Print

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

[marshall10]

I can think of at least one instance where a bee flew inside my helmet (3/4 with face shield). If I didn't have a helmet on it wouldn't have happened........While helmets can be argued one way or the other I FIRMLY believe that eye protection should be mandatory.

[tazmun]

I can think of at least one instance where a bee flew inside my helmet (3/4 with face shield). If I didn't have a helmet on it wouldn't have happened........While helmets can be argued one way or the other I FIRMLY believe that eye protection should be mandatory.

Don't want to point out anything, but I had bee & wasp attach's that got in
my protective jackets on more then one occasion. I'll take a bee sting to a
rock hitting my head ANYDAY! I believe we all have our rights, but why is
it when something happens, EVERYONE is sue happy? Cars have "warning sticker"
all over the place, but damn if we have to follow them. Something happen, and
by God, it's the car fault, sue them SOB's!!! Then you don't mind when the
government steps in!
 My point is, no matter what you choose, you most likely will change your
mind when something happens to a loved one, or close friend.

[Screamin]

So there ya have it. Some think it's their, or their representatives, duty to regulate how to ride, live, etc. and perhaps we'll all be better off for it. Others think it's a choice that they, as adults in a relatively free country, should make. Personally, I've always had an aversion to being told what to do.

[TIF2]

So there ya have it. Some think it's their, or their representatives, duty to regulate how to ride, live, etc. and perhaps we'll all be better off for it. Others think it's a choice that they, as adults in a relatively free country, should make. Personally, I've always had an aversion to being told what to do.

Good summation .... maybe we can ALL agree that:

Given all of the recent issues where the Government should be stepping in to regulate (and hasn't and probably won't) - I think the fact that this is taking up any time at all in the legislature is just plain silly. I mean ... "We better get all those bikers in helmets so the financial industry will finally step in line. The first step to solving the nation's problems is the helmet law"

Really? Of all the issues we face with over taxation, a fraudulent and criminal financial industry, and extremely high unemployment ... a helmet law is what they spend their time and focus on? It's almost laughable.

[grc]

Don't want to point out anything, but I had bee & wasp attach's that got in
my protective jackets on more then one occasion. I'll take a bee sting to a
rock hitting my head ANYDAY! I believe we all have our rights, but why is
it when something happens, EVERYONE is sue happy? Cars have "warning sticker"
all over the place, but damn if we have to follow them. Something happen, and
by God, it's the car fault, sue them SOB's!!! Then you don't mind when the
government steps in!
 My point is, no matter what you choose, you most likely will change your
mind when something happens to a loved one, or close friend.

And there is the the real answer.  Freedom of choice seems like a really great idea, until it bites us in the ass and forces a personal payback.  Maybe I should modify my earlier proposal about posting that bond, and add the requirement that you must also forfeit your right to sue anyone and everyone when your "choice" turns out to be not so great.

There are many issues in life where personal freedom and freedom of choice are of paramount importance.  The use or nonuse of safety equipment is not one of them, IMHO.  Will wearing a helmet or a seatbelt keep you from riding your bike or driving your car?  If it will, then I think you have some much more serious issues that need attention.

In many ways, the entire thing reminds me of little kids who don't want to go to bed or to be told what to do by Mom and Dad.  Getting some sleep will ultimately be good for them, but it's all about not wanting anyone to tell them what to do.  There will always be valid arguments for and against regulation of human activities, and there isn't necessarily going to be a "right" answer.  All I ask is that people be given all the facts with which to make informed decisions, and that those people then stand up and take responsibility for that decision.  Don't come back after the crash and sue someone because you bounced your head off that curb and now you can't focus on anything for more than 10 seconds, and you tend to drool a lot, and you can't work anymore so you're losing the nice house, etc., etc..  And don't expect the rest of society to bail you out either.


Jerry

[TIF2]

And there is the the real answer.  Freedom of choice seems like a really great idea, until it bites us in the ass and forces a personal payback.  Maybe I should modify my earlier proposal about posting that bond, and add the requirement that you must also forfeit your right to sue anyone and everyone when your "choice" turns out to be not so great.

