39 Comments - Wumpus - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:25 am: Under 18, sure. Also, insurance companies should have the right to deny payment if not wearing a helmet…or at least have that provision in their policy language. Under 2000 for the whole nation is a drop in the bucket. Plus, they knew the risks when deciding not to wear a helment. - Just Asking - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:30 am: If you are old enough to drive a car at 16 then you can make the decision as to whether to wear a helmet or not. Any fool that wants the constitutional right to be a Darwin candidate by not wearing a helmet is fine by me. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:40 am: Spent several weeks in Athens and Rome last month. All motorcycle drivers wore helmets. I’m not sure it’s the law or not over there but I did not see any helmetless motorcycle drivers. Of course, those motorcycle drivers over there drive onto sidewalks and plazas and frequently zoom down one way streets in the wrong direction. Stop lights and stop signs are mere suggestions. When they jump onto the sidewalks and plazas, they expect you to get out of their way. They behave like bicyclists do over here! Our motorcycle drivers are like little old grandmothers by comparison on roads in Illinois. Should there be a helmet law? Yes. If they can drive helmetless to a bar and then be forbidden to smoke for health and safety reasons, then they can also wear a helmut! - South Side Mike - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:48 am: JA and Wumpus, If you kill yourself by not wearing a helmet, yes, you (and your family) are for the most part the only ones impacted by your demise. However, if you’re only greviously injured by not wearing a helmet, and then spend lots of time and either insurance or tax-payer money in the hospital, then it’s not just your problem. Your boneheadedness is costing me money. Yes, I support helmet laws for under 18, and for over 18 as well. Helmets for motorcyclists are just like seatbelts for drivers and passengers. - Wumpus - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:49 am: SS Mike, Why include me. I fully agree on the insurance cost issue Also, insurance companies should have the right to deny payment if not wearing a helmet…or at least have that provision in their policy language. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:49 am: Yes. While I detest laws that require adults to wear seatbelts or helmets minors should have a different set of rules. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:51 am: Think of the lives that are saved by not having a helmet law. There are organ transplant survivors across the country thankful to riders who refuse to wear helmets. One life lost recklessly can save several lives. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:51 am: Wumpus- In theory, your proposal to give insurance companies the right to deny coverage to non-helmet wearers (to enforce “good behavior”) seems well-intentioned. However, insurers are always looking at loopholes to deny coverage. The parents of a kid who are stuck with tens of thousands in medical bills because Jr. didn’t wear his helmet one day and was denied coverage in an accident when the other driver was at fault? The rider whose helmet flew off in the accident, and the insurance company fights payment of the hospital bills, claiming he never had it on? Be careful of the Pandora’s Box that is opened with well-meaning initiatives. - Steve - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:57 am: It’s an issue between the insurance company and the rider.Not the government. - Pickles!! - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:58 am: yes. if they are licensed to drive a motorcycle, they should have to wear a helmet until they are 18. unless they are riding on private property, such as farmland for recreation. i don’t beleive the state should be telling people what to do on private property. - Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:58 am: ===It’s an issue between the insurance company and the rider.Not the government.=== Let’s try to avoid knee-jerk libertarianism that has nothing to do with reality. Insurers are regulated by Illinois. So, the government has a role whatever position you take on insurance coverage. Plus, that’s not the question. - Skeeter - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:01 am: Under 18 is different from over. Under 18, sure we should have a law just like we have a law requiring car seats for kids. With regard to insurance: I don’t understand that argument. Are we going to require insurers to deny claims for heart attacks for fat people? If health insurers want to increase premiums for adults without helmets, then I don’t have a problem. However, a blanket law that requires such claims to be denied is a bit ridiculous, especially since the people injured will then fall back on public health care. - Muskrat - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:02 am: Yes to mandatory helmets for underage motorcycle riders. Yes to mandatory helmets for all motorcycle riders. We don’t let them ride without brakes or lights, even if it would be cooler that way. And yes to mandatory helmets for anyone reading about the current Springfield Shenanigans. The risk of damage from banging one’s head against a solid surface is too great otherwise. - Skeeter - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:03 am: Rich, You posted on insurance while I was typing. Sorry if my comments go over a banned topic. That being said,government regulates a lot of businesses, but that doesn’t mean that it should regulate more or that the regulation is good. But that’s off topic. No more insurance talk from me today. - VanillaMan - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:04 am: We need to require motorcyclists to wear helmets so that loved ones can more easily identify their remains. - Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:09 am: ===Sorry if my comments go over a banned topic.