www.CVOHARLEY.com
CVO Social => Other Topics => Topic started by: SOKOOLJ on July 19, 2007, 09:58:52 PM
-
The NC House members are going to vote on a law today that will apply to novelty helmets. Here is the link... http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/642183.html
-
THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP..HEMENTS SHOULD BE THE CHOICE OF THE RIDER..I WILL BE READING TONIGHT IF THE LAW PASSED.
BE SAFE MICHAEL
-
Ah, the debate continues...I'm not even going to jump into this one...this is probably the most contested issue, even more than religion and politics. ::)
Cheers :2vrolijk_21:,
:devil:
-
More bullchit. Guess they've nothing more to worry about in the tarheel. Sorry.
-
Ah, the debate continues...I'm not even going to jump into this one...this is probably the most contested issue, even more than religion and politics. ::)
Cheers :2vrolijk_21:,
:devil:
Agreed
-
Ah, the debate continues...I'm not even going to jump into this one...this is probably the most contested issue, even more than religion and politics. ::)
Cheers :2vrolijk_21:,
:devil:
Silly boy. Helmet rules are Politics and Religion for a lot of folks :huepfenlol2: .
-
Silly boy. Helmet rules are Politics and Religion for a lot of folks :huepfenlol2: .
Ain't that the truth! ::)
Cheers :2vrolijk_21:,
:devil:
-
I don't understand the debate - all politicians should be required to wear a helmet. It should be a full face helmet with no release on the front visor so all speech would be impossible. Maybe pink?
Ride Safe.
Walt
-
I don't understand the debate - all politicians should be required to wear a helmet. It should be a full face helmet with no release on the front visor so all speech would be impossible. Maybe pink?
Ride Safe.
Walt
:worthless:
-
Helmet bill approved, sent to Easley
DAVID INGRAM
dingram@charlotteobserver.com
RALEIGH --Legislation that would require tougher standards for motorcycle helmets is headed to the desk of Gov. Mike Easley.
The bill passed its last legislative hurdle Thursday when North Carolina's House voted 80-34 to agree with changes made in the Senate.
The bill would require motorcycle riders to wear federally approved helmets and outlaw novelty helmets -- often called "brain buckets" -- that have little to no padding and are not designed for safety purposes.
Advocates hope the legislation leads to fewer fatalities.
Some motorcycle riders argue they should have the freedom to wear what they choose.
Easley, a Democrat, has not said whether he will sign the bill.
Under the proposed law, any driver not wearing a federally approved type of helmet could be fined $100 -- the same penalty given the driver of a car not wearing a seat belt.
Passengers could be fined $10.
-
I agree helmet laws suck and it should be a choice thing. I prefer to ware a helmet not because I'm told to but because I want to. It should be my choice not some politicians.
-
I will take this to another level...it is not only a matter of choice but willing to accept the personal responsibility for that choice...i.e. - higher insurance premiums, etc.
I think you know where I stand and have no issue with it and I have suffered a serious accident due to it.
-
The NC House members are going to vote on a law today that will apply to novelty helmets. Here is the link... http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/642183.html
I feel the pain of not being able to choose. Here in Michigan we are surrounded by states that don't require helmets.
Sounds like in NC they are heading far away from choice. :( >:( :o
-
You should be able to choose. But if you going to wear a brain bucket to look cool why not put on a real helmet that will most likey save your head most of the time. I read somewhere how the brain buckets are actually worse than not wearing anything at all? jmo
-
How about a funtional Brain Bucket with the same impact protection as a good DOT helmet! Check this thread out!
http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=14211.msg226379#msg226379
Here's the company's website. I like this helmet and is no heavier than my plastic novelty that I used for years (when I had to).
http://www.carbonfiberhelmets.com/
Hoist! 8)
-
You should be able to choose. But if you going to wear a brain bucket to look cool why not put on a real helmet that will most likely save your head most of the time. I read somewhere how the brain buckets are actually worse than not wearing anything at all? jmo
I absolutely agree. If I have to wear one, and I do, I wear my Harley DOT approved lid. The Michigan State Police have been cracking down on riders wearing non DOT helmets for some time.
