Print

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

[Screamin]

One of the biggest antagonists in Congress is at it again.

http://www.mrf.org/2010/news_release/10NR08.htm

[Ultra2010]

fuker.. why don't he just crawl off and retire. He's a pro choice supporter.... maybe his neighborhood would be a good place to have a pro choice, freedom of choice helmet rally.

[skreminegul07]

fuker.. why don't he just crawl off and retire. He's a pro choice supporter.... maybe his neighborhood would be a good place to have a pro choice, freedom of choice helmet rally.

I got into a discussion with an ER nurse on a plane. She saw my Harley shirt and then talked about the perils of not wearing a helmet.  I asked if she was pro choice which she answered Yes.  Then I asked her how is it alright for you to decide to kill a baby, but I can't choose if I wear a helmet?  Ended the discussion. 

[scotr]

another do gooder. thats just great.

Scotr

[skreminegul07]

another do gooder. thats just great.

Scotr

Not do as I do, but do as I say you should do

[Ultra2010]

I got into a discussion with an ER nurse on a plane. She saw my Harley shirt and then talked about the perils of not wearing a helmet.  I asked if she was pro choice which she answered Yes.  Then I asked her how is it alright for you to decide to kill a baby, but I can't choose if I wear a helmet?  Ended the discussion. 

 

Gets them every time!!!!  good job!

[Fireguy]

Believe it when I say, I HATE it when the government tells us what we can and can not do. And I do believe in "accountability" . The problem with helmet laws are they're two fold. One it should be my choice to wear a helmet or not. But two, as we all know people do have accidents and have major injuries.(head injuries the most)  The problem for me is the riders that don't have insurance  and get into accidents, still get medical treatment, that you and I pay for. I guess when it comes down to it, if you wear a helmet or not, it's your choice to carry insurance , but if you don't, and get hurt, you should pay for your injuries. It should not be my responsibility to pay for some idiot that won't carry there own. So be accountable for your own actions so the government does not have to decide for you.               

[marshall10]

Believe it when I say, I HATE it when the government tells us what we can and can not do. And I do believe in "accountability" . The problem with helmet laws are they're two fold. One it should be my choice to wear a helmet or not. But two, as we all know people do have accidents and have major injuries.(head injuries the most)  The problem for me is the riders that don't have insurance  and get into accidents, still get medical treatment, that you and I pay for. I guess when it comes down to it, if you wear a helmet or not, it's your choice to carry insurance , but if you don't, and get hurt, you should pay for your injuries. It should not be my responsibility to pay for some idiot that won't carry there own. So be accountable for your own actions so the government does not have to decide for you.               

I agree completely. If you want to go without a helmet (and I believe that is your choice) then you should have to carry a special insurance to do so. That being said; the moment you are required to carry special insurance is when the government will be too far up our asses. The logical choice is: carry insurance or be an organ donor, that way if you don't pay then you benefit society, albeit in a macabre way.

[scotr]

Not do as I do, but do as I say you should do

Exactly what i meant to say

[CVORick]

Whoa!!  Scared me for a moment, I thought this thread was about condoms.  Nevermind......

[RedDevil]

This is an age old issue...believe it or not, it will be like seat belts...we all p*ssed and moaned when we were forced to wear seat belts, now we don't even think about it anymore.  It'd be the same with helmets.  Personally, it wouldn't affect me one bit, as my choice is to always ride with a helmet on, regardless of the state law....

[2harleys]

The more rights we give away  -------  the more they will continue to take away!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[grc]

This is an age old issue...believe it or not, it will be like seat belts...we all p*ssed and moaned when we were forced to wear seat belts, now we don't even think about it anymore.  It'd be the same with helmets.  Personally, it wouldn't affect me one bit, as my choice is to always ride with a helmet on, regardless of the state law....

 

I remember debating helmet laws along with seat belt laws and various other laws meant to protect us from ourselves back in my youth.  With the young person's typical total disregard for the possibility of death or disability, it is very easy to be anti anything that prohibits one from doing whatever they want.  With experience and maturity, that tends to change.  I've been a full time helmet wearer most of my adult life, first because it was the law in Virginia, then when I moved to a state that didn't require them I continued to wear a helmet because I had come to appreciate the many benefits.  Of course, I don't ride just to look cool or pretend to be an outlaw to impress other folks, so maybe that's why the possibility of a helmet law doesn't upset me.

I've proposed this before, so here's an abridged version.  If a person decides they don't want to use mandated safety equipment, let's just add a waiver to the law that says all you have to do is post a bond of sufficient size to cover around the clock care for the rest of your life, and provide for your family, if you manage to bang your head on a curb and become a drooling imbecile.  That way the rest of society doesn't have to foot the bills for your "freedom".  I'm not sure how much all that would cost these days, and of course it would have to be tailored for each individual depending on current age, life expectancy, number of dependents, etc., but I'm guessing a minimum of 7 figures.  And sorry, but we don't take credit cards, that will be cash or hard assets only.

Face it folks, in a supposedly civilized society there will always be rules to protect us from each other, and rules to protect us from our own stupidity if that stupidity can cause injury (physical or financial) to others.  If you want to kill yourself, and you can manage to do it without harming anyone else, I'll support your right to do so.  But don't ask me to pay if you botch the job.  Freedom isn't free.


Jerry

[TIF2]

I've proposed this before, so here's an abridged version.  If a person decides they don't want to use mandated safety equipment, let's just add a waiver to the law that says all you have to do is post a bond of sufficient size to cover around the clock care for the rest of your life, and provide for your family, if you manage to bang your head on a curb and become a drooling imbecile.  That way the rest of society doesn't have to foot the bills for your "freedom". 

