As I'm sure anyone who's reading this is aware, many states currently have laws requiring the use of a helmet when operating a motorcycle. Many people, some even motorcyclists, support this type of legislation. For the purpose of this article I will pretend that this isn't a free country and that the government should force us to do what they feel is in our best interest. I intend to discuss why a person should, and yes, shouldn't choose to wear a helmet from an objective and practical perspective. Well, almost objective. I do have the bias of wanting to remain alive.
So far in the helmet debate, I have heard two basic arguments presented. The pro-helmet law side basically says that statistics prove helmets are safer, and that people should be safe. This is a valid argument. The anti-helmet law side basically says that we should be free to make up our own minds. This is also a valid argument. Now here's the problem with both arguments:
When the pro-helmet motorcyclists, (if they're not motorcyclists they have no business debating it), tell you that helmets are safer they mean that helmets are safer when you crash. We know, however, that crashing is not safe--helmet or not. What they refuse to consider is the effect the helmet can have on your ability to prevent a crash. Why don't they take this into consideration? Well, many may ride motorcycles purely for recreational purposes and avoid critical traffic areas and situations. Those who do ride in critical traffic may not realize how a helmet can hinder their perception because they either lack that level of perception in the first place, or they have simply never ridden in these circumstances without a helmet. Yes, I will explain exactly how a helmet hinders perception after the next paragraph.
When the anti-helmet motorcyclists explain why they don't want to wear a helmet, it usually consists of "because I don't like them". This should be a good enough reason in the United States of America, but unfortunately it leaves a lot of valid and practical arguments unspoken. It also has the unfortunate effect of making those who choose not to wear helmets appear to be unwilling to take responsibility for their own safety.
Different riding enviroments require different types of skills and different approaches to survive them. When a person is riding on twisted and unpredictable country or canyon highways, wearing a helmet is safer. On two-lane blacktop there are really only two directions a car can come from, directly in front of you or directly behind you. In these circumstances your eyes generally do, and should, stay focused on the road in front of you most of the time. A helmet does nothing to interfere with your view of the road, and will protect you if you go down when that blind decreasing-radius turn has loose gravel scattered across it. In most interstate highway situations the high speed and consistent motion of traffic make it another example of when a helmet should be considered the safer option. There are of coarse exceptions. When traffic is too clogged to move consistently and leave you with a decent "space cushion", a helmet may hinder the level of perception necessary to deal with such an environment.
The main example of when a helmet should not be considered the safer option for an experienced rider is critical traffic situations. The downtown area of most cities is almost always a critical traffic situation. Any area of most cities can become a critical traffic situation during rush-hour times. When riding a motorcycle under these circumstances the most important defense is your ability to perceive your surroundings, which depends on making fast and accurate asessments of what traffic is doing around you.
To check a lane behind you without crashing into the car that's stopping or pulling out in front of you, you must turn your head, see what is there, and turn your head back as quickly as possible. The added weight of a helmet on your head slows this action down, but that's not even the worst thing it does. When wearing even a 3/4 helmet, many people are able to detect both sides of the helmet in their peripheral vision while focusing straight ahead. This means that it is blocking a small portion of a person's vision. When a person turns their head to check behind, however, their eyes do not stay focused straight ahead or they would be unable to see behind them without turning their whole body around. The first thing that moves when a person initiates a lane check is their eyes. Keeping in mind how a person's field of vision expands as the distance increases, this means that during a lane check the helmet is blocking a crucial portion of the rider's vision. It can be as much as a whole car length.
The effects of this lost visibility cause a person to turn their body to see, (this is a bad thing on a motorcycle), and they still get a less accurate picture of what is there. As if this extra effort doesn't slow a person's lane check enough, it combines with the extra weight on their head to drastically lengthen the time during which they don't see what is in front of them.
Different skill levels, perception abilities, and circumstances require different choices be made as to whether or not a helmet should be worn. Oh yeah, and this is a free country after all, isn't it?
P.S.--If you are a beginner in any state there are probably laws requiring you to wear a helmet until you pass a motorcycle skill test. Whether there are or not, please wear a helmet at all times until you know what you are doing.
home / manifesto / message board / helmets? / choppers / streetfighters / links