Wearing the Brain Bucket

[ChipDoc]

This topic really deserves its own thread...

I'm going to go off topic because ChipDoc pushed one of my buttons (which is okay and should be encouraged) when he said, "Not wearing a helmet hurts nobody but yourself."  That is true ONLY when: (1) You have NO familly members (mom, dad, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousin, wife, daughter, son, etc). (2) You have NO friends.  If you fall into that circumstance, you're right; you hurt no one but yourself.  I always wear a helmet but I do not condemn those who make the choice not to but, those who choose not to wear a helmet should never imagine they will hurt only themselves.  Off the soapbox now and returning you to the original thread.

Well, I was hoping this topic would just fizzle out...but since someone brought it back to life....

I'm sorry Jim but don't kid yourself either... You take almost the same risk throwing a leg over your motorcycle. If (God forbid) you were to get into a fatal motorcycle accident, do you think your family and friends are going to take comfort in the thought that you wore a helmet?

In a lot of ways this all boils down to money.  I think wearing a helmet is important, but it sure doesn't keep you from being involved in an accident.  But if I'm in an accident in a cage, I can take a pretty serious hit and still limp away.  Even in accidents which look like fatalities, a fair number of people do survive, albeit with certain deficits afterwards.

But a lot of us who are in serious motorcycle accidents simply die.  We don't linger on and become a drain on society.  The Law doesn't really care how bad your mom feels; The Law cares about how much long-term care is going to cost after your insurance is used up.  Actuarial tables maintained by the insurance companies show that most of us don't linger in a vegetative state after a motorcycle accident - helmet or no helmet.  We either heal up or we shuffle off this mortal coil fairly quickly.  That's one of the big reasons why motorcycle insurance is so much cheaper than auto insurance.

So while I have a lot of sympathy for those who are left behind, that's not the point here.  The point is that motorcycle accidents cost society fewer dollars on average than automobile accidents.  We're a lot cheaper to care for than those who linger for months between life and death.

And I really do feel that helmets should be a choice, not The Law.  And I do choose to wear mine.

 

[Cap'n Bob]

I really wish we had the little popcorn guy! 




Anyway, this debate can go on and on. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind. Personally, I agree with all of you. My opinion (FWIW), we're all stupid and inconsiderate. We chance injury, death and pain on our loved ones every time we get on our motorcycles. And like Dave said, your loved ones will not feel better about your death because you wore a helmet. Although it does give folks something to point the finger at since someone is dead! Not that the internal injuries actually killed them.
  The fact is that you have a better chance of surviving an accident with a helmet. But it can also be the cause of your death. There have been instances where a person had only minor injuries and probably would have been OK from where they hit and landed. But "possibly" the weight of the helmet upon impact broke their neck. And the helmet has no signs of impact.  That was just an example and not meant to start a debate. Only that helmet's won't always be better. Just on average, yes, your chances are better with one.
  Although I mostly always wear my helmet. I support folks right to choose. I also support folks right to choose wearing a seat belt. Or wear hearing protection when mowing the lawn, skydiving, scuba diving, horseback riding, playing football, or any other thing that can possibly injure or kill you. Basically any other stupid thing that should be individual choice. Folks should weight out risks in all of life's situations. Then make their choices knowing the possible ramifications of their actions.
  So IMO, you all make very valid points. But the truth be told, unless you can accept the fact that you may be hurt or killed every time you put your leg over a motorcycle (whether or not your wearing a helmet). And you can accept the pain and suffering that you may inflict on your loved ones if that should happen. Then you have no business riding a motorcycle. 

 

[2linby]

Question.  What is more fun?

a) Oil threads?
b) Tire threads?
c) Helmet threads?
d) Riding?

 

[ChipDoc]

Question.  What is more fun?

a) Oil threads?
b) Tire threads?
c) Helmet threads?
d) Riding?

Riding!!!

Unfortunately, the first three are the only ones I can do at work...  :-[

 

[greg.m784]

I really wish we had the little popcorn guy! 

Found them. They were at the strip club.

 

[greg.m784]

Question.  What is more fun?

a) Oil threads?
b) Tire threads?
c) Helmet threads?
d) Riding?

D) Riding (beats being sick with the flu on New Years day...)

 

[slybonesjesse]

This topic really deserves its own thread...

I'm going to go off topic because ChipDoc pushed one of my buttons (which is okay and should be encouraged) when he said, "Not wearing a helmet hurts nobody but yourself."  That is true ONLY when: (1) You have NO familly members (mom, dad, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousin, wife, daughter, son, etc). (2) You have NO friends.  If you fall into that circumstance, you're right; you hurt no one but yourself.  I always wear a helmet but I do not condemn those who make the choice not to but, those who choose not to wear a helmet should never imagine they will hurt only themselves.  Off the soapbox now and returning you to the original thread.

Well, I was hoping this topic would just fizzle out...but since someone brought it back to life....

I'm sorry Jim but don't kid yourself either... You take almost the same risk throwing a leg over your motorcycle. If (God forbid) you were to get into a fatal motorcycle accident, do you think your family and friends are going to take comfort in the thought that you wore a helmet?

In a lot of ways this all boils down to money.  I think wearing a helmet is important, but it sure doesn't keep you from being involved in an accident.  But if I'm in an accident in a cage, I can take a pretty serious hit and still limp away.  Even in accidents which look like fatalities, a fair number of people do survive, albeit with certain deficits afterwards.

But a lot of us who are in serious motorcycle accidents simply die.  We don't linger on and become a drain on society.  The Law doesn't really care how bad your mom feels; The Law cares about how much long-term care is going to cost after your insurance is used up.  Actuarial tables maintained by the insurance companies show that most of us don't linger in a vegetative state after a motorcycle accident - helmet or no helmet.  We either heal up or we shuffle off this mortal coil fairly quickly.  That's one of the big reasons why motorcycle insurance is so much cheaper than auto insurance.

So while I have a lot of sympathy for those who are left behind, that's not the point here.  The point is that motorcycle accidents cost society fewer dollars on average than automobile accidents.  We're a lot cheaper to care for than those who linger for months between life and death.

And I really do feel that helmets should be a choice, not The Law.  And I do choose to wear mine.