Jerry

Sorry - but that proposal is wrong on so many levels it is not even worth debating. I have never seen any data that proves people who do not wear helmets impact others financially. I am curious if you have ever, for any reason whatsoever, turned in an insurance claim and been paid by an insurance company in your entire life. If you have, then you have "caused financial harm" to others by making insurance rates go up. You see, insurance companies do not raise rates just on just individuals that turn in claims, they raise the base rates for ALL who have insurance. Since I have had insurance for almost 40 years and have NEVER turned in a single claim for payment,  I want anyone who has filed a claim and been paid to pay me because my rates increased through no fault of my own.

The assertion that people who do not wear helmets place a financial burden on society just simply is not supportable. Most statistics that are collected are only collected for people who do not have a helmet on. In other words, there is no data collected that shows whether or not there is a "financial burden" created for people who DO wear helmets. So let me make sure I understand. You wear a helmet, you have or do not have insurance (it makes no difference - people will bear the brunt financially), have an accident and require "round the clock care", but I should be all smiles now to happily pay increased rates (whether medical or auto/motorcycle)?

It just simply makes no difference whether or not a person is wearing a helmet for the financial burden placed on others through increased costs. Actually, odds are that folks who do NOT wear helmets cause the least burden as they will more than likely be deceased from any accident that "may have been survivable" had they been wearing a helmet. Those who survivie the same accident cause much more of a financial impact to others than those that do not.

I completely agree that "freedom isn't free", however, keep in mind that the saying is meant to show the cost of defending and protecting one's rights - NOT that freedom has a price tag to be bought by only the affluent. Opinions simply do not come into play where Rights are concerned, and the majority NEVER rules.

Time to step down now ...

[Mikey]

I thought the only difference in wearing a helmet versus not wearing a helmet. Is open casket versus closed casket. If you chose cremation why care!

[grc]

I thought the only difference in wearing a helmet versus not wearing a helmet. Is open casket versus closed casket. If you chose cremation why care!

      You make a good point, if you only consider fatal crashes.  If a guy on a bike pulls out to pass at 70 mph and flattens himself on the front of that oncoming tractor-trailer, odds are pretty certain a helmet isn't going to save his life.  Depending on how fast the truck is going, it's quite likely the helmet won't survive the impact either, and it will be a closed casket either way.  Helmets can make a huge difference in the lower speed crashes that are much more common, however. 

I can't count the number of fatalities reported just in my little corner of Indiana and Illinois (no helmet states) over the past 15 years where the other injuries were easily survivable but the rider died because he banged his head when he went down.  Is a helmet a guarantee you won't die in an otherwise survivable crash?  Nope, there are no guarantee's.  That doesn't mean we should all just throw caution to the wind and spit in the face of danger.  That stuff might make for cool action flicks, but it isn't the brightest way to live a real life.  Let's see, maybe I'll cut off the seatbelts in my car, pull the fuses on the airbags and the ABS, and excercise my "right" to fly in the face of danger.  Give me a break.

BTW, if it's a basic right to not wear a helmet, don't you think those guys in NASCAR or Formula 1 or NHRA should be raising all kinds of hell and filing discrimination lawsuits?  I mean, those organizations require all sorts of safety equipment, and I don't see a single driver bitching about it or refusing to use it, or claiming some inalienable right.  I don't remember seeing John Force making practice runs in a baseball cap, shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops, but now that I think about it I do see idiots on motorcycles dressed that way all summer long.


Jerry

[TIF2]

BTW, if it's a basic right to not wear a helmet, don't you think those guys in NASCAR or Formula 1 or NHRA should be raising all kinds of hell and filing discrimination lawsuits?  I mean, those organizations require all sorts of safety equipment, and I don't see a single driver bitching about it or refusing to use it, or claiming some inalienable right.  I don't remember seeing John Force making practice runs in a baseball cap, shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops, but now that I think about it I do see idiots on motorcycles dressed that way all summer long.


Jerry

NASCAR is a regulated sport and therefore is subject to rules, provisions, and mandates required by the regulating board in order to participate. It is not a good or accurate analogy.

This is not an "all or nothing" thing, if you choose to wear one then fine. For those that don't that is fine as well. I appreciate your opinions and viewpoints right up to the point where it has influence to regulate or control another individual's actions - so long as their actions present no threat to you directly. However, if you are being threatened then it is no longer supported by opinion, but evidence that can be presented in a factual manner with supported cause. The problem remains that for all the studies and worthless statistics ( and money of course) that has been spent around this isuue, it has never been shown that helmet laws protect the safety of others (public safety - thereby allowing for legislative regulation). A helmet is, was, and always will be a personal safety tool that may, or may not be, utilized by the individual.

The only interest in helmet laws lay in the hands of insurance companies and (of course) pay-outs to politicians that regulate for personal interest.

[grc]

I respect your opinions, and unfortunately it is true that until recently law enforcement and hospitals didn't keep good records that could help prove or disprove the benefits of helmets.  Without good data, the statistics can be and are constantly manipulated to serve the purpose of the one's doing the manipulating.  As the old saying goes, "figures don't lie, but liars figure".  I'm reminded of all the credit folks were taking recently when highway fatality numbers were released for last year, showing another significant reduction.  The governor took credit because of his directives to the state police to increase highway patrols.  Local governments took credit for their safe driving classes.  The list of credit takers was extensive, so I won't list them all.  Unfortunately, very few in the media saw through all the BS and came up with the real answers.  Drivers aren't any better than they were before, the number of incidents keeps going up.  Fatalities are down because cars and trucks have gotten exponentially safer over the past couple decades due to mandated safety features, with things like airbags, seatbelts, stability control, crush zone design, etc., making what used to be unsurvivable crashes very survivable.  If everyone fought as hard against all of those safety improvements as motorcycle riders do against helmets, I'm quite sure we wouldn't be celebrating reduced fatalities on the highways.

