Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Jacob Sullum takes a primer in lobbying and the art of motorcycle maintenance.
|11.7.05 @ 1:28PM|#
As a long-time - and safe - motorcyclist (15 years, 6 bikes and
a hack, Iron Butt member, 1 crash - not my fault, not a broken
bone), and a cynical bastard I hasten to add: if anything, not
wearing a helmet decreases insurance costs. What do you do with a
helmetless squid who splattered his brains out? Right, you put him
in a hole, end of the story. What do you do with that same squid
who survived because of the helmet, yet slipped into a coma? Not to
mention that a helmeted head is a much dealier projectile than a
helmetless one.
Me? Full-face, full leathers and boots all the time. You - your
mileage may vary. Wish they didn't have primary helmet law here -
those squids need to get culled. At least the stupidest ones - like
the kind that splits lanes over double yellow at 80 mph.
|11.7.05 @ 1:34PM|#
Oh, and forgot to compliment Julian for an insightful look at the issue. Thanks!
|11.7.05 @ 1:36PM|#
I agree that people should be allowed to use common sense when it comes to their own protection, as long as they don't expect my sympathy when they have to be spoon-fed for the rest of their natural lives. If you know the risks and you don't wear the helmet, you live (and die) with the consequences. I don't want to see my insurance premiums go up as a result of someone else's stupidity.
|11.7.05 @ 1:38PM|#
Good article. The nut of it, for me, is the point, it shows
that politics is more important than principle in determining why
certain laws aimed at protecting people from their own risky
behavior become widely accepted while others remain
controversial.
I think that applies to pretty much any laws designed to restrict
personal freedom.
|11.7.05 @ 1:39PM|#
Though it probably didn't matter much in the political fight,
which really was about the "public health" impact on the drivers
themselves...
Failing to wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle doesn't make
you any more dangerous to other people. Failing to wear your
seatbelt does make you more dangerous to other people, by
increasing the chances that you'll lose control of your car.
|11.7.05 @ 1:43PM|#
More power to my motorcycle-riding brethren. As long as not one
nickel of my automobile insurance is subsidizing their decision to
go helmetless (and I do not think it is), and as long as not one
nickel of my group-health premium is subsidizing head-trauma and
spinal cord injuries from helmetless motorcycle accidents at the
hospital ( a much more dubious supposition) I am with them all the
way.
Motorcycle riders are hardly a random sample of the population. As
the endangered species act tends to disproportionately cover warm
and fuzzy critters, so to are legislators less inclined to want to
take on warm and fuzzy motorcycle "clubs". Their ability to defeat
the laws to me is an example of cowardice as much as anything.
Nobody got beat to death at Altamont for refusing to wear his
seatbelt.
As observed, not all motorcycle fatalities, nor for that matter,
maimings, would have been prevented by wearing of a helmet. Add to
that the fact that motorcyclists are overwhelmingly younger males
who select towards risky behavior and the statistics are largely
irrelevant. Then there is my favorite argument, that wearing a
helmet encourages more risky driving. As one of my favorite
economics professors said years ago, if you really want people to
drive safely take the airbags out of the steering wheel and put in
steak knives instead.
As usual the time-tested government-trope about "social costs"
fails to even fire the first synapse in the mind of the
nanny-stater that perhaps the solution is fewer government programs
subsidizing personal risk rather than the government mandating less
risky behavior.
Memo to John Ulczycki and his "perceived" right to
self-determination: Shove a motorcycle helmet up your ass you
fucking do-gooder.
|11.7.05 @ 1:45PM|#
Actually, Joe, that cuts both ways. In a crash, you are less dangerous, yet wearing a helmet actually improves your vision by keeping stuff out of your eyes. I am not convinced one could make an argument one way or the other.
Dave W.|11.7.05 @ 1:49PM|#
I don't want to see my insurance premiums go up as a result
of someone else's stupidity.
This is probably crazy-talk, but I wonder whether insurance
companies would use helmetless riders as an excuse to raise
premiums regardless of whether such riders represented a
non-negligible increase in pay-outs (or even increased payout at
all, see Cyn Bas's comment above). How would we know if they were
abusing the actuarials in this way? Should we know?
|11.7.05 @ 1:57PM|#
I wonder whether insurance companies would use helmetless
riders as an excuse to raise premiums
As I understand risk pools in the state of Forida, there are
discrete tables for automobile and motorcycle rates and
premiums.
The easiest solution with relative risks and costs is to offer a
motorcycle policy with a $500 major medical deducitible if you are
wearing a helmet, $5,000 if you are not.
