Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eagle Eye]

where the whole sticky wicket goes comes from and goes to is this:

folks with damaged heads go on disability and taxpayers have to pay for it

if the rules changed so that folks with no helmet could never ever collect taxpayer funded disability - THEN it would in fact be the riders choice

but as long as taxpayers have to pay disability - the representative of the taxpayer has some say in the matter. since its not really riders choice - its really riders responsibility to try to avoid becoming a ward of the state - that is where choice comes in - be responsible or not.

im completely for free choice - wear a helmet or not - but i dont want taxpayer dollars going to keep vegies alive if they were not wearing a helmet, ie if they were not trying to avoid going on disability.

if somebody is wearing a helmet & being responsible and some drunk puts them in a chair - im all for paying disability - but somebody with no helmet being the drunk and crashing - then i do not want to have to pay taxes to fund disability.

freedom - it ends right where you take away others rights/life/livelihood/

oh well

to

States that helmet laws don't require riders over a certian age to wear helmets must show proof of insurance (with extra minimum coverage) if they choose not to wear a helmet.  Not sure all the (No helmet law) states do that; but many do.  There is a premium associated with that right.

I agree with the "it's my head" argument; but also believe in the above argument about making sure if disabled because of that choice, not becoming a ward of the state. 

First 20 years riding never owned one; but youthful folly is reserved for the young.  The older I get; the more I appreciate being here.  I wear a helmet, but that is my choice.  If I were in a non-helmet law state; I'd wear one anyhow.  I've only got one head and it has had far too many lumps as it is.  No need to take unecessary chances.   

[grc]

I don't see how the federal government can mandate you wearing equipment, and I surely do not see the states giving up the authority of equipment violations. They may be able to mandate it on interstates for some reason or another. I'm sorry but I just don't see the Feds getting into this. They have always left this type of stuff up to individual states. Would you have to go to the White House to pay your fine??? I'll be back in a week Honey, I have to ride out to DC to appear in the supreme court for riding without a helmet. Just a joke.

OK, I'm guessing you must be a whole lot younger than me, or you have forgotten how helmet laws were in fact dictated by the Feds back in the late 60's and early 70's.  It's real easy for the Fed's to make the states do what they want, they just attach the requirement to the highway funding authorization.  If the state doesn't pass and enforce the required law or rule, it doesn't get any Federal highway money.  It took about ten years for the states to convince Congress to take away the ability of the Department of Transportation to tie helmet laws to highway funding.  Once that happened, many states eliminated their helmet laws.  But for a while there I think nearly every state had some sort of helmet law thanks to Federal intervention.

Jerry

[spydglide]

OK, I'm guessing you must be a whole lot younger than me, or you have forgotten how helmet laws were in fact dictated by the Feds back in the late 60's and early 70's.  It's real easy for the Fed's to make the states do what they want, they just attach the requirement to the highway funding authorization.  If the state doesn't pass and enforce the required law or rule, it doesn't get any Federal highway money.  It took about ten years for the states to convince Congress to take away the ability of the Department of Transportation to tie helmet laws to highway funding.  Once that happened, many states eliminated their helmet laws.  But for a while there I think nearly every state had some sort of helmet law thanks to Federal intervention.

Jerry

The good thing, Jerry, is that you can still recall this history.  har.  spyder

[Midnight Rider]

It really doesn't matter about the insurance, unless the policy covers an indefinite amount, which most do not.  It can take about a week in the hospital to go through several hundred thousand dollars worth of coverage...something as relatively simple as a stint can cost as much as 100K before all is said and done.  A head injury that made one totally disabled for life would go through most private insurance in a heartbeat, then guess who picks up the tab...not only taxpayers, but others who have private insurance, over time, have their rates jacked up to cover any losses incurred by any given health system.  So, we all pay for those who are underinsured, have no insurance, etc, one way or the other.  There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but 90% of the time, we all end up paying.