-
I absolutely agree. If I have to wear one, and I do, I wear my Harley DOT approved lid. The Michigan State Police have been cracking down on riders wearing non DOT helmets for some time.
I sold my bike in 91 when Washington passed the helmet law, didn't want to ride with one, DUH?
When I came to my senses in 93 and replaced the now gone Springer with a DWG I rode mostly with a shell.
Always in the back of my mind though was a conversation I had with the guy I bought my dealership from. I had told him I was going to drive a used car to commute in since I have a 125 mile round trip and didn't want to devalue a new car.
BS he said, you have 20 employees waiting every morning for you to be here and on Friday's to sign checks. With that comes a responsibility, drive a car with a warranty.
The parallel for me has become the same with the helmet issue and I must admit along with 20 more years in age and 30 more employees for a total of 50 now I often reflect on that conversation. I respect those who wish to ride without a helmet as much as those that ride with one.
In recent years I have taken to riding only with a DOT helmet, it really hasn't diminished the experience and like wearing a seat belt has become the norm.
When Cindy and I dumped it last week and she had a big raspberry on her lid, I wondered how hard she hit her head and on what. There were some grapefruit sized rocks on the ground, one of those would do some damage I'm sure. Long and short of it is I hadn't been down in 40 years and never needed a helmet.
Now having been down and the helmet doing the job for Cindy, I'd be hard pressed to argue against one for me.
I think it's like most things in life, if it feels right and it's time for a change you'll most likely decide to change. Until then most of us will do what we think is right and continue along as we do now.
I really loved the wind in my hair and the unencumbered feeling of riding without a helmet, but I love Cindy even more and the fact that piece of plastic kept her out of harms way and without a major injury works for me. :2vrolijk_21:
-
Bottom line for me... I wanna be able to choose for myself.
-
ANYONE LIVING IN NC AND RIDING HERE PLEASE READ.
http://bikersmag.com/html/nc_biker_rights.html
-
I BOUGHT MY 1ST DOT HELMET.. :sweatdrop: :furious3:
-
Just my opinion; I don't need the government telling me to wear a helmet or to wear a seatbelt >> Let me decide. I agree with helmet and seatbelt laws for children (18 & younger), that's good, but as adults, I think we should all get to make those decisions.
I think wearing a helmet is a very good idea and always tell new riders this. My wife and I have an assortment of helmets, but we do not always choose to wear a helmet >> here in Oklahoma that is our choice.
In Oklahoma, along with the help of ABATE, we regularly let our state lawmakers know how voting motorcycle riders feel about a mandatory helmet law for adults. So far, we still have the right to decide.
I don't need anyone or any law to protect me from myself.
Again, just my opinion ;)
-
Here ya go! This was fun then. Why not bring it back! Let the debate begin again! ::)
http://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=10986.msg172619#msg172619
:vrolijk_11: :vrolijk_11: :vrolijk_11:
Hoist! 8)
-
DIDNT MEAN TOO STIR THINGS UP.. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE GUYS THAT LIVE IN NC SHOULD KNOW THE LAW..I USED THE DOT HELMET WHILE I WAS RIDING ACROSS THE STATE AND UP IN VIR.
HERES WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE HELMET.
1. MAYBE THE COPS WILL LEAVE ME ALONE
2. IT DIDNT LOOK LIKE A BOWLING BALL ON MY HEAD.
3. AND IT FELT SAFER
4. NO PROBLEM SEEING
HERES WHAT I HATED ABOUT THE HELMET
1. MY NECK HURT AFTER RIDING ALL DAY
2. HELMET ITCH
3. MY GIRLFRIENDS DOT HELMET KEPT BUMPING INTO MINE WHILE RIDING
4. COULDNT WEAR MY HD HAT WHILE RIDING
5. IT COST MONEY
-
DIDNT MEAN TOO STIR THINGS UP..
harleync,
I don't think you stirred anything up, it is just that I really get irritated when the government implements laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves. My guess is that about 99% of the senators and representatives that write these laws do not ride (and I would guess that the majority of those lawmakers really don't like motorcycles at all).
