NTSB calls for motorcycle helmet laws

Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum

Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Slappy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
2
Location
Austin, TX
From the Washington Post

Full Article

NTSB calls for motorcycle helmet laws

Network NewsX Profile

By Ashley Halsey III

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Bucking a tide of resistance in state capitals and a free-spirited breed of motorcyclists, the National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday said states should require riders to wear federally approved helmets.

The recommendation comes after a five-year trend of steadily rising motorcycle deaths was reversed in 2009, when 4,462 riders died in crashes. The most recent data, from 2008, indicated that 65 percent of motorcyclists killed were not wearing helmets.

"Too many lives are lost in motorcycle accidents," Christopher A. Hart, NTSB vice chairman, said in announcing that helmets had been added to the board's annual "most-wanted list" of safety improvements. "It's a public health issue."

The NTSB uses the list as part of its bully pulpit on safety issues since the power to regulate lies with Congress, other federal agencies and state legislatures.

In 1967, Congress threatened to withhold highway funding for states that failed to adopt universal helmet requirements for motorcyclists. But after nine years of lobbying by motorcycle groups, Congress returned the decision-making power to the states. In 2005, it prohibited states from using federal money to promote helmet use.

Since 1976, many states have scaled back or abandoned helmet requirements. Only 21 jurisdictions - including Virginia, Maryland and the District - still require all riders and passengers to wear helmets. Twenty-seven other states require only passengers or children to wear helmets. Three states - Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire - have no helmet requirement.

Several other items are also on the NTSB's most wanted list.

The board said it would continue to push states to strengthen licensing requirements for young drivers. Though 49 states and the District have moved toward graduated licensing systems, only 15 states have complied with all of the NTSB's recommendations.

The NTSB also will continue its advocacy for use of booster seats by young children, saying that about 45 percent of the 3,000 children between the ages of 4 and 8 who died in motor vehicle accidents between 2000 and 2009 were unrestrained.

The board will encourage all states to enact primary seat-belt enforcement laws. Nineteen states, including Virginia, still require police to have another reason for stopping a vehicle before a seat-belt ticket can be issued.

Citing data that showed "hard-core drinkers" were responsible for accidents that killed 7,607 people in 2009, the board said it would press states to make more use of sobriety checkpoints and interlock devices that prevent those with a record of drunk driving from starting their vehicle while intoxicated.

"Last year, more than 33,000 people died in highway crashes," NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said. "That's the equivalent of losing five 737 passenger jets every week. . . . It's time for states that lag behind to step up and put in place the safety measures we've highlighted today."

 
It'd be nice if they focused on some of the causes of motorcycle fatalities such as distracted driving, which I'm sure has to be a prominent factor in the fatality increases with the proliferation of gadgets in cars. After all, a helmet won't prevent the accident.

This is always one of those double-edge sword topics...helmets are a wise and responsible investment for yourself and your family, but on the other hand, there's something to be said for freedoms and nanny governments. Where does the line get drawn? Does the slope become very slippery from that point on?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There would be a huge reduction in all accidents if they outlawed Text Messages completely. They can't enforce laws that dis-allows use while operating vehicles, so get rid of the texts all together. Next the Damned cell phone needs to go as well.

 
I recently purchased a new truck which has the built in bluetooth system. What a nice setup. The salesman told me that most of the dealerships in the Denver area ordering this on all the vehicles for safety and convenience. As soon as I enter the truck it links to my phone,a no brainer!

 
My personal opinion with helmet laws is let people wear or dont wear what they want. However if they are involved in an accident the insurance company may drop that persons coverage on the spot if they dont have a DOT approved helmet. They may reduce money payed if they dont have the proper gear.

Now this works two fold. If you wear the bare minimum you pay X. However if you wear more substantial equipment, IE a Snell approved helmet then you save Y.

 
The fact that nearly two thirds of all the deaths happened to those not wearing any helmet begs the question "what difference does it make if helmets are required to meet federal standards if people aren't even required to wear them?" Because of the higher incidence of distracted driver accidents wouldn't personal protective equipment requirements make more sense to enact? People also need to remember that driving is a priviledge not a right.

 
At a minimum they need to prove that the states where helmets are required are safer than states where they are not. Them quoting aggregate numbers about how many people die on the highways is nothing more than scare tactics. I would never ride without a helmet, but I am tired of people who think they know what's best for everyone else.

 
If you wear the bare minimum you pay X. However if you wear more substantial equipment, IE a Snell approved helmet then you save Y.
My thoughts exactly. I shouldn't have to pay higher rates for some other guy who made a choice and now wants his insurance to pay for it. If that guys wants to pay higher rates so he has that choice, so be it. But it shouldn't rest on the shoulders of those that wear the proper PPE.

I also agree it isn't the government's job to protect us from ourselves... if you want to ride without a helmet and sign a waiver, you can't hold anyone responsible but at least you have that freedom.

 
My personal opinion with helmet laws is let people wear or dont wear what they want. However if they are involved in an accident the insurance company may drop that persons coverage on the spot if they dont have a DOT approved helmet. They may reduce money payed if they dont have the proper gear.

Now this works two fold. If you wear the bare minimum you pay X. However if you wear more substantial equipment, IE a Snell approved helmet then you save Y.
**********************************************************

Thanks for being such a fanatical proponent of Insurance companies that you'd let them withhold payments even if the insured is following the law..and also, thanks for volunteering your point of view as to what "the proper gear" is and speaking for all motorcyclists. You'll fit right in with the "ban all motorcycles for they are too dangerous" crowd. Coming soon to a state near you.

