Motorcycle Helmet Law

[littlecat]

and on the point of cyclists and horse riders not being required to wear them by law...I for one think they should be.

will never forget the sight of the poor lad I came across on the way home last year, came off his bike on the way home from work, apparently hit his head on the kerb, and was fitting as I pulled up...by the time the ambulance got there it was like watching his brain disintegrate in slow motion....not something I ever want to witness again...and could have been prevented by the use of a helmet.

[cruz]

I am against the wearing of helmets being compulsory.

Before the PC police that inhabit this place start, I would wear one 99% of the time.

Do I have first hand experience of their use ?

Yes, infact I would without doubt not be here to type this if it was not for my Centurion F/F fiberglass helmet. I used an aircraft (Concorde) jig as a brake after losing contact with my bike, it caught up with me and hit me up the arse. the impact crushed 2 vertibre and almost leaving me wheelchair bound. This was at 30 mph.

MAG have done a grand job by keeping this an open subject had they not I have no doubt that as a minority group we would have to have approved riding gear at all times, not a bad thing you may say. Well when I started to ride I could not afford gear so rode in jeans and an ex army combat jacket with several layers under and DMS boots.

Many would never start riding as it would be too expensive to start riding, and would in all likleyhood never start.

Freedom of choice.

Just MHO

Sorry if this offends anyones sensitive nature

[Tankbag]

You also a lot of the time get guys on their hayabusa or suzuki GSX1000 riding along with a £300 helmet on but wearing shorts and t-shirt.

Hey dude, I hope you're talking about the Yank busa riders

Helmets are cool, we are modern day gladiators with our armour, & you could wear one of these

">

[cbr-chaps]

Had go one step further an ban open face/piss pots

[techno]

At least while they're still talking about this they're not trying to interfere in some other aspect of our lives.

Hate pretty much everything about this nanny state mentality!

[fq-craigus]

Im amazed at what im reading...... people actually would ride without a helmet given half the chance........

As already mentioned all helmets have to comply with eu legislation so therefore are safe enough. Protective clothing doesnt stop you breaking bones, abrasion protection is the aim, yes there is padding and armour to minimise damage, only helmets actually do a good job at savibg your life, you can die feom falling over in the street and bumping ur head, so a helmet helps with this.

I have witnessed the result of a friend riding without a helmet, he didnt survive the impact with the tree and burnt into the back of my mimd is his crushed head, I was physically sick. This just reinforces what someone else said that others can be affected too.

 

A helmet would likely not have saved him if he hit a tree at any kind of speed..

 

No i very much doubt a helmet woukd have saved him but how many people may die when they spill their bike on a low speed corner or round about because their head hits the floor?

[Joeman]

What worries me is this.

The question asked was not "should we wear helmets", but rather it was: "should the government have the right to force us to wear helmets".

Clearly we should be wearing helmets as all evidence would suggest they do save lives and reduce injuries.

However the results of this poll indicate that the majority of people on here are supportive of the "nanny state" where freedom of choice is removed and legislation is imposed to remove our freedom of choice.

Now that's a big worry to me that so many people are supportive of the nanny state. What happens when the state decides that government issue hi-viz jackets are required. Will everyone think its a good idea to have their freedom of choice removed??

I certainly hope not!!

[GaryJM]

I believe you'll find that helmet use is a statutory requirement in all civilised countries. For good reason!

Are we saying our American cousins aren't civilised then

[GaryJM]

again this comes down to the nanny state and the PC brigade.

most of us moan about both of them.

As wearing a helmet defiantly yes , having no choice in the matter no.

if you are going to enforce a safety issue such as helmets then it should be enforced on any activity where it is a risk.

so horse riding, cycling, mountain climbing and hill walkers should also be forced to wear them.

now imagine the public out cry about the nanny state

I'm pro choice on the helmet law but frankly would wear one for the comfort reasons alone let alone the crash protection.

I do believe that the choice should be an individual one.

I would imagine that there would be very few bikers that wouldn't wear one at the end if the day.

I would wear one even in a country where I have the choice not to.

[wr6133]

I'm firmly in the No camp. It's a personal choice and should have remained so. If I want to risk potato'ing myself that's my call. The final fall back of the safety Nazi's saying that would cost the NHS doesn't hold water with me, fat slobs cost the NHS how about banning them from eating crap? STI's from unprotected sex cost the NHS...... how about we make condoms compulsory?

I often wear a blatantly non 22.05 lid as a "F you" to the helmet laws. Yet to be fined for it though get roadside lectures from coppers and the occasional sunny day riding wannabe at cafes.

I'm a firm believer laws should only exist to stop me harming others, taking risks that may end up harming me is my choice and if I want to take them I will. Government can kiss this

[Mr Fro]

Are we saying our American cousins aren't civilised then

Have you many any?

 

again this comes down to the nanny state and the PC brigade...

