Motorbikes and Use of Helmets

[Guest fountainhall]

I recall a discussion on one of the Boards a few month ago about some posters who choose not wear helmets when riding motor bikes, even though they are aware of the risks and would cover the costs of any damage of any nature in the event of an accident. Something in the news this morning brought this back to me.

 

Ten or so years ago when the great tenor Luciano Pavarotti decided to conclude his operatic career, he chose New York's Metropolitan Opera for his final performance. Come the day, as had often happened in the past, he called in sick. So the gala audience who had coughed up ten times the normal price for tickets were left with a substitute tenor. When the announcement was made, there were of course groans and boos, but there was nothing anyone could do about it.

 

At the end of the performance, though, all concerns were thrown aside as the audience rose to cheer to the rafters the young Italian tenor who had brilliantly stepped into the fat boy's shoes, Salvatore Licitra. Since then he has gradually become much better known, and has often been reckoned as one of the handful of candidates who might literally step into Pavarotti's shoes following his death exactly 4 years ago to the day,

 

10 days ago, Licitra was riding his motor scooter in his native Sicily when it went out of control and hit a tree. He suffered serious injuries. This morning he died, aged 43. He had not been wearing a helmet!

[Rogie]

10 days ago, Licitra was riding his motor scooter in his native Sicily when it went out of control and hit a tree. He suffered serious injuries. This morning he died, aged 43. He had not been wearing a helmet!

Sad, but it sounds to me he lived his short life to the full.

 

Lucky guy, riding a moped, scooter or whatever, a young hot-blooded Italian riding the by-ways of Sicily, the wind blowing in his hair and the sun bleaching it.

 

I am reminded of the words of One Stab, the wise old Indian character, in Legends of the Fall, when the hero, a real outdoorsman, (played by Brad Pitt) met his death by the claws of a grizzly bear "It was a good death".

[Guest fountainhall]

"It was a good death".

I can't imagine being gored by a bear as being a "good" death! It sounds pretty horrific! Is there in fact anything such as a "good" death - unless you are terminally ill, know that your days are numbered and can pass away peacefully without pain and seeing the daily anguish of your nearest and dearest?

 

Surely the important thing this is: "It was a good life." And that life can be just a handful of years, a handful of decades or a longer span, in my view. The key must be that you are happy and have been fulfilled by what has happened up to now - and that those close to you are aware of that, even though death were to strike today.

 

But back to wearing/not wearing helmets. It's a bit like health insurance, I suppose. I have heard of guys who have retired here without even the most basic health insurance. Isn't that rather like riding a motorbike in Thailand without a helmet? It's a lottery that could have horrendous complications for loved ones - and not only those of the driver, should he happen to main or kill a third party?

[Rogie]

"It was a good life."

It wasn't me saying Tristan (the Brad Pitt character) met a good death, it was One Stab. I would be pretty certain the producers of that film wouldn't put words into the mouth of an American Indian that didn't authentically reflect his beliefs. So what he said was in the context of Tristan's whole life. If you or I went for a Bill Bryson-style walk in the woods and One Stab witnessed one of us being mauled to death by a grizzly he'd sure as hell agree with you 'how horrific'.

 

But back to wearing/not wearing helmets.

I agree it is daft not to wear a helmet. It's also the law in Thailand. But, people do do it, not wear a helmet, I mean. Why? Well we can't bring back poor old Salvatore Licitra, and I don't know if helmets are compulsory in Italy, but he must have decided it was a risk he was prepared to take. The adrenaline rush tends to be that bit more intense the more you opt for risk. Assuming the sun is shining and the weather is lovely and warm, a motorcyclist riding in shorts, T-shirt & espadrilles and nothing else is going to experience something quite different to a rider dressed in full leathers, proper protective footwear and a claustrophobic full-face helmet. That's assuming the ride is incident-free of course.

[kokopelli]

Nothing like riding with the wind in your hair!

[KhorTose]

I kind of feel that everyone is right here. I think it is stupid not to wear a helmet in Thailand and I have rode a motorcycle most of my life. On the other hand I do remember the wind in my hair and all the fun that comes from riding free. I sort of agree with helmet laws and seat belt laws, but somehow the passing of these laws at the insurance companies request (Biggest contributor and campaigners for these laws) still sort of irks me. I think education might have gone a long way to making people obey these laws without making it a crime. Maybe not, but these laws are definitely an infringement of personal freedom. Once again, on the other hand, having a national health care plan means that we all have to pay for the brain dead biker in the hospital so maybe personal freedom should be curtailed. No easy answer, personal freedom or collective responsibility, your call.

[Bob]

.....but these laws are definitely an infringement of personal freedom.

 

I'm all for people exercising whatever freedoms they want as long as what they do doesn't infringe on others' rights (e.g., a protester in public, in my view, has no right to block access to a public area nor come and scream whatever 3 inches from else's face) and as long as it doesn't cost others money. The motor cycle helmet laws relate to that last notion and, presuming all those who want to not wear a helmet have excellent insurance to handle their head traumas and long-term disability care, then I'm all for it; otherwise, why should the public taxpayers or other people who buy medical insurance have to subsidize injuries to helmet-less motorcycle drivers.

 

A month or two ago, there was a protest against wearing helmets by some motorcyclists somewhere in the state of New York. One of the organizers - a long-time motorcycle driver - elected not to wear a helmet (illegally to show contempt for the law). During the protest ride, he had to stop quickly, went over the handlebars (at a rather low speed), and died of the head injury he received. The doctors said likely would have had no significant injury at all had he been wearing a helmet. The whole incident evoked the reason the one group gives out what they call the Darwin Awards (awards sarcastically given to show that evolution doesn't necessarily imply we're getting smarter).