Motorcyclists are growing in numbers daily. And, I would guess that the average motorcyclists is becoming more and more affluent. If we would stop being so lazy and communicate with our senators and representatives (both state & federal), then they would know how the folks that vote for them feel about issues. And if they don't legislate the way you think they should, then vote them out when they run for re-election. The American voters need to wake up and realize what some politicians are doing and stop re-electing some of these jokers.
Ok, maybe I did get a little stirred-up :nixweiss:
-
I hung up my novelty helmet. Just getting older and the need to "feel" like I'm safer. Here in Oregon, as long as it has a hard outer shell, has a strap, insulation and a "DOT" sticker, cops "can't" stop you for unlawful helmet. You can actually put on a regular bucket with foam inside w/strap including a "DOT" firmly stuck on the back and you've guessed it. . can't stop ya.
But, with that being said, everyone should be able to have a "choice". I have several helmets, depending on weather, temp and type of riding I'm doing decides which helmet I wear. I've got half shell, 3/4 shell and full face. I wear a helmet like a wear leather. Do I believe it will safe my life...NO! But, might keep my skin on and reduce injury in a minor wreck. Major wreck....need to talk to your God. Simple Huh....
Ugly John
-
Thirty years ago I could argue the case against mandatory helmet laws with the best of them, citing everything from freedom of choice to restricted vision/hearing to neck injuries due to the whiplash effect. Of course, back then I could also argue against mandatory seat belt laws and any other form of government "intrusion" into my personal choices (I guess I just liked to argue). Then an amazing thing happened over the following 30 years. I grew up, gained maturity, experience, and responsibilities, and finally realized how many serious injuries and/or fatalities had been prevented by those same laws I had once considered to be a violation of my personal freedoms. It's amazing how your perspective changes over time, especially after one of those hated laws saves your own life or the life of a loved one.
I do have one suggestion for the legislators when they address the helmet issue. If freedom of choice is a major stumbling block, then just add a requirement that anyone who chooses to not wear a certified helmet has to post a bond of sufficient size to provide the medical care they may need after an incident. All to often the taxpayers and the people paying insurance premiums wind up footing the bills to support "victims", all because wearing helmets or seat belts wasn't "cool". I say if looking cool or thumbing your nose at the man is more important to you than your health, you should be forced to be responsible for the consequences. Of course, with the cost of round the clock care nowdays, a few hundred bucks for a good helmet will probably look a lot better than coming up with a $1M+ bond. But freedom of choice would be preserved.
BTW - if you really think being a drooling imbecile for the next 20 to 40 years doesn't affect anyone but yourself, you have already lost too much brain function to be allowed out on your own anyway.
JMHO - Jerry
-
Thirty years ago I could argue the case against mandatory helmet laws with the best of them, citing everything from freedom of choice to restricted vision/hearing to neck injuries due to the whiplash effect. Of course, back then I could also argue against mandatory seat belt laws and any other form of government "intrusion" into my personal choices (I guess I just liked to argue). Then an amazing thing happened over the following 30 years. I grew up, gained maturity, experience, and responsibilities, and finally realized how many serious injuries and/or fatalities had been prevented by those same laws I had once considered to be a violation of my personal freedoms. It's amazing how your perspective changes over time, especially after one of those hated laws saves your own life or the life of a loved one.