Don't come back after the crash and sue someone because you bounced your head off that curb and now you can't focus on anything for more than 10 seconds, and you tend to drool a lot, and you can't work anymore so you're losing the nice house, etc., etc..  And don't expect the rest of society to bail you out either.


Jerry

Once again you are heavy-handing a helmet opinion and making requirements that are just simply not valid. All of the things that you point out above could happen even WITH a helmet, and the determining factor of litigation has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was utilized or not (as long as requirement under the law for its use was adhered to). So according to you - someone who is grossly negligent (say - texting on a cell phone) is only responsible if the person they injure is wearing a helmet? Where do you come up with the rational for that? How can you even think that to be a reasonable point of discussion? I'm not trying to call you out, I just don't get it ...

And let me discuss this complete myth about "society bailing people out". Having gone through a family member getting sick, requiring round the clock care due to illness (no, he was not wearing a helmet when he got hit by cancer) ... let me tell you -

When insurance runs out, and personal finances run out guess what?
The fawking treatment runs out as well ... I have yet to see anyone ... anywhere ... at anytime provide evidence of any "bailouts" by society for lack of insurance. If you think Medicare/Medicaid is the answer ... it ain't (even though he paid into it his entire 40 year working life). So unless you (or anyone else) can provide hard data and evidence of this "cost to society" due to lack of a helmet law BS ... please just let it go. It has no foundation, and the more it gets repeated doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was stated.

This is nothing new ... it began back in 1967. If all the cost arguments were valid, it would stand to reason that NO State would have repealed a previously enacted helmet law, yet 27 States repealed (or modified for adults) the law on the books:

"In 1967, the federal government began requiring states to enact motorcycle helmet use laws to qualify for certain federal safety program and highway construction funds. Forty states enacted universal helmet use laws that went into effect by the end of 1969. By 1975, all but three states mandated helmets for all motorcyclists.

As the US Department of Transportation moved in 1976 to assess financial penalties on states without helmet laws, Congress responded to state pressure by revoking federal authority to assess penalties for noncompliance. Between 1976 and 1978, 20 states weakened their helmet use laws to apply only to young riders, usually those younger than 18. Eight states repealed helmet use requirements for all motorcyclists.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, several states reinstated helmet laws applying to all riders. In the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, Congress created incentives for states to enact helmet use and safety belt use laws. States with both laws were eligible for special safety grants, but states that had not enacted them by October 1993 had up to 3 percent of their federal highway allotment redirected to highway safety programs.

Four years after establishing the incentives, Congress again reversed itself. In the fall of 1995, Congress lifted federal sanctions against states without helmet use laws, paving the way for state legislatures to repeal helmet laws. In 1997, helmet laws in Texas and Arkansas were weakened to apply only to younger riders. Kentucky weakened its law in 1998, Louisiana weakened its law in 1999 only to reinstate universal coverage in 2004, Florida weakened its law in 2000, and Pennsylvania weakened its law in 2003. Now 20 states and the District of Columbia have helmet laws covering all riders, and 27 states have laws covering some riders, usually people younger than 18. Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire do not have helmet laws."

Whether a person wears a helmet or not ... the issue here is whether it should be REGULATED for use by a Government. IMHO, it is outside the scope of Government (esp the Feds) to legislate acts against oneself. Any law that protects me from me just doesn't make sense. It just simply cannot be supported that non-use of a helmet causes any harm (financially or physically) to anyone but the individual. If someone can provide the evidence, I'm all ears (and eyes)

Ride safe with (or without ) a lid ....

[tazmun]

Jerry,
     You hit it on the head. I will always agree with a persons right, but if you choose
then your not allowed to sue, for the SOB that pulled out in front of you. That has
happened too many times here where the biker hit his head, broke NO other bones
and died, family sued!

[skreminegul07]

     Hear Hear.   