Jeff P.|11.7.05 @ 2:02PM|#
Joe: How does failing to wear your seatbelt increase the chances you'll lose control of your car?
R C Dean|11.7.05 @ 2:05PM|#
I don't want to see my insurance premiums go up as a result
of someone else's stupidity.
The nature of insurance is to socialize costs. Your insurance
premiums are what they are in part because of other people's
stupidity - if everyone was perfectly risk averse, everyone's
insurance premiums would be lower.
If you don't want your insurance premiums to subsidize bad
decisions by your fellow insurees, don't buy insurance.
Jeff P.|11.7.05 @ 2:23PM|#
If the Gov't was sincere about this, they'd be a little more
exacting in the standards for elasticity and stress-tolerance of
the thin nylon strap designed to absorb the two tons-worth of
momentum energy resultant in a crash. Sorry, regulated data on
seatbelts and windshields has been shaky for decades, dependant on
statistics rather than physical math.
The worst part is that ejector seats are probably illegal under
most state laws.
|11.7.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Where I live (Vancouver, BC), you are free to go without helmets as long as you are a turban wearing Sikh. They got an exemption to the law written in specifically for them, leading me to wonder if the government backed down because of political correctness, or for the fact that the freedom to go helmet-less might actually be held up in court.
Larry A|11.7.05 @ 2:51PM|#
I think that applies to pretty much any laws designed to
restrict personal freedom.
Every law is designed to restrict personal freedom.
|11.7.05 @ 2:52PM|#
A few years ago I began shaving my head (just like Carpet
Humping Man). Some friends suggested I have "DOT" tattooed onto the
back of my skull so that I could ride without a helmet.
Personally, I will always wear a helmet when riding; I just don't
think I should be forced to do so.
Rich Ard|11.7.05 @ 2:57PM|#
Allen, I met a guy in college who had the Bell logo tattooed on the back of his dome.
|11.7.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Joe: How does failing to wear your seatbelt increase the chances you'll lose control of your car?
Yeah, I want to hear this too. In all seriousness, joe, if you have
any evidence, please let us know. I have never heard this brought
up except by a seatbelt-law supporter who's losing an argument. I
think the idea is that in a collision or near-collision, you won't
be flung into the passenger seat, bounce off the roof, or whatever,
but I suspect that if you're getting thrown around that much, you
wouldn't be doing much controlling of the car anyway.
|11.7.05 @ 3:25PM|#
Love the traffic reference.
Or is it a reference to the fantastic Halo Benders tune of the same
name?
Freedom riders
Let's ride ride ride
To the soul deep side
Rocket science in overdrive
You decide
Freedom ride
|11.7.05 @ 3:34PM|#
"Joe: How does failing to wear your seatbelt increase the
chances you'll lose control of your car?"
JeffP,
In a situation in which you are being thrown around, like a violent
fishtail, or if you get hit perpendicularly, the seatbelt keeps you
in front of the steering wheel, with the wheel within arms
reach.
|11.7.05 @ 3:45PM|#
Joe, how often are there accidents in which the driver loses
control because he was not wearing a seatbelt? Or, more
importantly, how much did the number of such occurrences change
after states began passing laws requiring seatbelts? And how does
this justify requiring passengers to wear seatbelts?
Also, motorcycles are obviously much harder to control after having
been hit than are cars, so maybe the answer is to just outlaw
motorcycles entirely.
|11.7.05 @ 4:01PM|#
In the good old days of slippery vinyl bench seats, a seat belt would go a long way to keep you in front of the steering wheel when your car slid on ice. These days, I drive a tiny car that doesn't have any place for me to go that isn't right in front of the wheel. When I shut the door, I'm pinned in pretty tightly.
|11.7.05 @ 4:08PM|#
"Joe: How does failing to wear your seatbelt increase the
chances you'll lose control of your car?"
JeffP,
In a situation in which you are being thrown around, like a
violent fishtail, or if you get hit perpendicularly, the seatbelt
keeps you in front of the steering wheel, with the wheel within
arms reach.
This sort of thing might happen, but is it not also possible that
wearing a seatbelt/helmet actually might lead to more instances of
losing control, as a result of the sense of security the
seatbelt/helmet brings leading to more risk-taking by drivers?
Anybody know?
|11.7.05 @ 4:13PM|#
This sort of thing might happen, but is it not also possible
that wearing a seatbelt/helmet actually might lead to more
instances of losing control, as a result of the sense of security
the seatbelt/helmet brings leading to more risk-taking by drivers?
Anybody know?
