Perhaps they ought to be left there like roadkill.

[Scruit]

your mom's a useless statistic.

Yeah, I remind myself of that fact every year on the anniversary of her death.

Only it was smoking that did her in, not riding without a helmet.

[mattm]

Sorry to bust your balls, but you are as bad as the guy that tells me the reasons he doesn't wear a helmet is because the government ain't gonna keep him down.

Do you tell the insurance company that you do triple digit speeds sometimes? Do you tell them that you don't always wear full leather on the street? Do you tell them that you sometimes might have a few drinks and then take off on your bike? Do you tell them that you sometimes rip through traffic because you are running late?

Not saying you do a single one of these, but there are a ton of bikers that do. Sportbike, cruiser, sport touring, etc. All these groups of riders do things that would raise their rates if an accident occurred because of them.

Again, if no helmet law, you can say that it is ignorant to not wear gear. You can also do the community a favor and educate the reasons to wear gear. I used to go to elementary and middle schools and promote bicycle helmet safety and use the racebikes and our gear as examples of what we wear and why and promote the use of helmets by kids and when they ride their bikes. We'd give helmets away from Bell and stuff like stickers, posters, etc. The idea was to get them started on safety and promote that they use this mentality when they grow up.

Do something constructive vs. labeling and acting like they screw your life up...

I did say at the beginning Let's add a little vitriol...

[mattm]

1. The helmet less rider costs us all more money through insurance premiums - They do? How about the fact there are some that buy a bike that is well beyond their abilities and within a short series of miles are killed or crash due to that idea? Why not quit acting like it is fine to allow a new rider to buy a 1000 sportbike? Why not propose a license structure like Europe?

2. The helmet-less rider costs us all time and money as the Highway Patrol has to shut down the highway to investigate the almost certainly fatal accident - They are the only reasons for this? How about the car that pulls in front of a kid on a bike? How about a rider doing a wheelie on the freeway and slams into the back of a car? How about a rider that blows a turn due to drinking and piles his shit into oncoming traffic? How about...

3. The helmet-less rider costs us all more money as the fire department and the highway patrol and the sheriff wants to investigate the brain splatter on the road. - They never have to investigate the other crashes? So, if they wear a helmet and a tank top and shorts, they are good to go? Or, if they wear full gear, they most certainly don't have ANYTHING to clean up nor investigate, right? "Oh, they are in full gear. Nothing to check out."

4. The helmet-less passenger who only adds to the cost of the helmet-less rider... - Yeah, because there never is a killed passenger on a bike that is in full gear like the rider. Nobody ever pulls out in front of bikes with riders in full gear...

I do not disagree with any of your points. Frankly the points I was making were a little tongue in cheek and meant to mimic "the guy that tells me the reasons he doesn't wear a helmet is because the government ain't gonna keep him down."

Sorry, needed to find a better sarcasm smiley.

[YSR_Racer_99]

My kids see riders on the street without lids and say "No helmet". I say that at least they have that right, even though it may not be the one I choose. Too much gubberment.

I see riders with shorts, flip-flops, and sunglasses, and shake my head, but I USED TO BE THAT GUY. Lots of times. That was a long time ago, but at least I had the right to make that decision.

I sort of agree with the Euro model of testing up to bigger bikes, but completely disagree with the aspect that we need government giving us more rules.

I'm an adult. I'm an American. I pay my insurance premiums (health, life, and vehicles). I'm responsible, and I realize that I risk my life/ health/ livelihood every time I ride (and most of the time when I don't). I want the freedom to make my own decisions.

That doesn't make me equal to a struck deer lying on the side of the road. I'm not forfeiting my rights, nor the services that my taxes pay-for by going for a ride.

[IN_NO_OH]

Don't forget that while arguing that half of all motorcycle accidents are caused by cars, you are also pointing out that half are caused by the bike. Pretty useless statistic really.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Hmmnn... If this what you conclude you need to consider the matter more carefully.

The thread is a discussion about whether motorcyclists are especially reckless on the roadways. Yet, you say that the fact that half of all of the motorcycle fatalities are the fault of automobile drives is "pretty useless" in the discussion.

Well, no. For one thing, even if we ignored single-vehicle deaths, which are, in fact, a large fraction of motorcycle fatalities, the "roadkill" remark would be pretty offensive to the large fraction of motorcyclists killed who are the victim of automobilist negligence.

For another, "all" includes single-vehicle wrecks. So, if we assume that motorcyclists are at fault in the majority of single-vehicle fatalities, it follows that car drivers are at fault in the majority of multiple-vehicle motorcycle fatalities. I'd say that in a discussion in which some columnist is complaining that motorcyclists ought to be left like roadkill this fact is both relevant and important.

Actually, since about 1/3 of the motorcycle deaths are single-vehicle collisions, and the very large majority of these are the fault of the motorcyclist, it follows-- as someone like yourself keen on drawing inference will see-- that something approaching 2/3, a large majority, of multiple-vehicle motorcycle fatalities are the fault of automobile drivers.

In case the point still is not clear, notice that the fraction of multiple-vehicle motorcyclist fatalities in which motorcyclists are at fault could have been higher. It could have been half, which would have implied equal fault in causing multiple vehicle collisions as compared to automobilists. It could have been a large majority, which would have implied on average more recklessness in operation as compared to automobile drivers. It isn't either of those fractions, which anyone interested in the discussion and paying attention should say is informative.

The real point, I would say, is that motorcyclists as a group are not reckless simply for getting on bikes, even if some are involved in reckless single-vehicle wrecks and even if some cause multiple vehicle collisions, whatever the likelihood of doing either compared to car drivers.

Still, surely it's relevant to the public policy discussion that it is automobile drivers who, as a group, disproportionately cause multiple-vehicle motorcycle fatalities. One might more plausibly on this basis argue, for example, that the appropriate response is better training or licensing restrictions for drivers, rather than complaints about motorcycle helmets.