A rant...
All this hype about Ben Roethlisberger (hereafter referred to as Mr. Ben 'cuz I am not trying to type his last name again) wrecking his bike has annoyed me. It's annoyed me because of what it's going to do to the motorcycling community as a whole and it's stirred up the whole "helmet laws" bit.
Mr. Ben's lack of judgement in riding is quite appalling. Not only was he not wearing a helmet, but he wasn't wearing *any other* safety gear either. Strike one. Mr. Ben was a novice rider and riding a powerful sportbike that is aimed at *experienced* riders. Strike two. Mr. Ben was riding illegally. He had no valid permit or license. Strike three...I think he's out.
I have not read or heard about any accident details beyond a lady driving a New Yorker turned left in front of Mr. Ben and that he hit the car. This may be by design as the investigation may still be ongoing. However, since there were no skid marks from the bike (not a complete surprise) this raises a lot of questions for me. Statistics say that in a 2 vehicle crash involving a motorcycle, 80% of the time the person driving the car is at fault, usually by violating the motorcycle's right-of-way by making a left turn in front of the bike. But the problem with statistics is that they don't always cover every instance. What about that other 20%? To me, it is entirely possible for the whole incident to be Mr. Ben's fault.
Is it possible that the lady driving the car was making a legal left turn? Was Mr. Ben speeding? Did he run a red light, perhaps expecting it to change sooner? Did Mr. Ben have problems stopping? Was Mr. Ben not paying attention? We'll have to wait for official details to see.
However, this attention is portraying *all* motorcyle riders as irrisponsible and cocky people riding bikes that are way too powerful for us "just to look cool."
This annoys me. The statements that we're "irresponsible", "motorcycles are dangerous", and "just trying to look cool" are generally made by uninformed non-riders. I'm sorry, but if you don't know anything about the subject matter you're expousing on, then shut up. As stated above, Mr. Ben had exercised extremely poor judgement in his decision to ride. Does that make *all* riders poor decision makers? No more than a driver of a car who wrecks makes all car drivers irrisponsible.
Of course, the "helmet law nazi's" have come out of the woodwork in droves. PA *does* have a helmet law, unlike what most people are claiming. It's what is termed a "modified" helmet law. The law reads as follows:
1. All riders under 21 are *required* to wear a helmet. No exceptions.
2. All riders over 21, but licensed for less than 2 years are *required* to wear a helmet. There is *one* exception to this, which I'll get to in a bit.
3. All passengers of a motorcycle with a rider who is governed by items 1 or 2, must wear a helmet, regardless of the passenger's age or experience. No exceptions.
A rider is *not* required to wear a helmet if they meet one of the following:
A. The rider is over 21 and has been licensed more than 2 years.
B. The rider is over 21 and has *successfully* completed the motorcycle Basic Rider Course (BRC). This is the exception to #2 above.
Knowing the law is a BRC test question. Now in Mr. Ben's case he ran afowl of #2 where he wasn't licensed for 2 years. Yep, broke the law there too. Can you do a strike four?
Helmet laws are not going to fix the problem. All helmet laws do is require you wear a helmet of X type which would fit the guidelines of the law. It brings up a few points.
First off, not every government has a clue about helmets and which types are good. I have an Arai RX7-RR4 helmet. Arai is pretty much the top of the line helmet maker out there and their price reflects that. It is a full face helmet and I only use a clear face shield. It is illegal in Louisianna. Why? Because it doesn't have a *visor*! Here's a tip - visors are only found on *off-road* helmets. Not exactly a well thought out law.
Also, what about the *rest* of you? All a helmet does in a crash is protect your head. If you aren't wearing the rest of the safety gear, all it does is preserve your teeth so they can identify you. As an example: I work in NY which has a traditional helmet law. A few days ago, I watched a young man on a pretty Katana ride by. He had on the required helmet (full face in this case) and...a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers. Hmmm...if he hits the ground at 45mph, there isn't going to be much of his skin and muscle left. Road rash may even start abrading his bones. But, yay, he had a helmet on. Doesn't this sound stupid? I think so. So what was that helmet law supposed to do again?
Now I'm certainly not advocating for the government to tell me what kind of gear I can buy to ride my motorcycle. That's just as stupid as a helmet law. No, the *better* answer is rider education. That's where the BRC, Harley's Rider's Edge, Team Oregan, and similar programs come into play. They are designed to teach new riders the basics of riding, how to deal with street strategies, and in general how to ride safely. Even experienced riders find they learn something new with these courses.
However as with all education, it only works if you get the buy-in from the students. If the students are going to give lip service or just plain disregard the education, then frankly there's not much we can do. We can change the education to try to get through to more people, but we're *always* going to miss someone. It's what we get for being free-willed beings. That free-will also includes the freedom to *ignore* things.
So I suppose you could put me into the "let the biker decide" catetory. And truely, I do feel that when I see a rider without a helmet, I realize that it is their choice to ride without one. However, it's also my choice to think they're an idiot :)
Remember, people, laws can't fix dumb. And just because there is a law about something, doesn't mean that *everyone* is going to obey it.