I do have one suggestion for the legislators when they address the helmet issue. If freedom of choice is a major stumbling block, then just add a requirement that anyone who chooses to not wear a certified helmet has to post a bond of sufficient size to provide the medical care they may need after an incident. All to often the taxpayers and the people paying insurance premiums wind up footing the bills to support "victims", all because wearing helmets or seat belts wasn't "cool". I say if looking cool or thumbing your nose at the man is more important to you than your health, you should be forced to be responsible for the consequences. Of course, with the cost of round the clock care nowdays, a few hundred bucks for a good helmet will probably look a lot better than coming up with a $1M+ bond. But freedom of choice would be preserved.
BTW - if you really think being a drooling imbecile for the next 20 to 40 years doesn't affect anyone but yourself, you have already lost too much brain function to be allowed out on your own anyway.
JMHO - Jerry
Can't to totally agree here Jerry. Do we start outlawing every constitutional right we have, and let the legislators make all our decisions for us? Why not outlaw motorcycles completely. After, they're potentially dangerous with or without a helmet. How about convertibles? How about guns. How about booze and cigarettes. Fast cars, too dangerous. Football, hockey, rugby-all dangerous. Flying, parachuting and bungy jumping-all dangerous. When do we stop? We are founded on freedom. Personal freedom and freedom of choices.
We pay for insurance and some never need it. Some need to use exorbitant amounts. Bonds for making a choice in one area? Sounds discriminatory to me. Why not put a value on everything we do and tax people for everything that someone else deems dangerous? FL law requires you to have health insurance to ride helmetless so the taxpayers don't foot the bill. Fair enough. But other people legislating our personal freedom of choice is not the answer.
The ramifications and results of your decisions, based on maturity and responsibility, should be enough. Requirement of health insurance should be enough for those that choose to ride this way. But unless we throw out the constitution and legislate against EVERYTHING DANGEROUS, as deemed so by others, deems helmet laws discriminatory! JMO.
Hoist! 8)
-
Thirty years ago I could argue the case against mandatory helmet laws with the best of them, citing everything from freedom of choice to restricted vision/hearing to neck injuries due to the whiplash effect. Of course, back then I could also argue against mandatory seat belt laws and any other form of government "intrusion" into my personal choices (I guess I just liked to argue). Then an amazing thing happened over the following 30 years. I grew up, gained maturity, experience, and responsibilities, and finally realized how many serious injuries and/or fatalities had been prevented by those same laws I had once considered to be a violation of my personal freedoms. It's amazing how your perspective changes over time, especially after one of those hated laws saves your own life or the life of a loved one.
I do have one suggestion for the legislators when they address the helmet issue. If freedom of choice is a major stumbling block, then just add a requirement that anyone who chooses to not wear a certified helmet has to post a bond of sufficient size to provide the medical care they may need after an incident. All to often the taxpayers and the people paying insurance premiums wind up footing the bills to support "victims", all because wearing helmets or seat belts wasn't "cool". I say if looking cool or thumbing your nose at the man is more important to you than your health, you should be forced to be responsible for the consequences. Of course, with the cost of round the clock care nowdays, a few hundred bucks for a good helmet will probably look a lot better than coming up with a $1M+ bond. But freedom of choice would be preserved.
BTW - if you really think being a drooling imbecile for the next 20 to 40 years doesn't affect anyone but yourself, you have already lost too much brain function to be allowed out on your own anyway.
JMHO - Jerry
Jerry, that's a side of this question that has been brought up here before. And has ususally gotten a tepid response.
Someone wrote once that governments didn't have the "right" to legislate whether we wore helmets or not. That was one of the dumber things that had been put in print. Short of major Constitutional violations government has whatever rights or privileges it decides it has. The same discussion said we had a "right" to ride without our lids. Almost equally as ill thought.
Riding at all, or driving, is a privilege not a right. We don't have to be let on the highways. Governments can control how we use them.
All that begs the question of should we be allowed to ride without helmets if we so choose, why, and at what cost. Whether we admit it or not there are a couple of things that go a long way toward dictating the answers. As a general rule we're not a large enough pain in the ass/cost to make legislating against us more necessary and there aren't enough of us to make the costs of carrying us on the system burdensome. Either of those change, at anywhere from the municipal to the Federal level, and watch out though.