As for the cost to society, if you really believe that everyone has gold plated insurance that will cover that lifetime of care and the lost income to support the family, I respectfully submit that you are living in a fantasy world.  There is a large and growing percentage of the population that has no medical coverage whatsoever, and another even larger percentage that has fairly basic coverage that tends to be cancelled at the whim of employer's and insurance companies.  As in, file a claim, lose your coverage.  And many of those policies have upper limits on lifetime benefits, they don't just agree to pay forever.  And then you have the actual motorcycle insurance policy.  Read your policy, I don't think the medical cost coverage on most policies would cover a week in the hospital, much less a lifetime.  And that's on the good policies, not the ones that young folks on a tight budget tend to have.  Minimum coverage requirements in many states are laughably low, and there are a lot of folks who opt for that minimum coverage.

If the available evidence, statistically shaky or not, doesn't convince you, or if common sense doesn't convince you, and you still don't want to wear a helmet, then don't wear one.  When, and I'm convinced it will just be a matter of time, the Fed's force all the states to require helmets, don't be surprised when you get pulled over and ticketed, or when you lose the privilege to drive on public roads after several tickets don't convince you.  Note, you won't be losing any rights, you will still have the right to not wear a helmet.  You will just lose the privilege of doing so on public roads.


Jerry

[greglyon]

Although I believe in the value of a helmet, I can see an exception to when someone would be able to ride a bike without a helmet. A license has been interpreted as a privilege by  the courts not a legal right guaranteed by the constitution.  Therefore states and the feds do have a right to regulate.  Having said that I see no problem with someone not wearing a helmet so long as their choice does not impact anyone else.  That is, have such people be exempt from helmet laws when they provide proof of health insurance coverage that will take care of them for the rest of their lives should such coverage be required due to a motorcycle accident. That way, a catastrophic injury will effect no one but the individual involved and the rest of society will not have to pay for that person's decision not to wear a helmet.

 

[TIF2]

As for the cost to society, if you really believe that everyone has gold plated insurance that will cover that lifetime of care and the lost income to support the family, I respectfully submit that you are living in a fantasy world.  


Jerry

You are trying to shift points around - my point is  that it doesn't matter if a person has insurance or does not have insurance, the cost of ALL claims against insurance comapnies is what raises rates on insurance. Injuries resulting from accidents in which a rider was helmet-less is so miniscule to the total amount of claims submitted it simply does not have an impact.

It is not my opinion that insurance rates go up, for all insured people, based on the total amount of claims against any one company. It is plain and simple fact. Insurance rates are based on many, many factors ( a lot of which are not based on anything more than credit rating) not related to helmet laws. In fact, there is simply no evidence that suggests that states without helmet laws have any more or less medical expenses or claims than states that have helmet laws. Again, this is not an opinion.

Lastly, since you cannot prove that a person who does not wear a helmet places anyone but themselves in jeopardy (financially or otherwise) - why is it so important to you that you absolutley feel the need to be Big Daddy and FORCE people to do so? Do you feel you have some control over others? I just don't get why you care so much about forcing others to do your will.

Incidently, while I completely and wholeheartedly support a rider's ability to choose, I have never stated whether I do, or do not wear a helmet when I ride.  

Good debate, grc ... keepem' coming!

[TIF2]

When, and I'm convinced it will just be a matter of time, the Fed's force all the states to require helmets, don't be surprised when you get pulled over and ticketed, or when you lose the privilege to drive on public roads after several tickets don't convince you.  

The Feds cannot force the States to do anything, they can only extort them into action by with-holding funds. This is one of the problems with Big Government and how they skirt the Constitution. States are starting to come around which is why we are not under the Federal Helmet Law (for lack of a better term) that was enacted in the '70s.

Note, you won't be losing any rights, you will still have the right to not wear a helmet.  You will just lose the privilege of doing so on public roads.

This primarily points to what may be regulated and what may not. The seat belt law is analogous to a helmet law, but it IS slightly different. In order to regulate the public, the act that is to be regulated must place the general public in harm's way. Consider a speed limit, It has been easily proven that an operator of a vehicle can drive at a faster speed than their ability to control said vehicle. This places the general public in direct harm of the vehicle that is out of control - hence the ability to regulate under public safety laws.

However, not wearing a helmet does not in any way place the general public in harm's way and is therefore, beyond regulation under public safety (by definition). Of course, this does not mean that they do not get passed anyway - but whether or not they are legally passed under proper authority is something altogether different. This is known as "color of law" where it all looks good, but really doesn't apply. The last staement is my educated opinion  

EDIT: No longer my educated opinion ... a factual statement:

"Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)"


I think the choice to wear a lid or not is personal, and whether I do or do not should remain my choice.
Everyone keep it upright and we won't have to worry either way!!  

Peace ...

[RedDevil]

NASCAR is a regulated sport and therefore is subject to rules, provisions, and mandates required by the regulating board in order to participate. It is not a good or accurate analogy.

This is not an "all or nothing" thing, if you choose to wear one then fine. For those that don't that is fine as well. I appreciate your opinions and viewpoints right up to the point where it has influence to regulate or control another individual's actions - so long as their actions present no threat to you directly. However, if you are being threatened then it is no longer supported by opinion, but evidence that can be presented in a factual manner with supported cause. The problem remains that for all the studies and worthless statistics ( and money of course) that has been spent around this isuue, it has never been shown that helmet laws protect the safety of others (public safety - thereby allowing for legislative regulation). A helmet is, was, and always will be a personal safety tool that may, or may not be, utilized by the individual.
The only interest in helmet laws lay in the hands of insurance companies and (of course) pay-outs to politicians that regulate for personal interest.

Unfortunately, this is where you are misinformed...me, you, us, them, whether it's singular or collective, are the public.  Whether you are riding a motorcycle or a car, laws are enacted to protect you, the public's safety.  We are the public, so theyrore the government has the right to mandate helmet laws, just like they had the right to mandate seat belt laws.  It's just a matter of time.  