Well it appears your original statement is that is that not wearing a helmet does not "hurt" anyone but themselves. Ranger Jim says that friends and family will suffer a very real emotional "hurt" by the death of a fellow family member. You say thats not the point, the only point is were not a drain on society from a financial point of view. That the law should only base its decision on helmet laws based on financial impact to society. -- And while I am not going provide my opinion as to helmet laws, I have to agree with Ranger Jim that a blanket statement that not wearing a helmet "hurts" no one else is simply too short sided, not factoring all of the costs involved, financial, emotional, etc.

 

[Cap'n Bob]

I really wish we had the little popcorn guy! 

Found them. They were at the strip club.

Excellent!  )

 

[Ranger Jim]

Slybones has my position perfectly described. NO WHERE did I claim that motorcycling is without risk (in fact you're about 70 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a motorcycle crash than you are in a automobile). However, your statement that not wearing a helmet hurts no one but yourself is BOGUS. I, freely, admit that my friends and family will suffer (or will they? ???) if I'm killed or injured riding but that's a risk I'm prepared to take. At least they will know that I took what precautions I could to alleviate the risk. If you choose not to wear a helmet; that's your choice. Don't try to justify it as anything other than a personal choice issue.

 

[ChipDoc]

However, your statement that not wearing a helmet hurts no one but yourself is BOGUS.

I will certainly admit that was more than a bit of an exaggeration.  In fact my mother has been dead-set against my riding a bike since the mid 70s, and I thank the Lord that she and Dad are both still around to grouse at me.  They and my family and friends would certainly be hurt if I died in an accident, gear or no gear.  They'd be hurt if I simply died of some disease, bike or no bike.

But it doesn't change the fact that we motorcyclists are statistically less likely to require long-term care than the majority of the driving public.  Those who choose to wear protective gear have a better chance of recovering quickly; those who do not have a better chance of not surviving through the Golden Hour after the initial trauma.  As a group, we place a lesser burden on society at large, which is what The Law addresses.

Whichever choice we make, we are less of a burden on society than the cagers, and this is why I feel that laws regulating safety gear are inherently inappropriate.

 

[mcfly]

We all understand the purpose/benefits of safety gear and more specifically, helmets.

Seat belts, being the only driver applied piece of safety equipment, is required by law,
and people still decide not to wear it.  With implementation of Air bags, you can actually
get hurt MORE from the car's safety equipment if you don't wear the belt!  Knowing this
there are people STILL not putting on the belt.  So in effect the auto industry upped the
risk in not wearing your safety belt.

Although riders are more likely to survive an accident IN gear, I think most rider's safety
gear is housed IN the helmet.  Most riders I know adamantly admit that riding increases his/her
level of awareness.  Most riders will be more 'forgiving' and passive to stupid cager acts,
and rather opt to increase distance to increase life longevity.  The way we ride is our greatest
application of safety.  The gear is usually protecting us from others' mistakes.

Making people wear helmets is like making people wear seat belts.  To protect against worst
case scenarios, the wreck.  Regulations should be placed on WHO GETS a license, by making
road tests more thorough, and educating people more on NOT driving with distractions, and
to pay attention to what they're doing.  Preventing people from getting into collisions in the
first place would alleviate a lot of equipment regulations, because the ones on the road actually
deserve to be there.  Funny how driver safety courses are only 'mandatory' to people that drive
irresponsibly.  Would on-going education for everyone slow down the idiot's progression?

So, am I for or against Helmet laws?  I'd say against.  BUT as long as DMVs across the country
issue licenses to idiots, I will choose to wear mine, even though FL says I don't have to.  The
tragic irony in all this is they make seatbelt laws to protect the idiots, so they can back on the road again!

"That's all I have to say about that."

 

[ChipDoc]

Although riders are more likely to survive an accident IN gear, I think most rider's safety gear is housed IN the helmet.

+1 on that!  The key to safety is attitude - both your own and that of others.  I don't blame my mom for not wanting me to ride.  Looking back I can hardly believe I managed to survive a bad period of the crazy-stupids I had when I was younger. 

But these days, I'm just enjoying every day I've got left.  I'm not in a hurry to get to work.  I'm not into pushing the envelope on technical rides.  If you need to get down the road ahead of me, I'll pull over and let you by.  If you need to pull into or out of that parking lot, I no longer feel the need to play chicken with you.

Most riders will be more 'forgiving' and passive to stupid cager acts, and rather opt to increase distance to increase life longevity.  The way we ride is our greatest application of safety.  The gear is usually protecting us from others' mistakes.

One more thing I'll admit to - at least some of the time, that freakin' IDIOT who almost causes me to die... (hangs head sheepishly while raising his hand) well, it's me.  The gear is protecting me from my mistakes too.  And because I've noticed that, I just don't get angry at folks on the road anymore.  We all make mistakes and hardly anyone is actually trying to hurt me.

Regulations should be placed on WHO GETS a license, by making road tests more thorough, and educating people more on NOT driving with distractions, and to pay attention to what they're doing.  Preventing people from getting into collisions in the first place would alleviate a lot of equipment regulations, because the ones on the road actually deserve to be there.  Funny how driver safety courses are only 'mandatory' to people that drive irresponsibly.  Would on-going education for everyone slow down the idiot's progression?

On one level this makes SO much sense!  Education is the only thing that's going to make any real difference in the long haul.  Florida recently took a positive step in this direction - in order to get a FL Motorcycle Endorsement, you have to graduate from an MSF course.

And yet on another level, while I like concept, I don't see it working in the larger world.  I often hear the phrase, "Driving is a privilege, not a right."  In our culture, it's actually neither one.  Driving is simply a necessity for the overwhelming majority of people in America.  Those living in metropolitan areas with well-developed public transportation have some options, but Tampa certainly isn't one of those places.  Most American cities are the product of urban sprawl.  If I want to get downtown, I can do that once I walk the 8 miles to the closest HARTline bus stop.  If I want to get somewhere other than the downtown, I can take a bus there once I reach the downtown.  It would take me three hours each way to get to and from work - at least it would if the buses ran at the times I need to be there.

What happens if someone loses their license?  They simply drive without one.  There's just no other option for most folks and no amount of legislation is going to change that.

So, am I for or against Helmet laws?  I'd say against.  BUT as long as DMVs across the country issue licenses to idiots, I will choose to wear mine, even though FL says I don't have to.

One of the truly odd things about this situation is that, if I drive a car I'm legally required to wear a seatbelt and shoes.  Can you believe it's illegal to drive barefoot or in flip-flops in Florida, of all places?  Yet I can LEGALLY ride the bike wearing nothing but eye protection and a Speedo.