I'm not saying that the NUMBERS of riders who choose not to wear helmets, then get involved in an accident that causes an injury to the head that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, is significant compared to the general population of either riders or non-riders, but whatever the cost, it is passed on to each and every person who is old enough to pay taxes, have health insurance, and lives long enough to retire.  And how in the world does anyone think that it's going to make a dime's worth of difference whether the person is insured or not?  What are the health care providers going to do with a case that comes to them with half their brain laying on the gurney, has no insurance, or a relatively small coverage amount...roll them out to the dumpster in the alley and slide 'em off?  I don't think so...will never happen, so we pay.  Not to mention the fact that what if they are the primary bread winner in the family and because of their injury, which could have been prevented by wearing, it causes that family to become "wards of the state"?  The point being that choosing not to wear, and being injured because of that, has a ripple effect that does not just involve that single individual.  Riding on public roads is not a RIGHT, it is a privelege...the "government" imposes all kinds of safety laws, but the hot button seems to be helmet laws.  I don't really care if somebody doesn't want to wear, but I'm also fully aware that I'm going to pay, one way or the other, if something bad happens.  The whole helmet thing is an emotional issue, not a rational one.  That's a fact...

[2018_FLTRXSE]

I was in Panama City, FL for Thunder Beach rally this past weekend. Saw a very drunk girl, no helmet on and wearing shorts and flip-flops, trying to get on back of a bike. About the time she stood up on the passenger peg she lost her balance and fell off backwards and cracked her head on the curb, knocked her out cold. It took the EMT's about 20 minutes to get there and they worked on her another 15 minutes or so before they loaded her on the ambulance and she was unconscious the whole time. Probably had a major concussion at the very least, possibly much worse. IF she had been wearing a helmet she probably wouldn't have had much worse of a headache than the hangover would've caused. One poor decision can change your life forever, not worth the risk to me.

Was the problem here caused by her being stupid drunk or because she wasnt wearing a helmet?

People make bad choices... all the time. It's far too easy to say she wouldnt have gotten hurt if she was wearing a helmet, vs. saying she wouldnt have gotten hurt if she never got in the bike drunk!

At the drunkeness you describe, she had other problems other than falling down.

[indcoltz]

again I'll say the Federal government does not pass laws for states, yes they may try and influence them but so do lobbyists for there own personal agenda. There are no federal traffic law statutes out there and when was the last time anyone has seen a federal cop car that is marked like state police and locals. The feds influenced states to go to the 55 mile per hour speed limit also, but they themselves did not pass any laws requiring it. Just like now you have some states with a 70 mph and others still the 55mph. What Jerry is saying is true but the feds can't do it on there own, at least not yet.

[PASN YU]

I think that people not wearing helmets, getting injured and being a burden on taxpayers is significantly minor compared to all of the other reasons there are burdens on the taxpayers. And I do mean taxpayers (considering 46% of the country doesn't pay taxes). How about people driving cages without proper coverage or no coverage at all? How about people riding without coverage? How about any other injury where the person doesn't have health insurance? Is the argument for forcing people to wear a helmet going to be because there will be a burden on the taxpayers? That's not very convincing...

[KennyC]

I usually go no helmet. If I'm going very far from home or it's real cold I wear or take along. Riding in the rain is much better with helmet with drop down shield on it! Funny though how we have to wear a seatbelt in a car but can ride a bike without a hard hat? About those bugs and stinging critters. Worst for me must have been a hornet! A Big Hornet!! I was riding along and felt a burning sensation on my right hand! Never saw it but just keeping my hand on the throttle was killing me. My hand was swollen up double by the time I got home. Took some Benadryl and by the next morning all was good. Big grasshoppers down the back of your shirt will make you pull over real quick too!!