[TIF2]

Unfortunately, this is where you are misinformed...me, you, us, them, whether it's singular or collective, are the public.  Whether you are riding a motorcycle or a car, laws are enacted to protect you, the public's safety.  We are the public, so theyrore the government has the right to mandate helmet laws, just like they had the right to mandate seat belt laws.  It's just a matter of time.  

Hmmm ... I will agree that these laws get passed. Where I will respectfully disagree is whether or not they are correct in the passing of the laws, and the ability to regulate. Just because the government DOES do things, doesn't mean they are RIGHT in doing so. It could be argued (using your definition of public safety) that almost any act - such as getting out of the bath-tub, would be considered hazardous and therefore subject to regulation under "public safety".

I am correct in what allows regulation under public safety ... whether or not the government adheres to that definition is clearly a gray area. I read a court decision once wherein the judge CLEARLY manipulated the term "public safety" ... even trying painfully to make the leap in his decision stating that a motorcyclist may be thrown from the vehicle thereby causing a threat to the public in order to uphold the North Carolina helmet law against the challenge. This allowed for the enforcement of the statute but was probably the most ludicrous thing I had read. I mean ... one wearing a helmet and thrown off would do a LOT more damage to another than the same person lid-less (lol).

Anyway ... good debate on the issue. I appreciate it.

[cyril]

Unfortunately, this is where you are misinformed...me, you, us, them, whether it's singular or collective, are the public.  Whether you are riding a motorcycle or a car, laws are enacted to protect you, the public's safety.  We are the public, so theyrore the government has the right to mandate helmet laws, just like they had the right to mandate seat belt laws.  It's just a matter of time. 

Our laws changed back in the seventies it sucked for a while , don`t even think about nowdays & it keeps the rain off. Happy Debating

[skreminegul07]

Believe it when I say, I HATE it when the government tells us what we can and can not do. And I do believe in "accountability" . The problem with helmet laws are they're two fold. One it should be my choice to wear a helmet or not. But two, as we all know people do have accidents and have major injuries.(head injuries the most)  The problem for me is the riders that don't have insurance  and get into accidents, still get medical treatment, that you and I pay for. I guess when it comes down to it, if you wear a helmet or not, it's your choice to carry insurance , but if you don't, and get hurt, you should pay for your injuries. It should not be my responsibility to pay for some idiot that won't carry there own. So be accountable for your own actions so the government does not have to decide for you.               

Guess what, how many crippled bikers need support in one year?
How about now paying for 31 million people to have insurance?
12 million illiegals?

Be serious, that argument doesn't hold water.

[skreminegul07]

Another thought.

When I broke my ankle months into first learning to ride, the nurse at the ER asked me if I was wearing a helmet?  On my foot?  I told her it was none of her business unless it somehow affected my treatment.
If I answered yes, then the statisticians could say that because I was wearing a helmet, the injury was minor.  If I answered no, then the same jokers could say that if I was wearing a helmet, injuries could have been avoided.

It's a personal choice IMHO.  After all, we need organ donors.

Dale Earnhardt was wearing a helmet and all the best safety devices available at the time.  Helmets stop the physical contact, but can't stop your brain from bouncing around your skull when you go from 60 to zero.

[RedDevil]

Another thought.

When I broke my ankle months into first learning to ride, the nurse at the ER asked me if I was wearing a helmet?  On my foot?  I told her it was none of her business unless it somehow affected my treatment.
If I answered yes, then the statisticians could say that because I was wearing a helmet, the injury was minor.  If I answered no, then the same jokers could say that if I was wearing a helmet, injuries could have been avoided.

It's a personal choice IMHO.  After all, we need organ donors.

Dale Earnhardt was wearing a helmet and all the best safety devices available at the time.  Helmets stop the physical contact, but can't stop your brain from bouncing around your skull when you go from 60 to zero.

No, you're right, but a helmet does give you a better chance to survive.  I wish it was all about personal choice, because then I would choose to stop paying taxes, stop wearing my seat belt, not bother about speed limits, etc, etc, etc.   All I know is I'm still here because I had a helmet on when some yahoo not paying attention and going 35 mph, t-boned me.  It's not me and my abilities that I worry about in my feelings about helmets and the necessity for them, it's the bozos in their cages that either don't see us or just don't give a rat's behind about motorcycles.

[Cvostu]

I totally agree with Red Devel.  I feel what we do is a little bit, or alot a bit crazy, and we do it anyway. We do it beacuse we love it and enjoy it a wole lot. It's the other guy, most of the time and we really don't have a whole lot around us to protect us from those enemies. I ride with a helmet because I feel a lttle more comfortable just knowing that my head has a little something around it. This arguement is never going away ya know..  No matter what.   My .02 tossed into the act.   Now I feel better.

[spydglide]

At least it keeps my bald spot from getting sunburned.  har.  spyder

[grc]

No, you're right, but a helmet does give you a better chance to survive.  I wish it was all about personal choice, because then I would choose to stop paying taxes, stop wearing my seat belt, not bother about speed limits, etc, etc, etc.   All I know is I'm still here because I had a helmet on when some yahoo not paying attention and going 35 mph, t-boned me.  It's not me and my abilities that I worry about in my feelings about helmets and the necessity for them, it's the bozos in their cages that either don't see us or just don't give a rat's behind about motorcycles.

      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

[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.

[moscooter]

 
Geez,  this thread has drifted around as to the intended topic.  I'm noting some repeated rants about (Wall Street),  our financial industry is already highly regulated,  now Yomoma and Co. are looking to add some more "regs".

Back in 2005,  when Yomoma was a Senator,  he was on the Demo side of denying increased (Financial regs) being proposed by the Bush Admin. and (at the time) a Repub controlled Senate.  The Dems kept the (increased regs proposal) from getting to the floor for a vote........Now,  the situation is 180 degrees different.  Go figure.

