I'm not sure where to post this; moderators, please feel free to move it.

Yesterday I almost "lost" my sister because she rides her motorcycle without a helmet and had an accident. I am a full believer in wearing helmets and I've been bugging her forever to wear one. She is not a child; she's a 38 year old wife and mother of two with a very lucrative business career.

One minute she's enjoying the wind in her face and hair, and the next minute she's down with a broken hand, sprained ankle, busted face, and road rash all over. Tomorrow she goes into surgery for facial reconstruction. And she'll be picking asphalt out of her skin for many weeks to come.

Am I mad? You bet! It's all I can do not to lecture her and say "I told you so". (Actually I have done that, but not as much as I'd like). I'm also very thankful that she is alive and not brain damaged. I, like the rest of the family, spent a very sleepless night last night. She is my best friend and I don't know what I'd do without her.

I don't know if she has "learned her lesson", but I know that I, for one, will become a stronger supporter of all helmet laws. If she had had one on, surgery would not be necessary to repair the broken bones in her face.

Clarasue, I'm a proponent of helmet and seatbelt laws. Under most circumstances, I argue on the side of keeping government out of personal choice. I generally tend to feel that the government doesn't have jurisdiction over protecting us from ourselves and our own bad judgement. And most of my friends, who feel that way too, are AGAINST helmet and seatbelt laws (except with regard to childrens' safety laws) for those very reasons. (And understand, I honestly discount any consideration of harm done to families upon someone's death. I don't think the government should make cigarettes illegal just because someone's kids might be sad when they die, and that sort of thing.)

Personally, I don't think those laws fall into that catagory. Even though the logic of wearing helmets and seatbelts is crystal clear to me, I don't have a huge problem with someone taking their life into their own hands. But when they potentially bring my pocketbook, and therefore the wellfare of MY family, into the mix, it's a different story. It sounds harsh, I know, but it's really an excellent justification for having such safety laws without tromping all over my rights to choose my level of personal risk. When a motorcyclist wears a safety helmet, if I accidentally hit them, the likelyhood I might be charged with involuntary manslaughter or sued by their family for causing a death becomes much less, because the likelyhood they'll survive it becomes much more, and I quite like that. In today's litigious society, I'm quite comfortable with the extra protection against liability I get when OTHER people are supposed to follow the same safety rules I do.

So, to make a long story longer, it comes down to this: Such laws not only help prevent needless death and injury, they not only protect citizens from their own folly, but the also protect other citizens from that same folly, and the potential legal and monetary damages that might follow, and I'll support that any day!

Here in Canada, with public health care, that argument is that much stronger. Every idiot who recklessly endangers himself also costs me money.
Many of my friends are bikers, and there really is not too much grumbling about the helmet laws. If the law was changed tomorrow, most of them would continue to wear their helmets, for the same reason that they wear leathers. They know how easy it is to get spread all over the pavement, and they are fully aware that they are not riding in a steel can, that there isn't much between their bodies and the road.

Don't ride a motor bike, but for me, it's a automatic reaction to "belt up" as soon as I get in a vechicle.Hope your sister is soon better.

Thank you, JaneMarple.

*hugs* I hope your sister makes a fast recovery.

I agree with Loth. Someone made the argument on why they shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt, especially when they're in the backseat of a car. I replied that yeah, it's your choice, but your body is going to come flying over and hit *me* so it's not just you being affected.

As for when you're alone, like on a motorcycle or a car by yourself, it's still the same thing. The ambulances, police and fire come at full speed - weaving in and out of traffic, usually. And even though these people do this every day as part of their job, it's still even traumatic for *them* to come upon a scene and see someone who died or is severely injured from a crash.

And for me, it's a no-brainer (no pun intended) - why would I want to run the risk of hurting myself when for the simple cost of a helmet or the two seconds to put on a seatbelt I can give myself a greater chance of escaping a crash without injury?