Personal choice is the catch phrase that really winds me up when I hear or see arguments for why someone should have the "right" to do something that is likely to result in a negative outcome.  My personal choice back when I was 16 years old was to start smoking cigarettes.  Forty years later, I had a heart attack that was most likely caused by that smoking habit, and between that and the lung damage my quality of life is not what I had envisioned for my "golden years".  Bust your butt to be able to retire early, and 3 weeks after you retire you find yourself flat on your back in the hospital and looking forward to a diminished lifestyle IF you survive.  So much for my supposed "right" to choose.

I've had several occasions over the years where my helmet has been struck by rocks or other debris thrown up by other vehicles, and on a couple of those occasions I was damned near knocked silly by the impact.  Without the helmet, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have been incapacitated to the point that a crash would have resulted.  I've also been run off the road and had lot's of skin removed from my knees, but my pretty (?) face was still intact even though the helmet and faceshield were pretty well used up.  So even though I haven't run into a tractor-trailer to test the effectiveness of my helmets, I have had enough first hand experience to know that I will always wear a full face helmet, and I will always promote the use of helmets to others.  I really don't want to be a dictator, but I am one of those old fashioned folks who believes he has a duty to share his experiences with the hope that maybe a few will be swayed, and possibly spared.  The unfortunate truth is that waiting for each individual to have his own experiences that eventually lead him to embrace safety is a strategy that will never succeed.  Too many don't survive long enough to make that decision on their own.  I often wish our government had outlawed cigarettes back in the '60's; I wonder how many family members wish the government had mandated helmets before their loved ones went for that last ride.


Jerry

Jerry,
I agree what what you are saying for the most part.  It's about education, not legislation.  Freedom to choose isn't about banning helmets or saying that a helmet isn't a good idea.  That's where the argument goes a great deal of the time. 

[moscooter]

 
If there is more needed evidence of the added safety brought about by a helmet,  this is NOT it.

Sobering if you haven't seen this one before.  SNOPES validates this accident,  the guy did (NOT) survive.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accide.....acrash.asp

 :nixweiss:On another forum,  I can click on exactly the same above site and go right to it.   I just tried this one,  and it comes up as (cannot find).......Go figure.

[RedDevil]

I think it's amazing that having a choice to wear a helmet or not seems like the last bastion of freedome for some people.  Really bizzare...it seems funny that we don't want to be told we have to wear a helmet because that's taking away my right to choose and I don't want to be told I have to do something.  Yet we live in a society where we are told what to do all the time.  We are told we have to pay taxes, we are told we have to obey the law (whether they make sense or not), we are told to wear seat belts, now tell me does your wearing a seat belt protect the person in the other car that just hit you, or does it protect you?  Yet I don't hear any complaints that your freedome to choose has been trounced upon by being told by the government that you have to wear a seat belt.  What's the difference in being told you have to wear a helmet?  You still have the freedom to go out and ride your motorcycle (just like you still have the freedome to go out and ride your car).  Has that freedom been infringed upon one bit by being told you must wear a helmet?  Not at all.  Like Jerry said, if riding your motorcycle is predicated on whether you are told you have to wear a helmet or not, then you have deeper rooted issues than being told to wear a helmet.  Freedom isn't free doesn't just pertain to wars, it pertains to everything.   There is no such thing as a free ride.  (Including our wonderful new health care program.)  Sometimes, other people do know what's better for us.  If you think mandatory helmet laws is going to change the thrill of riding or motorcycle or in any way change the over all experience, then there may be something else wrong.  If It was ordered that I had to wear a helmet, full leathers, and boots to ride a motorcycle, I would.   That's how much I love to ride.  None of that impedes on the freedom I feel when I'm on my bike.  Now that's true freedom.

[miker]

I just dont like wearing em is all.  One did work for me when I got leftied 26 years ago.  Wish Ida had a liver, ribs and leg helmet on.

Would making non helmet wearing folks carry a lot of extra pip insurance help? 

Seems logical..the American way..if you have the money you get your way. Jussayzall.   

[grc]

Once again you are heavy-handing a helmet opinion .....................................................................

Ride safe with (or without ) a lid ....