The law is an ass - Charles ****ens, Oliver Twist, 1838

 

[2linby]

Can you believe it's illegal to drive barefoot or in flip-flops in Florida, of all places?

Well I hear that in Floriduh if you step on a pop top you can blow out a flip flop!  :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
(Sorry Jimmy!)

  Yet I can LEGALLY ride the bike wearing nothing but eye protection and a Speedo.

Oh and thanks for that image!  :-\

 

[conniefan]

I've heard it said that helmet laws are like drug laws; repeal them both and let Darwin take over.

One issue that I think has been over looked is not the major impacts, but rather the minor accidents.  Putting the bike down in a turn, a low speed collision in a residential.  You don't have to be moving fast on your bike to sustain a fatal head injury. 

While I'm not a fan of being told what to do when it comes to my freedoms, helmet law or not, I'll choose to wear one because it's my belief that the lack of a helmet can turn a minor injury into a major one very quickly.  I'm sure we all have our stories....

 

[mcfly]

I wear my helmet with a dark tinted shield just so I can make faces at the cagers when I'm stopped
at a traffic signal.  I did get caught once, forgetting when you do this  with a helmet on, they can
see your hands....  my bad.

 

[ron203]

:rotflmao:

That's also a bad habit to get into with conference calls if you sometimes use "GO To Meetings" or Skype...

 

[Cap'n Bob]

I wear my helmet with a dark tinted shield just so I can make faces at the cagers when I'm stopped
at a traffic signal.  I did get caught once, forgetting when you do this  with a helmet on, they can
see your hands....  my bad.

:rotflmao:    Excellent!

 

[CRocker]

I wear my helmet with a dark tinted shield just so I can make faces at the cagers when I'm stopped
at a traffic signal.  I did get caught once, forgetting when you do this  with a helmet on, they can
see your hands....  my bad.

Mcfly!!!!

 

[Rod Bensken]

Like my great, great, great, grandpappy used to say...Got a 2 dollar head, put it in a 2 dollar doo rag....

 

[OMoaC]

Anybody remember, I think it was the late 80's, Bell helmets got sued by a guy that was turned into a vegetable, no helmet, and claimed that the reason he wasn't wearing a helmet was because Bell's were to expensive. Won the case and forced Bell to move manufacturing to Italy? Here's yer sign.

 

[BOOTH]

Question.  What is more fun?

a) Oil threads?
b) Tire threads?
c) Helmet threads?
d) Riding?

Riding!!!

Unfortunately, the first three are the only ones I can do at work...  :-[

I'm still trying to get someone to pay me to do )d!

 

[ChipDoc]

There are all sorts of weird stories like that.  I heard one where the guy was wearing his helmet on his knee when the LEO told him to put it on his head.  He did, under protest, and then fell and broke his knee - prompting a lawsuit.

It it true?  Probably not.  It doesn't really matter.  It certainly shows the depth of feeling associated with this subject though. 

 

[rwjc]

....., and then fell and broke his knee - prompting a lawsuit.
It it true?  Probably not.  It doesn't really matter.  It certainly shows the depth of feeling associated with this subject though. 

OK, rant...why is it we can't realize some people are just stoopd!! (Intentional!)  Ya kan't fix stoopid!
This is why we can't have nice things...lawyers who will sue bc they want the sky pink, and not blue, and some stoopid judge who buys (or gets bought) for it. The corruption is unreal in this place...  (I'm done)  :truce: :-X

 

[Killer Kawasaki]

Who's claiming that motorcycle injuries cost less than auto? I would like to see those stats. Even a simple fall off of the saddle can cause enough brain injury to see you being spoon-fed for life.

If you compare relative accidents (motorcycle hits guardrail, car hits guardrail) the bike rider is going to come off much worse. I believe this is the only fair criteria. You shouldn't compare a car hitting a bridge abutment at 80 and a bike hitting a tree at 30.

Most accidents that would only be a collision claim on a car are going to leave a real mark on a rider. Protective gear will only mitigate damage. This is going to be an improvement on all accidents that aren't fatal (which I guessing represent the majority).

Regarding the comment that the family/friends of the dead wont' feel better knowing the deceased was wearing a helmet- I say that is garbage too. My family I'm sure would want to know that I at least took the most basic steps to prevent my funeral at such a tender age. YMMV.

 

[CRocker]

I know...alright...I know...and I'm sorry...but, I just had to... )






BTW...I do wear mine by choice!

 

[Killer Kawasaki]

Who are those handsome, smartly outfitted fellows????

 

[ManWorkingHere]

I wear my helmet with a dark tinted shield just so I can make faces at the cagers when I'm stopped
at a traffic signal.  I did get caught once, forgetting when you do this  with a helmet on, they can
see your hands....  my bad.

+1

and now that I wear Ear Plugs, I forget they can still hear me when I am yelling about their Genealogical heritage from Apes...

 

[Gypsy JR]

I have the benefit of having been a licensed motorcyclist long before mandatory helmet laws. The rest of why I am still here cannot be anything else but dumb luck, because the stuff I did on a motorcycle is just wrong.

Before mandatory helmet laws, I wore a helmet anyway. But then I wore a seatbelt in my cars before they were mandatory too. So I guess I'm just timid or conservative, or safety-conscious, or something.

So when first a State, and then the nation went manadatory helmet, it was no change for me.

Personally, I have belonged to Abate off and on, and will probably join again next month, because I don't think the federal government should tell me how to do anything except defend the nation and be fair in the dealings between states.

If my state wants to mandate helmet use it is their right. If I don't like it, then I can move to another state.

When we ride up into Pennsylvania, which repealed mandatory helmet use, some of the folks take their helmets off. Me, I feel naked without a helmet.

I'm waiting to see if the Supreme Court strikes down the Mandate (health care) and puts the Commerce Clause back to original intent (it was illegally modified by a Federal court several decades ago). If they do, and we expect it, or at least hope for it, then Mandatory Helmet and Mandatory Seatbelt laws at the federal level will be prime targets and easily dismantled.

And then, as the Spec Ops folks are fond of saying, "Let God sort them out".

 

[CRocker]

Who are those handsome, smartly outfitted fellows????