I was in a car accident where someone pulled out in front of me. I avoided his driver's door, but my car ended up totalled. Had I not been wearing my seatbelt, I could have hit my head on the windshield when I came to a stop. I ended up walking away from the crash with just some soreness and a bruise where the seatbelt buckle had been. The other guy, who hadn't been wearing his seatbelt, wasn't so lucky and ended up in the hospital, even though his half of the crash was less severe than mine.

Thanks, Beth, I appreciate the concern and I needed the hug. I haven't seen her, but my mom said she looks real bad and that her looks will be changed forever. After her surgery today, I understand that it will take up to two years for her to fully recuperate. She said she won't sell her motorcycle, but she'll wear a helmet now . Too bad it's a little late. Funny thing is, she (like me) won't even start a car without buckling up the seatbelt.

And I also agree with Loth. It couldn't have been said better and I plan on showing that post to my sister.

ClaraSue I feel for you, it is painful having loved ones who are suffering whether it is their fault or not. I hope her recovery is swift and that there is no residual damage.

In the UK (and here) it is compulsory to wear a helmet, and in a car to use a seat belt. Taxpayers pay for the medical treatment of injured people so most people just accept wearing them, they would be breaking the law to go without.

I must admit that I was a bit peeved when Jersey adopted seatbelt legislation (we still don't have to use them in the read seats) but I wouldn't dream of not belting up even though we have a maximum speed limit of 40 mph.

Thank you, Sue. The doctors feel that there isn't any brain damage (or "dain bramage" as we used to tease each other) . She's in surgery now as I write this. Now we just have to wait a few hours.

I haven't done research on the subject,but I'm pretty sure most US States have some sort of Safety Helmet Law. My state requires only those under 18 years of age to wear one, but everybody is required to wear a seatbelt. I think the state where my sister lives has a similar law because I'm sure she wasn't breaking the law.

Sorry to hear about your sister. I hope she makes a full and speedy recovery.

I reluctantly agree that it does make sense for the law to nanny people when they won't take sensible decisions for themselves.

Our crowd always wore leathers and a helmet when we were a motorbikers. It wasn't law at the time but we wore them anyway. A few of us took a tumble from time to time but the injuries were never to the head. Broken bones were more the norm, or gravel rash on unprotected parts (hands mostly). Difficult to say what would have happened without crash helmets I suppose but they seemed to remain pretty much unmarked. With this in mind, I'd say that protection is just as much needed for the body as the head. I often wince when I see a biker riding along wearing a crash helmet but only otherwise dressed in T shirt and shorts. So, if the law takes a hand in enforcing crash helmet use, maybe the it should step in and say that protective attire is compulsory for the entire body too.

Where should the law stop? It could be argued that car drivers and passengers also suffer head injuries. Maybe they should be made to wear crash helmets. Racing drivers of all types of car consider helmets necessary even though they are otherwise adequately protected. Many domestic cars are often driven at speeds not much different to racing cars, so why no crash helmet laws? A car roof will not protect the occupants from head and other injuries should it roll over or become crushed in some other way. If a car is hit from the side, the head is bound to whip about and crack pretty hard against the side window, with serious results for both head and window.

I wonder what statistics would reveal when comparing motorbiker/car driver head injuries?

Also, I don't think we can start discriminating on what self-inflicted injuries a health service (and therefore us) should be paying for. If we don't pay for self-inflicted riding/driving injuries then perhaps the same thing should apply to any injury where any blame can be apportioned to the injured party. A pedestrian not looking properly before stepping into the road for instance. It might even be said that sporting injuries should not be paid for by a health service because participants lay themselves open to injury.

Then one could go to 'self-inflicted' illnesses such as many of the liver failure cases from alcohol, heart/lung disease from smoking, the list goes on and on...

