2006-12-22 13:09:24 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
Motorcycle riders might ask why cars drivers are not required to wear helmets just like they are, especially if the real goal is to reduce injuries and deaths.
Helmets have been proven to reduce injuries in automobile accidents - race car drivers wear them for a reason.
Therefore, car drivers would benefit almost as much as motorcycle riders, with a greater overall reduction in fatalities given the higher number of automobiles on the road, with the higher number of fatal accidents.
2006-12-22 13:33:56 · answer #1 · answered by Dwight S 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In a crash, there are two impacts. The first is the vehicle with another object. The second is the person with the inside of the vehicle. The seat belt is designed to minimize injury from that second impact.
The other purpose of the seat belt is to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle. This reduces the probability of the person being injured from landing on the ground or being run over by passing traffic.
On a bike, there is no interior and no protection. That's the trade-off you make, fun and efficiency for safety.
2006-12-22 21:20:50 · answer #2 · answered by Jimbo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can't think of anything that would be more suicidal than strapping oneself to a motorcycle. The NSF says not to belt your child to a motorcycle.
There was that dumbass woman representative, in Nebraska, that wanted a motorcycle seat belt law. Someone finally clued her in.
BTW: the GL1800 Gold Wing does have an airbag.
2006-12-23 02:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In a motorcycle crash, it's probably better to be thrown from the cycle, away from the object being crashed into ... a seat belt would prevent that. In a car crash, the occupants of the vehicle are contained within the interior 'box' of the car. Being tossed around inside of that causes major injuries, so being restrained to a fixed point, your seat, saves you from many types of injuries.
2006-12-22 21:20:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What's the point, if you get in a serious wreck while on one your chances are pretty slim. You are right out there, a seat belt will just keep you fastened to the bike while it drags you across the pavement. At least if it threw you free, you might have some sort of chance.
2006-12-22 21:19:09 · answer #5 · answered by june clever 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Tie yourself to a rolling hunk of metal and bring it to a sudden stop. Any belt would cut you in half. If it goes over and slides instead you've got a new kind of hamburger. The second time I came off, I'm glad I did. It earned me a trip to the E.R. for a check out. If I stayed on, I'd be like the bike: totalled.
2006-12-23 13:32:45 · answer #6 · answered by Firecracker . 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally I would not want to be strapped to a rolling motorcycle I would rather skid and get road rash then have a broken neck and arms. Also some motorcycles DO have an airbag, and there are aftermarket "airbag jackets."
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-news/honda-motorcycle-airbag.htm
2006-12-22 21:18:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
as a matter of fact, BMW makes a motorcycle with sorta of a cage around it, and that one has seat belts built in....
not sure if they just sell it in europe or what, but i've seen it, ugly as hell, but it has seat belts, and most country do not require to wear a helmet on that bike!!!
2006-12-23 17:23:31 · answer #8 · answered by magiceye81 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you run into something, you get a quicker exit from the vehicle. Maybe even get out of harms way. In Pa, they have to wear there seat belts in cars, but not wear helmets on bikes ????
2006-12-22 21:16:27 · answer #9 · answered by Speedbuggy43 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Having laid down a bike several times to avoid a cager, and having been a MSF instructor, I can honestly say that you are MUCH safer off and away from the bike when it goes down.
Only a true cager would ever ask that question.
2006-12-22 22:16:47 · answer #10 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