Whenever I hear someone complain about motorcycle helmet laws, they have two arguments: restricted vision, and restricted hearing (three, actually, but I don't think riding without a helmet is a US constitutional issue...)
Someone should build a helmet that increases the field of peripheral vision and includes noise reduction devices specifically tuned to remove your own engine noise.
This helmet would double as a diagnostic tool. If your engine were out of tune, you would start hearing it, due to the poor match between the noise filter and your engine.
This helmet would be better than your own head, and protect you before and after an accident...-- dbsousa, Jun 25 2003 and this... http://www.eri.harv...ision99/Augment.pdf [dbsousa, Oct 17 2004] or this... http://www.lucent.c...900/000922.bla.htmlRace Car Noise cancellation technology... [dbsousa, Oct 17 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] (?) Halfbaked http://www.solent.a...ews/2003/r56y03.stmA prototype competition helmet, incorporating noise cancellation technology. [ato_de, Oct 17 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] impared vision or just an excuse? http://www.cyberste...riding/helmets.htmlFull faced helmets have at least a 210 degree field of vision, most have a 240 degree field of vision. Most states require that drivers have a 140 degree field of vision. [ato_de, Oct 17 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] (?) Cost of RTA http://www.rospa.or...les/engineering.htmCost of a fatal RTA is £1.25M (approx $2.08M) [suctionpad, Oct 17 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004] If someone could just build one that could offer more protection against neck and spinal injuries . . .-- bristolz, Jun 25 2003 While I agree with the sentiment, I can't really find the idea. How would it filter/amplify the noise? What would change to offer more visibility?
I have been riding for 20 years, people who say they can't see or hear are full of shit. On the other hand, Helmet and seatbelt laws are constitutional violations.
I find myself diametrically opposed to you.-- ato_de, Jun 25 2003 I basically agree in principle with [ato_de], but I wouldn't call helmet laws a violation of the U.S. constitution. I don't see anything in the bill of rights restricting the type of activities that can be controlled by passing laws. Therefore this problem should be attacked through legislation or constitutional amendment, not through the courts.
I do however feel that such laws are contrary to the notion of freedom. I believe the purpose of laws should be to regulate my actions so I don't harm others. A law that attempts to save me from my own stupidity will fail in two ways. First, it won't be strict enough to save me if I'm really stupid (I can wear the helmet incorrectly). Second, it will be too strict if I am in an unusual situation where I am smart enough to know that a helmet really isn't necessary (driving a fully enclosed 3 wheel "motorcycle"). In addition, I see no problem with people who just enjoy riding without a helmet for whatever reason as long as they are will to accept the consequences. If this was seen as a big enough problem, insurance companies would likely add a clause reducing coverage for accidents without a helmet, or charge larger premiums for insurance with no helmet requirment.-- scad mientist, Jun 25 2003 auto-de, How do you construe a constitutional right to drive? Driving is a privilege given to you by the state, and taken away by the state.
As far as safety is concerned, seat-belts protect other drivers, by keeping you behind the wheel in an accident, where you have a chance to regain control of the car, rather than thrown into the passenger seat.
Helmets protect others from seeing your expression in the event of a decapitation. (this is a joke, I don't do smileys.)
Noise cancellation is a relatively simple technology, that you can buy for under a hundred dollars. they sample ambient noise, and generate soundwaves of equal wavelength but opposite amplitude, cancelling the noise. Calibrate it to your engine plus the wind whipping past your head, and you can hear everything else around you.
I'm not sure how to increase your peripheral vision, except to place distoring lenses/mirrors at the edges of the visor...-- dbsousa, Jun 25 2003 db, Forcing the use of protective gear on free citizens is a violation of the individual right to be a moron. I can't see anywhere I even hinted at the merest possibility that could have suggested I might remotely believe in the "constitutional right to drive."
I still don't see your "Idea." You are suggesting that it is possible but offering no actual way to do it.
//Someone should build a helmet that increases the field of peripheral vision and includes noise reduction devices specifically tuned to remove your own engine noise.//
//Noise cancellation is a relatively simple technology//
//I'm not sure how to increase your peripheral vision//
Without a solution, this will be [M-F-D] Advocacy.-- ato_de, Jun 25 2003 Auto-de, I have posted links to the appropriate technology.
Jutta, I don't think that you have to predict the engine sound perfectly to cancel a signifigant portion of it. And engine noise is a whole lot more predictable than "Ambient Noise". Harley Davidson tried to patent their engine noise...
Auto-de again, the right to drive or ride unsafely must be considered a subset of the right to drive or ride. You don't have a right to drive unsafely no matter what the specifics; intoxication, cell phone, no seatbelt or helmet.
Although the frequency with which unhelmeted riders/unbelted drivers commit vehicular homicide may make this a 2nd amendment issue...(this is a joke, I don't do smileys.)-- dbsousa, Jun 26 2003 :) (This is a smiley, I don't do proper annotations)-- silverstormer, Jun 26 2003 Vehicular homicide?
