"motorcyclists matter"

[Jon K.]

There is a current thread asking how many AMA members are on the boards. Quite a few, judging from the responses.

Reading through my AMA magazine the last few months; they (we) have been promoting their (our) "motorcyclists matter" campaign; looking for harsher legal penalties against motorists who injure or kill motorcycle riders.

Looks great on the surface; but I am not sure that it will accomplish anything. Will greater penalties deter further incidents? Do these drivers think "Ah; I will probably get off with a slap on the wrist; I am just gonna run this guy down".

But what really got me thinking about this issue is the AMA's long-going historical battle against helmet laws.

How can the AMA, one the one hand, get their panties in a wad when a motorist wipes out a biker, and on the other hand actively fight to allow the same (now wiped out) biker to ride sans helmet?

I believe their (our!) goals would be better served by promoting (rather than fighting) helmet laws. Rather than chasing accidents to make sure the driver is punished after the damage is done.

I'm thinking I will write a letter to the AMA, but I would like to hash it out a bit here before I do. Sort of to get my thoughts in order.

 

[biglou]

I'm with you on this one, Jon. I'm kind of torn here. I had a buddy that thought manditory seatbelt laws were absurd, but he and his family always wore them. His response was that he just didn't want the government telling him he had to wear it. Kinda the same about the cars with the automatic headlights.

I've been keeping up with those articles in the AMA mag. It's a bit of a Catch-22. I would agree that if someone was grossly negligent, then yes, punishment should fit the "crime". But, increased penalties after the fact aren't going to bring back any deceased motorcyclists.

Mostly just thinking out loud here... Tough subject.

And yeah, wearing as much protection as humanly possible just seems intuitive to us, as we tend to fling ourselves onto the ground at regular intervals. Just the thought of doing so on the street just gives me the willies.

 

[mx547]

the idea is not so much to punish the offender but by meting out harsh penalties, it will help make drivers more aware of motorcyclists. i wear a helmet 99.9% of the time but i'm 100% in favor of having the choice.

 

[Smit-Dog]

If the AMA took a pro-helmet law stance, I'd think that there'd be outcry from it's members who equate riding without a helmet to a god-given freedom or right. It'd be unpopular, at least initially, but I think it'd be the right thing to do.

Fine, choose to ride without a helmet. But when what could have been a simple case of road rash turns you into a tube-fed, cathetered vegetable costing a gazillion dollars in lifelong medical bills, who ends up bearing the cost?

Do you think incidents like DUIs and deaths/injuries of helmet-less riders would go down if insurance companies started denying coverage in these cases? Maybe you can't legistlate common sense, but you can *influence* the choices people make by hitting them in the pocketbook. Freedom of choice works both ways - you don't want to wear a helmet - great! But we choose not to insure you.

 

[MARK IT]

The difference between the helment law and higher penalties is that the
helment law is a choice and the other is the killing of an innocent person
by negligence. What most people dont understand any more is that any
time you get in or on any type of motor vehicle your taking your life in
hand, most just dont have the balls to take the responsibility. There are so many law's now that most think that driving is a non risk activity, NOT!

 

[High Lord Gomer]

I was following an RX-7 down the highway one day when it kicked up a rock the size of a golfball. It hit my helmet just above the shield. Suprised me and made my ears ring, but that was all. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I would have caused a major accident for the 7 or 8 cars behind me. I honestly don't mind if people want to go splatter themselves across the pavement, but when exercising that "freedom" creates a serious risk for me and/or my family, then I care.

Ironically, I still don't like the government having to tell people to wear helmets, though.

I used the think of the seatbealt laws as a useless infringment on my personal choice until I ended up going in the median to avoid an accident in front of me, slung the truck around a few times, and ended up avoiding some others that had also hit the median. If it weren't for having my seatbelt on, I would have been flung all over the cab and couldn't have been in a position to continue controlling the vehicle. For that reason I believe I owe it to other people to wear one to help keep me in control of my car. Kind of like the helmet thing...I don't care if people want to go headfirst through a windshield, but if they could have stayed in control of the car and not endangered me, then I care.

 

[jaction125]

The Harley riders absolutely flip when yu start talking helmet laws!
Here in Illinois they had one in the late sixties, my dad STILL b$%^hes about it. I personnally don't care, I'll wear mine anyway. As for the suckers that splatter themselves I think I kinda look at it like natural selection, kill off the weak ones first :p

With the thought that we don't need our governing bodies to tell us what to do, I agree with that but on the other hand, at least they would be doing something useful for a change and not renaming food or whatever other useless drivel they drone on and on about ie:Freedom Fries :eek:

 

[490Dave]

I for one fail to see what good promoting tougher penalties for injuring or killing a biker would do, its no secret that motorcycles seem to "appear out of no where" at mach-1(or so it seems). I think the energies of the AMA would be better spent on promoting safety and that includes helmets.
C'mon, it's just common sense...

