As any good Harley enthusiast will be happy to impart, (usually with a saying on their T-shirt, or a very visible tattoo,) “If I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.” Understand now, I don’t own a Harley, and in all likelihood never will, but I grew up in Milwaukee, and one of the happiest sounds I think I ever experienced was that of a V-Twin police Harley in Iksan, South Korea, when I taught English there.
If we want to talk about “cost to society,” maybe we should do something about everyone who smokes, drinks, and eats fast-food too?
Okay, let’s talk about all of it. We don’t outlaw smoking, drinking, and eating fast food. We do, however, educate our children about the harmful effects of these decisions so that they can make informed decisions. Let’s do the same thing with motorcycle helmets. Anyone who wants to ride without a helmet should have to watch a documentary called “Coma.” It is about the aftermath of brain injuries. It follows the cases of several patients who came out of comas. One was a vegtable and the ones who did have meaningful recovery never regained their full independence. They required assistance with simple tasks for the rest of their lives. The true cost of not wearing a helmet isn’t caused by deaths. The true cost is created by those who survive brain trauma. Smoking, drinking, and eating fast food will kill you slowly, but it won’t make you a vegtable for the next 40 years.
It’s not escaping me at all. I understand perfectly well the “cost to society” argument.
The part I don’t understand is why when I mention any other activity involving “cost to society”, I never hear a response about that.
How many people die unncessarily each year because they’re golfing during a thunderstorm, boating drunk on Labor Day, being careless while hunting or fishing, or yapping on the cell phone while driving; the latter which no doubt is one of the biggest contributors to the “cost to society” argument.
I have not seen any statistics on this, but my guess is that many of those other activities I mentioned (especially the cell phone bit) have a just as large, if not greater, “cost to society” than helmetless motorcycle riders.
The wife of a former Dallas Cowboys coach crashed near here a few years ago while reaching for a cell phone. She was 15 MPH over the posted 70 limit and rolled the vehicle when she realized too late she was running up on someone too fast.
She was ok; 2 others treated for moderate injuries and one in bad condition. It seems to me there is a “cost to society” issue here that is far more prevalent than helmetless riders.
Agreed or not?
And as to the previous comment (not you) about opening up the exhaust (and intake) to generate a bit more power being a “flimsy excuse” I would only say 2 things.
One. How many Harleys have you ridden, how many miles accrued on them, and how many have you worked on?
Two. If you think opening the exhaust up does not work then you need to read up on 20s era Harley single Peashooters, later Harley WRs, KHKs, KHTTs, XR750s, etc. and see how many of those came from the factory with straight pipes.
The later Buells also have their exhaust opened up.
Why was this done? Maximum performance for flat track racing which Harley has supported in a big way.
Good idea, driver (and rider) education is always a good thing; the more the better. Give people the facts and let them make their own decisions. I actually make my kids wear a helmet on motorcycles, and when skiing (they can make their own decisions when they become adults in a few years). I would recommend wearing a helmet to anyone who asked me. Personally, if I felt the need to wear a helmet I would probably just quit riding (maybe I should never leave the house, that would be very safe?). I do understand the risks and are willing to accept them. And, yes I do have plenty of life/health/disability insurance. I do expect to outlive the smokers/drinkers/etc. in my age group, but maximizing my life expectancy is not my primary concern.
I’m almost 50 now, I’m not very worried about “the next 40 years” (I have no interest in being 90), but I do intend to enjoy the next 10-20, or whatever I have left.
Harley Davidson are the imbodyment of the american culture. The reason they are not out lawed deals with the ability of being ably to feel the power between your legs while you ride up and down the road., feeling like Easy Rider.
“Loud Pipes save lives”
Bull! Your bike would have to be somewhere north of 140 dBA to be heard through the glass, soundproofing, and stereo of a typical car. No one in a car is going to hear you unless you rival a jet engine at full power. Hell, I’ve seen a pimpmobile with the bass cranked up blocking an ambulance because they couldn’t hear the screaming siren right behind them! No bike noise, short of an absolute ear-bleeder, is going to register with a car driver, so look for other ways to save your life – headlights and driving extra defensively. Face it, car and truck drivers just aren’t looking for something as small as a bike and rider, so it doesn’t register with them. It’s your responsibility to assume they’re going to cut you off or whatever, and ride accordingly (safely). Claiming that being extra noisy will alert motorists to your presence ain’t gonna cut it – all you’re doing is being a nuisance to society. You may well be killed, but by a gunshot and not by a collision.
