What would you do?

[the Ferret]

MG check out the classic Bell full face worn by the older Japanese fellow (look carefully) in the Spirt Never Changes video posted in the 2017 CB thread. I'd buy another Bell like that.

[Offroad]

I've always worn one, not necessarily because I was safety conscious but to keep bugs and wind from hitting me in the face at speed.

I think most helmetless riders are behind fairings which gives them a false sense of security. There are no seat belts, if anything happens you become a projectile.

When I test rode a fairing’ed up Victory, I couldn't even feel the wind....they even had "vents" to allow some air to get to the riders. It was slow and sluggish and no wind. I thought if I'm going to have a slow sluggish vehicle that I can't even experience the sense of wind and speed, I'm might as well be riding in a car with cage and seat belts..

That is one thing I like and the same thing I don't like about our naked bikes. The wind gives you a real sense of how fast you are going, but at the same time can be irritating at anything above 40mph.

[MM300_imp]

I wear a helmet even though my state (PA) doesn't require me to. I like that we have a choice and every once in a great while I'll putt around my little rural town without one but I long ago stopped leaving town lidless. What I was comfortable with as a kid I no longer am.

[Haystack_imp]

Automobile occupants should wear helmets.

Two primary arguments for helmet laws: 1) save lives, and 2) to keep health care costs down for all of us due to those who survive motorcycle crashes and who need medical rehabilitation.

However, what is never reported is the number of persons in automobile accidents who die due to head injuries (even though they were wearing seat belts), and those who survive car crashes and require lengthy medical rehabilitation due to closed head injuries.

When a motorcyclist is involved in a fatal accident, it is immediately reported whether or not a helmet was being worn. When a car crash occurs, it is reported whether or not a seat belt was being worn, but no details as to the cause of death or injury.

Since there are far more deaths and head injuries caused by car crashes (even though seats belts were used) than motorcycle crashes, would it not be more effective, and hence more humanitarian, to require automobile occupants to wear helmets?

This illustrates that the motivation for motorcycle helmet laws is primarily political, not practical.

My position is based on discussions with physical therapists and nurses that I have known.

BTW, I always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

[LongRanger_imp]

This is unsubstantiated, but I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of riders who wear helmets in this state exceed the percentage of drivers who wear seat belts. It sure seems like most occupants who are killed in auto accidents weren't wearing their seat belt. I think it's a byproduct of the rural culture around here.

[Hondahawkrider_imp]

Having been down twice.. I always wear a helmet.

In fact when I went down and totaled my vtr super hawk, I was wearing a brand new helmet. It's on display somewhere with Allstate.. it's still nice and shiny, but the area around the chin was a rch away from the foam.

[nine876_imp]

Automobile occupants should wear helmets.

Two primary arguments for helmet laws: 1) save lives, and 2) to keep health care costs down for all of us due to those who survive motorcycle crashes and who need medical rehabilitation.

However, what is never reported is the number of persons in automobile accidents who die due to head injuries (even though they were wearing seat belts), and those who survive car crashes and require lengthy medical rehabilitation due to closed head injuries.

When a motorcyclist is involved in a fatal accident, it is immediately reported whether or not a helmet was being worn. When a car crash occurs, it is reported whether or not a seat belt was being worn, but no details as to the cause of death or injury.

Since there are far more deaths and head injuries caused by car crashes (even though seats belts were used) than motorcycle crashes, would it not be more effective, and hence more humanitarian, to require automobile occupants to wear helmets?

This illustrates that the motivation for motorcycle helmet laws is primarily political, not practical.

My position is based on discussions with physical therapists and nurses that I have known.

BTW, I always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

I'm not interested in further limiting the field of view of automobile occupants. This is the last thing I'd want to see at every intersection!

[emptysea]

Automobile occupants should wear helmets.

Two primary arguments for helmet laws: 1) save lives, and 2) to keep health care costs down for all of us due to those who survive motorcycle crashes and who need medical rehabilitation.

However, what is never reported is the number of persons in automobile accidents who die due to head injuries (even though they were wearing seat belts), and those who survive car crashes and require lengthy medical rehabilitation due to closed head injuries.

When a motorcyclist is involved in a fatal accident, it is immediately reported whether or not a helmet was being worn. When a car crash occurs, it is reported whether or not a seat belt was being worn, but no details as to the cause of death or injury.

Since there are far more deaths and head injuries caused by car crashes (even though seats belts were used) than motorcycle crashes, would it not be more effective, and hence more humanitarian, to require automobile occupants to wear helmets?

This illustrates that the motivation for motorcycle helmet laws is primarily political, not practical.

My position is based on discussions with physical therapists and nurses that I have known.

BTW, I always wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

Interesting position, but you're going to have to present the actual statistics showing that there are more head injuries per crash in cars than there are in motorcycles. My reading of the stats show that: Seat-belted drivers and passengers are MUCH less likely to sustain a head injury in a crash than their non-belted counterparts. Motorcyclists are MUCH more likely to sustain a head injury (helmeted or not) in a crash than is any seat-belted occupant of a car.

Of course, the question wasn't really about that. He merely wanted to know who wears their hat when they ride and who thinks it should be mandatory. I do....and I don't.

[LongRanger_imp]

A bit off topic, but I've skied for 43 years and have never worn a helmet. I've had plenty of wipe outs but I've never banged my head. Everyone wears a helmet on the slopes these days, but I don't. Meanwhile, I would never ride a motorcycle without a helmet... I guess I perceive the risks differently, when in fact they're really not.

[kmoney_imp]

A bit off topic, but I've skied for 43 years and have never worn a helmet. I've had plenty of wipe outs but I've never banged my head. Everyone wears a helmet on the slopes these days, but I don't. Meanwhile, I would never ride a motorcycle without a helmet... I guess I perceive the risks differently, when in fact they're really not.

I was always the same way. I started skiing in the 80s and just never really thought about helmets, as I'd been doing it withput one for so long and had tons of bails and never even a sever inpact to my head.

All our local hills now require a helmet if you want to be there, so I wear one. They're at least light and compact enough to go relatively unnoticed, but left to my own devices I wouldn't wear one.