[Midnight Rider]

I think that people not wearing helmets, getting injured and being a burden on taxpayers is significantly minor compared to all of the other reasons there are burdens on the taxpayers. And I do mean taxpayers (considering 46% of the country doesn't pay taxes). How about people driving cages without proper coverage or no coverage at all? How about people riding without coverage? How about any other injury where the person doesn't have health insurance? Is the argument for forcing people to wear a helmet going to be because there will be a burden on the taxpayers? That's not very convincing...

The overall costs to taxpayers for those injured in motorcyle related accidents who do not have coverage, or inadequate coverage, is miniscule in the global view...just like those on "welfare" are low single digit percentages of any given budget.

But that's not the point.  It's not "taxpayer dollars", it's the costs passed on to every individual who DOES have insurance (of whatever description) in the form of higher (and rising) premiums, and/or medicaid costs, which are taxpayer funded, as is medicare.  We all pay for those who are not insured, one way or the other, and as long as insurance providers are profit driven, we will all continue to do so.  That is a fact without argument.

And while the Feds may not be able to directly pass laws governing the use of safety equipment while operating any vehicle, making tax dollars contingent on "recommendations" is a VERY strong motivation for most states to comply.  It is beyond rational debate that seat belt laws save lives every day...so do helmet laws.  No if's, and's, or but's.  Is there the rare case where a seat belt or helmet actually caused MORE injury...Yes, but those cases are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in the larger picture.

In the case of the woman falling off the back of the bike while it was sitting still because she was drunk...No, she should not have been drunk, nor getting on the bike while drunk, but that fact does not negate the fact that IF she had put a helmet on prior to getting on the bike, she would likely have not been injured.  Yes, she could have been injured just walking around, but that's not the point.

All other arguments to the contrary...if you hit your bare head on an immobile object while your head is traveling 40mph, there are likely to be dire consequences.  Period, period, period.  Whether it's legal or not, the question is "Is it worth it?"  For me, it's not.  Others may make a different decision, but facts are facts, and riding a motorcycle without a helmet is similar to playing Russian Roulette...you're playing the odds. 

[PASN YU]

To the argument of it costing people that pay insurance premiums more, use the comments from my previous post and replace taxpayers with people paying insurance premiums. The argument is still not very convincing considering the previous statement that those cases are miniscule in the global view.

Here's the deal. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous. Helmet or not. Every time you swing your leg you risk your life. If anyone thinks that all of sudden you put on a helmet and other gear that you won't be a ward of the state or that you're immune to injury you're kidding yourself. You may be slightly better off when wearing a helmet and gear but at what cost? Making your ride less enjoyable? Those are personal decisions that should be made by an individual. The point here is whether or not you should be told by the government that you have to wear a helmet. In my opinion the government should stay out of my life as much as possible to include telling me I have to wear a helmet.

[2018_FLTRXSE]

To the argument of it costing people that pay insurance premiums more, use the comments from my previous post and replace taxpayers with people paying insurance premiums. The argument is still not very convincing considering the previous statement that those cases are miniscule in the global view.

Here's the deal. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous. Helmet or not. Every time you swing your leg you risk your life. If anyone thinks that all of sudden you put on a helmet and other gear that you won't be a ward of the state or that you're immune to injury you're kidding yourself. You may be slightly better off when wearing a helmet and gear but at what cost? Making your ride less enjoyable? Those are personal decisions that should be made by an individual. The point here is whether or not you should be told by the government that you have to wear a helmet. In my opinion the government should stay out of my life as much as possible to include telling me I have to wear a helmet.

Well said...

A DOT helmet protects your heat at impact speeds of 15 MPH... so it might help the drunk falling off the bike or the idiot staggering down the street drunk. It might lessen the injury at higher speeds as well.

Having the correct mindset and making the right choice before you swing your leg over the bike will provide far more protection than any helmet.

There are inherent risks involved in our hobby... and if you are going to spend your time protecting yourself against those around you, you might be better off in a cage with side curtain airbags, collision avoidance systems, etc, than on a bike.