...if you are going to enforce a safety issue such as helmets then it should be enforced on any activity where it is a risk.

so horse riding, cycling, mountain climbing and hill walkers should also be forced to wear them.

Bloody hell, this is all getting a bit Daily Mail isn't it?

It's all about risk, no? If you do something stupid, expect for there to be consequences. Like Joeman, my garage is about 20 metres from the front of my house and almost without fail I make that perilous trip sans-lid. If plod caught me in the act then I would have no problems justifying my actions as it's not a through road and there is little traffic.

Regardless of the law, I will continue to wear a lid - not because it looks cool or whatnot, but because I have responsibilities and I'm really quite keen on living for the forseeable future. I'll still hoon round the track as fast as I can and get the bike sideways whenever possible but it's nice to know that I'm in with a shout if things go wrong one day.

[TC1474]

I often wear a blatantly non 22.05 lid as a "F you" to the helmet laws. Yet to be fined for it though get roadside lectures from coppers and the occasional sunny day riding wannabe at cafes.

 

 

A helmet does not have to be 22/05 stamped to be legal. You can still quite legally wear a BS6658-85 helmet and be legal, in fact you can even wear a pre 6658-85 helmet and remain legal.

So nothing blatant about wearing a non 22/05 hat.

[wr6133]

A helmet does not have to be 22/05 stamped to be legal. You can still quite legally wear a BS6658-85 helmet and be legal, in fact you can even wear a pre 6658-85 helmet and remain legal.

So nothing blatant about wearing a non 22/05 hat.

 

http://i1249.photobucket.com/albums/hh504/wr6133/IMG_20140313_133146_zps787a6f62.jpg

[TC1474]

A helmet does not have to be 22/05 stamped to be legal. You can still quite legally wear a BS6658-85 helmet and be legal, in fact you can even wear a pre 6658-85 helmet and remain legal.

So nothing blatant about wearing a non 22/05 hat.

 

http://i1249.photobucket.com/albums/hh504/wr6133/IMG_20140313_133146_zps787a6f62.jpg

 

If that helmet was legal at the time of manufacture, regardless of its age, it still remains legal.

I dealt with a crash a few weeks ago where the rider (albeit he was an old chap) was wearing an old corker from the mid 1950's. he was still legal. So I stand by my comment

All the legislation states is that it had to be legal at the time of production, and so it should have a suitable kite mark for its time.

In short, if someone purchased their helmet in 1955 and chooses to continue to wear it in 2014 (as some old timers do), it remains legal. There is nothing about changing a helmet when new regulations come into force.

[wr6133]

If that helmet was legal at the time of manufacture, regardless of its age, it still remains legal.

 

It's a plastic novelty german helmet makes a 50's pudding basin look positively enormous. Anyway my way of saying to lid laws

[Abraxix92]

If we diden't have to wear lid's i still would, and the people who crash and die pretty much will make us suffer more due to the fact insurance would probably go up, i feel helmets should be needed, and no half lids, fact is if your wearing a half lid, it ain't going to do shit when you get smacked by a lovley kerb.

[wr6133]

If we diden't have to wear lid's i still would, and the people who crash and die pretty much will make us suffer more due to the fact insurance would probably go up, i feel helmets should be needed, and no half lids, fact is if your wearing a half lid, it ain't going to do shit when you get smacked by a lovley kerb.

 

Please explain why me eating the kerb and dying will make your insurance go up?

[Abraxix92]

If we diden't have to wear lid's i still would, and the people who crash and die pretty much will make us suffer more due to the fact insurance would probably go up, i feel helmets should be needed, and no half lids, fact is if your wearing a half lid, it ain't going to do shit when you get smacked by a lovley kerb.

 

Please explain why me eating the kerb and dying will make your insurance go up?

 

If i'm correct insurance which has medical issues attached it would effect that would it not?

Edit: and i said if you don't wear a helmet

Edit x2: seem's im wrong, which is pretty much a shame, was thinking how the states do it, but seem's its same, surprisingly to me, sorry about that!

[Joeman]

If we diden't have to wear lid's i still would, and the people who crash and die pretty much will make us suffer more due to the fact insurance would probably go up, i feel helmets should be needed, and no half lids, fact is if your wearing a half lid, it ain't going to do shit when you get smacked by a lovley kerb.

 

Please explain why me eating the kerb and dying will make your insurance go up?

 

Increased number of fatalities means increased number of claims, increased cost of payouts which in turn puts up insurance premiums for those of us still alive.

[wr6133]

Increased number of fatalities means increased number of claims, increased cost of payouts which in turn puts up insurance premiums for those of us still alive.

 

I pile my bike in to something which is my fault and die/potato myself due to wearing no lid or a shorty lid as it's my fault there is no injury claim from me. Any payouts to 3rd parties I mowed down in my kitten killing evil german lid wearing path of destruction will be the same as if I was wearing a full face helmet.

So no your premiums don't go up.

