Federal traffic safety official wants Congress to actively promote helmet use

[FeedBot]

The head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), David Strickland, told a congressional panel on Sept. 28 that he wants to work with Congress to promote helmet use among motorcyclists across the United States.



More... (http://www.amadirectlink.com/news/story.asp?id=2278)

[cheez]

Hope this doesn't turn into mandatory helmet laws enforced by the threat of withholding federal highway funds! Unlike seat belts, there is absolutely no benefit to other drivers/riders if you wear a helmet or not, so there is no need to legislate imho.

[BlueStreak]

I have no problem with "promoting" as in "encouraging" helmet use.

Cheez, I'm not so sure I agree. Getting hit in the head by a flying stone, or even a big insect, could cause a rider to lose control and cause an accident. How big a risk is this? Maybe small, but I wouldn't say there's no benefit to others.

Then there's always the old "head injuries cost all of us in higher insurance premiums" argument.

[1TallTXn]

I have no problem with "promoting" as in "encouraging" helmet use.

Big +1 to that

Cheez, I'm not so sure I agree. Getting hit in the head by a flying stone, or even a big insect, could cause a rider to lose control and cause an accident. How big a risk is this? Maybe small, but I wouldn't say there's no benefit to others.

To use this argument, the very common 1/2 (most look more like 1/4) helmets are going to have to be banned. Not to mention the 3/4, open face helmets.
Full-face is the only thing that will protect against bugs/rocks/stuff hitting the riders face.
Getting hit in the neck is quite distracting as well, so should be mandate hockey goalie style neck guards?

Not picking on you, just pointing out some issues.

To be honest, I'm confused how seat belts make others on the road safer. No doubt that it protects the wearer in the event of a crash, but not wearing one has no effect on those in other vehicles.

[cheez]

To be honest, I'm confused how seat belts make others on the road safer. No doubt that it protects the wearer in the event of a crash, but not wearing one has no effect on those in other vehicles.

Seat belts keep the driver of a vehicle in a position which allows them to control their vehicle, as well as limiting the influence the impact has on the controls of the vehicle. If the driver isn't belted in and is somehow thrown from their control position from an impact (be it a big bump in the road, like the left lane of GBTW eastbound on the east side of 35E, or any kind of significant impact) the ability to control the vehicle is compromised, leading to an uncontrolled collision. If belted in, the driver will remain in a position from which they have some input to what the vehicle does- and at 70mph, that can be the difference between hitting another vehicle or not. I know that as a 4x4 pickup truck driver with very stiff suspension, I've been bounced hard enough to smack my head into the ceiling on my Ram more than once (commuting to work on GBTW :D ) which usually reminds me to belt up.

Helmets do no such thing for a motorcycle rider. They won't keep you from wrecking your motorcycle- and I've taken many rocks in the face, bugs in the face, once even had a small bird bounce off my helmet, but I've never lost control of my bike over such an incident. I wear a half helmet all the time, and a 3/4 in the winter, and see very little risk to my ability to maintain control of the motorcycle.

And if insurance costs are the primary driver behind the legislation, penalize those who go without helmets- no reason the insurance application/policy can't specify that if the rider's without a helmet, their deductible is quadrupled, policy rates are higher or something along those lines. Legislating something the free market can more appropriately solve is wrong, imho.