This has been out in the news for a while now. I'm not sure if we have had a thread about it. I sympathize somewhat with the freedom argument... but if you are going to ride a motorcycle, especially at a high speed, I believe that there should be a rule for eye protection. Some of the comments below the original source talk about people being hit by bugs... I can't imagine that maintaining control of a bike would be all that easy if I had a dragonfly hit me in my unprotected face at 80mph. ..atleast with the see through visor/goggles the eyes are protected from the actual impact and it hasn't been a direct blow to your face. The last thing I need on the road is for a cyclist to get knocked out by a rock or bug and/or lose control and swerve into me... whether I'm in oncoming traffic or driving his direction. Windshields get broken all of the time because of rocks and other things... I wonder what kind of damage they would do to the unprotected noggin. Then you also have incidents like the one from the source cited.
They don't. They limit your peripheral vision so you can't see stuff coming beside you.
I don't remember ever having had such a problem with fatigue.
You have to pay attention to notice it. It's not "Oh god, my neck is killing me. I think I'll start checking my mirrors less." You just don't check your mirrors as much.
maybe the next fool who tries that will read this thread
And see my comment, and then decide what he values and make an informed choice about his helmet, without the law getting in his way.
They don't. They limit your peripheral vision so you can't see stuff coming beside you.
Then why did you say that he might not have hit the back of a car if the car obviously wasn't in his peripheral vision...? It's not like you to make a mistake like that, Xzeno.
A random yet still related question. Should people be allowed to open their car doors and jump out just to be drug standing up holding on to the door?
What would happen if he hadn't been wearing a helmet? He might not have hit the back of the car, for starters.
He didn't fall off from hitting the car, and his view was almost certainly not blinded by the helmet. He was propelled forward (it looked like unintentional acceleration, so he hit his front brakes causing the bike to tip forward sharply). If anything, hitting the car in front of him probably saved that guy from a lot of pain. Think about it: the car was moving at a speed almost that of his bike. Bumping into that must certainly be less concussive and less forceful than slamming headfirst into the still pavement at those speeds.
Should people be allowed to open their car doors and jump out just to be drug standing up holding on to the door?
We need more laws preventing stupidity, but I don't think there's a law specifically against that yet. I think the driver could be charged with reckless endangerment in that case, but I'm not sure. The guy was probably intoxicated. If not, then he's got some serious thrill issues.
Then why did you say that he might not have hit the back of a car if the car obviously wasn't in his peripheral vision...? It's not like you to make a mistake like that, Xzeno.
The gif looked like he lost control of the bike before he hit the car. The cause is unclear. It may have been something that increased alertness, vision and hearing could have prevented.
Regardless of the gif, accidents happen. Life is about doing what you want, and if you want to ride without a helmet, go ahead. If you want to skateboard off a half pipe, go ahead. If you want to sky dive, go ahead. All of these activities are dangerous.
It's NOT the government's job to protect us from ourselves. Sometimes, we just have live and let die.
What about when that freedom impedes the lives of others? If they wipe out at highway speeds and their head happens to get crushed under the tire of a car and it's proven that a helmet would've almost certainly saved their life, the driver of the car is up for vehicular manslaughter instead of a lesser charge for minor injuries. Now that person has lost years of their life in prison due to something preventable.
I really think the whole sky diving thing is a little off tho. I'm not worried about them splatting per se... I'm more concerned with them splatting on someone else. ...like we should be allowed to jump off a sky scraper if we so choose to do so... we'd most likely land on a crowded street killing other people. Considering sky diver's usually navigate towards their landing ground (they are a horizontally moving projectile going at the speed of the plane) I'd say they have the potential of landing somewhere outside the designated landing area. A secondary parachute is an acceptable requirement in my mind. The local parachuting airport is right by a town and busy highway. If you miss your mark, then you are either in a pine tree, in the middle of the road, or in someone's yard.
I had something written... I forgot all I wrote... AG is being glitchy. so I'll just have to come up w/ something again.
I do know that this was cited in my lost post. let's see if I can refabricate that thing now...
from what I remember... I know that it was directed at Xzeno.
The source cited above says that it is highly likely that a person can hear anything and everything they need to hear when on a motorcycle while helmeted. It says that if it is louder than the cycle, then it can be heard through the helmet. If it isn't louder than the cycle, then I'm not sure it can be heard even without a helmet. I don't know how credible any of that source is... just like I don't know how credible any of your statements are. They have cited either fabricated or real studies. The studies, from what I remember, argue for the helmet argument. They discredit some of the same style statements made against them with some of the same logic. "this study says yes"... "this study says you are lying"... "this study says no we're not"
When I am in my car, I can't hear things outside of my car with the exception of noises as loud as a horn of some sort or a car crash. I am aware that there are people out there like you who don't listen to music, Xzeno. ( no really... Xzeno doesn't like music) But, I would venture to say that there far more people like me who are playing music while they drive. I can't believe that a helmet drowns out more noise than what is experienced by the average car driver.
Almost every (I say that b/c I feel it's been every... but have not kept tabs on it...so I won't speak absolutely here) biker I drive up beside looks at me. Like... not via mirror, but turns his/her head and looks at me. If it is something they do w/ or w/o a helmet, then I'm not sure much is going to just up and surprise them peripherally. I'd imagine it would be most dangerous for them to be beside but almost just behind the car they are traveling behind. Mostly because I'd think them being out of the car/truck driver's peripheral vision would lead to more vehicles swerving into bikes. In that position, the biker's view of the vehicle is not only peripheral but in the normal position. so... when you're in the most danger of being forgotten by the car driver they are well in your field of vision.
The source stated a 3'ish % decrease in peripheral vision... which I think is a 1.5% decrease on both sides... some would say that percentage isn't enough to warrant caring or concern.
I do know that air at high speed dries your eyes out or just blows in them. ...both cause your eyes to water. Some would say that driving with agitated eyes could detract from your concentration and your lack of focus on the things around you. Squinting to see while driving at high speed has to detract from your peripheral vision as well.. I mean the very nature of closing/squinting your eyes diminishes your field of vision. I stuck my head out of the window a few times when I was a kid... It was hard to keep my eyes open and/or focused. I don't care if it's glasses, goggles, or a vizor. I think you need to protect your eyes with something. I don't care about your eyes for your protection. The safety of the bike driver is not my concern. The safety of the driver and passenger in the car, which may include myself, are all I'm concerned with.
I personally don't care to protect you from you. Someone can go play Russian roulette with a fully loaded shotgun for all I care. I only care when they're pointing the gun upwards and I'm (or non consenting someone else who doesn't know what's going on is) possibly upstairs directly above them. ...if that makes sense.