You are confused on many levels. The number of people who kill others with their motorcycles has no relation to helmet use.-- ato_de, Jun 26 2003 What of the cost of policing a fatal road traffic accident, emergency healthcare in the US if you survive (and full healthcare in more civilised countries), the cost to society of the loss of a potentially talented and wealth-generating individual, the pain and suffering caused to friends and relatives, and to any crash survivors etc., etc.? As far as I'm aware insurance premiums do not cover all of the above. [see link]
Why should the rest of us have to put up with (and pay for) the stupidity of the few?
On the other hand brain damaged motorcyclists are a valuable resource for neurosurgeon training, and have provided great insights into how the human mind works. Perhaps as long as it's only Americans...-- suctionpad, Jun 26 2003 //, Helmet and seatbelt laws are constitutional violations. //
Wow. That's such complete and utter bullshit.
// I can't see anywhere I even hinted at the merest possibility that could have suggested I might remotely believe in the "constitutional right to drive." //
By suggesting that a law mandating seat belts and helmets is a constitutional violation. Such a violation could not be the case unless driving and/or riding were constitutionally protected rights - eg. suggesting your belief in a 'constitutional right to drive'. There is no such thing, ergo, any stipulations placed on those actions are not constitutional violations.
I find it quite amazing to note that there are only about 20 of the 50 states with helmet laws. It seems a no-brainer to me. If you don't wear a helmet, you must have no brain. (...in which case I suppose you don't need one.)
It's simple. See this brick wall? There's a chance your head will hit this at 70 mph. Would you like a helmet? "No thanks." Oooh kay.-- waugsqueke, Jun 26 2003 Only joking about the Americans bit [blissmiss]...
On the constitutional point (for the Americans out there), I didn't realise that either safety equipment or motorised forms of transport were mentioned.-- suctionpad, Jun 26 2003 are Sikh's still exempt from the law on motorcycle helmets?-- po, Jun 26 2003 with the utmost respect to our Sikh friends, why cannot you get a helmet that goes over the turban?-- po, Jun 26 2003 I can understand why Sikh's may be exempt from the helmet law, but what I don't understand is how this is policed? Surely anybody could claim to be Sikh and flout their "right". On a more whimsicle note, could a turban starch not be marketed to help toughen up head-wear in case of an unexpected crash?-- silverstormer, Jun 26 2003 Helmet laws are akin to shoe laws. If the government can force you to wear a helmet for your own safety, they can force you to wear anything if they feel you would be protected by it. You are no longer allowed to walk around on public sidewalks without DOT approved foot protection. It is silly, It is invasive beyond all imagination and oppressive in the extreme.
Only a complete idiot with no other choices would walk around the streets without shoes. Similarly, only a complete idiot would brave the streets on a motorcycle without protective gear including: Helmet, Jacket, Pants, Gloves, Boots, and as much Kevlar as you can fit into the above listed items.
Enough about laws to protect the stupid from themselves...
db, You are ignoring the fact that I like the concept you are presenting without agreeing with your reasons for presenting it. Now if you would just come up with an actual product, I could give you a damn croissant and be done with this silliness.-- ato_de, Jun 26 2003 My step-mom, (who's a nurse), has a word for motorcyclists who don't wear helmets: organ-donors. At a certain point, riding without helmets becomes a public health care burden, and so IMHO the public does have a legitimate interest in enforcing helmet laws.-- RayfordSteele, Jun 26 2003 //On a more whimsical note,//
custard-infused turbans?-- suctionpad, Jun 26 2003 Donorcyclists, I've heard them called.-- bristolz, Jun 26 2003 //custard-infused turbans// Why not, if that floats your boat. Might not go down too well with white turbans...-- silverstormer, Jun 26 2003 ato_de, I don't feel I have ignored the product side of this idea. I have included links to the appropriate technologies I would like incorporated in a motorcycle helmet. If I had to post a blueprint, it wouldn't be half-baked...
As far as helmet laws are concerned, blah, blah, blah. I like 'em, you don't. They haven't led to a universal dress code yet...-- dbsousa, Jun 26 2003 //Donorcyclists, I've heard them called// or "a statistic waiting to happen".-- PeterSilly, Jun 27 2003 IMO noise cancellation tech isn't appropriate to motorycle helmets. Note that the link to the race-car tech is noise cancellation for the driver's *microphone*.
Engine noise from a motorcycle with a legal exhaust is negligible at speed -- it's basically obliterated by wind noise.
Believe it or not, most serious riders who want to hear important sounds but not lose their hearing use earplugs!-- pbx, Apr 16 2004 I believe it. My most recent bike has aftermarket exhaust system that is jaguar growling through a sound system loud, and riding in earplugs can be a surreal experience.-- normzone, May 06 2014 random, halfbakery