:glare:

 
If you wear the bare minimum you pay X. However if you wear more substantial equipment, IE a Snell approved helmet then you save Y.
My thoughts exactly. I shouldn't have to pay higher rates for some other guy who made a choice and now wants his insurance to pay for it. If that guys wants to pay higher rates so he has that choice, so be it. But it shouldn't rest on the shoulders of those that wear the proper PPE.

I also agree it isn't the government's job to protect us from ourselves... if you want to ride without a helmet and sign a waiver, you can't hold anyone responsible but at least you have that freedom.
*********************************************************

I agree 110%...in fact, I wanna go a step further. As a person that is height/weight proportionate, I dont wanna pay higher rates for someone that is obese. Ditto for smokers and drinkers. In fact, I wanna see everyone's diet, and it its not as healthy as mine, I dont wanna pay higher premiums because they dont eat as healthy as me.

I also like your idea of signing the waiver..that way, when the texting soccer mom in the mini van runs you over, she'll be free from any responsibility, cause you signed the waiver. She'll be VERY happy you chose to not wear the helmet (even though it's perfectly legal) Cool ideas.

 
in fact, I wanna go a step further. As a person that is height/weight proportionate, I dont wanna pay higher rates for someone that is obese. Ditto for smokers and drinkers. In fact, I wanna see everyone's diet, and it its not as healthy as mine, I dont wanna pay higher premiums because they dont eat as healthy as me.
That would be politics and not motorcycle related. Having been around the forum block...that's how threads start to go awry....feelings hurt.....threads closed...and once in a great while somebody booted. Friendly advice--keep it on track SPECIFICALLY about motorcycles....and even better if it's about FJRs. ;)

Thanks.

The Management

 
It's easy, just require people to wear helmets on the days that they are going to have an accident.

Some states like Fla you can opt out of wearing a helmet if: 316.211(3)(b ) -- Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person over 21 years of age may operate or ride upon a motorcycle without wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head if such person is covered by an insurance policy providing for at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a crash while operating or riding on a motorcycle.

New Hampshire license plates have the motto "Live Free or Die" on them. A nice and pleasant break from things like "The Sunshine State", eh? And, true to the motto we do not have any helmet requirements. I believe that last NH statistic from a somewhat reliable source showed that 65% of all fatal accidents involved riders without helmets. One thing that NH does have is a pretty good motorcycle license test where you actually have to prove you can ride before getting your license. NH also runs MSF type rider training around the state and the classes are always full.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
in fact, I wanna go a step further. As a person that is height/weight proportionate, I dont wanna pay higher rates for someone that is obese. Ditto for smokers and drinkers. In fact, I wanna see everyone's diet, and it its not as healthy as mine, I dont wanna pay higher premiums because they dont eat as healthy as me.
That would be politics and not motorcycle related. Having been around the forum block...that's how threads start to go awry....feelings hurt.....threads closed...and once in a great while somebody booted. Friendly advice--keep it on track SPECIFICALLY about motorcycles....and even better if it's about FJRs. ;)

Thanks.

The Management
**************************************

Not sure what you mean by that, as I'm responding with identical logic. But, no worries mate, I be out :)

 
They should be more worried about cagers using cell phones and text messaging.

 
I suppose that the NTSB with it's advisory powers have

out best interst in mind when they recommend a change to

the helmet law, but when the states actually get around

to changing the laws it's usually about money, specifically

how much medical care costs to cover those without it.

I think the florida law is spot on, if you are insured

to pay for own injuries years then go on, have fun,

live free, and ride without a helmet.

But, plan on being thinned from the herd at some point.

 
Of the 65 percent that died not wearing a helmet I'd wager that at least 50 percent of those were riding under the influence. Last I checked drinking and driving was illegal yet people still drink and drive. A good majority of the rest were riding over their heads.

Let adults make up their own mine as long as they can provide for their own medical care. Require tougher testing standards to obtain a driver license, tougher penalties for drunk driver's and those driving on a suspended license.

The public has lost sight that driving is a privilege and not a right. There are way too many people out there sharing our roads who lack the skill and sense to drive a vehicle. If they want to improve safety then require drivers to master driving and not just poke around town in their cage to get a license. The same for motorcycle testing. Part of the testing should require emergency braking, swerving, high speed turning, and controlling a skid. I see far too many people riding motorcycles and driving that lack the skill and maturity to ride and drive safely.

As the population ages more and more older folks are out there. Many have past their prime and should not retain a driver license. Try instituting mandatory retesting for drivers that are say over 65, or who have caused a crash, and let them demonstrate that they still have the ability to drive. Many would say that this would be hard on those with less income. Just like the motorcycle safety programs in many areas, the testing could be done by private companies. Again, it's not a right to drive and if you can't afford the price of decent training then how will you afford to repair my vehicle or my body when you run me over.

 
As the population ages more and more older folks are out there. Many have past their prime and should not retain a driver license. Try instituting mandatory retesting for drivers that are say over 65, or who have caused a crash, and let them demonstrate that they still have the ability to drive.
Ha! You should check out Florida. The blue-hairs are a joke, but whenever anything like this gets proposed, the AARP and the rest of the senior lobbying groups squash it, plus the old people are actually smart enough to get out and vote, and the politicians know it.

 
Top