 

[Erick82]

Smit-dog hit the nail on the head. All you have to do is have insurance companies say if you are hurt while riding with out a helmet you have no insurance and the same with driving without a seat belt. Sure there would be one or two dumb @ss with out one on and they don't have insurance anyways.

Jaction 125, I use that darwin's theory of evolution/natiral selection all the time.

 

[RM_guy]

The problem is, you can't legislate common sense. The morons that run down bikers are not going to change just because the penalties are tougher. Those same jerks run down pedestrians and slam into parked cars too. Are the penalties going to be higher for those types of crimes? I hate to say they are accidents because they aren't, they are crimes.

I too have been following the articles and like Lou I have mixed feelings. I'm not saying I have the solution but I don't think I like the direction that the AMA is headed.

 

[Jon K.]

Originally posted by RM_guy
I hate to say they are accidents because they aren't, they are crimes.

Good point, but I have been know to drive my pickup truck from time to time. I pray that I am ever-diligent, but I also realize that I am not. Nor is anyone else on the road.

Now; let's say I look down at my radio ("Picture" is playing and I have got to change the station), and run up the rear end of a bike, busting his head and killing the helmetless rider.

Man; that sucks. I can't defend my actions, but there is no criminal intent, it really was an accident. Whatever penalty is assessed will not help the biker. But a helmet on his head would have made all the difference!

I am not looking to shirk responsibility, but I don't want to go to jail either! I am not interested in paying for his stupidity.

Now here is the sticky part. The same organization that wants to severly penalize me also actively lobbies to allow the biker to ride without a helmet.

Heck; if the guy had been wearing a friggin' helmet maybe he wouldn't be quite so dead!

I am getting mixed messages.

 

[mx547]

Originally posted by Erick82
Smit-dog hit the nail on the head. All you have to do is have insurance companies say if you are hurt while riding with out a helmet you have no insurance and the same with driving without a seat belt.

so what will be your reply when they discontinue your coverage because you engage in a dangerous and stupid activity-riding dirt bikes?

 

[Danman]

Good point Jay. I have mixed feelings on the subject to.

 

[biglou]

Jay's right. This subject gets real tricky, real fast... And it's not just dirtbikes, either. MTB'ing, skiing, snowboarding, etc...

 

[Smit-Dog]

I think the key concept here is "exercising reasonable safety precautions" while engaging in an activity. If helmets (or seatbelts for that matter) are known and easily available safety devices that are proven to prevent serious injury and death, why not use them?

And to further clarify, insurance coverage is not a right. A company can choose to charge any amount appropriate and relative to the risk and liability factors involved, or choose not to provide coverage at all - period.

Gomer brought up a very good point. If your negligence in using appropriate safety devices results in injury or death to someone else, who's rights have been affected?

 

[Erick82]

"so what will be your reply when they discontinue your coverage because you engage in a dangerous and stupid activity-riding dirt bikes?"mx547

If I am taking reasonable action to protect my self, helmet protective gear, accidents still happen, but at a much lesser rate and severity making it much easier to cover them through the insurance process.

If I am out trying back flips in cut-offs a T-shrit and flip flops and get hurt, well then I think an insurance company could deny coverage.

I know at some point it becomes much closer and less obvious, but people must become more responsible for there own actions. There is way to much it wasn't my fault, I didn't mean it ect. ect., and not enough I did it, my fault how can I make it right.

PS I wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle.

 

[spktm2]

I beleive the insurance lobby has gotten laws past to increase and protect there massive profits the way no private industry ever has. that said how do you possibly come up with an argument for NOT wearing a helmet?

spktm

 

[shnalln]

Jaction125 made a coment about Harley riders freaking out when helmet laws are mentioned....I grew up with all of my Uncles being Harley riders, back in the eary to mid 80s a group of Harley riders formed an org., I can't remember what it was called right off the top of my head, but they beat a helmet law by the argument that the helmet put them at risk due to the fact that they could not hear the other vehicals that were operating around them...So that was their argument and won. (or so I'm told)
I think that in todays day and age that argument wouldn't really hold up since many states have the helmet laws...it would be ineresting to see the statistics on the states that do have helmet laws and the states that don't

 

[MARK IT]

Originally posted by spktm2
I beleive the insurance lobby has gotten laws past to increase and protect there massive profits the way no private industry ever has. that said how do you possibly come up with an argument for NOT wearing a helmet?

spktm

I totally agree with the first part of your post but the latter part is not a very viable point, If that is logical why not discontinue the activity that would require you to use a helmet. As for you that are calling people moron's and idots for not wearing a helmet, dont look in the mirror because dirt biking isnt the safest thing (or unsafest) you can do.LOL I dont care for the (I do this so I'm better then you) attiude, Sorry! I have 30/25 yr dirt/street and wear a helmet 90% of the time on the street and 100% and the dirt. If im just going to the store down the block or the bank or running around town I may or may not wear my helment.

 

[mx547]

mark it, you and i will be the ones saying "i told you so" when we can no longer have the choice to ride. the rest will be wondering what happened and complaining about how unfair it is. unfortunately, it will be too late.