Had the increased regs legislation passed back then,  it might have prevented the Fanny May and Freddie Mac debocle that ended up creating the whole "sub-prime" mess.  It was this (mess) brought about by pressure from C. Dodd, Barney Frank and others to loan mortgage money to those that (clearly) could not afford it......thus (in turn),  some Wall Streeters figuring some backdoor ways to pass on the "mess".........and off we go.

[TIF2]

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. 

Jerry

Jerry -

I would almost agree with you here, except there is no X, Y, Z as you pointed out. You are trying to state that my points are "disingenuous" and that is not correct. What you are missing is the fact that helmet laws - whether they exist or do not exist - simply do not factor into the overall costs of medical care. I'll make a postulation here - had motorcycles never been invented our present costs of insurance would be exactly as they are (society as a whole). The percentages are so small (for Motorcycle accidents - with or without a helmet) that it simply has no impact on a "burden to society". I'll agree that society always pays - I'll disagree that helmet laws have an effect on the AMOUNT that is paid.

Incidentily - using a large "general" issue such as medical insurance, and purporting that a specific issue (helmet law) contributes significantly to the larger issue without supporting facts is truely disingenuous.

[TIF2]

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.

All I have to say to this is just... wow.

I'll ask you directly .... what is YOUR (Red Devil) last bastion of freedom?
You must have missed (or ignored) my post:

"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."

Yes .. this applies to seatblets. It protects me from myself and is outside of the authority of regulation by Government. Discussing the seatbelt issue would be off-topic; this is a helmet law discussion. And unless you are Psychologist, please refrain from discussions of "deep-rooted issues" - like you would know.

But since we're here ...

About 6 million folks took your advice of doing what they were told under their trusted government. It didn't work out very well for them.

[CVORick]

"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."

Yes .. this applies to seatblets. It protects me from myself and is outside of the authority of regulation by Government. Discussing the seatbelt issue would be off-topic; this is a helmet law discussion. And unless you are Psychologist, please refrain from discussions of "deep-rooted issues" - like you would know.

But since we're here ...

About 6 million folks took your advice of doing what they were told under their trusted government. It didn't work out very well for them.

Absolutely outside the scope of the Feds.  Totally agree.

[RedDevil]

I think if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't...the gene pool needs some cleaning up and that would contribute to it.   I'm tired of this debate...it flies right up there with religion and politics for bordering on the rediculous.  Regardless of what the 535 clowns in the clown car on Capitol Hill decide to do, I'm still going to enjoy riding my motorcycle.  And to me, that's much more important than worrying about being told I have to wear a helmet or not.

[tazmun]

I think if you don't want to wear a helmet, then don't...the gene pool needs some cleaning up and that would contribute to it.   I'm tired of this debate...it flies right up there with religion and politics for bordering on the rediculous.  Regardless of what the 535 clowns in the clown car on Capitol Hill decide to do, I'm still going to enjoy riding my motorcycle.  And to me, that's much more important than worrying about being told I have to wear a helmet or not.

PLUS 1

[Ultra2010]

It can't REALLY be about us........ if they were REALLY worried about our health/safety they should go after tobacco. (I smoke, down to 5 butts a day, but I do smoke). 
I wear a helmet, even when the law says I don't have to, MY choice.

[TIF2]

I'm still going to enjoy riding my motorcycle.  And to me, that's much more important than worrying about being told I have to wear a helmet or not.

Sounds good to me ... unfortunately we are getting some much needed rain here so I am relegated to polishing and dreaming up my next mod.  

[Screamin]

the gene pool needs some cleaning up and that would contribute to it.  

Real effn nice. I totally disagree w/ some opinions here but certainly don't wish ill upon them.

I'm tired of this debate.

That's easy enough to fix.

[RedDevil]

Real effn nice. I totally disagree w/ some opinions here but certainly don't wish ill upon them.

That's easy enough to fix.

Not wishing ill-will on anyone Screamin, just voicing an opinion.    

[moscooter]

 
I don't know if any of you remember this,  but some state senator (can't recall) which state.......but yrs ago.....the guy stood up and proposed that all motorcycle riders be required to wear seat belts while riding.

No B.S.

[marshall10]

I was going over a vehicle inspection at my last unit when the guy realized I didn't have any seat belts. It upset him for a moment, and was really funny.

[TIF2]

Not wishing ill-will on anyone Screamin, just voicing an opinion.    

Right ... and your opinion is anyone that doesn't wear a helmet should be cleansed of the gene pool.

[CVORick]

Right ... and your opinion is anyone that doesn't wear a helmet should be cleansed of the gene pool.

Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Speech.  It was just an opinion, lighten up...

[RedDevil]

Right ... and your opinion is anyone that doesn't wear a helmet should be cleansed of the gene pool.

Nope, never said that...said the gene pool needing some cleaning up (not pertaining to anyone in particular) and that it would contribute.  Never said everyone.   

[HogBreath]

Motorcycle safety laws, 2015

[skreminegul07]

They already have airbags in development for motorcycles.  If you want to legislate and save tons of money, ban automatic transmissions.  The idiots couldn't drink coffee, read the paper, text, be drunk, and drive a standard.  The just stupid people wouldn't be driving at all. We'd all be safer.

[Fireguy]

We all know that having a helmet gives us better odds of surviving a crash. (that's not why the government want to mandate it though) But this would not be an issue if we all did the right thing. For example, California does not have a law for dirt bike riders to wear helmets, why not? because it's not an issue with dirt bike riders wearing one, they all do. So the government has to step in and tell us to do the right thing. I hate that, but for those who choose to not wear a helmet, and put the cost onto the rest of us is wrong. Just do the right thing and wear your helmets. So the government doesn't have to come into our world and tell us what we can and can not do. Next thing you know they will be telling us we can't bike motorcycles bacause there to dangerous.