The highways are made for cages. That's obvious. To be safer for us certain things would be built differently. That's ok though. The national economy is carried on the back of the highway system. The road system should be built for cars and truck and cartage. That we get the benefit of using it and having it for our enjoyment is icing on the cake. That we have to be diligent and take care of our own safety is a perfectly fair "cost" or trade off for being allowed on the great system.
As far as helmets go, their use to be allowed on the system is varied. We know that. Where some locality says "go ahead" that's fine. Ride without. Where another says helmet required, however, I personally wish we could just wear the damn things on. Ride and quit the incessant and often ill conceived bitching. We rarely look less than selfish in that debate; and a little childish. Worse is that it draws attention to us we do not need.
We are best served by governments when we're basically not noticed. Notice us more we'll be regulated more. Guaranteed. Also, all the talk about "freedom of choice" and wind in our hair(s) and everything else notwithstanding, the helmet debate for legislators is one of cost. Highway use legislation and guidelines are always cost/safety.
It does cost society more for every helmet free mile ridden than every helmet worn mile ridden. It really does. Because the costs of health care after head injury are significantly greater. Someone might choose to belabor that point. But they'd look stubborn and uninformed in doing so rather than as someone trying to intelligently make their case. So we're left alone, in the areas we are left alone, because we don't cost enough more for it to make a societal difference.
As much as we all like to kvetch and piss and moan on this it really is a topic where we're best served by just riding well, riding safe, and shutting the hell up to be left alone riding under the radar. The more attention brought to us the worse off we'll be. If some legislature does decide to impose a helmet requirement so what? Someone would rather not ride?
-
Jerry;
I disagree on lots of levels.
JMHO - Jim
-
I completely agree with those that have matured and gained wisdom with age. I too felt it was an invasion of privacy years ago but with the march of time comes some wisdom. Even with that said I am thankful I reside in a state that has and enforces mandatory helmet laws, it is a pity all this age and wisdom didn't accompany any selfcontrol. I am one of those that need the government to protect me from myself. ;)
Just recently in Hot Springs the left and right side of my brain got in a hell of fight over exactly this, luckily the left side won most of the time. :2vrolijk_21:
-
I wore a helmet before it became law in VA to wear one, the reason I wore one then and now is because I can't count on (You-not personal) or another person not being distracted and running into me causing me to Fall off ( I would most likely never see it comming) and you can fall out of a chair and hit your head just as easy and die.) If you could you ask William holden about that or better Gary Bussy hit just hit a curb at low speed (and now he is special eddy).
Hot springs was the worst place not to wear a helmet - with the beer flowing at the rally and all the bike riders that where present of undetermined or self taught MC riding it was a good place to get whacked unexpected.
I choose to wear one - If you choose not too I will still ride with you because it should be your choice. Life is Short and you should be able to choose how you live it.
-
I'm somewhat surprised that my previous post didn't stir up more chit than it did. I guess everyone was out riding. ::)
I just finished an exhaustive search through the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and I'll be darned if I can find the part where it says I have the right to ride without a helmet. It must be there somewhere, or we wouldn't have so many folks claiming this "right". :nixweiss:
Obviously I'm just jerking some chains here, trying to show how silly this entire thing can become when people get a little carried away with their "rights". As 2lane noted, there is no inalienable right to ride or drive on public thoroughfares. Society has seen fit to regulate driving and bestow upon those deemed responsible enough the privilege to drive/ride. That privilege is revocable, based on each persons actions relative to the rules and regulations society puts forth. At least in this country you do have the right to try to influence those rules and regulations.
Question: Anyone ever play football in an organized league (high school, college, or pro)? Were you given a choice as to the wearing of approved headgear? Me neither, and I'm amazed that there haven't been all kinds of protests, lawsuits, etc., since this is obviously discriminatory. I mean, if the football players have to wear helmets, then by god the tennis team should have to wear them too! Right?