=== It’s not a banned topic. People are free to bring this up as an alternative, but I’d prefer it if they… 1) Answered the question at hand 2) Not resort to pure ideology and ignore legal reality - BIG R.PH. - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:12 am: This topic still begs the question: Why am I liable for a ticket for driving without a seatbelt but you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet or seatbelt and that is OK? - Speaking At Will - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:17 am: Yes, it should be required for those under 18. - Anonymous - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:21 am: I should think that requiring motorcycle riders and passengers under the age of 18 is a no-brainer. If they’re driving in the city, they should also be required to wear full body armor. Two people died in the south suburbs as a result of separate motorcycle accidents yesterday. I’m really quite surprised that doesn’t happen every day. Your typical rear-end fender bender could potentially kill even a helmet-wearing cyclist. - Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:22 am: I should think that requiring motorcycle riders and passengers under the age of 18 is a no-brainer. If they’re driving in the city, they should also be required to wear full body armor. Two people died in the south suburbs as a result of separate motorcycle accidents yesterday. I’m really quite surprised that doesn’t happen every day. Your typical rear-end fender bender could potentially kill even a helmet-wearing cyclist. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:25 am: I can agree on helmets (and seatbelts) for minors. Adults are a different story. If you are foolish enough to to ride without a piece of safety equipment, then it is the your problem. That also goes for proper shoes, rugged clothing, and other equipment available to the rider. As far as insurance is concerned, I believe that it is not possible to deny coverage to someone who does not wear helmets or seatbelts, but there could be a carrot approach. There could be bonus coverage available to people with claims who can show that they had all applicable safety equipment in use at the time of the accident. The idea that the government requires certain elements be included in all policies just drives up the costs for everyone. It’s just more bad public policy. - Ghost - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:27 am: It would be interesting to have the responses indicate if the person actualy rides. I ride. Keep in mind many of the people who are wearing “helmets” in those States with “helmet” laws are wearing half helmets and 3/4 helmets. Pretty much every half helmt is NOT DOT ceritified, or safe, meaning it is just a pretty hat and serves no purpose. The 3/4 helmets are slightly better, but the lack of a face guard and chin gurad means these helmets have limited protection and are much more likely to pop off and serve no function. The only helmets which are truly effective from a safety point of view, are full face helmets. These should be mandated for driving on the highway for all ages. Not just a helmet, but a full face DOT certified helmet. In town helmets impede hearing and are distratcing. In the summer riding in town a full face helmet builds up so much heat the sweat rolls into my eyes in waves, headbands only absorb so much. The discomfort from heat becomes a distration as well. Also it abosrbs sound, so I am unable to hear traffic, pedestrains, horns, kids playing in the yards and sirens very well. The shield itself while “clear” picks up dirt and debris while moving and becomes a distraction to your peripheral vision. In short, riding in stop and go traffic in town with a full face helmet is unsafe; and the less then full face helmtes provide such limited protection that they do not offset the distrations they alos create for the driver. In town you have to be aware of traffic, people etc from many directions and sources. Once you hit the highway the wind noise negates any benefit of beig without a helmet; there is no pedestrian traffic, kids, dogs etc. The speed provides decent circulation for removing heat if your helemt is properly ventalated; The number of vehicle access points that have to be watched is substantialy reduced. And the risk of serious injury increases. I would support a law requiring everyone to wear a helmet on the highway (or when traveling any road at a speed faster then 45mph.) But evolution and darwin showing that traits which reduce vision and hearing are weeded out of populations that whish to survive, I would say no requirement for helmets in town. There is more to consider then just what happens in the accident. I assume all of you helmet supporters wear one when driving your car. After all the number one killer in car accidents is head injuries. Car drivers would benefit from wearing helmets as well. So lets pass a helmt laww for all, car and motorcycle. A helmet in the summer is like strapping a 120 degree heater to your head. Not really the same effect you get putting on a seat belt. - Skeeter - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:32 am: “The idea that the government requires certain elements be included in all policies just drives up the costs for everyone. It’s just more bad public policy.” Actually it does make sense because of the unequal bargaining power. That is why we bar certain exclusions for pre-existing conditions. If not, changing jobs might mean that certain people could never obtain insurance. Also, some of the provisions in certain policies have the effect of negating any coverage at all (for instance, certain notice provisions on UM policies have since been barred), which is why the Ill. Dept. of Insurance (and Illinois courts) bar those provisions. The issue is not “should Illinois regulate insurance policy language.” Of course it should. That’s a no-brainer. The issue is “Should health insurers be allowed to include a policy exclusion for people riding motorcycles without helmets.” That is a question of public policy on which people might disagree. - Captain Flume - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:35 am: Maybe we should also make people wear helmets when they are texting on their cellphones while walking across the street. They should also ban people from ridng in the back of pick-up trucks. On that issue, I’m serious. - ReddByrd - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:48 am: Actually there is no difference between adults and kids on this one….Insurance payments and/or publicly funded health payments should be denied to helmetless riders. But this is a little like the gun safety issue where the 2A think they should be able to do just about anything. Thee is one thought in defense of bikers is where they get smacked by drivers who don’t look. That is reason #1 why I won’t a bike. - Anon - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 11:54 am: I witnessed a motorcyle rear end the car in front of him yesterday and my guess is after he did a 360 over the car and onto the ground he was thankful he had the helmet. - Ghost - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 