I don't know the guys on the scooter... )

But...after riding with you that day...I decided to get a Hi-Viz jacket for more visibility...I even went so far as to get one with lights on it!  Check out "Adaptiv Glowrider Jacket"...

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'd like to wake up in one piece tomorrow!

 

[Killer Kawasaki]

You won't look as cute as her in it, I'm sure!

Adaptiv Glow Rider Jacket at Indy Dealer Expo

 

[ChipDoc]

Who's claiming that motorcycle injuries cost less than auto? I would like to see those stats. Even a simple fall off of the saddle can cause enough brain injury to see you being spoon-fed for life.

While it's certainly true that it's much easier to get badly hurt on a motorcycle than in a car, the reason motorcycle injuries cost less than car injuries is that a FAR higher proportion of motorcyclists simply die in the aftermath of an accident, and that keeps the average costs way down.  I wondered why full-boat insurance on Connie costs me less than $300/year while bare-minimum insurance on a 20-year old Chevy cost $1,200 and asked my insurance guy.  It makes sense when he explains it that way.

Here's some data from the US Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1107.pdf

In 1980, 16 motorcyclists were injured for every death, while 63 cagers were injured for every death in 1980

1n 2009, we saw 20 motorcyclist injuries per death vs 65 injured cagers per death.  It's the injured who cost money - the dead are relatively cheap.  As my dad always told me, if I wanted to know the answer to practically anything in the world, all I really needed to do was follow the money trail.

 

[calboy]

I've heard it said that helmet laws are like drug laws; repeal them both and let Darwin take over.

One issue that I think has been over looked is not the major impacts, but rather the minor accidents.  Putting the bike down in a turn, a low speed collision in a residential.  You don't have to be moving fast on your bike to sustain a fatal head injury. 

While I'm not a fan of being told what to do when it comes to my freedoms, helmet law or not, I'll choose to wear one because it's my belief that the lack of a helmet can turn a minor injury into a major one very quickly.  I'm sure we all have our stories....

What freedom(s) are you referring to? Just curious, that's all...

 

[calboy]

I really wish we had the little popcorn guy! 




Anyway, this debate can go on and on. Nobody is ever going to change anyone else's mind. Personally, I agree with all of you. My opinion (FWIW), we're all stupid and inconsiderate. We chance injury, death and pain on our loved ones every time we get on our motorcycles. And like Dave said, your loved ones will not feel better about your death because you wore a helmet. Although it does give folks something to point the finger at since someone is dead! Not that the internal injuries actually killed them.
  The fact is that you have a better chance of surviving an accident with a helmet. But it can also be the cause of your death. There have been instances where a person had only minor injuries and probably would have been OK from where they hit and landed. But "possibly" the weight of the helmet upon impact broke their neck. And the helmet has no signs of impact.  That was just an example and not meant to start a debate. Only that helmet's won't always be better. Just on average, yes, your chances are better with one.
  Although I mostly always wear my helmet. I support folks right to choose. I also support folks right to choose wearing a seat belt. Or wear hearing protection when mowing the lawn, skydiving, scuba diving, horseback riding, playing football, or any other thing that can possibly injure or kill you. Basically any other stupid thing that should be individual choice. Folks should weight out risks in all of life's situations. Then make their choices knowing the possible ramifications of their actions.
  So IMO, you all make very valid points. But the truth be told, unless you can accept the fact that you may be hurt or killed every time you put your leg over a motorcycle (whether or not your wearing a helmet). And you can accept the pain and suffering that you may inflict on your loved ones if that should happen. Then you have no business riding a motorcycle. 

If you lived on the west coast and added a little bit of civil disobedience to your perfect understanding of what a helmet does or doesn't, I would make you a BOLT member. I swear to God I would. This is the first time in a very long time that I heard anybody saying stuff the way you did. Congratulations!

 

[CRocker]

You won't look as cute as her in it, I'm sure!

Adaptiv Glow Rider Jacket at Indy Dealer Expo

OK...I'll give you that one...!

 

[ChipDoc]

You won't look as cute as her in it, I'm sure!

Heck, I wouldn't even look as cute as him in it...  :

 

[conniefan]

What freedom(s) are you referring to? Just curious, that's all...

CalBoy, perhaps my phrasing was not the best.  I just think that many laws are written to protect us from ourselves and if people applied a bit of common sense to their actions, we wouldn't need many of the laws put into place.  Sorry if this still seems vague, but I want to avoid starting an argument, or getting someone all riled up on politics or the government. 

Regards.

 

[Killer Kawasaki]

In 1980, 16 motorcyclists were injured for every death, while 63 cagers were injured for every death in 1980

1n 2009, we saw 20 motorcyclist injuries per death vs 65 injured cagers per death.  It's the injured who cost money - the dead are relatively cheap.  As my dad always told me, if I wanted to know the answer to practically anything in the world, all I really needed to do was follow the money trail.

We see a 25% improvement in accident surviveablility for motorcycles. Is that attributed to better protection or emergency medical response? As emergency medical response doesn't it also stand to reason that more protection equals better life saving opportunities?

 

[S Smith]

In 1980, 16 motorcyclists were injured for every death, while 63 cagers were injured for every death in 1980

1n 2009, we saw 20 motorcyclist injuries per death vs 65 injured cagers per death.  It's the injured who cost money - the dead are relatively cheap.  As my dad always told me, if I wanted to know the answer to practically anything in the world, all I really needed to do was follow the money trail.

I just noticed the motorcycle numbers in US Census data referred to also include motorized cycles (aka mopeds). I wonder if including these with motorcycle caused the higher 1980 numbers. There were an abundance of these being used in the late 70's and early 80's and most moped operators wear little, if any, protective gear.

If that's the case be ready to see the census motorcycle injury & death numbers increase as gas prices climb.  The number of mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles is increasing. 

 

[Sport rider]

Question.  What is more fun?

a) Oil threads?
b) Tire threads?
c) Helmet threads?
d) Riding?

e) Loud pipe threads?

Popcorn, popcorn, I need some popcorn!  )

Chipdoc, I think the issue is that you live in FL where curves don't exist.  Who would need a helmet for that anyway!  )

Sorry...just being flippant and sarcastic.  I have nothing of value to add to this thread.  :beerchug:

 

[Gypsy JR]

This got me thinking about when I threw my 1991 ZX11 away in the Santa Clara Mountains, west of San Jose CA. I was headed to Alice's Restaraunt on a warm Sunday morning just after daybreak.