Yup, Rat-a-tat Matt, EXTREME IGNORANCE on some people’s part, and you’ll notice I’m not singling out all Harley riders. Here in Lancaster, Pa. they’re trying out a new ordinance. If you needlessly gun your engine, (car or mc), you can be cited- I mean gunning it whether you’re cruising in gear or idling in park. The decibal law is too hard to enforce. On the city block where I live it never stops- maybe by 2 AM-
weeknights. It’s not just MC’s either- here in town it seems to be more cars than anything else. I have no idea and don’t care about the age of these people- it’s the idiocy of what they’re doing. There must be some psychological studies on why otherwise intelligent individuals would KNOWINGLY wake up half the neighborhood- unnecessarily! I had a bike back in the 80’s and it was downhill cruising into
my apt. complex, so I would hit the kill switch as I entered the drive and coast into the parking spot. I’ve never heard of any other rider doing this- no brag.
The human skull is designed to protect the brain at speeds only as fast as you can run, and here in Florida (God’s waiting room) we need all the organ donors we can find. Since I might need an organ some day, I won’t be fighting to reinstate the helmet law here in Florida. I won’t ride with anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet though. I just don’t want to see a friend’s brains spread all over the road. I also don’t want to be the one who has to deliver the bad news to the family of one of my friends. The real tragedy is that there are service members who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and dying on the roads shortly after they get home both because they lack proper training and because they don’t wear a helmet. Can you imagine making it home from a war zone only to die in a motorcycle wreck? That really sucks.
I certainly wouldn’t try to tell anyone else what to do. If wearing a helmet makes you feel better, you should wear one. If you don’t want to ride with folks who don’t, then don’t ride with them. It’s all about choice. Back when the biggest risk to you brain was “only as fast as you can run,” that average person only lived to be about 35 anyway.
Personally, I think americans have gone way around the bend worrying about removing every last little, tiny risk from their lives. No-one lives forever. I hope they all have fun in the nursing home, but I’ll pass. Also, if I ever “need an organ” I think I’ll just hang it up (that’s what Living Wills are for).
I can’t imagine coming home from a war zone and being too worried about riding without a helmet, or slipping in the bathtub, or being hit by lightning, etc. What’s the point of coming home if you are going to live in a bubble?
IMHO, the best defense is not to run into anything and to pay enough attention that no-one runs into you. If I wasn’t confident that I could do that a very high percentage of the time, then I would quit. I understand that others have their own opinions and they should do what they want.
“Most of those with a loud Harley would do well to trade it in for its predecessor: a bicycle that uses human power and is virtually silent.
It would cut down noise pollution, air pollution and lard pollution, ie the potbellies most bikers get from lack of exercise!”
Pedal Power is easy on the wallet too as you cruise by the filling stations that motorcyclists have to patronize regularly.
If involved in an accident, a cyclist is far less likely to be killed than a motorcylcist due to the lower average speed involved;
thus supporting the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest (not necessarily fastest). The are few elderly motorcyclists and even fewer with intact hearing."
I bet I save more gas on my motorcycle than you on your bicycle.
Let’s assume my car averages 28MPG, and my bike, 56. I can probably substitute 50% of my annual travel miles (that would have required a car) with the motorcycle: basically any time I don’t need to carry lots of cargo, or during inclement weather. So, if I travel 15,000 mi a year, I save (0.5)X(1/28)X(7,500)=134 gallons of gas.
Bicycles, OTOH, are only useful when distances are manageable (maybe =< 50 mi/day for us mortals), and travel doesn’t require use of high-speed roads. Also note that very few bicycles are used as transportation in the US, but rather serve as “sporting goods.” Perhaps they can substitute for 15% of car travel (note that I speak as a man for whom a bicycle was my only means of transportation for 3 years, so I know about what I’m talking.) Even taking the unrealistic view that bicycles require no fuel (more anon), (1.0)X(1/28)X(2250)=80 gallons of gas savings.
As for “easy on the wallet,” I’ll buy that IF you eat solely home-cooked field corn and oats bought in bulk. But, if you’d rather take in your additional 1200 kcal or so with a burger and fries ($7-ish), you’re putting out at least as much “energy outlay” as the motorcyclist. (As opposed to 1200 kcal/$7, gasoline provides 29,000 kcal/$3.12 or so.)
Also, I’d be interested to see some data backing up the “bicyles are safer” argument. Since we’re talking “transportation,” not “sport,” it’d need to be per-mile, in a motorized environment. Also, much of the risks associated with motorcycling are based on risks I take (over which I have control); bicycling’s risks are largely due to overtaking vehicles (which are hard to even see well until past you), over which I have little control. It makes a difference.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone live in a bubble. I am just saying that either basic training or a helmet should be compulsory, at the rider’s choice. If you want to go without a helmet, fine, but you should be required to take training in accident avoidance, which is a part of the Basic Rider’s course. An ignorant untrained rider without a helmet is a future organ donor or a potential vegetable.