Jerry
-
Blake would agree with you since a few years ago he fell into the post and broke his neck.
-
Question: Anyone ever play football in an organized league (high school, college, or pro)? Were you given a choice as to the wearing of approved headgear? Me neither, and I'm amazed that there haven't been all kinds of protests, lawsuits, etc., since this is obviously discriminatory. I mean, if the football players have to wear helmets, then by god the tennis team should have to wear them too! Right?
Jerry
I don't know about that example Jerry. There's more than a few of us here that show obvious signs of playing football without a helmet. A lot.....
-
IMHO
If you wear a helmet it saves superficial damage. Brain injury comes from impact. No helmet, dead rider = no cost to the tax payers. I hate that taxpayer excuse. That's mob rule. As A gun owner I know how that medical cost BS does affect a real constitutional right.
I'd rather support 100 or even 1000 bikers that used to work and used to pay taxes than to give free healthcare to 11-12 million illegal aliens, 3.5 million prisoners, and millions of other crack heads junkies and other morons that don't work.
In a country where it is a right to decide to terminate an unborn child, you should be able to decide if you want to wear a helmet or not.
-
IMHO
If you wear a helmet it saves superficial damage. Brain injury comes from impact. No helmet, dead rider = no cost to the tax payers. I hate that taxpayer excuse. That's mob rule. As A gun owner I know how that medical cost BS does affect a real constitutional right.
I'd rather support 100 or even 1000 bikers that used to work and used to pay taxes than to give free healthcare to 11-12 million illegal aliens, 3.5 million prisoners, and millions of other crack heads junkies and other morons that don't work.
In a country where it is a right to decide to terminate an unborn child, you should be able to decide if you want to wear a helmet or not.
Well Said!
And BTW, driving & riding may not be a right, but I sure pay a lot in taxes to build and maintain the roads that I ride on. I also pay a lot in taxes for the salaries of those that get elected. Every time I vote, I think about how much I pay in taxes >> helps me make good choices.
I am really glad we don't have any laws that prohibit those that want to wear a helmet from wearing one......It's their choice (think about it)
-
Well Said!
And BTW, driving & riding may not be a right, but I sure pay a lot in taxes to build and maintain the roads that I ride on. I also pay a lot in taxes for the salaries of those that get elected. Every time I vote, I think about how much I pay in taxes >> helps me make good choices.
I am really glad we don't have any laws that prohibit those that want to wear a helmet from wearing one......It's their choice (think about it)
There was a nes story about a guy in Georgia that was given a ticket for wearing a helmet in his car because it restricted his vision.
-
There was a nes story about a guy in Georgia that was given a ticket for wearing a helmet in his car because it restricted his vision.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
-
There was a nes story about a guy in Georgia that was given a ticket for wearing a helmet in his car because it restricted his vision.
you wouldn't even need to hire a lawyer to beat that ticket. ::) har! spyder
-
I hate that taxpayer excuse. That's mob rule.
Hate it you might. But from a legislative or agency perspective it's the first, loudest, most direct thing they work from. It's not mob rule. It's legislative. If you don't recognize your enemy and his/its motivations you have zero choice of working effectively against it.
All the other complaints are just sound and fury meaning nothing. In other words ineffective loud ramblings that a legislature or Department of Transportation making an agency rule will really never hear. Those places where rules have been changed or avoided in rider's favor have been, almost universally, places where lobbying was done in terms they understood.
Saying no helmet = dead riders = less cost is specious (at best). Too many good numbers out there to prove otherwise. To make these arguments we have to make them well. Otherwise they won't be effective. If the argument sounds dumb on its face people (other than friends and allies, who you don't need to convince to begin with) won't listen for more than a moment. If they tune out you can't convince them.
-
Hate it you might. But from a legislative or agency perspective it's the first, loudest, most direct thing they work from. It's not mob rule. It's legislative. If you don't recognize your enemy and his/its motivations you have zero choice of working effectively against it.