Quick backstory. I had shipped this ZX11 to London, ferried to France, and ridden it from Assen Holland on the north coast to Nice and Antibe on the south coast. I turned a set of Michelin Rain Slicks into full slicks by the time I was headed back to Calais to ferry back to England and ship me and bike home. This ZX11 was highly modified, and a guy in Nice oftered me 10,000 USD cash while I was stopped at a stoplight, and I couldn't help laughing at him. I had that much in the closed loop fuel injection and Marchessini cast magnesium wheels.

So I'm riding up the twisty switchbacks to get to the ridge road we ran north on to Alice's. I come to a 90 degree uphill off-camber turn I've taken a thousand times before.

But I overcook it and despite dragging the kneepucks of my beautiful leather 1-piece, the right footpeg catches a ripple in the pavement and breaks off. My right foot drops under the bike, and I end up almost correcting for it, but still get highsided when the front tire quits sliding and hooks up. The bike summersaulted up the center line uphill for at least 50 yards, bits of metal and plastics flying off after each flip.

I was alternately sliding and flipping behind it, headed uphill also, at about 30 mph. Slide on my right side, slide on my back, get rolled onto my front, and thrown into the air like a rag doll. I did that about 4 times, and slide off the side of the road up against the embankment coming down from a high part of the switchbacks climbing to the ridge.

I lay on the side of the road a few minutes, trying to feel my toes and fingers and seeing if anyplace hurt really bad like a serious injury. Eventually I rolled over onto my knees, looking uphill. I kind of used the embankment to push myself to the standing position, and promptly fell down because I'd pulled most every muscle in my legs and waist. So as I sat up against the embankment, I took my helmet off. This was a Wayne Rainey replica, I was quite proud of it. There were several gashes across the lexan faceshield. Deep gashes. The right side was abraided through the shell to the inner lining. The TOP was abraided with a flat spot, not sure how that happened.

Ignoring I could have avoided all this by not overcooking the entrance into the turn, if I had not been wearing a very good helmet I would have been at best a plastic surgery patient for a year or two, and maybe really at best, dead.

And still, I give money to ABATE, because I do not believe the Federal government has the Constitutional Grant of Powers necessary to tell me I HAVE to wear a helmet. Even though I'd wear one anyway.

 

[goalie30]

This got me thinking about when I threw my 1991 ZX11 away in the Santa Clara Mountains, west of San Jose CA. I was headed to Alice's Restaraunt on a warm Sunday morning just after daybreak.

Quick backstory. I had shipped this ZX11 to London, ferried to France, and ridden it from Assen Holland on the north coast to Nice and Antibe on the south coast. I turned a set of Michelin Rain Slicks into full slicks by the time I was headed back to Calais to ferry back to England and ship me and bike home. This ZX11 was highly modified, and a guy in Nice oftered me 10,000 USD cash while I was stopped at a stoplight, and I couldn't help laughing at him. I had that much in the closed loop fuel injection and Marchessini cast magnesium wheels.

So I'm riding up the twisty switchbacks to get to the ridge road we ran north on to Alice's. I come to a 90 degree uphill off-camber turn I've taken a thousand times before.

But I overcook it and despite dragging the kneepucks of my beautiful leather 1-piece, the right footpeg catches a ripple in the pavement and breaks off. My right foot drops under the bike, and I end up almost correcting for it, but still get highsided when the front tire quits sliding and hooks up. The bike summersaulted up the center line uphill for at least 50 yards, bits of metal and plastics flying off after each flip.

I was alternately sliding and flipping behind it, headed uphill also, at about 30 mph. Slide on my right side, slide on my back, get rolled onto my front, and thrown into the air like a rag doll. I did that about 4 times, and slide off the side of the road up against the embankment coming down from a high part of the switchbacks climbing to the ridge.

I lay on the side of the road a few minutes, trying to feel my toes and fingers and seeing if anyplace hurt really bad like a serious injury. Eventually I rolled over onto my knees, looking uphill. I kind of used the embankment to push myself to the standing position, and promptly fell down because I'd pulled most every muscle in my legs and waist. So as I sat up against the embankment, I took my helmet off. This was a Wayne Rainey replica, I was quite proud of it. There were several gashes across the lexan faceshield. Deep gashes. The right side was abraided through the shell to the inner lining. The TOP was abraided with a flat spot, not sure how that happened.

Ignoring I could have avoided all this by not overcooking the entrance into the turn, if I had not been wearing a very good helmet I would have been at best a plastic surgery patient for a year or two, and maybe really at best, dead.

And still, I give money to ABATE, because I do not believe the Federal government has the Constitutional Grant of Powers necessary to tell me I HAVE to wear a helmet. Even though I'd wear one anyway.

First off, I'm glad you're still around Privateer. Sounds like a scary time.

Here in Michigan, they just overturned the mandatory helmet law, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. I, for one, never look at my bike without wearing full gear. And, I do believe in mandatory helmet laws, and here's why:

- The Federal Government does not have any helmet laws. They are all state laws, and the state does have that power, since the Constitution indicates that all powers not granted to the Federal government are granted to the states.
- Here's the big one...We, as Americans, live in a society together. That society grants us a lot of benefits, including the fact that any hospital MUST treat you without regard to ability to pay. I work at a hospital, and see examples of this every day. I believe the members of this society have a duty to take common sense precautions in order to avoid burdening society unnecessarily, and I believe that wearing a helmet is one such precaution. Either that, or you somehow indicate that you do not wish to benefit from society, and are OK with not receiving "free" medical care.
  People love talking about "freedom" as an abstract concept. However, few take the time to think about how someone's "freedom" can actually hurt someone else's "freedom".

  Finally, if anyone hasn't seen it, check out www.rockthegear.org.

Matt

 

[Cra-z1000]

It really is funny how people need laws to force them to do things that should just be automatic common sense actions . Motorcycle wrecks are survivable so why not live to ride another day ?

 

[mcfly]

It really is funny how people need laws to force them to do things that should just be automatic common sense actions . Motorcycle wrecks are survivable so why not live to ride another day ?

I agree totally, BUT!!!!!

On the contrary, people are required by law to:
1) Use turn signals
2) Obey posted speed limits
3) Keep right unless passing slower moving traffic

The list goes on and on... This is just driving.  All of these "Laws" are
in place because people won't do it on their own.  People still don't do it.