About your nursing home remark, when the time comes, I don’t plan to fight it. If I get to the point where I am dangerous on the roads, I will willingly give up my car. If I get to the point where I can’t take care of myself, I don’t plan to worry my loved ones. I will willingly go into assisted living. That doesn’t make me a worry wart. It doesn’t mean I live in fear. It simply means that I am willing to acknowledge my limitations. I don’t want to live for ever either, but you are wrong if you think there is no quality of life at that stage of life. You might unintentionally be degrading those who live in nursing homes if you say that they are better off dead.
Somehow, I don’t think your children and your spouse will agree that you should “hang it up” just because you need a new kidney, especially if one is available. Don’t you think you should consider their feelings? Are you really that selfish?
I actually agree that the best defense is not to “not to run into anything and to pay enough attention that no-one runs into you.” However, why do you suggest that accident avoidance and helmets are mutually exclusive? Are you suggesting that helmet wearers are inherently more careless? Please explain why you treat them as mutually exclusive.
My saying that “seeing war veterans die on motorcycles is tragic” is not to suggest they should worry about “slipping in the bathtub, or being hit by lightning, etc.” Obviously they should enjoy their freedom. What do those things have to do with either seeking training or wearing a helmet? How does wearing a helmet take away from my freedom? Please explain that for me. How do you equate dying on a motorcycle from a head injury and getting hit by lightning? Lightning is an extremely rare somewhat random event. Motorcycle riders assume an inherently higher risk than they do when driving a car. Are you saying that not wearing a helmet is like climbing to the top of a large antenna during a rain storm? OK! I can agree with that comparison. How do you equate slipping in the bathtub and dying on a motorcycle from a head injury? Bathing is not a high-risk event. It is an everyday (hopefully) grooming event. They are not even close to the same thing. Please complete this phrase: motorcycle is to bath as car is to ________. What is the safer alternative to a bath? You treat it as though it is a high risk event. I am willing to bet that your chances of being in an accident on a motorcycle are much higher than slipping in a bath tub or being hit by lightning. They aren’t even close to being comparable.
You are skating in thin ice with the bathing and lightning comparisons. I don’t want to take away your ability to choose, but your arguments are pretty sad.
This is really too silly to argue about, but I will try to answer your comments:
As I said earlier, training is a very good idea for any new rider/driver whether they choose to wear a helmet or not. I would not limit training to just those who ride without a helmet, which would not be enforceable anyway.
My “nursing home” remarks apply only to me, I can only speak for myself. Personally, I have no intention of outliving my usefulness. If I cannot work, drive, ride, ski, etc.; I will not be around very long. I’m certainly not going to hang around if I can’t care for myself. I’m sure others will make different choices for themselves.
If you really think riding a motorcycle on the street is a high risk activity, you should probably stay away from them. Do you really feel more “at risk” on a bike than in a car under normal conditions? The only time I have ever felt “at risk” on a bike is when I was doing something very stupid (i.e., riding much too fast for the conditions, splitting traffic at unreasonable speeds, riding in very heavy rain, hitting blind corners on an unfamiliar road, etc.). Street riding is pretty boring about 99.9% of the time, the biggest risk is getting bored and not paying attention to the other traffic. I have probably scared myself in cars more often than on bikes, I’ve certainly crashed more cars than bikes. Honestly, riding would probably be more fun for me if I perceived it as being more risky than it really is. As Mr. Hemingway said, “Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”
Do you think it more fun to ski fast in the open or very, very close to the trees? Do you think it is more fun in the trees with or without a helmet?
I don’t like being trapped inside a helmet, so I’m simply not going to wear one. If I was forced to wear one, I would probably give up street riding and find something else to do. Minimizing my personal risk is not a priority.
The wife of a former Dallas Cowboys coach crashed near here a few years ago while reaching for a cell phone. She was 15 MPH over the posted 70 limit and rolled the vehicle when she realized too late she was running up on someone too fast. She was ok; 2 others treated for moderate injuries and one in bad condition. It seems to me there is a “cost to society” issue here that is far more prevalent than helmetless riders.
Agreed or not?
I respectfully disagree. Here is my reason: The wife of the former Dallas Cowboys coach is required by law to carry liability insurance. That liability insurance covered all of the damage that she caused. Here in Florida you can ride helmetless if you carry insurance that includes at least $10,000 in personal medical coverage. $10,000 won’t even cover an ER visit and a bandaid. Your “wife of the former Dallas Cowboys coach” was financially liable for all of the damage she caused. Also, in the future she will also have to pay higher insurance premiums of she wants to continue to drive. In comparison to a motorcycle rider with a brain injury, we are talking about apples and oranges. If helmetless riders were required to carry more insurance, the situations would be more comparable. Since car drivers are required to carry higher levels of insurance, the “cost to society” is almost nonexistant.