Or maybe someone could get tangled up in their seatbelt somehow, or
maybe they could be pinned in wreckage because of their seatbelt
for some reason, or maybe drivers without seatbelts could be more
prone to alien abductions while driving alone on country
roads...
The point is, law should be based on evidence and not "what
ifs".
R C Dean|11.7.05 @ 4:16PM|#
I dunno, joe - in most cars today, if you are being thrown
around so violently that only the seat belt is keeping you within
reach of the wheel, I would say the marginal benefit of the belt is
pretty minimal.
Ethan, I have heard that there is an overcompensation effect for
most any safety equipment, but I don't know how it could be
documented for cars.
I think it has been best documented for safety caps on pill bottles
- people used to be much better about putting them out of reach,
but if the cap is child-proof why bother? Of course, no cap is
child-proof, so . . . .
|11.7.05 @ 4:25PM|#
I find there are any number of very good reasons that I should
wear a seatbelt. I also think that anyone who rides a motorcycle
without a helmet is an idiot.
I also do not think that the State should require either.
|11.7.05 @ 4:33PM|#
zach,
If you're actually interested in the issue, you could look at the
NTSB website. If you'd just like to ask smart-ass questions because
you JUST KNOW what the answer HAS to be (somehow "getting tangled
up in a seatbelt" = sliding around as the car makes dramatic
motions? That's not a reach at all)...you're going to have to ask
elsewhere.
|11.7.05 @ 4:43PM|#
I can't see that the public safety argument for seatbelts makes
much sense. Personal safety I can see, but it seems highly
improbable to me that an accident of sufficient force to remove an
unbelted driver from the drivers seat will leave a belted driver
any time to do anything useful.
There is a nanny ish public good argument about insurance and the
like that is repulsive but more realistic. Damn I hate that
argument though. We pass a law that forces you to carry insurance,
which is fine, then use that as an excuse to regulate risky
behavior on your part. That is an open ended theory of just
regulation if ever there was one.
|11.7.05 @ 4:52PM|#
Or maybe someone could get tangled up in their seatbelt
somehow, or maybe they could be pinned in wreckage because of their
seatbelt for some reason, or maybe drivers without seatbelts could
be more prone to alien abductions while driving alone on country
roads...
The point is, law should be based on evidence and not "what
ifs".
I agree that the law should be based on evidence, Zach. That's why
I asked "Anybody know?" Do you really think that a potential causal
relationship between (A) a heightened sense of security and (B)
greater risk-taking (a relation that has been shown to be the case
with other technologies) is--from the point of view of a person who
wishes to rationally evaluate this topic--equivalent to a potential
causal relationship between (a) not wearing a seatbelt and (b)
being abducted by aliens? The former seems like something worth
looking into, while the latter is just silly (and has nothing to do
with traffic safety anyway).
There is the famous case of the number of head injuries
skyrocketing when the Brits started having their soldiers wear
helmets. Soldiers who helmetless would have been killed were now
merely injured. Deaths down, injuries up. Before the implementation
of this policy, had someone pointed out the possibility that the
helmets might actually increase head injuries, would "yeah, and
wearing a helmet might deflect alien abductions, we need evidence"
have been an adequate response?
|11.7.05 @ 5:04PM|#
"This sort of thing might happen, but is it not also possible
that wearing a seatbelt/helmet actually might lead to more
instances of losing control, as a result of the sense of security
the seatbelt/helmet brings leading to more risk-taking by drivers?
Anybody know?"
Seatbelt laws were shown to increase risky behavior to the point
where they almost exactly cancelled out the positive effects of
wearing them in terms of death rate. You can Google around for it,
it's pretty well established. I'm busy today...
|11.7.05 @ 5:31PM|#
I also think that anyone who rides a motorcycle without a
helmet is an idiot.
O.K. And anyone who rides a school bus without a helmet is also an
idiot.
|11.7.05 @ 6:03PM|#
jdog: Thank You! I highly doubt that automotive safety measures
are worth much if school buses don't use them. A: They're cheap. B:
in all the time that schoolbuses have been in existence (let alone
service) the required insurance would have established some cost
vs. risk ratio. And when you hear about schoolbus crashes you NEVER
hear public cries for belts on buses.
Same applies to public transit buses and trains.
|11.7.05 @ 6:12PM|#
Jeff,
The reasoning might be that people who drive public transportation
are trained and paid to drive carefully, as opposed to your average
driver, who seems better trained at eating breakfast while having a
cell phone conversation and then -- if time permits -- watching the
road and steering.