Laws imposed on people to make them do common sense things
are pointless.  Here's a good one... Hands free cell phones only? HA!
How many late model cars have bluetooth IN the car, and the majority still
hold the phone up to their ear... (I'm surrounded by Idiots!)

Retract ALL these "you'd better... for your own good" laws, and let
nature, and the law of natural selection take a turn.

 

[ChipDoc]

The only downside to that is that the guilty take a bunch of innocents down with them, McFly.  That's why I focus on helmet laws.  The only person you're going to injure if you are in a wreck without one is yourself.  I'm an ABATE member and I support ending mandatory helmet laws.  Helmets should be a CHOICE and not the LAW.

That said, I choose to wear mine every time I climb aboard.

 

[Gypsy JR]

- The Federal Government does not have any helmet laws. They are all state laws, and the state does have that power, since the Constitution indicates that all powers not granted to the Federal government are granted to the states.

In a strict sense, you are correct. But in practical terms, the federal government blackmailed the States into mandating helmet use by passing regulations backed up by commerce laws which would deny federal highway funds and a few other things to any State not getting in line.

And yes, the State has the grant of power to legislate anything, as long as it doesn't contradict federal law. The Constitution was worded that way because the Founders never imagined a day when the federal government would pervert the Commerce Clause and use it to mandate and blackmail the States.

In the absence of the federal government (specifically the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch) interference and use of un-Constitutional mandates, I have no problem with the States writing whatever laws they want. Since I can always move to another State.

Pennsylvania decided they didn't need federal highway funds etc. and repealed its helmet laws. Most States cannot afford to do so.

 

[2linby]

The only person you're going to injure if you are in a wreck without one is yourself. 

I know I am going to regret this but here it goes

Sorry ChipDoc but you are wrong on so many levels.

What about your surviving children? Spouses? significant others? Family members? Others you are legally and financially responsible for?
Your estate or most likely the state that now is responsible for your potentially vegetative body? Those citizens responsible for paying for your long term care and or rehabilitation?

I strongly disagree with any premise that the superiority of individual rights trumps the proven rational truth that helmets save lives and reduces injuries.

As this has been beating to death (literally) for so many years. It seems only logical that in a society that allegedly fosters individual freedoms there would not be helmet laws. But there we are. Why?

Let's put this into a single proper context for a legitimate rational conversation on the matter.

Can we all agree that wearing a helmet has the potential to reduce head injuring in the event of a collision? Yes? No?  If you said not then you are a flatlander as it is proven fact beyond any irrational dispute otherwise. For those "flatlanders" read about Christopher Columbus and the round world we live on.
   
Can we agree what we are talking about is helmet laws for adults, or those over the age of 18 or 21 in some states and not those under 18 or 21 in some states? Yes? no?

Would it be safe to assume that you agree that those riders under the age of 18 should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and be forced by state law to wear helmets?  I mean for the most part we are talking about under age passengers, right? Those that we, as adults, are charges with caring for and being responsible for, yes? No? If you don't agree that children should have head protection while riding a motorcycle please stop reading right now as you are clearing a ignoramus incapable of any rational thought. (and yes if you understand this it was meant to be an insult to you)

OK then. Can we agree (for the most part) children and young adults under these ages should have some sort of protection under that law in regards to wearing a helmet when riding as a passenger on the back of a motorcycle, yes?  No?

So, given the conventional wisdom in regards to protecting our children from injury to their heads through the use of a motorcycle helmet is it a stretch to make the connection that if we have the responsibilities of raising or caring for children that we should want to protect ourselves against those same dangers so that we as the responsible and legal guardians of our children wouldn't put ourselves in a position that could leave our children without the protection that we offer to them as functioning adults?  Yes? No?

OK then. I don't have any under aged children so what?

Well let's take a rational look at the responsibilities to others in our lives that we do have.  Other family members? Spouses? Parents? Grown Children? Employers? Friends? Pets? Simply put if you are involved in a collision with anything other than a soft pillow at speeds above 15 mph you run a very high risk of being injured without personnel protective apparel. The nature of head injuries can be and usually is severe and debilitating resulting in radical life altering effects up to and including premature death with even the slightest impact.  I don't care how tough you may think you are, you cannot avoid the laws of physics.

Simple physics help us to understand that the speed generated in a four foot (4') fall to the ground equates to approximately an impact at 15 mph. Gravitational pull is a constant and cannot be overcome on any heavenly body.

K=MV2    Kinetic energy (energy in motion) is equal to the mass (weight on earth) times the velocity (speed) squared. This simple yet very elegant formula was proven by Sir Isaac Newton almost 500 years ago and is proven everyday on this planet.

The average adult head, weighs approximately 22-25 lbs.  Thus 22 lbs x 15mph2 (225) = an impact energy of 4950 LBS.  Yes I said impact energy of almost 2.5 tons of force. Sure go ahead and calculate inches or meters or feet for your velocity, but all in all the impact energy will yield the same results. 

Enough to cause severe head and brain injury. If you doubt this then please run as fast as you can head first into a concrete wall and see what happens. (Talk to you, maybe, in a couple of weeks after your recovery, perhaps).

For the most part the only creature I know of that could and does on a regular basis survive such devastating impacts is Willie Coyote (Genius!)  OK sorry for that, but really now?

Seriously folks what the heck are we saying here?

Do you just not want to be told what you can and cannot do?

Why not rail against traffic laws? Drug laws? Land laws? Property laws? Child abuse laws? Workers rights Laws? Civil rights laws? Discrimination laws? Equality laws? Food and drug purity laws? Water and air clean act laws? Doesn't the state tell us and the rest of society what to do in these cases?

I dismiss the notion that these rather innocuous helmets laws are a grave infringement on anyones individual freedoms guaranteed under constitutional law. They are not. More simply put they are a rational and responsible response to the effects of physics on the human body and the pr oven results of what happens to those with and without the protection of a helmet.

So even if you are a total jerk, someone, maybe me, likes you. Please wear a helmet regardless of backwoods state laws you are subjected to dealing with. Please? The life you save could be your own and the ones who depend on you.

 

[ChipDoc]

The only person you're going to injure if you are in a wreck without one is yourself. 

I know I am going to regret this but here it goes

Sorry ChipDoc but you are wrong on so many levels.

What about your surviving children? Spouses? significant others? Family members? Others you are legally and financially responsible for?