There is of course a lot of talk about just that thing - we already (here) have to pay for our own cosmetic surgery, etc, which seems only right to most people. Americans and others in places without state medicine pay more for insurance (or can't get it at all) if they have high risk factors in their lifestyles, I believe.
On a slight tangent, our national parks have started charging people for rescue services if they need to be rescued from situations that were their own darn fault. For instance, if there was a weather or avalanche warning in an area, and you went there anyway and got into trouble, you would pay for your rescue costs. I don't know how well they are doing at recovery of costs, because of course they are asking for this money after the fact - there is no "Pay up, or no helicopter for you!" Too many people with absolutely no experience are going into the backcountry, thinking that they would like to try their hands at a little mountain climbing.

Yes indeed. In America, the situation is different, it seems. People who are smokers, have a history of alcoholism, and even those with parental histories of certain heritable illness, pay more for health insurance than those without those risk factors. And, those who have a history of breaking traffic laws (including seatbelt and helmet laws) pay more for their Auto, Cycle and Liability insurances, which are required for all vehicles. So, to some extent, those who knowingly make choices that endanger their health make up for it by paying more in insurance costs. Since I don't have to ante up for their health costs, I don't care. (Well, except that since my husband is a smoker, his health insurance is more costly than it otherwise could be.)

And, because things like safety belts and helmets are required (in most states, since it is a state by state issue), if I were to be in an accident with someone who was seriously injured and was NOT following the law of protecting themselves, while I still might find myself in a pickle with liability costs, the insurance companies and anyone else who might become involved (lawyers, the family of the injured, and even the court) would be more likely to find my liability less, if it could be proven that the person's injuries could have been less serious had they been following the law.

Like I said, in most cases I believe that the government should not have jurisdiction over our choices of personal risk. The government's role is protecting citizens from each other, not citizens from themselves. And in America, because we haven't got a state health service, that makes all the sense in the world, because my costs related to other peoples' bad choices is negligable. As I said above, that changes when we talk about liability with regard to traffic accidents, which is why I DO support helmet and seatbelt laws.

And Clarasue: I hope your sis is doing well. I now know from experience that just the act of surgery itself is more than enough by itself to have to recover from, and I can't imagine adding any severe injuries into the mix. My thoughts are with you.

Firstly, nothing I say here is criticising your sister, as you said, she wasn't breaking the law and I know many countries such as France don't have a helmet law or culture, so it's not an issue that's almost taken for granted as it is here. I wish your sister all the best, and hope she makes a full recovery.
We've had helmet laws here all my life, and the point is, when you fall off a motorbike, there's a 50/50 chance you'll hit your head. I rode one for some years and one time I landed on my head on the pavement after flying over a car. I dread to think what would have happened without a helmet, as it was, I had a check up the same day and there was no injury. Why, without the threat of the law, anyone would choose not to wear one knowing the inevitability of coming off sooner or later (mine was apparently the result that time of someone jumping a red light in front of me) I can't tell, apart from the fact it's allowed and so far you've got away with it so believe you're somehow safe. Every so often someone else will hit you on the road. When I drove a van 8-10 hours a day this averaged once a month. None were my fault, and had I been on a motorbike one of them could have landed me with serious injuries when I was stationary and got hit by a drunk van driver doing a pretty high speed. It removed the last 6 inches or so off the back of my own van so I dread to think what would have happened to a motorcycle.

Sorry about that sermon, but I rode a bike long before I could drive a car, and have also slipped in the rain and ice on a number of occasions, had someone turn right across my path (I hit their door) and I know these were pretty average events according to my other friends who had similar experiences. As for seat belts, which came in when I was in my 20s, I see little point to make them compulsory in cars. They restrict your movement, meaning you can't always get across to see what's coming round a corner etc., and the number of accidents where you would need one are negligible. Both my neighbour and I have turned a car over. If I had been wearing a seat belt I'd have been suspended from the floor upside down, where in fact I landed gently on the roof (which had become the floor) and managed to open the door and get out without a scratch or a bump. My neighbour said he would probably have been killed if he'd been wearing a seat belt. Comparing the two, belts and helmets, when you consider the suit of armour you already wear in a car, is impossible technically, and as every car had a seat belt, we could always choose to wear one if we wanted to, but now we have no choice as if it was something we needed as much as a crash helmet. In the 27 years I've been driving, plus the rest as a passenger, I can honestly say I've never been in an accident where a seat belt would have helped in the slightest. I know they happen, but unlike the annual or so accidents which inevitably drop the driver off a motorbike, they're the exception not the rule.