[Guest fountainhall]

I sort of agree with helmet laws and seat belt laws . . . but these laws are definitely an infringement of personal freedom.

The issue of personal freedom seems to be thrown out quite a bit when, for example, a law requires us to do something that some of us do not like or disagree with. But I always seem to come back to the view that if we are to live in a 'society' with other human beings, we cannot all be equally free to do what we want all of the time. Like it or not, such a mode of living requires us to give up some of our 'freedoms'. A society has to have rules in order to function and these rules have to be obeyed, otherwise that society can not function. If we don't like the rules, most societies have a way for individuals or groups to express that disagreement. But surely blatently ignoring them as an infringement of 'my' rights' and 'freedom to decide for myself' ultimately leads to some form of chaos?

 

If an individual takes it upon himself to break a law by not wearing a helmet on a bike, how far then will that individual take his 'freedoms'? Ignoring red lights? Going up a one-way street the wrong way? Granted these are rather ridiculous examples, but I always wonder where, in any form of society, the boundaries between individual right and freedoms end and the obligation to obey the laws of the majority (or those ultimately in charge) start?

 

I never used to wear seat belts in the back of cars, feeling certain that "it would never happen to me." Well, it did happen - on Highway 1 in California when an idiot did a U-turn without checking behind him. The car I was in ploughed into the side of his car. I got badly shaken up and my spectacles were mangled. Otherwise, I was unhurt. My companion in the back seat got off worse and had to spend the night in hospital. So whenever there is a seat belt in the back of a car, I now always buckle up. Indeed, my one concern about taxis in Bangkok is that whilst most have belts in the back seat, few have the buckles! But why anyone would deliberately not wear a helmet or a seat belt and instead elect to risk all the known the dangers, beats me!

 

And when I hear people talk about exercising what they believe to be their 'freedoms', I also wonder about how they approach their exercise of responsibility to others?

[Rogie]

I never used to wear seat belts in the back of cars, . . . But why anyone would deliberately not wear a helmet or a seat belt and instead elect to risk all the known the dangers, beats me!

I agree and I also admit to doing it! It must be the 'can't happen to me' syndrome.

 

As far as front belts are concerned they were introduced into cars in the UK in 1967 but wearing them was not enforced until 1983. A few years ago I bought a 1963 model Morris Minor so it was built before seat belts started bing fitted. It still didn't have any despite several owners in the 30 or so intervening years, and I didn't bother putting any in either. Maybe I got a sort of perverse pleasure from driving it knowing I was taking a legal risk 99.9% of other drivers couldn't. It's gone now to another owner so I've lapsed back into conformity.

 

I sometimes belt up in the back but not always. However, I always make sure my back seat passengers are belted when I'm the driver. I suppose that's partly because I want to minimise injury to them in the case of an accident, but also to clear my own conscience should that ever happen.

 

And when I hear people talk about exercising what they believe to be their 'freedoms', I also wonder about how they approach their exercise of responsibility to others?

A controversial one is the American citizen's right to bear arms. That freedom is a genuine one in America. Other countries, such as Britain, whose citizens are not allowed to own firearms (with a few exceptions) might regard that with a degree of concern. It hasn't happened to me but I think if I were on holiday in America and my companions were carrying a weapon, because of unfamiliararity (with guns) I'd have difficulty relaxing in their company, unless I knew them well and trusted them. That's a huge responsibility to carry a firearm, so whether you yourself also have one or not, you have to believe the other person carrying one is trustworthy, even though as in the US, they are living within the law.

[Guest]

I sometimes belt up in the back but not always.

 

In the event of any moderately severe accident, not wearing a seatbelt in the back is just as dangerous as not wearing one in the front. The only differences are you may take a few more milliseconds to reach the windscreen & there's a risk of hitting one of the front seat passengers on the way through.

That's why it's common in Europe to require rear seat passengers to wear them too.

 

I'm slightly surprised that "developed" nations like Japan only require seatbelts to be worn in the front (or they did last time I checked). Considering the strength of their car industry, there will be enough experts on crash safety in the country.

[Guest fountainhall]

As far as front belts are concerned they were introduced into cars in the UK in 1967 but wearing them was not enforced until 1983.

Once the law was enforced, I wonder what grace period was given to enable drivers to start complying with the law? In Hong Kong it was just 4 weeks - and being so short it really worked!

[kokopelli]

[quote name='fountainhall'

 

If an individual takes it upon himself to break a law by not wearing a helmet on a bike, how far then will that individual take his 'freedoms'? Ignoring red lights? Going up a one-way street the wrong way? Granted these are rather ridiculous examples, ....

 

Not a all ridiculous examples! The freedoms are the norm in Thailand along with driving motorbikes on the sidewalks and a host of other rule breakers assuming there are any rules of the road in Thailand.

[Guest]

I expect having to clean blood of ones car would be quite distressing. Therefore it would be preferable for these motorcyclists to wear helmets to avoid making such a mess.

[Rogie]

. . . wear helmets to avoid making such a mess.

I guess you're referring more to brain tissue z. Blood on the car can derive from any bodily organ that comes into forceful contact with a hard object, so it could be said whether he's wearing a helmet or not, in a bad accident there will be blood all over the place

[Guest snapshot]

The incident of an anti-helemet protester losing his life in the anti-helmet protest (in a relatively minor accident) is a classic.

 

These people are just stupid.