Wearing a helmet can turn a potentially fatal bike accident into a less severe one. Even if the city you live in does not require a bicycle helmet, you should try to wear one every time you ride and contact a bicycle accident attorney if you have been injured. In the state of Washington, wearing a bicycle helmet is highly recommended to protect you from injury and death while riding. However, the state does not require riders to wear a helmet while cycling.
While no state law exists, different counties and municipalities do have helmet wearing requirements. For example, all residents of King County , including Seattle, have to wear a helmet while riding a bike, as do residents of Spokane, Vancouver, Puyallup, and Aberdeen.
However, Orting only requires residents under the age of 17 to wear helmets, and Poulsbo requires helmet use for anyone under the age of The area you live in may be subject to different requirements. However, we firmly believe these numbers would be much higher if helmets were not regularly used by riders. There is no question in our minds that helmets do save lives.
There has been a recent Senate Bill in Washington state that aims to repeal our current helmet law and would allow motorcyclists over the age of 21 to ride without a helmet. This would be a 3-year pilot program.
Whichever side of the debate you are on, it is important to understand our helmet safety laws from a legal perspective. Comparative negligence states that when an accident occurs, the fault and or negligence of each party involved is based upon their respective contributions to the accident.
In other words, if you are riding on your motorcycle and are injured in an accident, comparative negligence can reduce the amount of damages you can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which your own negligence not wearing a helmet contributed to cause the injury. For example, if you are in an accident and it is determined 40 percent of your head injuries were due to not wearing a helmet, then your compensation will be reduced by 40 percent.
Washington state also requires all motorcycle riders to wear helmets that meet the safety standards of the United States Department of Transportation DOT. Here are the guidelines a certified helmet must meet 49 CFR That helmet save my life! Mine is to wear one. I care when the severe trauma rate goes way up and they start calculating that into my insurance premiums. And into our taxes as well. The cost of someone laying in a intensive care unit for the rest of their lives is an undue and mostly unnecessary burden on the taxpayers.
So should everyone else. As a former EMT I witnessed and treated far more head traumas from car crashes than from motorcycles. I have ridden for 42 years and been through 2 motorcycle totaling crashes, both without head injury though other injuries were incurred.
From my personal standpoint everyday autos are just as dangerous. I believe in the safety of helmets. Another issue is gigantic medical bills that result from a crash victim that they are unable to pay.
Now, the financial burden falls on the public through higher insurance premiums. I like my helmet and I feel so much safer. Do you want to finish as Mr. Potato Head, on support or non-contributory?
Some-one earlier posted about the offset of expense to society for your medical and support costs. What if your choice were to incorporate a clause in your insurance that minimized coverage to life support only, no rehab at all? Still your choice?
I would still wear a brain bucket but still believe it should be by choice. Insurance should be aware of your stance on the choice and adjust the coverage accordingly. I sold my bike back in after returning from a coast to coast. He also told me at that time that there are only twelve out of fifty states which require a helmet… That was when I took it off and I continued my riding as I was use din my youth.
A frustration of government overreach; a frustration of government telling me how to live my life, even if there is no crime involved.
The supporters of SB and HB say the overall intent of the law is to understand what motorcyclists over the age of 21 would do if they are given the freedom of choice to wear or not wear helmets. They say this also gives them the freedom to make their own decisions about personal safety.
0コメント