I don't know if that sufficiently addresses the question posed, but
since people who are not professional drivers vastly outnumber
those who rarely take their eyes off the road or exceed 30 miles
per hour, the seat belts are best suited for the former
group.
Again, with seat belts as well as helmets you should not be
required to wear them by law, but you're a damned fool if you
don't.
|11.7.05 @ 6:14PM|#
Exception to my previous post: taxis. Those crazy bastards behind the wheel make me look not only for the seat belt, but also a blindfold.
|11.7.05 @ 6:15PM|#
joe, I say this in all seriousness: When you're going to make
claims of this nature -- in this case, that seatbelts provide
enough additional safety in serious accidents where the driver
might otherwise be unable to control the car -- it might actually
help if, every once in a blue moon, you provided a link, or a cite,
or something more specific than "the NTSB website." If you know
exactly where the info is that would help demonstrate your point,
would copying and pasting the damned URL be too much additional
trouble? Why should we do the research to demonstrate
your point?
I tend to agree that, at the velocities we're talking about --
velocities sufficient enough to throw an unbelted driver out of
reach of the steering wheel -- the seatbelt is, in a nontrivial
number of cases, not going to be a factor in whether the driver can
control the car. Icy fishtails, yeah, maybe; perpendicular
collisions at those speeds, probably not.
|11.7.05 @ 6:17PM|#
The reasoning might be that people who drive public
transportation are trained and paid to drive carefully
Heh. You've never been behind or beside a DC-area Metrobus.
|11.7.05 @ 6:53PM|#
SPD: Sorry, I'm still not sold on the benefits. Statistics are fine, but the actual math involving the inertia doesn't hold up. And if the state deems them vital, but exempts all vehicles where they might have liability (mass transit, schoolbuses), I suspect the math doesn't hold up for them either.
|11.7.05 @ 8:09PM|#
The thing is, Phil, I don't learn most of what I know on the
internets, so I don't know where to find it there.
I know that I know what I'm talking about. Believe me, don't
believe, I still know what I'm talking about.
|11.7.05 @ 8:11PM|#
As I understand it, the safety benefits of having kids strapped in are more than cancelled out by the safety hazard of having metal-tipped straps for children to swing at each other.
|11.7.05 @ 8:33PM|#
Joe,
In Paksistan and Bangladesh it is common to see a family of five on
a 125cc Honda motorcycle weaving through congested traffic. Please
go there at once at warn them about the safety problems. Children
on handle bars, for heaven's sake.
|11.8.05 @ 8:27AM|#
I'm just sayin', joe. It would really be helpful. I don't
"disbelieve" you, but I don't take anyone's word for things just on
the basis of their saying, "Because I said so," particularly for
areas outside of their particular expertise. If thoreau says
something about physics or optics, I tend to believe him uncited;
if you say something about urban land management and zoning, ditto.
Outside of that, I needs me the links. Besides, it's just common
courtesy online.
It occurred to me overnight, as well, that the data you're talking
about is probably available at NHTSA, not NTSB. It also occurred to
me that any collision hard enough to throw you a sufficient
distance from the steering wheel is probably going to set off
airbags, which would itself interfere with controlling the car.
There are a lot of factors here, and useful data would be
helpful.
Don't get me wrong -- I wear my seatbelt, always have, and insist
that passengers in my car wear them. But I don't think it rises to
the level of requiring a law.
|11.8.05 @ 10:48AM|#
You don't see anything like this sort of well-organized
opposition to seat-belt laws.
After Oklahoma passed its seat belt law they spent more money on
road signs that read, "Buckle up. It's our law." Shortly after they
appeared I noticed several had been spray painted to read "It's
Your law." I thought the revolution had started. It hadn't.
|11.8.05 @ 11:21AM|#
...somehow "getting tangled up in a seatbelt" = sliding
around as the car makes dramatic motions? That's not a reach at
all...
I don't think you're understanding my point. I have offered exactly
as much evidence supporting my "tangled up in a seatbelt" idea as
you have offered supporting your "sliding around in the car" idea
(none).
|11.8.05 @ 12:25PM|#
"How does failing to wear your seatbelt increase the chances
you'll lose control of your car?"
Hmm, must not be any autocrossers on this blog. Making a hard left
turn without my harness on would put me in the right seat, even
with a good bucket seat. I'm just sayin, I gotta be strapped
in.
Try this test (without seatbelts): get yer car up to about 50mph
and then quickly yank the steering wheel hard to the left until the
tires are howling. While in the turn, clip the inside berm on the
track (or the nearest curb). Still in the drivers seat? If so, you
don't need seatbelts.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245