Should motorcyclists be required by law to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle?

Before I rode a motorcycle, my opinion was no. That opinion has not changed now that I do ride a motorcycle. However, I do wear a helmet. It is my personal preference to do so and I'll tell you why.

Helmets save lives.

People who don't wear helmets offer up several flimsy excuses.

It will limit my field of vision and that's less safe than not wearing a helmet. I wear a 3/4 modular helmet. It covers my entire head and face. The front 'jaw' flips up and so does the visor. With the jaw and visor both down, I have no problem seeing. If the visor gets dirty or scratched, flip it up until you can clean or replace it. Many helmets have replaceable visors.

I can't hear with a helmet on. A 3/4 or full face helmet does block some sound. All 3/4 modulars can be flipped up and most full faces have flip up visors. With the front up, more sound gets through. Helmets with less coverage, skid lids, don't cover your ears at all. Even a skid lid is safer than no lid. Besides, a helmet does not make one deaf. Most of the sound it blocks out is the sound of the rider plowing through the air. Many riders say that having that sound cut down allows them to better hear important sounds; like horns, squalling tires and their own bike.

My glasses don't fit with a helmet on. I wear glasses. In the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course, we wore 3/4 open face helmets. Helmets were mandatory in The Course. Most of us wore glasses, both prescription and sun glasses, with no problem. I did find that wearing glasses with a fixed jaw full face helmet was very difficult. With my modular, it is no problem. No problem at all.

Helmets hurt my head/neck. You are wearing the wrong helmet. It does not fit you correctly. Most commonly this complaint comes from wearing a helmet that is too small. A helmet should fit snug. There should be firm, gentile pressure on your head and not much sliding around. It should not squeeze your head like a python is trying to kill you. The more of your face a helmet covers is the more pressure you will feel. The less of your face it covers is the more of the road you will feel if you go sliding across it on your face. Don't worry. The pain stops when you die. Also, try helmets with different amounts and configurations of padding.

A helmet will break your neck in a crash. Again, this goes to wearing the right size. If it fits properly, it should not snap your head and neck around in a crash. The added weight of a helmet is not very much. A rider is far more likely to suffer serious head injury or death from crashing without a helmet than they are to have their neck broken with a helmet on.

Helmets are hot. Yeah, and cement is hard. Get a helmet with sweat wicking lining and vents. I've ridden in 99F heat. My head does sweat some. With the head and jaw vents open, it's really not so bad. Flip open your visor. Try a helmet with no visor, if you really feel you must. Take off your helmet at a stop light to cool off. Use caution though. The cager behind you may not stop. When it's cold out, you'll enjoy the warmth of a helmet.

I've been riding since you were in diapers. Don't worry about me, bro. Hey. Cool. You're a bad ass. You'll be a bad ass and in diapers again when you wipe out bare headed, bro.

In The Course, we were taught to always wear our helmet. Our instructors did and they are certified instructors who have been riding since they were in diapers, bro. I can't think of one reason not to wear a helmet. I do know I've got a much better chance of retaining the ability to think since I do wear one.

Jackets, pants, boots and riding suits are also good options. I have been riding around town and briefly on interstate with only a helmet, leather boots that cover my ankles, a long sleeve shirt and blue jeans. The helmet is the most important piece. Before I take to commuting to work on the highways and interstate, I will have a padded textile jacket and am considering riding pants. I may look 'all duded up' but, I'll be alive to look that way.

Seriously, for safety sake, it does make more sense to have helmet laws than not to. I'm just not about getting up in your business. You wanna be a bad ass jack ass dumb ass, go ahead. Me? I'm protecting my head.

I am not in favor of the way belt laws are written, and I would not be in favor of compulsory helmet wearing laws. However, there should be some law relating to law enforcement informing insurance companies if a helmet is not worn. I am not in favor of corporations being used to enforce behavior changes, but I am not in favor of laws in which people are punished for "crimes" where the victim is themselves. Its difficult to find the ideal way to make people want to wear helmets, without making them criminals or without giving corporations yet more powers.