 

[biglou]

Good discussion here, although I don't think there is going to be any single correct answer. Mark-I disagree with your helmet theory-to a point. Sure, maybe (I don't know) statistically you are less likely to get creamed running to the corner store. Or are you? If what I've heard is correct regarding automobile accidents, the majority of them take place within "x" miles of the home. With "x" being some single digit number. I'm sure most of us have heard that statistic in regards to seat belt use. I have no idea as to its validity. Personally, I like to think that I would take every single precaution available to me every single time I did something. But, using that philosophy, why am I doing it in the first place?! Because it's fun? Because it's my right and priviledge as an American? All of the above? Am I/are we all as safe as we can possibly be every time we ride/drive? Probably not. I know I've pulled some serious jackass stunts in my time! I've also been extremely naive about certain subjects in the past, as I'm sure I am about lots of things now.

My opinion here-I really don't care if someone wears their helmet or not if that's the legal option. Given the option, I would wear mine. On the other hand, I don't think anybody wants another government regulation put in place to try and save us from ourselves. Kinda like setting a minimum age for OHV operators, banning certain types of OHV's, etc. Personally, I'm all for freedom of choice on most things. Where to draw the line on what should be regulated and what shouldn't is a great big gray fuzzy area as far as I can tell.

Like I said back on page one, this is a very tricky subject. I don't think there are any concrete answers here, just some good opinions.

I could go on and on, but I'd start rambling (even moreso than I am now)! I wish we had a campfire and a couple beers. Maybe we could make some breakthroughs. Or, maybe I'd have a couple too many and ride my 50 through the fire-sans helmet of course... :laugh:

 

[BRush]

I hadn’t thought about it before reading this thread, but the AMA’s lobbying for helmet choice (something I approve of, though you won’t ever catch me on my streetbike without one) while also calling for harsher penalties for killing or injuring a rider is troubling. I’m not really a fan of the “Motorcyclists Matter” campaign. I don’t think raising after-the-fact penalties will reduce car-motorcycle collisions. I also don’t like the idea that a motorcyclist’s death should be punished any more or less harshly than any other road user. The whole thing reminds me of the clamor for “hate crime” laws for this or that “protected” class. Accidents are sometimes just that and the courts need the flexibility to consider all relevant circumstances. Not every accident requires jail time. I have no problem sending an egregious offender off to prison - such as that ex-governor lead-foot who ran one stop sign too many and wiped out a rider. Still, do we really want legal statutes mandating the same punishment to some soccer mom with a clean driving record who made a mistake?

 

[High Lord Gomer]

I, too, have heard the statistics that 80% of accidents occur within 20 miles of home. But you know how statistics are...

What if they then told you that people drive 90% of their time within 20 miles of their home? That would mean that driving where you are familiar is safer.

Damn statistics! (BTW, all of the numbers above are fictitious, including the 80/20 that I pulled from a damaged memory)

 

[BSWIFT]

Originally posted by High Lord Gomer
I was following an RX-7 down the highway one day when it kicked up a rock the size of a golfball. It hit my helmet just above the shield. Suprised me and made my ears ring, but that was all. If I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I would have caused a major accident for the 7 or 8 cars behind me. I honestly don't mind if people want to go splatter themselves across the pavement, but when exercising that "freedom" creates a serious risk for me and/or my family, then I care.

Ironically, I still don't like the government having to tell people to wear helmets, though.

I used the think of the seatbealt laws as a useless infringment on my personal choice until I ended up going in the median to avoid an accident in front of me, slung the truck around a few times, and ended up avoiding some others that had also hit the median. If it weren't for having my seatbelt on, I would have been flung all over the cab and couldn't have been in a position to continue controlling the vehicle. For that reason I believe I owe it to other people to wear one to help keep me in control of my car. Kind of like the helmet thing...I don't care if people want to go headfirst through a windshield, but if they could have stayed in control of the car and not endangered me, then I care.

Best explaination that I could hear.  Very well put, Mr. High Lord Gomer, sir!

 

[WWR]

Here in Tokyo, where there is a very high percentage of bikes, the motorcycle fatalities are some of the lowest in the world. Why? The first thing that comes to mind is the accountability factor. To them, hitting a pedestrian is basically pure evil, to be followed closely by bicyclists and motorcyclists. If you are driving any type of larger vehicle, you can pretty much bet that that insurance companies and police will be coming after you for the fault of the accident. It is purely amazing how this forces larger vehicle drivers to be more alert and attentive behind the wheel. After all, the larger the vehicle, the larger the deadly heap of metal you are responsible for controlling.

On the topic of helmets, I think the AMA needs to drop this one. As a street rider myself, I cant see how there is any benefit whatsoever to fighting against helmet laws. Riding without a helmet is pure stupidity and should not be allowed. Fighting against helmet laws is like protesting the bartender from cutting off the already wasted drunk at the end of the bar. Someone needs to step in and save the idiots from themselves. It is not a matter of freedom, it is a matter of life and death.