You sir are the donkey. Why should everyone have to do it because you think it's best? It is a law that shouldn't be there. But that is a whole other debate.

 

Absolutely what I am saying. Thank you for understanding. That statement has nothing to do with sensitivity either. Mearly a point made. If there is NO NEED than why do it. It's our choice thats why. To some one who thinks riding a motor cycle in the first place is stupid , we are all stupid for doing.

 

enlighten me on this showing of fear, please. I merely like the debate. I don't need to jump up and down like a monkey beat my chest, say my dick is bigger, I just like meaningful debate. You say a helmet is smart. I don't disagree. I say it is a matter of choice and risk that one is willing to except. like I've said over and over there is no NEED to ride a bike, so why do it? Because we enjoy it, that's why. Same reason I wear a cosmetic helmet. I enjoy it. Full face helmets are for sure "safer" when riding. I am not denying that fact nor have I in any post. I don't criticize anyone for wearing either, all I am getting across is the point of risk. We take them becuase we enjoy them.

 

That's fine if you choose to put yourself at risk BUT the rest of us will have to pay when you're on life support !

 

Man opened a can of worms with this question? I was going to read the tread but 96 pages of different opinions? I aint touching this one

 

Yes because not wearing a DOT approved helmet will get you put on life support and wearing a full face will not. Your statement is ridiculous, as you are narrow minded. You must be a liberal.

 

I'm reminded of an argument I had many years ago when seat belts for cars were made compulsory in new cars. My adversary had recently rolled his car, the windshield had popped out while it was rolling and he was flung out through the hole it left, unharmed. He walked away and used that experience as a justification for arguing that seat belts were not necessary!

 

Interesting. I'm not familiar with dual purpose helmets. Can you enlighten me or tell me where to research them? Thank you.

 

Oh, be careful, we're discussing helmets and you're not allowed to discuss politics here.

Of course, I understand that "liberal" is just the mother of all insults in some corners but it's still a political insult and that's not allowed ... so I am reminded by the moderators.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I suppose it would be possible to work out what proportion of injuries would be saved by full-faced helmets and, yes, even in commercially insured societies, to a certain percent, "the rest" end up paying for the few when it goes beyond the point of merely cutting into the profits of the 1% who make money out of insuring risk.

Clearly, those make money out of insuring risk have a lot more political clout and influence that the 99% who just insure it and hope for the best ... the best being that insurance companies will cover them and will pay up.

I, personally never understood why, if one individuals wanted to do something and another individual was willing to gamble on making money insuring them to do it, society would not allow it.

Clearly, much class, cultural and political bias (which we may not be allowed to discuss here) enter into equation as plenty of other batshit crazy and injurious activities are allowed.

I think most bikers would agree that punitive and uneven legislations are put in place against biking, often irrationally, by a jealously repressive minority.

I mean, if it was really about saving the most lives, they'd criminalise smoking or over-eating ... hand out $100 tickets for buying triple decker big Macs etc.

There are other unevenness in helmet regulations defining what is actually a safe and effective helmet all of which go immediately out of the window if the helmet doest not fit and is not worn properly. For example, old fashioned "pudding basin" helmets actually pass many tests offering adequate protection but fail overall because they lack temple protection. What proportion of accidents affect the temple area? The jaw remains the most vulnerable.

As to the future of helmets, it might be interesting ... see this headup display "robo-cop" helmet also here, or strapless rear access helmet design by Voztec.

Like many others I find helmets uncomfortable and irritating enough to interfere with my riding which I mitigated by (illegally!) customising the interior foam adding some and removing other areas with a Dremel. It made wearing one a *lot* more comfortable and stable.

I think there needs to be more attention making helmets fit heads rather than making heads fit helmets.

I don't like the style but I like the technology if it could be made to look more conservative.

 

Shark Raw

Bell Rouge

Hows these dual purpose helms? I personally think they are bad-*** haha especially the bell rouge!