Yes, you caught me.  I'm using the same tactics that those who argue against helmets use, but I might also point out that I haven't resorted to the lies that we all were recently flooded with during a national "debate" over health care.

I really believe that this country has many more issues that impact many more people much more severely than this particular issue does, and it shouldn't receive any priority.  But I'm also bright enough to realize that our congressional representatives don't have the cajones to stand up to the big casino operators on Wall Street, so many will try to cover up their inaction on the really important stuff by floating these ideas that only target a minority that has very little clout.  Make a little noise so the voter's see you actually are awake, and get your name in the paper's right before the election, and continue enjoying the good life for another term.  The only thing I like about this is that it causes threads like this one to be started, which then allows folks like me to try to convince other folks that helmets aren't evil and may actually be good for you. 

I still don't agree with your assertion that society doesn't pay.  I don't know where your relative was hospitalized, but around here any hospitals that accept any government money or tax breaks cannot refuse treatment based on ability to pay.  They also are expected and required to "donate" a certain percentage in free care to maintain that tax free status.  And when hospitals lose money, which a lot of them have been doing the past few years, those of us who still have the ability to pay make up the difference in higher fees, premiums, deductibles, copays, and coinsurance.  So yes indeed, society as a whole does pay.  Just because you don't get an itemized bill stating X is for uninsured illegal aliens, Y is for care for working poor folks who don't qualify for Medicaid but don't have insurance, and Z is for long term care for people who refused to wear helmets or use seatbelts, doesn't mean you aren't paying those costs one way or another.  It is rather disingenuous to claim otherwise. 

Peace, brothers and sisters.  I mean no harm or disrespect, but sometimes it takes a little visit from the devil's advocate to stir debate on a topic that starts out so one sided.


Jerry

[miker]

I mean if it is wikit cold out, a nice full face helmet is good..

[skreminegul07]

I think it's amazing that having a choice to wear a helmet or not seems like the last bastion of freedome for some people.  Really bizzare...it seems funny that we don't want to be told we have to wear a helmet because that's taking away my right to choose and I don't want to be told I have to do something.  Yet we live in a society where we are told what to do all the time.  We are told we have to pay taxes, we are told we have to obey the law (whether they make sense or not), we are told to wear seat belts, now tell me does your wearing a seat belt protect the person in the other car that just hit you, or does it protect you?  Yet I don't hear any complaints that your freedome to choose has been trounced upon by being told by the government that you have to wear a seat belt.  What's the difference in being told you have to wear a helmet?  You still have the freedom to go out and ride your motorcycle (just like you still have the freedome to go out and ride your car).  Has that freedom been infringed upon one bit by being told you must wear a helmet?  Not at all.  Like Jerry said, if riding your motorcycle is predicated on whether you are told you have to wear a helmet or not, then you have deeper rooted issues than being told to wear a helmet.  Freedom isn't free doesn't just pertain to wars, it pertains to everything.   There is no such thing as a free ride.  (Including our wonderful new health care program.)  Sometimes, other people do know what's better for us.  If you think mandatory helmet laws is going to change the thrill of riding or motorcycle or in any way change the over all experience, then there may be something else wrong.  If It was ordered that I had to wear a helmet, full leathers, and boots to ride a motorcycle, I would.   That's how much I love to ride.  None of that impedes on the freedom I feel when I'm on my bike.  Now that's true freedom.

In Massachusetts, we actually repealed the seat belt law, the the FED threatened to stop all highway funding.
The constitution clearly defines that the states can regulate items not regulated at the Federal level.  Clearly there is no Federal seatbelt law either. .  Using or withholding funding to force your beliefs is a complete abuse of federal power and its what you get when you depend on the federal government, you give up rights.

[CVORick]

This debate is very interesting.  Personal choice, rights, freedoms, privilege are all great ideas and concepts, but only hind sight is 20/20.  Making informed choices based on other peoples good or bad experiences would seem to be easy, but that is not always the case.  If I knew then what I know now maybe I would be in better shape also.  I wish everyone wore a helmet, but I respect their choice not to.