I am not sure that idiocy can be legislated against directly where the idiocy is only effecting the idiot themselves. At the same time I am in favor of people wearing helmets, and I wince when I think of what a human skull will do when impacting on a road surface or on a speeding vehicle.

In Minnesota, in 2004, 14 of the 50 motorcyclist killed were wearing helmets so even a helmet isn't gonna save every dumb ass. Of course, a lot of riders weren't killed.

I would likely wear one if riding in the vicinity of other dumb asses but wouldn't appreciate feeling obligated to wear one at all times.

I think helmet laws, like seat belt laws, are well intentioned but misguided intrusions into personal liberty. They State ought not, and I maintain does not, have the Constitutional authority to dictate we wear helmets or use seat belts.

That said, I am a die hard supporter of both helmet and seat belt use...I just do not think it is nor should it be within the State's authority to dictate such. The excuses offered in support of such intrusions into personal liberty are as flimsy as the excuses offered by those who do not want to wear them. If the State is worried about health care costs for those who do not wear such personal protective equipment...DO NOT PAY for them. Pass a law that says: if you are not wearing a seat belt or a helmet the State is not going to foot any medical expenses for you. Hell, go even further and pass a law that protects private companies...like insurance companies or hospitals...and say that they do not have to offer treatment or bear any costs associated with your reckless failure to wear a helmet.

How about this excuse: "I can't wear a helmet and talk on my cell phone"?

I totally agree with Law. The State should not be in the position of dictating what equipment bikers have to wear, or drivers and passengers either, at the same time the State should not be required to pay for people who do not follow the "guidelines" laid down by the State for safe auto and motorcycle driving.

How about children? Should child seats be State mandated?

Even if it's not a head injury?

There are only so many hours in a day.

No, of course if it isn't a head injury the point is moot. Seat belts, on the other hand, are a different story. All bets off if you are not wearing one. Although it should not be mandatory to wear a seat belt.

But again, what about the kids?

Yes, if they are minors, then they should have to wear seat belts, but this insistence should end when they reach adulthood.

I think helmets should be mandatory for riding motorcycles just like having to have a license. There are so many styles that the only real complaint that is worth anything is the personal choice one. I am all for personal choice but sometimes we have to be forced to do some things for our own good. I used to hate the seatbelt laws but have grown to appreciate that it is a good thing to wear a seatbelt. Just don't fine me a couple of hundred bucks because I forget once in awhile.

I would, however, be against the states deciding who can and can't be treated for injuries based on a stupidity scale. I would never want to go in an emergency room after a loved one has an accident and hear "We decided your son is a complete idiot for not wearing a helmet so we can't treat him. You want us to put what is left of him in the trunk so he doesn't bleed on the floor of your car?"

There was a time, I didn't think seat belt laws were appropriate.... I have come to realize a seatbelt worn by the driver secures him/her in place enough to better control a vehicle in the event of an accident. The passengers become projectiles also, causing potential harm to other people if he or she is not wearing a seat belt.

I believe helmets should be optional. I interned for a large law firm while in college, and was subjected to the results of many mtorcycle accidents. The ones I saw, the victims were in bad shape regardless whether wearing a helmet. A helmet might add protection for a motorcyclist traveling at low speeds through retirement neighborhoods, but once he/she is driving on the real road.....in the real world...well, flying off a motorcycle at 60 mph with a helmet on will help little.

I ski, and the new safety precaution is wearing a helmet...probably a good idea, but I can't get excited about wearing one skiing. I know wearing one might save my life. I think I will just stop skiing if it is this dangerous, it's not like I'm Picabo Street flying down the mountain at 70 mph + ....

That a helmet won't offer enough protection in so and so situation is another argument used by those who don't wear them. True enough, that if I crash head long at 70 mph into a fully loaded gravel truck also doing 70 mph, I'll probably die on impact and the helmet is just more wreckage. True enough, that there's a fair chance of that happening in that situation even if I'm buckled into an armored car.

Now let's say my crash involves me tumbling head over heels and sliding down the street, at 70 mph. That helmet will probably save my skull from being ground off my neck. That's well worth it.