I wrote this before I left for Laughlins river run and realized it did not post. But just one more thing and I will drop it, as I was riding around in Arizona and saw people riding without helmets, I just don't understand. And I also realized that even if up have insurance we are all effected by the ones that choose to not hear. The insurance company is not going to loose $ when someone gets a head injury. They just raise our rates. Wake up people and be responsible for your own actions so someone else doesn't have to be.         

[Mikey]

All this BS about helmet law is just politics as usual. Who do you think are pushing these laws? Duh helmet manufactures!

[spydglide]

All this BS about helmet law is just politics as usual. Who do you think are pushing these laws? Duh helmet manufactures!

.....and the people retailing them (our fav0rite dealers).  har.  spyder

[Ultra2010]

I don't know if any of you remember this,  but some state senator (can't recall) which state.......but yrs ago.....the guy stood up and proposed that all motorcycle riders be required to wear seat belts while riding.

No B.S.

As much as I hate to admit this....  I remember hearing that and I THINK it was here in Washington State..... It went nowhere, thankfully. 

[HD Rider]

Free to Choose.  That's my position.  Enjoy the ride!

[Twolanerider]

I don't know if any of you remember this,  but some state senator (can't recall) which state.......but yrs ago.....the guy stood up and proposed that all motorcycle riders be required to wear seat belts while riding.

No B.S.

It might have happened elsewhere, and more than once (since one can never truly understand the legislative mind) but it has happened.  And right here in Missouri.  There is, however, a "rest of the story" that need be told to get the context correct.

Missouri state Senator who, in real life, was also a practicing physician.  He happened to be my state Senator for several years.  He was adamently opposed to eliminiating the Missouri state law requiring helmet use.  A state law, by the way, that gets some greater or lesser challenge during most legislative sessions.

During one such session several years ago the attempt to repeal our helmet law actually appeared to gain traction.  There seemed some real momentum toward its passage.  The Senator was a senior legislator and knew his way around the legislative trenches.  As it seemed the bill to repeal helmet requirements might actually pass he attached an amendment that would have required anyone who chose to ride without a helmet to wear a seatbelt.

He didn't do it not knowing it was a dumb idea.  He did it specifically because it was a dumb idea.  And he did it knowing that it would scuttle that legislative session's attempt at the helmet law repeal.  Agree with the guy or not you had to admire his tactics and creativity.

[CVORick]

The sad part is that not one person behind this bill gives a $hit about you, your head or safety.  It is always about the $$$$$$$$$$$....

[moscooter]

 
You know.....Twolane.  I will have to admit the legislative move you talk about was "clever",  but (as in many other cases),  the overall end-result was to fu** over the will  of the people.

In other words,  this guy (a physician), either had personal family members that incurred a injury or death from (lack of a helmet ) or he encountered similar situations in his practice as a Doc. (or both).

In the end,  he is (or did) use every resource at his disposal to towart the will of the majority and/or make the results fit his (pre-determined) mind-set as to what should be the law of the land where he had anything to say about it.

The (Doc) in question here quite likely NEVER or (seldom) in his life road a motorcycle ...............But by God,  he is gonna dictate to some degree how and what is needed for OTHERS when they decide to ride.

We really need to know the habits/traits/hobbies of this guy and just maybe we would come up with some (restrictions) that might fu** over some of his favorite things to do on a weekend.  

[Twolanerider]

The sad part is that not one person behind this bill gives a $hit about you, your head or safety.  It is always about the $$$$$$$$$$$....

There I'd disagree.  There are some, even many, for whom helmet requirement legislation is part of their religion.  Part of a potentially overarching view of what government's role in everyday lives should be.

There are others, however, like the Missoure state Senator described above, who truly believes it's both an individual and a public safety issue and believes that government is not over reaching when it sets certain requirements.  They'll see helmet legislation in the same vein as seat belt laws, anti-smoking legislation or other public safety requirements. 

The last group of the three major subsets that try to legislate this may make noise about "personal safety" but for them it's really not a personal thing at all.  It's an entirely "social" concept measuring individual priviliges against societal responsibilities.  They will do the math and figure out that social/public expenses incurred are such that they warrant society at large not being out of line by asking the few that ride to wear helmets.  They rightly say that many rider injuries end up with costs that go on the public dime.  As such that same public (i.e., the government speaking for the rest of us) has the right to say it's not fair to make everyone bear an expense for the benefit of a very few.  Like it or not the numbers actually work against us here too.

While I'm totally opposed and can't carry on a conversation with the first group who believe that liberal social government has the right to dictate behavior; period, I can see a point and can debate the issue with the latter two groups.  The thoughtful among them will see corrolaries in other individual and social activities that are not equally managed or constricted.  It is because there are people of those minds that many states today allow riding without helmets. 

[Twolanerider]

You know.....Twolane.  I will have to admit the legislative move you talk about was "clever",  but (as in many other cases),  the overall end-result was to fu** over the will  of the people.

In other words,  this guy (a physician), either had personal family members that incurred a injury or death from (lack of a helmet ) or he encountered similar situations in his practice as a Doc. (or both).

In the end,  he is (or did) use every resource at his disposal to towart the will of the majority and/or make the results fit his (pre-determined) mind-set as to what should be the law of the land where he had anything to say about it.

The (Doc) in question here quite likely NEVER or (seldom) in his life road a motorcycle ...............But by God,  he is gonna dictate to some degree how and what is needed for OTHERS when they decide to ride.

We really need to know the habits/traits/hobbies of this guy and just maybe we would come up with some (restrictions) that might fu** over some of his favorite things to do on a weekend.  

Well.... uh... yeah.  That's the legislative process.  Legislators craft legislation based on both public and personal opinions.  We know that when we vote them in.  Part of the process.  It just so happens that his opinion had carried with the majority opinion in our legislature for a long time; and apparently still does.

