New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 7, 2005

Jacob Sullum takes a primer in lobbying and the art of motorcycle maintenance.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← World Oil Supplies Adequate to 2030… | Main | We'd Rather Be Right Than Relevant... →

See all 52 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|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 @ 1:29PM|#

"deadlier"

|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 @ 1:38PM|#

_Jacob_, of course. Duh. Changing my name in penance...

|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 @ 2:29PM|#

Freedom Rider

Love the traffic reference.

|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.

Jeff P.|11.7.05 @ 2:40PM|#

My religion decrees that I must wear a Galactus helmet while riding...

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 @ 3:27PM|#

Everyone download that song right now.

|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.

Behemoth SUV driver|11.7.05 @ 4:06PM|#

And if I ram into Twba, I'll hardly even notice.

|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 @ 5:22PM|#

Well written article, though I imagine there are bigger beasts to be slayed.

|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 @ 5:40PM|#

Each person is responsible for his own risk assessment. :)

|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.