Regarding the other items you listed:
-
“golfing during a thunderstorm” is just plain stupid. I didn’t call you stupid for not wearing a helmet, but you are making a comparison between these two items. Are you suggesting that not wearing a helmet is as stupid as playing golf in a thunderstorm?
-
“boating drunk on Labor Day” is not only stupid, it is illegal. Should we treat helmet laws like drunk driving laws? I thought you wanted to ride helmetless. Isn’t that your position?
-
“being careless while hunting” is as crazy as it is stupid, although there are precautions you can take. You can wear one of those orange vests and an orange hat. Go without one and you are asking to get shot. I guess it is kind of like not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. Accidents happen whether or not you are wearing an orange vest. An orange vest won’t save you in all circumstances, although it will definitely improve your odds of surviving.
-
Regarding “yapping on the cell phone while driving,” please see note number one. Again, the laws that require automobile insurance ensure that most of what would be a “cost to society” is borne by whoever is responsible for the wreck in past insurance premiums and future higher insurance premiums.
You know, I really don’t want to change the law to require helmets, but you almost have me convinced that I should change my position.
For those of you who say that loud pipes are the only defense against someone pulling out in front of you, here is a better idea:
[i]Try the Weave[/i]
How many times have you approached an intersection with an oncoming car waiting to turn left, not really knowing if the driver sees you? I use a maneuver that I believe gets you noticed. I call it the weave.
As you approach the intersection, initiate a slight left-right movement with the bars, or by shifting your weight. Don?t overdo it?all it takes is a slight, lateral movement so your headlight visibly moves side to side.
I?ve been doing this maneuver for about two years now, and it seems to really get a driver?s attention! I?ve had drivers start to pull in front of me, but as soon as I weave, they stop and look at me. Some look at me as if I?m nuts, but the important thing is they look.
I think two factors come into play here: A steady headlight gets lost in the background, and a side-to-side movement, like shaking your head, means no. I don?t advocate flashing your high beam because some drivers perceive this as a ?go ahead? signal.
I?ve shared this maneuver with all of my riding buddies, and they have given me positive feedback that it works. Of course, it?s not 100 percent foolproof. Always assume the worst, cover your brake lever and be prepared to take evasive action.
Mark Eidner
Winter Garden, FL*
*Published in American Motorcyclist Magazine, February 2007
A loud muffler does disturb the peace of any enviroment and should be avoided, but it sure gets your attention. Many car drivers whose concentration is limited to the conversation on their cell phones erratically Parade in the middle of busy streets. Who is more “uncivilized”?.
Next time you see a Harley be glad, at least at least you can hear it coming.
Hurray For You, Great Comment!
The only reason I ever modified the exhaust systems on all my motorcycles was to make my “Ride” more visible to others. I have had many near misses even with a LOUD exhaust. Most people are preoccupied with many distractions when they have a comfortable cage around them. Keep others aware of your presence on the road. If it keeps you alive it can’t be that bad.
As I said earlier, if you are afraid to ride without a loud exhaust, it’s time for you to quit and buy a buick. I have ridden bikes with stock pipes for 35 years, this safety argument is still BS.
Another imbicile who doesn’t know the difference between seeing and hearing. Making noise to be seen is like turning on the lights to hear better.
I almost got kiled buy a cager in this exact same scenario- it was literally inches to spare. Thanks for the tip. As for loud pipes to get cagers to notice you, I can’t see much effectiveness in it what w/other ambient noise. In other words just because a driver is startled by a loud noise doesn’t mean they’ll know where the sound’s coming from. You can’t blame mc riders for having issues w/cagers, though- I hate the
way they encroach into the rider’s lane- just because he’s not taking it all up- still can’t see practicality of the loudness, though. Why not put an automotive-decibal horn on mc, but w/the tone of a mc horn?
OK you hate the loud sound of Harley pipes. how many bikes do you see a day? is there really a need to rant about this! first- cars produce way more smog than a motorcycle. second- Loud pipes keep riders safe, you can hear them. Third- I don’t know where you live but in NC people run headers with very loud pipes on there classic cars and its legal. and last- no matter how much you complain sign names to a paper and call the cops you will not live to see a law against loud motorcycles. Why you ask because half the cops I know own a Harley and so do half the law makers and they would not want their bikes Quiet. so there you have it hope this helped. steve.