Packard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 12:28 PM   #96
arizonagerg
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 67
Default Re: Helmet Debate in Arkansas

I agree. This all started when people started asserting that if motorcycle rider should be required to wear helmets, then car drivers should too. Motorcycles and cars are two different beasts when it comes to collision/injury dynamics. So I was trying to make the point that what is good for the goose, is not necessarily good for the gander.
arizonagerg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 12:46 PM   #97
arizonagerg
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 67
Default Re: Good post but technically

Very well said Dave. I was in the public safety thing for awhile too. I would occasionally give safety talks to area emloyers/schools. I always thought the three collision schmeal was effective, especially with some gorry mva photos. I was going to go into that, but you did quite nicely. Especially with the inelastic ligament info. That was good info that I had never heard before.
arizonagerg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 02:04 PM   #98
rsheidler
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Helmet Debate in Arkansas

Yeah, but car racers have been wearing helmets for many years before the HANS and similar devices were introduced. Guess they were all a bunch of dumb $hits.
rsheidler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 03:45 PM   #99
r1derbike
Founding Member
 
r1derbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 32
Default Re: Helmet Debate in Arkansas

Let me be perfectly frank about the impetus behind my support of the helmet law. It is strictly selfish. I don't enjoy paying ridiculously high medical/insurance premiums in this state, because of the so called "right to choose" crowd. I couldn't care less about their perceived loss of personal freedoms if and when the helmet law is signed, or the ramblings of those doomsday prophets who perceive that being required to wear a helmet will send society into an uncontrollable downward spiral into the abyss of a police state.



Simple economics, really. Perhaps calling helmetless riders "idiots" may not be descriptive enough...how about, "ignorant idiots?"



Outta here...Charles (viper)
__________________
\'00 RWB R1 #34...\'cuz there can only be THE ONE.
\'85 ZX900 Ninja...the mutha\' of all modern sportbikes.
\'03 FJR 1300...\'cuz ya\' gotta keep HER happy.
Click on link below to see my R1, FJR, and Ninja.
http://www.photoaccess.com/share/guest.jsp?ID=A0B19
r1derbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2003, 05:29 PM   #100
dwr461
Founding Member
 
dwr461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 246
Default Re: Good post but technically

No sarcasm here, I concede to your superior physics knowledge. I've only had 8 credits and that was algebra based. As a Engineer, I'm sure you know much more of the correct math and formulas. Maybe you can help me get ready for my impending MCAT.



Take care,



Dave
dwr461 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off