All the other complaints are just sound and fury meaning nothing. In other words ineffective loud ramblings that a legislature or Department of Transportation making an agency rule will really never hear. Those places where rules have been changed or avoided in rider's favor have been, almost universally, places where lobbying was done in terms they understood.
Saying no helmet = dead riders = less cost is specious (at best). Too many good numbers out there to prove otherwise. To make these arguments we have to make them well. Otherwise they won't be effective. If the argument sounds dumb on its face people (other than friends and allies, who you don't need to convince to begin with) won't listen for more than a moment. If they tune out you can't convince them.
I hate it when you're right like that Don! :P
We've had helmet laws here as far back as I remember. But we always wore them on our arm. The law never said where it needed to be worn, so that was our way of protesting it. And they couldn't ticket you, since we were wearing it! Now they wound up changing the law to state that it must be worn on your head. We don't have much luck wearing it on our arms anymore! ;D
Hoist! 8)
-
I hate it when you're right like that Don! :P
We've had helmet laws here as far back as I remember. But we always wore them on our arm. The law never said where it needed to be worn, so that was our way of protesting it. And they couldn't ticket you, since we were wearing it! Now they wound up changing the law to state that it must be worn on your head. We don't have much luck wearing it on our arms anymore! ;D
Hoist! 8)
See, even something as slow as a legislature will eventually get a clue :huepfenlol2: .
-
See, even something as slow as a legislature will eventually get a clue :huepfenlol2: .
Just remember to bring a DOT-approved helmet to MaggieValley if you come. :nervous: har! spyder
-
Just remember to bring a DOT-approved helmet to MaggieValley if you come. :nervous: har! spyder
Don't own one. I'll plead ignorance! :D
Hoist! 8)
-
Don't own one. I'll plead ignorance! :D
Hoist! 8)
HAR! I've seen the recent pics of your new one. That baby's DOT or SNELL approved, fer sure! ;D har~ spyder
-
HAR! I've seen the recent pics of your new one. That baby's DOT or SNELL approved, fer sure! ;D har~ spyder
Spyder, I bought the non-DOT version. Remember, these Carbon Fiber helmets have the same impact protection as the DOT version, but don't pass the 7-lb spear test that's needed for DOT approval! :nixweiss:
So no DOT sticker on it. Do the NC cops chuck 7-lb spears at you? :D
Hoist! 8)
-
So no DOT sticker on it. Do the NC cops chuck 7-lb spears at you? :D
Hoist! 8)
Hey Hoist.......buy one of those novelty DOT stickers, center it on the back and pray that you haven't had a beer or 2 when they pull you over. :nervous: har! :drink: spyder
-
Hey Hoist.......buy one of those novelty DOT stickers, center it on the back and pray that you haven't had a beer or 2 when they pull you over. :nervous: har! :drink: spyder
I haven't seen those DOT stickers here in years. Do you or anyone else have them. If so, please bring me a few! TIA! ;)
Hoist! 8)
-
Spyder, I bought the non-DOT version. Remember, these Carbon Fiber helmets have the same impact protection as the DOT version, but don't pass the 7-lb spear test that's needed for DOT approval! :nixweiss:
So no DOT sticker on it. Do the NC cops chuck 7-lb spears at you? :D
Hoist! 8)
Down here in SC we use a baton.
-
I haven't seen those DOT stickers here in years. Do you or anyone else have them. If so, please bring me a few! TIA! ;)
Hoist! 8)
All the indy bike shops (and even some dealerships) carry them....I'll try to pick some up.......I better hurry, 'cause there might be a 'run' on 'em with this new clarification of the law and impending enforcement crackdown in NC. :( spyder
-
Do the NC cops chuck 7-lb spears at you? :D
Hoist! 8)
Only if you steal their donuts or mess with their womens ;D.
:coolblue:
-
Only if you steal their donuts or mess with their womens ;D.
:coolblue:
Donuts? No problem. The other thing.... :nixweiss: ;D
Hoist! 8)