12:06 pm: I heard a kid laughing as he ran out in front of my bike. The kid was thankful I heard him and was able to swerve in time becuase I left the portable heater at home so i was able to focus on my surroundings. I saw a guy in the back seat of a car smash his head on the door; swa a guy in a truck smash his head through the rear window. I bet both of them wished they had helmets on to protect their heads. I have avoided accidents in town several dozen times because I was able to see and hear a driver or pedestrian who I would not have been aware of with my helmet. But as I said, how many here actually ride? and how many car drivers are wearing helmets? Helemts save lives in car accidents too (notice they require them in NASCAR) ALso there are a significant number of boating accidents caused by head injuries. We could reduce boating injuries and deaths by requiring everyone on a boat to wear a self inflating rescue suit with a helemt. After all, the only consideration should be safety. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 12:16 pm: There is only one reason Illinois does not have a helmet law: ABATE. This one-cause group stays visible and is a good example of ‘grassroots’ action, even if you don’t agree with their position. I think Illinois SHOULD have a helmet law for those 17 and under. I liken it to Major League Baseball: they couldn’t outlaw chewing tobacco at the MLB level, so they banned it in the minor leagues. Attrition will eventually achieve the goal. Perhaps Ghost uncovered a market: air-conditioned full-face helmets! - Can't Use My Nickname - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 12:27 pm: Illinois should pass a law that all minors where helmets. My ex took my young child on the back of his motorcycle with no helmet. That’s right - my little boy. With no law in place, there was nothing I could do other than 1) vandalize my ex’s motorcycle rendering it inoperatable for LIFE or 2) file a motion in court (which could take up to 3 to 4 months)and beg the judge to court order my ex to not ride with my son. My conclusion, my ex does not have a motorcycle anymore. Moral of the story…..don’t mess with Mama’s boy. - Deep South - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 12:45 pm: The law says I have to wear a seat belt, but there is no law that says I have to wear a helmut while on a motorcycle? Just doesn’t make sense!!! So…how about under 18 wear a helmut and a seat belt. All others are free to do as they please. - countryboy - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 12:49 pm: Ghost - I think you’re making too much of the vision/hearing advantage of helmetless riding. I’ve ridden in this state for 40 years, which means I was on the street when the helmet law was first passed, then pulled back. I always wear a helmet on a motorcycle - wouldn’t consider not wearing one - much more peaceful inside a quality hat. My bicycle helmet is at my wife’s insistence… I cannot understand the basis for the G making driving without a seatbelt a crime, and yet turning their back - one of two out of 50 - on helmet laws…strikes me that every possible justification for the belt applies to the helmet. - Captain America - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 12:58 pm: Absolutely - helmets should be mandatory for all motorcycle riders. No ifs,ands, or buts about it! it’s just plain common sense from a public health/public saftey standpoint. - Anon - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 5:24 pm: Yes. Everybody is victimized when a helmetless rider winds up in the hospital. Either taxes go up or insurance premiums go up when we pay for additional medical care that we would otherwise have not had to pay. So yes, the public has a right to require riders to strap on a helmet. - steve schnorf - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 5:40 pm: I suspect I have ridden as long as anyone posting on here, 48 years. I don’t like helmets. They are hot, and they absolutely detract from a rider’s ability to hear and see what’s around them. For you who have never had the chance to do it,on a cross-country vacation on a bike without a helmet, your appreciation of the countryside is far greater. That said, I wear them in states that require them. Years ago I routinely tried to get away without complying (under the theory that a trooper would give a no-helmet-law-state rider a first warning) and it got too expensive (twice in less than an hour once in western Missouri). I do have to admit that I don’t see it as a great civil rights issue. - BobW - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 7:33 pm: This is a no-brainer. The argument for individuals under 18 is that they are not legally adults and mandatory helmet wearing should be a condition of receiving their motorcycle license - after an educational course about rules of the road. For those 18 and over I would require either a) mandatory helmet wearing; or b) signing a form which waives their right to state-provided medical benefits if they are involved in an accident. - Automatic - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 8:20 pm: The statistics in the original editorial are not factual.. it’s great to post some numbers and CLAIM they are accurate. To all those that claim motorcyclists should be FORCED to wear a helmet. Claiming public burden.. well the stats being compiled now show that obesity will rival Cancer with regard to medical spend. If you feel you have a right to decide what’s in my best interest, then perhaps I should be able to decide what’s in yours. Govt approved menus at home. Careful folks it’s a slippery slope and easy to decide what’s right for ‘the other guy’. Respectfully, Mike - reformer - Monday, Aug 4, 08 @ 10:59 pm: About 9 of ten motorists now buckle up in this state. The majority of Illinoisans support the mandatory belt law. Yet the legislature won’t pass a helmet law for teens. We’re one of two states with no concealed carry and one of two with no helmet requirement. - notfam - Tuesday, Aug 5, 08 @ 8:50 am: So, we have seatbelts, now they want helmets! Can I go to the bathroom by myself? And how long will that freedom last?? What happened to FREEDOM??? I CHOOSE not to wear a helmet because I live in what I thought was a FREE country? What is happeneing to this country?? Do I live in China?? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 5, 08 @ 8:52 am: notfam, have you ever actually been to a country where there is little to no freedom? let’s try to avoid going too far over the top. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.