If it wasn't my fault so there is a claim then surely the increased likelihood of me being deaded decreases the chance of me claiming for whipcash/potato making injuries. Also won't be getting my bike repaired from the grave so another claim less.

[Abraxix92]

If we diden't have to wear lid's i still would, and the people who crash and die pretty much will make us suffer more due to the fact insurance would probably go up, i feel helmets should be needed, and no half lids, fact is if your wearing a half lid, it ain't going to do shit when you get smacked by a lovley kerb.

 

Please explain why me eating the kerb and dying will make your insurance go up?

 

Increased number of fatalities means increased number of claims, increased cost of payouts which in turn puts up insurance premiums for those of us still alive.

 

Would like to back the reason why there would be more accidents as well, i can manage 40mph on a bike with my visor up before my eyes water like hell, and anything hitting me in the eyes with the visor up above 10-40mph frigging kills that i shut one eye for a couple seconds.

Now factor into account people with 1000's riding in shorts/t-shirts/flip flops and nothing but a little hairgel going 70mph on the motorway, something hits you in the eyes at that speed if you manage to keep them open that is..... it's going to friggin hurt enough to possibly keep that eye shut for a couple of min's now bear in mind you just have some lame hairgel and your one remaining eye is watering like hell going 70mph, how good is your hazard perception going to be? let alone your blurry vision.

Why are younger drives paying more insurance? because they crash more from inexperience, now if none wore a helmet older folk would be paying our insurance and the younger lot would go even higher.

Doesn't matter if your extremely experienced and safe, you and i are just another statistic nothing more.

 

I pile my bike in to something which is my fault and die/potato myself due to wearing no lid or a shorty lid as it's my fault there is no injury claim from me. .

You might not claim but your still nothing more than another statistic.

[Joeman]

Increased number of fatalities means increased number of claims, increased cost of payouts which in turn puts up insurance premiums for those of us still alive.

 

I pile my bike in to something which is my fault and die/potato myself due to wearing no lid or a shorty lid as it's my fault there is no injury claim from me. Any payouts to 3rd parties I mowed down in my kitten killing evil german lid wearing path of destruction will be the same as if I was wearing a full face helmet.

So no your premiums don't go up.

If it wasn't my fault so there is a claim then surely the increased likelihood of me being deaded decreases the chance of me claiming for whipcash/potato making injuries. Also won't be getting my bike repaired from the grave so another claim less.

 

Ah so you dont have personal accident/death cover included in your premium?? ... best you dont crash then

if i crash i have injury/death cover, so any life changing injury i sustain, regardless off fault, i get a payout.

[wr6133]

Would like to back the reason why there would be more accidents as well, i can manage 40mph on a bike with my visor up before my eyes water like hell, and anything hitting me in the eyes with the visor up above 10-40mph frigging kills that i shut one eye for a couple seconds.

Now factor into account people with 1000's riding in shorts/t-shirts/flip flops and nothing but a little hairgel going 70mph on the motorway, something hits you in the eyes at that speed if you manage to keep them open that is..... it's going to friggin hurt enough to possibly keep that eye shut for a couple of min's now bear in mind you just have some lame hairgel and your one remaining eye is watering like hell going 70mph, how good is your hazard perception going to be? let alone your blurry vision.

 

I regularly ride at 70 with no visor. Sunglasses, I even have a clear pair for night, and a bandana or tube round my face. Visors are irrelevant to lid laws as the law does not require a visor.

 

You might not claim but your still nothing more than another statistic.

 

Exactly but it should be my choice as to whether I increase my risk of being a statistic or not.

 

Ah so you dont have personal accident/death cover included in your premium?? ... best you dont crash then

if i crash i have injury/death cover, so any life changing injury i sustain, regardless off fault, i get a payout.

 

Which is irrelevant to the claim that no lid law would increase insurance. You are paying for that cover were there no lid law I would bet insurers would put a lid clause in that cover.... no lid no claim for at fault self-potato making.

[Abraxix92]

I regularly ride at 70 with no visor. Sunglasses, I even have a clear pair for night, and a bandana or tube round my face. Visors are irrelevant to lid laws as the law does not require a visor.

 

Yet again, you're one of the few statistics that can, just before people can wear sunglasses doesn't mean they will. what would happen if they decided to snap for some random reason?

Either way i still stand my ground on this as i personally think insurance would go up.

Although you are correct about only one thing, some companys might not insurance you if you don't wear a lid, that's honestly a good point and if that was true i woulden't care, more risk on the road is still dangerous, as soon as this happen's i would thank you personally, with less biker population and the market been flooded with bikes i might be able to grab a good bargin!

[wr6133]

Either way i still stand my ground on this as i personally think insurance would go up.

 

Ok good I may not agree but I respect someone who stands their ground ..... but I see no valid argument on insurance going up were there no Lid law (visors are irrelevant there is no visor/sunglasses law currently).