My surviving children are conveniently well into adulthood and my ex has always made significantly more money than I do.  Though I do wear a helmet every time I ride, from the perspective of leaving something to the kids, I'd actually be acting in a more responsible way by NOT wearing it.  Wearing a helmet greatly increases my chances of surviving an accident, and therefore winding up in a hospital racking up huge bills which I couldn't possibly pay - even if I were healthy.  If I'm not wearing the brain bucket, my chances of simply dying right there on the road goes up significantly.  If this happens, there's no hospital bill and my kids will be able to sell the property and actually get some inheritance for themselves.

Your estate or most likely the state that now is responsible for your potentially vegetative body? Those citizens responsible for paying for your long term care and or rehabilitation?

Exactly... this is WHY I think it's foolish to make wearing helmets the Law.  I'm far more likely to survive in a broken body if I'm wearing the helmet; without the helmet, the chances of my surviving in a long-term vegetative state (or even fully cognitive, but unable to get around) go way down and statistically the State won't have to worry about being responsible because there won't be any long term care or rehabilitation.

I strongly disagree with any premise that the superiority of individual rights trumps the proven rational truth that helmets save lives and reduces injuries.

I'd agree with you if surviving the accident actually cost society less - but surviving costs society MORE than if those involved simply die.  Motorcycling is an inherently dangerous activity; there's no sense in trying to force  safety on its practitioners.

As this has been beating to death (literally) for so many years. It seems only logical that in a society that allegedly fosters individual freedoms there would not be helmet laws. But there we are. Why?

Well that's easy enough.  Follow the money trail!  The health care industry WANTS you to survive in a disabled or vegetative state because they make money off of you that way.  And the health care industry has been lobbying to increase their slice of the pie for a long time now.  This is just another aspect of it - very much like seatbelt laws.  And the doctors' AMA has a LOT more money than the bikers' AMA.

Let's put this into a single proper context for a legitimate rational conversation on the matter.

Can we all agree that wearing a helmet has the potential to reduce head injuring in the event of a collision? Yes? No?  If you said not then you are a flatlander as it is proven fact beyond any irrational dispute otherwise. For those "flatlanders" read about Christopher Columbus and the round world we live on.

Can we agree what we are talking about is helmet laws for adults, or those over the age of 18 or 21 in some states and not those under 18 or 21 in some states? Yes? no?

Sure.  I'll accept that wearing a helmet makes you statistically more likely to survive an accident.  And I will accept that we're speaking of choices being made by adults.

Would it be safe to assume that you agree that those riders under the age of 18 should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and be forced by state law to wear helmets?  I mean for the most part we are talking about under age passengers, right? Those that we, as adults, are charges with caring for and being responsible for, yes? No? If you don't agree that children should have head protection while riding a motorcycle please stop reading right now as you are clearing a ignoramus incapable of any rational thought. (and yes if you understand this it was meant to be an insult to you)

OK then. Can we agree (for the most part) children and young adults under these ages should have some sort of protection under that law in regards to wearing a helmet when riding as a passenger on the back of a motorcycle, yes?  No?

Yep, I always made sure my kids were wearing a lot more safety equipment than just a helmet whenever they rode pillion on my bike.  I made sure they wore the same level of protection that I do.  Remember that I'm an ATGATT kinda guy; I support wearing the gear - I just feel it should not be the Law.  Now that the kids are well into their majority, I no longer make such a big deal over it.  They're adults; they can make their own decisions. 

So, given the conventional wisdom in regards to protecting our children from injury to their heads through the use of a motorcycle helmet is it a stretch to make the connection that if we have the responsibilities of raising or caring for children that we should want to protect ourselves against those same dangers so that we as the responsible and legal guardians of our children wouldn't put ourselves in a position that could leave our children without the protection that we offer to them as functioning adults?  Yes? No?

Absolutely not.  By this same logic, we should not be permitted to do anything at all, since only people who do nothing at all avoid get injured or killed while doing those things.  Yes, you can die in your bed, but that's not really something we can solve for.  You're surprisingly likely to die in the bathroom - should the Law mandate catheters and colostomy bags as a preventative measure?

OK then. I don't have any under aged children so what?

Well let's take a rational look at the responsibilities to others in our lives that we do have.  Other family members? Spouses? Parents? Grown Children? Employers? Friends? Pets? Simply put if you are involved in a collision with anything other than a soft pillow at speeds above 15 mph you run a very high risk of being injured without personnel protective apparel. The nature of head injuries can be and usually is severe and debilitating resulting in radical life altering effects up to and including premature death with even the slightest impact.  I don't care how tough you may think you are, you cannot avoid the laws of physics.

Simple physics help us to understand that the speed generated in a four foot (4') fall to the ground equates to approximately an impact at 15 mph. Gravitational pull is a constant and cannot be overcome on any heavenly body.

K=MV2    Kinetic energy (energy in motion) is equal to the mass (weight on earth) times the velocity (speed) squared. This simple yet very elegant formula was proven by Sir Isaac Newton almost 500 years ago and is proven everyday on this planet.

The average adult head, weighs approximately 22-25 lbs.  Thus 22 lbs x 15mph2 (225) = an impact energy of 4950 LBS.  Yes I said impact energy of almost 2.5 tons of force. Sure go ahead and calculate inches or meters or feet for your velocity, but all in all the impact energy will yield the same results. 

Enough to cause severe head and brain injury. If you doubt this then please run as fast as you can head first into a concrete wall and see what happens. (Talk to you, maybe, in a couple of weeks after your recovery, perhaps).

For the most part the only creature I know of that could and does on a regular basis survive such devastating impacts is Willie Coyote (Genius!)  OK sorry for that, but really now?

Seriously folks what the heck are we saying here?

What we're saying here is that premature death is an unfortunate thing for everyone involved, and does not limit its effects to those who actually die.  Even on a strictly financial level, it's tough on a family to have to go without that income.  On this, you and I are in absolute agreement.  However, it is LESS unfortunate than losing both the loving support and the income of that person and having them still being around - not only helpless but actually costing huge quantities of money as they go through that long-term care and rehabilitation which you mentioned.

Do you just not want to be told what you can and cannot do?

Why not rail against traffic laws? Drug laws? Land laws? Property laws? Child abuse laws? Workers rights Laws? Civil rights laws? Discrimination laws? Equality laws? Food and drug purity laws? Water and air clean act laws? Doesn't the state tell us and the rest of society what to do in these cases?