He did his job.  I don't knock the guy for it.  Personally I wish he'd not been successful.  But not to the point that riders would have to really pitch a fit about it and cause major legislative issues elsewhere.

We have to remember that we are a small (itty bitty tiny) minority of the motoring public.  We are at our best when we're just left alone by government.  If government writ large would start paying us more attention it would be to our detriment.  Either in the form of special use taxes, use exemptions or worse a government that generally pays us little or no mind serves us well.  

The highways are built for the cars and trucks.  They are the system's predominant users and important engines of the national economy.  That's why the highway system is out there.  For us it's a just a big assed playground.  As long as we're generally left alone to ride it we should be happy.  Because if we make legislatures or agencies actually start paying a lot of attention to us I guarantee you we won't like the eventual outcome.

[moscooter]

 
Well Twolane,  I'm thinkin' you're perhaps a little too passive in your acceptance of such requirements/restrictions to yours and others freedoms.  To be clear,  let me acknowledge that I always ride with a helmet.........required or not.

While I consider myself (hard headed),  I don't belive my head is as hard as the pavement given a getoff at speed on concrete or pavement.

I also wear my seat belt (as required) while in my car/truck as I was once broad sided as a teen and got thrown out of the car (and I had been driving).  Ironically,  my girlfriend at the time,  was not wearing a seatbelt (they were practically non-existant at the time).........so she was sitting in the middle of the front seat by me and was saved from serious injury as the passenger door was caved in by the car that ran a stop sign.  the two guys in the car that hit us were also thrown out.  So I understand the value of seatbelts.

The (on-going) problem is "overkill" and the attempt by some to go too far in trying to (save us from ourselves).  In addition to seatbelts on bikes as discussed,  other measures have been propose to require leather pants,  jackets, gloves, boots, googles, etc..............reqardless of temperature/weather conditions.

Some people are convertible fans.....(I'm one of them too).   Whether the top is up or down,  it could be said that that's NOT SAFE...........Anyone driving or riding in a car /jeep type vehicle with a soft top should be required to wear a helmet. that is DOT and/or Snell foundation approved.

[Twolanerider]

Well Twolane,  I'm thinkin' you're perhaps a little too passive in your acceptance of such requirements/restrictions to yours and others freedoms.  To be clear,  let me acknowledge that I always ride with a helmet.........required or not.

Who knows.  "Too passive" is a relative measure anyway.  I've worked with and written for lobbyist groups that try to keep a rein on legislative impacting motorcyclists.  Have also spoken with legislators and committee staffs who might consider or have been considering such legislation.  In other words have actually worked in those trenches a few times.  It's not my area of study or general acumen.  But it's an area of obvious interest within an arena that I am a little familiar with. 

All I'm saying is that state and Federal legislatures, state and Federal Departments of Transportations (and their subsets) and state and local enforcement agencies could find many many many more ways to screw with us than just helmet laws if we put a bug in their butt.  We enjoy the benefits of a wonderful and generally safe highway system.  A system not specifically designed for us (nor should it be) but a system which is our playground everytime we ride.  It's not being passive to recognize that it is fair to put up with a little to get such a lot.

I also recognize the position of some on the other side.  Not all, some are simply reactionary.  But many are reasonable with cogent positions of their own.  That they are reasonable and do consider broader perspectives is why more than half the states and the Federal government don't have mandatory helmet laws. 

We always act like we're "losing" this one.  We too often come off as whiney little bitches saying "ooh, if I can't ride without my helmet I'm going to throw a fit."  When truth is we're not losing on this one.  We haven't been since Congress stripped the DOT of authority to mandate this in 1976.  The issue bears watching, of course.  But as opinions on other contentious issues vary state by state and region by region in this country so does the opinion on Helmet mandates.  In a representative democracy that's the way it should be. 

[Twolanerider]

 
Well Twolane,  I'm thinkin' you're perhaps a little too passive in your acceptance of such requirements/restrictions to yours and others freedoms. 

And, also, one last thing.  Language like that is what often gets either side in trouble when such public safety versus public use issues are discussed and debated.  It's not a "freedom."  We may want to be free not to be hassled by the man and just ride our machines.  But it's not a freedom.

Riding or driving is a privilege, not a right.  Lots of things can restrict that privilege.  And thank god.  There are lots of old farts and others of diminished capacity I want the government to be able to restrict road use from.  It protects my ass everyday. 

Using the public highway system is a national privilege.  Using it on bikes or in cars is the same.  Therefore riding with a helmet is also.  As granted or allowed by Federal or local legislation.  When we go off talking about "Freedoms" to the people that actually craft the standards we have to live within their eyes glaze over.  If we can't deal with them correctly, argue persuasively and inform correctly of why our positions should prevail we can't complain when they legislate against us.

[grc]

And, also, one last thing.  Language like that is what often gets either side in trouble when such public safety versus public use issues are discussed and debated.  It's not a "freedom."  We may want to be free not to be hassled by the man and just ride our machines.  But it's not a freedom.

Riding or driving is a privilege, not a right.  Lots of things can restrict that privilege.  And thank god.  There are lots of old farts and others of diminished capacity I want the government to be able to restrict road use from.  It protects my ass everyday. 

Using the public highway system is a national privilege.  Using it on bikes or in cars is the same.  Therefore riding with a helmet is also.  As granted or allowed by Federal or local legislation.  When we go off talking about "Freedoms" to the people that actually craft the standards we have to live within their eyes glaze over.  If we can't deal with them correctly, argue persuasively and inform correctly of why our positions should prevail we can't complain when they legislate against us.

       Said so much better than my feeble earlier attempt.  Thank you.


