Most states now have seatbelt laws. Why do many still not require motorcyclists to wear a helmet?

Answer 1

Because there has been no successful legislation in those states to incorporate a helmet law.

20 states have full coverage laws -everyone must wear a helmet. 26 have some sort of law, usually with age or insurance requirements. 4 offer freedom to riders.

Yes, head protection is sensible, but that has never been a factor in an accident happening. There are plenty of causes for accidents, but the inability to see, hear and react are high among them. Helmets limit the first two by blocking out peripheral vision and creating artificial noise with wind blowing through the helmet. Subsequently, helmets affect one's ability to react by limiting the first two factors.

An 18 wheeler kicked up a rock one day while I was riding. It hit and cracked my factory-installed lexan windshield (do you know how hard that is to do?) If the windshield had not been there, it would have penetrated me like gunfire, regardless of where it hit. Based on the crack, I probably would have taken it in the chest or stomach, been thrown from the bike and either run down or killed on impact, helmet or no. I was going 70 mph on the interstate; the truck was passing me.

Also, the 26 states with helmet options have higher percentages of motorcycle riders, regardless of their overall population (and Illinois is not a sparsely populated state, nor are Pennsylvania, Florida and Connecticut).

And who pays for it? In a two-year survey conducted by the NHTSA, results showed that after helmet laws were repealed in Louisiana and Ketucky, accidents of all types rose in direct proportion each year to the number of new registrations. (Louisiana has since reinstated its helmet law)

There were two categories that showed significant change: head trauma and death. It seems that after helmet laws were repealed, fewer people survived accidents that should have killed them. Fewer head trauma cases... which states are paying more for motorcycle accidents? The ones that have higher survival rates in motorcycle accidents, the ones with helmet laws.

What it comes down to is simply this: there are so many factors involved in all motor vehicle accidents that no one thing can be said to improve or reduce survivability of those involved in every case. Why impose restrictions on the unknown?

The government in each state has done what it felt was proper to assist. What they have succeeded in doing is to limit freedoms. I disagree with seatbelt laws, but I wear mine (you can't be pulled over in Mass if you're not wearing a seatbelt, but they can cite you for it if they pull you over for something else). I disagree with helmet laws and would only wear mine at certain times if I had the option.

Now some states are outlawing trans fats and others are banning smoking in private automobiles if there are children in the car. When did my mom move to Beacon Hill?

The last I checked, laws existed to protect freedom, not to limit it. And just as with gay marriage, abortion or adoption, liquor on Sunday, and trans-fats, the option should remain to those who choose them. That's where freedom plays into helmet laws, same as the above; it's a calculated risk taken knowingly by the involved parties, and those uninvolved -including legislators- should not have a say in it, except to say that it is legal and the choice of the participant.

Answer 2

Because the Federal goverment has not mandated it but withholding highway dollars from the states. The states were "forced" by the Feds to increase the drinking age to 21 or risk losing highway $$$$. They did the same thing with the seat belts.

If Congress and the Prez pass and sign a bill tomorrow telling the states "you" must wear a helmet or lose $$$$. Within a year all of the states would require helmets.

Answer 3

Because despite the evangelists preaching "intelligent design" theory, evolution happens all around us every day. Not wearing a helmet is a prime example of the lesser members of our species not posessing proper survival instincts, and therefore should die out before they infect us all with their defective genetic code.

There are no reasonable arguments for not wearing a helmet. Those that whine about their peripheral vision obviously wear neck braces on a regular basis and can't turn their heads, right? In which case they should probably not be on a motorcycle in the first place. That's a stupid excuse.

Just like convicted felons have given up their rights to have a free education and cable TV, people that don't wear helmets forfeit their right to complain about dying when they crash. Sorry, you won't get pity here.

Answer 4

thats a good question. I live in California and i ride a motorcycle and helmets are required here. And its just stupid because i fell of my bike once when someone cut me off and i just got up and got right back on my bike with no damage. My head litterally bounced off the ground 2 or 3 times, if wast wearing a helmet that could have been some serious damage.

Answer 5

I think that alot of people don't realize that when you don't wear a helmet on your bike, you are risking other peoples lives. If you have ridden for any length of time, you've been hit by road debris kicked up by tires of other vehicles. This happened to me a couple of years ago, resulting in my helmet getting cracked, and needing replacement. I believe that if I hadn't had a helmet on, I would have needed my head replaced. What would have happened if you were walking down the road when this happened and there wasn't a helmet being worn? I'll tell you. I would have hit you with my cycle, while getting myself injured or worse. Anyone who thinks that helmets aren't cool, or believe that they shouldn't have to wear one is crazy.
(son of a cycle shop owner)

Answer 6

There are only a few that allow you to ride without a helmet. I think it's because causualities are low in these states because that are not real populated so they do see the signifigance. There emergency response cost are not really effected so they leave law alone.

Answer 7

Because enough people spoke up.
A lot of these people wear helmets of their own free will, yet believe a persons rights should not be regulated by government.

The statement "Everyone who rides a motorcycle should wear a helmet" can be equally compared to "Everyone who walks should wear safety toe shoes".

The difference is who votes on it, and why.

"Let those who ride decide."

Source(s):

Live Free Or Die.

Answer 8

I am unsure as to why helmets are not required. I will assume it is because of freedom of choice...but I consider that a bogus reason.

Here in Wyoming helmets are not required unless the rider is under 16 years old. If I had my way, helmets would be required for every rider. And I NEVER ride without a helmet...nor to I permit any of my kids to ride without one.

My advice to ALL riders is to wear their helmets regardless of the laws.

Answer 9

If you ride a bike, make the decision yourself.

I'm an adult; I'll make my own decision, thank you very much.

Those who say "it costs everybody" should examine where that argument would end -- and it doesn't end, in a socialist state (where "everybody" pays). So, if you believe socialism is causing the problem, attack socialism, not bikers. If you don't like the prospect of paying for the supposed injuries, then tell your rulers that you don't want to live in a socialist state -- and don't mooch from other public programs, either. (I'm sure there's at least one program where you're on the take, that I don't approve of!)

...and yes, I wear a helmet, and it has actually saved me at least twice from serious injury; but unless I'm your kid, it's none of your business! (If your argument isn't good enough to convince me, you certainly don't have the right to force me.)

Answer 10

freedom of choice. and enough riders lobbied the state to toss the helmet law. technically, i can legally ride without a lid, but i do anyway. especially in high traffic area's; 1 cage can cause u to have a very bad day.