Yes, I carry a large insurance policy, moreso because of the stupids around me rather for my own actions. If they want to increase the premiums for those that choose to not wear a helmet, so be it. However, a helmet wont prevent an accident. It MIGHT reduce injury in an accident situation.

[Midnight Rider]

This horse has been beaten to the point of it being nothing but bones and hair, and the discussion is generally an exercise in futility.  There are dozens of things that can cause you to crash on a bike.  And riding is more dangerous than riding in a car. The act of leaving your house is more dangerous than not leaving, but that is an irrational statement/argument.  Both statements have no real life validity unless you are a recluse or don't ride. The point is what can a person do to REDUCE the likelyhood of going home after a crash without having a drool bucket fastened around their neck, and incurring greater costs to themselves, their loved ones, the health system, etc., blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.  There is one thing that is an absolute fact:  a person is less likely to suffer a TBI (traumatic brain injury), and facial injuries, by wearing a helmet.  If you accept that fact, and wear a helmet, you reduce the danger of riding.  Statistics don't lie. Period...end of discussion on my part.

Make no mistake about it:  I don't care what an individual does, as long as it only does harm to him/herself.  I would prefer not to hear of anyone on this site, or anyone else I know who rides, suffering an injury that could have been prevented by wearing any given piece of protective gear.  But, in the end, whatever blows your skirt up...

[Eagle Eye]

This horse has been beaten to the point of it being nothing but bones and hair, and the discussion is generally an exercise in futility.  There are dozens of things that can cause you to crash on a bike.  And riding is more dangerous than riding in a car. The act of leaving your house is more dangerous than not leaving, but that is an irrational statement/argument.  Both statements have no real life validity unless you are a recluse or don't ride. The point is what can a person do to REDUCE the likelyhood of going home after a crash without having a drool bucket fastened around their neck, and incurring greater costs to themselves, their loved ones, the health system, etc., blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.  There is one thing that is an absolute fact:  a person is less likely to suffer a TBI (traumatic brain injury), and facial injuries, by wearing a helmet.  If you accept that fact, and wear a helmet, you reduce the danger of riding.  Statistics don't lie. Period...end of discussion on my part.

Make no mistake about it:  I don't care what an individual does, as long as it only does harm to him/herself.  I would prefer not to hear of anyone on this site, or anyone else I know who rides, suffering an injury that could have been prevented by wearing any given piece of protective gear.  But, in the end, whatever blows your skirt up...

What TC said!   

[2018_FLTRXSE]

I've often heard the phrase: "Dress for the crash, not for the ride"

I dont know about you, but I dont get on a bike EVER planning to crash.

YES, something MIGHT happen, but I MIGHT get struck by lightning too.

I will say that being a responsible rider and making the right choices will protect you from being involved in an accident vs. wearing gear that will protect you in the event you get into an accident.

I have already said I wear gear by choice... If the chances of being involved in a wreck increase I am likely to wear more gear. (example, inclement weather, different traffic route with more cars, etc) but for my normal commute which is a hop for most of you at a mere 17 miles, against the heavy morning raffic flow, and almost never any rain, I rarely wear a lot of riding gear because the risks are minimal.

Speed limits, good weather and road conditions, following distance, correct lane positioning, and defensive riding strategies all make for a safer and enjoyable commute.

Your ride, is as safe as you choose to make it. If you want to run at 80-90 MPH, vs. 60-70 MPH, $h!t happens much quicker, and you'd better be ready for it, or make other right choices. (Which at those speeds should include some type of safety gear)

[Cyclegirl]

I live in Ohio and I am totally amazed on how few riders where helmets. Worse I am totally amazed at how many riders where shorts and flip flops. Even the guys who where the right gear who have a passenger who the let where tank tops and flip flops. The government conducts  health tests all the time via surveys someone should conduct motorcycle rider surveys and report on the least safety concious states.