As 'serves you right' as denying medical treatment to a motorcyclist who was injured worse for not wearing a helmet than he would have been if he were may seem, damn, that's harsh. It would also require a case by case investigation on each crash. I don't want anyone to wait for a scene investigation before they have what's left of their brain sealed back into their head. What if the crash was not even the fault of the motorcyclist? Then what?

Maybe making motorcyclist who shun helmets carry medical insurance to pay for their head trauma is an option. Even that though would be a round about way of making helmets mandatory.

"Helmet" means DOT approved in the USA. DOT and Snell is said to be even better. Check with the manufacturer of a helmet before you buy it. Those DOT and Snell stickers can be mocked up by anyone with a half decent printer.

You can be killed driving a motorcyle and traveling down the road at 30 mph and having a good topple!
Oh, if I were to drive a motorcycle I would be sure to wear a helmet, even if the choice were optional. I believe the government (and I'm one of those Ray liberals ) over regulates our choices. What is next? Forcing people to wear helmets when they drive golf carts? Did you know there are over 13,000 serious golf cart accidents in the US a year? Serious meaning concussions to the head and hemorrhaging... How about horse back riding? When will horseback riders have to, by law, begin wearing a helmet?

You could be killed from a slip and fall in the shower. Wear a helmet.

Motorcycle crashes are on the increase. Motorcycle riding is on the increase. This is not a coincidence. The number of people who successfully operate a motorcycle is also on the increase and that's no coincidence either.

As gas prices continue to climb, we are going to see more and more motorcycles on the road. It's happening already. There will be a greater increase in motorcycle crashes, but in the long run, the roads will become safer for motorcycles. People will become more aware of them and learn to share the road better. Motorcyclists will also learn to operate their machines better.

The number one reason given by cagers (car drivers) who are at fault in car vs motorcycle crashes is "I didn't even see the bike". It's an old saying. Watch for motorcycles. They're everywhere.

I don't know the number one cause of car vs bike where the bike is at fault but, I bet speed and trick riding rank up there pretty high. Lane splitting probably accounts for a good number too.

Lane splitting, aka filtering, is when motorcyclist drives between two lanes of traffic. It is legal in California.

HA! not true... you can get a bluetooth adapter thats either built into a helmet or can be retro fitted to just about any 3/4 or full face helmet. so.. there ya go.. and as a matter of fact, there will be less wind noise with a full face helmet so you'll be able to talk easier...

I too think to a point that it should be the riders choice, as long as it doesn't affect me. Now, I've heard a statistic that says something to the effect of Kentucky Motorcycle insurance is almost 3 times more expensive than Tennessee. Kentucky doesn't have a helmet law, and Tennessee does. In Kentucky, it doesn't matter if you decide to wear a helmet, you will still pay the same rate as some guy that "chooses" to not wear one. Then it's affecting me... There is some rattling going on that the Georgia state legeslature is considering a bill that would no longer require helmet use for consenting adults. Maybe I'll call my insurance company to find out what affect that will have on me...

There are small price reductions in insurance for parking in a garage at home, sometimes at work and sometimes even just parking 'off street'.

The are breaks in the cost for the safety rating of a vehicle or increases for not being as highly rated. This one shows up in motorcycle insurance, big time. A cruiser costs far lass to insure than a sport bike.

Given that, I say helmets wearers should get a break on their insurance rates. We are wearing the safety gear.

I agree with you.. but here's the thing... I go to get insurance, all the while telling the insurance agent and signing something that states "Yep, I always wear my helmet, wouldn't dream of riding without it, heck, I might start walking with it on because it's much safer" Then BAM! I'm in an accident and no helmet in sight. I don't die, becuase I was only going 25 MPH in a school zone when a St. Bernhard ran out in front of me, and I rode into a parked car trying to avoid the beast...

From an insurance companies point of view, I provided false statements on my insurance application, and by golly, I'll get dropped from my insurance. However, there are those pesky statistics that insurance companies love so much that say something like a rider not wearing a helmet is at an X% higher risk of traumatic brain injury. So, I'm now a cucumber drooling on myself because either the machine helping me breath makes it impossible for me to swallow, or I just can't seem to remember how to swallow at this point.