Thanks for listening....
Mr. Ben's lack of judgement in riding is quite appalling. Not only was he not wearing a helmet, but he wasn't wearing *any other* safety gear either. Strike one. Mr. Ben was a novice rider and riding a powerful sportbike that is aimed at *experienced* riders. Strike two. Mr. Ben was riding illegally. He had no valid permit or license. Strike three...I think he's out.
I have not read or heard about any accident details beyond a lady driving a New Yorker turned left in front of Mr. Ben and that he hit the car. This may be by design as the investigation may still be ongoing. However, since there were no skid marks from the bike (not a complete surprise) this raises a lot of questions for me. Statistics say that in a 2 vehicle crash involving a motorcycle, 80% of the time the person driving the car is at fault, usually by violating the motorcycle's right-of-way by making a left turn in front of the bike. But the problem with statistics is that they don't always cover every instance. What about that other 20%? To me, it is entirely possible for the whole incident to be Mr. Ben's fault.
Is it possible that the lady driving the car was making a legal left turn? Was Mr. Ben speeding? Did he run a red light, perhaps expecting it to change sooner? Did Mr. Ben have problems stopping? Was Mr. Ben not paying attention? We'll have to wait for official details to see.
However, this attention is portraying *all* motorcyle riders as irrisponsible and cocky people riding bikes that are way too powerful for us "just to look cool."
This annoys me. The statements that we're "irresponsible", "motorcycles are dangerous", and "just trying to look cool" are generally made by uninformed non-riders. I'm sorry, but if you don't know anything about the subject matter you're expousing on, then shut up. As stated above, Mr. Ben had exercised extremely poor judgement in his decision to ride. Does that make *all* riders poor decision makers? No more than a driver of a car who wrecks makes all car drivers irrisponsible.
Of course, the "helmet law nazi's" have come out of the woodwork in droves. PA *does* have a helmet law, unlike what most people are claiming. It's what is termed a "modified" helmet law. The law reads as follows:
1. All riders under 21 are *required* to wear a helmet. No exceptions.
2. All riders over 21, but licensed for less than 2 years are *required* to wear a helmet. There is *one* exception to this, which I'll get to in a bit.
3. All passengers of a motorcycle with a rider who is governed by items 1 or 2, must wear a helmet, regardless of the passenger's age or experience. No exceptions.
A rider is *not* required to wear a helmet if they meet one of the following:
A. The rider is over 21 and has been licensed more than 2 years.
B. The rider is over 21 and has *successfully* completed the motorcycle Basic Rider Course (BRC). This is the exception to #2 above.
Knowing the law is a BRC test question. Now in Mr. Ben's case he ran afowl of #2 where he wasn't licensed for 2 years. Yep, broke the law there too. Can you do a strike four?
Helmet laws are not going to fix the problem. All helmet laws do is require you wear a helmet of X type which would fit the guidelines of the law. It brings up a few points.
First off, not every government has a clue about helmets and which types are good. I have an Arai RX7-RR4 helmet. Arai is pretty much the top of the line helmet maker out there and their price reflects that. It is a full face helmet and I only use a clear face shield. It is illegal in Louisianna. Why? Because it doesn't have a *visor*! Here's a tip - visors are only found on *off-road* helmets. Not exactly a well thought out law.
Also, what about the *rest* of you? All a helmet does in a crash is protect your head. If you aren't wearing the rest of the safety gear, all it does is preserve your teeth so they can identify you. As an example: I work in NY which has a traditional helmet law. A few days ago, I watched a young man on a pretty Katana ride by. He had on the required helmet (full face in this case) and...a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers. Hmmm...if he hits the ground at 45mph, there isn't going to be much of his skin and muscle left. Road rash may even start abrading his bones. But, yay, he had a helmet on. Doesn't this sound stupid? I think so. So what was that helmet law supposed to do again?
Now I'm certainly not advocating for the government to tell me what kind of gear I can buy to ride my motorcycle. That's just as stupid as a helmet law. No, the *better* answer is rider education. That's where the BRC, Harley's Rider's Edge, Team Oregan, and similar programs come into play. They are designed to teach new riders the basics of riding, how to deal with street strategies, and in general how to ride safely. Even experienced riders find they learn something new with these courses.
However as with all education, it only works if you get the buy-in from the students. If the students are going to give lip service or just plain disregard the education, then frankly there's not much we can do. We can change the education to try to get through to more people, but we're *always* going to miss someone. It's what we get for being free-willed beings. That free-will also includes the freedom to *ignore* things.
So I suppose you could put me into the "let the biker decide" catetory. And truely, I do feel that when I see a rider without a helmet, I realize that it is their choice to ride without one. However, it's also my choice to think they're an idiot :)
Remember, people, laws can't fix dumb. And just because there is a law about something, doesn't mean that *everyone* is going to obey it.
Thanks for listening....