Thank you, everyone, for the well wishes. I shall pass them on to my sister. She now has two titanium plates added in order to rebuild her face. She'll have some scarring, but still, she's very lucky to be alive.

After some checking on Google, I found that her state is one of four that does not have any type of helmet law in effect. Of our fifty states, 20 have full helmet laws for all riders. See here for more information.

I've been reading this with interest (and I am SO glad your sister is surving it so far, ClaraSue! She is extremely lucky and I, personally, hope she is not one of those enthusiasts who will hop back onto that motorbike the first chance she gets...).

I think the laws here in Ohio re: this subject are not really laws that help much at all. It used to be if you had your license for a certain amount of time then you could lose the helmet. I'm sure one's head, in the event of an accident, doesn't care if you've cycled for 10 years or 10 minutes as it crashes into the pavement.

Quote:

---

I've been reading this with interest (and I am SO glad your sister is surving it so far, ClaraSue! She is extremely lucky and I, personally, hope she is not one of those enthusiasts who will hop back onto that motorbike the first chance she gets...).

---

Thanks Gatsby. Unfortunately, when I spoke with her last night, she indicated to me that she WAS going to get back in the saddle, so to speak, as soon as possible. Not to make light of her accident, but I figure the reason she's still alive is because she's so darned hard-headed. I give up.

On a side note: I just found this article from the Miami Herald.

Quote:

---

Posted on Thu, Sep. 02, 2004


LARRY DESMEDT, 55


Biking legend known as `Indian Larry'

BY WOLFGANG SAXON

New York Times Service


Larry Desmedt, a New York-based custom motorcycle builder and biker better known nationally as ''Indian Larry,'' died on Monday in Charlotte, N.C., of injuries he suffered doing a stunt on Saturday at an appearance there. He was 55 and lived in New York City.

His death was announced by Timothy White, a photographer and friend. He said Desmedt had gone to Charlotte for the filming of a new segment in a series shown on the Discovery Channel, ``The Great Biker Build-Off.''

Indian Larry, who had his workshop in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, was a legend among biking enthusiasts and other custom builders. He regarded his craft as a form of art and, White said, got his nickname from the classic brand of a motorcycle he rode years ago.

He had gone to Charlotte for the shooting on Saturday of an episode of ''Biker Build-Off,'' in which he has successfully competed with other riders of custom-made two-wheelers. The accident happened afterward in a parking lot, with a crowd of thousands watching.

White said Indian Larry, wearing a protective suit but not a helmet, was standing on his bike as he went down the parking lot in a crowd-pleasing routine and may have been blinded by the sun; he fell and hit his head.

He died early Monday at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte.

Larry Desmedt was born in Cornwall-on-Hudson, N.Y. His wife, Bambi, and White described him as a lone wolf who was a familiar figure to fans across the country but never joined a motorcycle gang. He was known among bikers as a metal sculptor and highly skilled mechanic.

His first motorbike was a 1939 Harley Knucklehead he bought for $200 when he was a teenager, he said in a Rolling Stone interview.

Later he went to California to apprentice himself to one of his heroes, the hot-rod builder Ed (Big Daddy) Roth.

He spent a wild youth and was a frequent subject of his friend the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who was attracted to his ''crash and burn'' way of life. But in 1991 he decided to become ''the best chopper builder in the world,'' according to an autobiography scheduled for publication by Crown in 2005, and devoted himself to becoming what he called a motorcycle artist.

His most famous motorcycle, called Grease Monkey, was named Easy Rider magazine's chopper of the year.

Besides his wife, Desmedt leaves his mother, Dorothy Desmedt, and a sister, Tina Wells, both of Middletown, N.Y.

---