Notice how you've got two different kinds of laws there?  On the one hand, you've listed laws regarding Property, Child Abuse, Workers and Civil Rights.  They're all PROTECTING the rights of individuals.  On the other hand you list Traffic and Drug laws, both of which ABROGATE the rights of individuals.  I don't disagree with all laws - only those where the State assumes that you don't know what's best for you.

I dismiss the notion that these rather innocuous helmets laws are a grave infringement on anyones individual freedoms guaranteed under constitutional law. They are not. More simply put they are a rational and responsible response to the effects of physics on the human body and the pr oven results of what happens to those with and without the protection of a helmet.

So even if you are a total jerk, someone, maybe me, likes you. Please wear a helmet regardless of backwoods state laws you are subjected to dealing with. Please? The life you save could be your own and the ones who depend on you.

Once again, I actually DO wear a helmet (and jacket, and gloves, and boots, etc) every time I ride.  I absolutely agree with you that there's a lot of benefit derived from wearing them.  I would wear them Law or no Law.  And it's not that I feel that helmet laws are a grave infringement on personal freedom.

It's the idea that the State can mandate something like this, and that people unthinkingly follow along, which is the grave infringement on personal freedom.

 

[Gypsy JR]

I strongly disagree with any premise that the superiority of individual rights trumps the proven rational truth that helmets save lives and reduces injuries.

I'd agree with you if surviving the accident actually cost society less - but surviving costs society MORE than if those involved simply die.  Motorcycling is an inherently dangerous activity; there's no sense in trying to force  safety on its practitioners.

I disagree with both of you and here is why. The grant of powers in the Constitution grants specific legislative rights to the federal government and the several States. It reserves ALL un-specified Rights to the People. The Bill of Rights codifies the most important, but not all, of those Rights.

When the federal court issued a ruling, close to 40 years ago I think, that essentially took the ability to amend the Constitution from the several States and did so by fiat, they changed the grant of powers to widen the impact of the Commerce Clause. Clearly it is not the perview of the courts to amend the Constitution, but rather (as explicitly stated) to enforce and defend it.

Right now, the Supreme Court is hearing the case on the Health Care Mandate, and will no doubt rule it a violation of the Commerce Clause and beyond the grant of power given the federal legislature. This will have the effect of resetting the Commerce Clause to original intent. Which includes the federal government may not force States and the People to participate in over-reaching federal programs not necessary to the defense of the nation.

Do you see the impact? This pending ruling will immediately put all federal legislation created for the last 20 years at least at risk of being nullified based on precedent (Supreme Court). So bye bye tying highway funds (necessary for the national defense) to helmet and seatbelt use (not necessary for the national defense).

And if it works out right, the States will become the powerful governments and the People will regain the right to chose which State's laws they want to put up with.

So yes, individual Rights trump anything, if they are Bill of Rights rights, or the more vague Constitional grant of powers to the People.

And no, cost to society is not a valid reason for the federal government to create mandates, or even simply to blackmail States with funding they need. But it is a valid reason for the States to do so.

As long as they don't violate specific Rights granted the People.

For me, I feel anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is making a bad choice. But it should be a choice, and the choice should be reserved to the State, and if not the State, the Individual.

 

[Cra-z1000]

Just put the darn thing on already . Don't be stupid .

 

[Sport rider]

I know I'm chiming in late here and you guys have already pretty much beat up the subject with regard to helmets, but something i've always been curious about is why they stopped at helmets when making these laws.  Just last weekend I saw someone riding a motorcycle in shorts and no shirt with a helmet on.  if it was about reducing injury and protecting society from cost, etc, then why did they only make helmets a requirement?  Having wrecked in my leathers a few times, I can tell you they (and my good quality boots) have been invaluable to keeping my body in the pristine shape that it's in. 

 

[Ranger Jim]

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :truce:

 

[mcfly]

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :truce:

Is it just tragic irony that the Safety Director posted this?  :-\

 

[ChipDoc]

I take it as a good sign that the argument isn't about actually wearing the helmet - we seem to agree that it's a good idea. The argument is over whether it should be The Law or not.  I still hold that it should not, even though I wear mine every time I climb aboard.

 

[Ranger Jim]

If either side was presenting anything that hasn't already been brought up (multiple times) it might be different. I've never seen anyone's mind changed on this topic nor do I see any indication that anyone's mind is even open to change. If you guys want to continue to debate it; knock yourselves out. The thread will remain open so long as the discussion stays civil. It would be more interesting if either side could present some new perspective though.

 

[mcfly]

So, my doo-rag wearin', electra-glide ridin', neighbor came over last night
to share a story.  In short, he witnessed a woman on a HD softtail race off
on a green light in front of him, only to see her spill a 100 yds up the road.

He blocked traffic with his bike, and checked the downed rider.  She cracked her
skull, as he could see where from the road rash on her head exposed her skull.
She was still alive and breathing, but unconscious.  Cops arrived within minutes,
and he was told to move away.  No one knows how/why she lost the bike.

He's wearing his helmet today.  This is a terrible 'wake up' call... seeing it first hand.
Glad he got the message.  He's a good guy, glad he's choosing to wear the bucket now.

 

[ron203]

It may not be so anymore, but when I was a kid, I was told it was illegal to drive a car barefoot here in GA (don't start.... ) and my father explained it because in the old days when brakes were mechanically connected directly to the brakes, they would get hot. A hot brake pedal would result and a driver might yank his foot off it in a stop. I still think flipflops are a bad idea for driving because they get tangled in the pedals.

 

[ChipDoc]

It's still illegal to drive a car in either flip-flops or barefoot here in Florida.  Your dad's story makes more sense than any other reason I've ever heard for that rule - which is ignored utterly by local LEOs unless the person doing it acts like an @##hole to them.

You're required to wear a helmet if you're riding a bicycle too.  Oddly enough, it is actually LEGAL for me to ride the motorcycle wearing nothing but a speedo and eye protection.  Go figure...

 

[davemuir]

I was going to stay out of this (casue I'm pretty sure everyone knows how Do-Rag Dave feels) but you really leave me no choice... 

Oddly enough, it is actually LEGAL for me to ride the motorcycle wearing nothing but a speedo and eye protection.

In this case. I believe it's us who need the eye protection... Carry on...