The insurance company's choice here is not as cut and dried as one might think. They can, according to the contract that I signed when I got the coverage states, refuse to pay any and all claims due to false statements provided on the application. At which time, my now destitute spouse will get a call from a very hungry attorny who promises that "if you don't win, I don't get paid!" and even if it's not quite right, and I was definately in the wrong, the insurance company will either be in court for years, or more than likely just pay my spouse, and her now fat attorney off to keep down expenses. Oh, by the way.. Those expenses are passed along to you because I was an idiot.

With that kind of risk, well, me telling an insurance company that I always wear my helmet probably isn't going to get me a discount. Now if a hidden arm held my shoulders and slammed said helmet on my head as soon as I started up the bike?.. now thats worth a discount.... LOL

Too bad you guys don't live in New Hampshire. A. You're not required to maintain insurance on vehicles you own(unless of course you're deemed high risk).

And B. There's no helmet law.

Live Free or Die!

Or both.

This entire discussion serves to illustrate a point I think is seldom made strongly enough...there are things worse than death. Mottos like "Live Free Or Die!" and "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" serve to illustrate exactly that...Those who would accept any tyranny, no matter how slight it might seem, rather than risk the discomfort of resisting it, let alone risking death to fight it, deserve tyranny. So what if failing to wear a helemt increases your risk of death...It is not the government's place to tell me not to court death for myself. The frame of mind that suggests the government ought to have power to dictate our behavior because that behavior might represent a danger to ourselves acknowledges the position that we answer to and our subservient to our government. Our was not founded with that ideal in mind but rather with an opposite ideal...one that held our individual liberty and freedom to be worth fighting, even to the death, to protect.

BORN TO BE WILD!

Well you can't fight the Allmighty Dollar...

I agree with you in principle. The basic nature of the constitution is that no one should be able to tell you what to do unless it affects others. No one should be able to tell me tht I HAVE to do anything but die and pay taxes. Unfortunately in this case, if there was no helmet law in my state, it would be affecting me as in Higher Insurance Rates. Some times protecting people from there own stupidity saves others money.

One problem with your argument Lawmage lies in your signature. If our government is big enough to give us a system of roads it is also big enough to place restrictions on it's use. It is a trade-off we accept by making use of what only they are big enough to give us. It doesn't rise to the level of tyranny that is unacceptable to us.

To hit on what Bear mentions, it is the government that mandates the need for insurance to operate a vehicle on the roads they provide. If they then decide to force compliance through the pocketbook are the doing the bidding of the tyrannical government that built their empire? Even if it does, it doesn't rise to the level of tyranny that calls for bloodshed. There is always a trade-off as nothing is free.

Right on, Jo, except the arguement could be made that the government used our money to build those roads. It's what's happening here.

We must replace a major bridge that's over 20 yrs beyond its design life. The original bridge was tolled. Once the bonds were paid off through tolling, the tolls were dropped. This was followed by an unprecedented and unplanned for period of growth.

In order to replace the bridge, tolls (according to the DoT) will have to be re-instituted and a lot of the people are saying, 'No!--We paid for it once with tolls, let the Government pay for it's replacement.' No one seems to realize that when the government pays for something, it's using our money to pay for it. And, if the money isn't there (beyond a certain amount,) we have to provide it--if we want to get across a bridge.

We are the government! If we mandate helmet laws, if we mandate the need for insurance to operate a vehicle on the roads we have provided for everyone's use--are we the tyrannical government?

We're certainly the people/government faced with rising medical costs, rising medical insurance costs in order to keep stupid people alive who don't have enough sense to drive safely and defensively, who don't buckle-up, who drink and drive, and who don't wear helmets to protect us.

Let freedom ring--but think about everyone else affected by your moment of choice.

I pretty much agree with everyone. It's not the government's place to tell us we must drive cars and motorcycles safely, that is our own responsibility.

However, so many of us are irresponsible twits of the lowers order that the adrenalin rush of driving a bike into an oncoming truck exceeds common sense.

I still have no problem with that if it weren't for the fact that

1. innocent people can get hurt and
2. we pay for that stupidity

There's no answer that will be satisfactory to everyone.