I'm flagging this subject up because it seems to have by-passed both the "Freedom of Choice" and "Personal Safety" groups.
If the Helmet Law was rescinded, motorcycle thefts would soar. The average opportunist thief does not carry a motorcycle helmet around the streets. As the law stands now, if a member of the constabulary sees someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet, then that individual (assuming he or she can be caught) will be stopped. If there was no legal requirement to wear a helmet while riding on a public highway, then the police would have no grounds to suspect that anyone riding bareheaded had stolen the machine.
I am, admittedly, strongly pro-helmet. I cringe when I see these "Helmets Yes - Compulsion No" stickers. Having worked with the NHS and PHAB, I've seen the effects of brain damage caused by road traffic accidents; some victims no longer have any "Freedom of Choice" in their lives at all.
By and large, the relevant motorcycle organisations do a grand job on limited resources, but I wish they'd put this issue behind them. The Helmet Law has been with us in the UK since 1973*, and - quite rightly, in my opinion - is here to stay. Now and again, we may hear a minor political party make vague noises about rescinding the Helmet Law if and when it came into power - the National Front, for example, unsuccessfully attempted to enlist Fred Hill to their cause in the mistaken belief that he was hostile to Sikhs, who were exempted from wearing helmets. However, even working on the unlikely premise that this factor alone would be considered important enough to sway the electorate, every vote such a policy gained from a motorcyclist would probably be countered by two or three against it from members of the medical profession.
*In the interests of balance, I'm posting this link;
http://www.righttoride.co.uk...aw/
It appears that Enoch Powell is the only "heavyweight" politician to have spoken out against the Helmet Law. I was interested to note that, on the recommendation of Dr. Hugh Cairns, "...crash helmets became compulsory for all army motorcyclists on duty from November 1941". Some time ago, while reading a book about the Special Operations Executive, I came across a brief but fascinating allusion to a wartime Government boffin who had come to the conclusion that motorcycle helmets should be made entirely from plate glass. The idea was presumably rejected. (E.H. Cookridge, "Set Europe Ablaze", Thomas Y. Cowell Publishing, New York, 1966. ISBN: 9780330022194.)
Slowgoose - you are right. I was a MOD when i was in my teens and quite happy to ride without my helmet - the wind blowing through my hair. When the law came in and I had to wear a helmet, I was fortunate to be wearing one when my front tyre blew out. I had to jump from the scooter to prevent me being taken down the road with it.
I used to ride without a skidlid when I was a kid. Mi 250 trophy would only do 85mph on the clock. Eyes streaming, couldn't see a bloody thing.
Law or no law . Lidless is not practical today.
Stolen motorcycle? No interest to the old bill. I doubt if they would chase a rider who was lidless. Probably check the reg and hassle the registered keeper.
Blimey, I couldn't imgine going lidless. My hair turns into a birdnest when I walk in wind let alone ride! I couldn't imgine the hours spent trying to detangle....:O
On a serious note though, I've been to a couple of jobs where bikers have not made it. It was a bad enough site to see with lids still attached to heads. For the sake of our emergency workers we should keep lids on....:(
Significant quote from Andrew Dalton, a solicitor-advocate, barrister and bikers‘ lawyer; “Statistics reveal that in one in five blows to the head involving a motorcycle, the helmet is forced off the head.” This is in no way an argument against the helmet law, as the “blow” that removes the helmet is more or less certain to be the crucial first impact.
Andrew was referring to a case in which a motorcyclist who was the victim of a road accident was being urged by his own solicitor (from a reputable company, apparently) to accept reduced damages because it was noticed that the biker and his/her skid-lid became separated at the scene of the accident. The solicitor was assuming that the helmet wasn’t buckled, citing Capps versus Miller (1989). Andrew reckoned that, on the balance of evidence, this assumption was incorrect and that the biker had no need to accept reduced damages. He pointed out that the helmet and buckle involved in Capps was subjected to detailed forensic examination after the accident, but the lid involved in this case did not receive the same attention. (See “RiDE” magazine, November 2014 for the full details.)
http://www.e-lawre...gt;
Wore mine today, and was very happy to do so :) If we were unfortunate to be in a crash....as I sat there enjoying my ride,I thought if the bodies knackered at least my head will be intact in this tight son of a B!
In the interest of fair play, I should point out that a thread with the title "Subject: If helmets were optional would you still wear one?" was posted on BM as early as January 2013 - so I wasn't the first person to draw attention to this issue.
![An Overlooked Factor in the Helmet Law Debate. - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![An Overlooked Factor in the Helmet Law Debate. - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