Jerry

[CVORick]

The highways are built for the cars and trucks.  They are the system's predominant users and important engines of the national economy.  That's why the highway system is out there.  For us it's a just a big assed playground.  As long as we're generally left alone to ride it we should be happy.  Because if we make legislatures or agencies actually start paying a lot of attention to us I guarantee you we won't like the eventual outcome.

How about just Transportation.  I think when Eisenhower and friends established the Interstate Highway System he had in mind movement of troops and weapons as well as interstate commerce.  This thread started talking about Helmet Laws.  Twolanerider you make several good points, but I still think it is about the mighty $$$$, not safety.

[TIF2]

And, also, one last thing.  Language like that is what often gets either side in trouble when such public safety versus public use issues are discussed and debated.  It's not a "freedom."  We may want to be free not to be hassled by the man and just ride our machines.  But it's not a freedom.

Riding or driving is a privilege, not a right.  Lots of things can restrict that privilege.  And thank god.  There are lots of old farts and others of diminished capacity I want the government to be able to restrict road use from.  It protects my ass everyday. 

Using the public highway system is a national privilege.  Using it on bikes or in cars is the same.  Therefore riding with a helmet is also.  As granted or allowed by Federal or local legislation.  When we go off talking about "Freedoms" to the people that actually craft the standards we have to live within their eyes glaze over.  If we can't deal with them correctly, argue persuasively and inform correctly of why our positions should prevail we can't complain when they legislate against us.

Actually, the Driver's Licence was first instituted for commercial use only, those who made money from using public roads (taxi drivers for example). Then it progressed to a public safety issue and the Driving Test was born (worthless as it is). So yes ... by definition it is a priviledge (anything requiring a license is a priviledge).

This priviledge was based solely on the tested ability to operate a vehicle in a manner as not to endanger the lives of others. It had nothing to do with not causing oneself harm (and still doesn't). I have been tested and found that I can operate a vehicle in a safe manner and therefore I am licensed to do so. The problem is that government LOVES to keep on governing, and now the "driving priviledge" has been so abused by state governments that it is a mockery of justice. A few years back there was a study done in Arizona and it found there were 108 specific laws that could result in the revocation of driving priviledges THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OPERATING A VEHICLE.

This my dear friends is a problem, and in my opinion, abuse of power by a government. I have never debated that not wearing a helmet is a freedom, I have stated that laws of protection of a person from themselves are outside of the authority of any Government to regulate.

[Twolanerider]

Stating a belief that it is or should be beyond the right of government to protect a person from his own personal choices is very libertarian and (classically) liberal.  Plato would be proud. It's also separate and apart from the fact of long settled law that government can do exactly that. Whether it be setting speed limits, banning illicit narcotics, passing seatbelt requirements, proscribing many other types of self harmful behavior or passing helmet laws. Whether we like it or not there is no question in this country of whether or not government can legislate in ways to "protect" people from their own choices.

[TIF2]

Stating a belief that it is or should be beyond the right of government to protect a person from his own personal choices is very libertarian and (classically) liberal.  Plato would be proud. It's also separate and apart from the fact of long settled law that government can do exactly that. Whether it be setting speed limits, banning illicit narcotics, passing seatbelt requirements, proscribing many other types of self harmful behavior or passing helmet laws. Whether we like it or not there is no question in this country of whether or not government can legislate in ways to "protect" people from their own choices.

I am hardly liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that ). Personal "choices" -as you put it - is different from personal safety. In your listed examples, only a seatbelt law applies to my point. Excessive speed is a public safety issue as a person's ability to operate a vehicle at that speed may can certainly put the public in harm's way. For narcotics, it is only the sale and possession that is illegal, having them in your system in the privacy of your own dwelling is not. I agree that the government does pass these laws, I just fundamentaly disagree that they have the proper authority to.

It's also separate and apart from the fact of long settled law that government can do exactly that.

It is neither separate nor apart from, and is anything but "long settled law".

In American Motorcycle Association v. Davids, 158 N.W.2d 72, decided July 23, 1968, the three judges constituting Division 2 of the Court of Appeals of Michigan held the statute unconstitutional, reversing a contrary holding by the trial judge. Division 2 of the Court of Appeals concluded: "The precedential consequences of 'stretching our imagination' to find a relationship to the public health, safety and welfare, require the invalidation of this statute."

At least one Court of Appeals was correct in their judgement. Most are not. In order to invoke legislation outside of "public safety", States must use the "Police Power" within the State. This again (my opinion) is abuse of power in as much as police power should only be invoked in order to provide for the safety of the general public - meaning - innocent people become harmed in riots, etc. However, other States have used "public safety" in order to uphold helmet laws:

From State of North Carolina. v. Kenneth Calvin Anderson CITE AS: 275 N.C. 168, 166 S.E.2D 49
:

"The Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625, decided May 8, 1968, passed on the constitutionality of the Rhode Island helmet statute. The Court said: " 'However, it is our unqualified judgment that the purpose sought to be achieved by requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear clearly qualified as a proper subject for legislation.

(T)he requirement of protective headgear for the exposed operator bears a reasonable relationship to highway safety generally. It does not tax the intellect to comprehend that loose stones on the highway kicked up by passing vehicles, or fallen objects such as windblown tree branches . . . against which the operator of a closed vehicle has some protection, could so affect the operator of a motorcycle as to cause him momentarily to lose control and thus become a menace to other vehicles on the highway.' "

Pay special attention to the "menace to other vehicles". That is what gives authority for passage under public safety laws. Whether it is a valid and reasonable finding is pretty questionable - I mean - those same occurrances on the torso, legs, feet, hands, arms - not just the head - would have the same effect. Why not require full body armor?

Also of note is the fact that Rhode Island in State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625, "passed" on whether the statute was constitutional - meaning - we won't form a decision on that issue. The State of Michigan clearly found it to be unconstitutional and instead of Rhode Island addressing whether or not Michigan found correctly, they just decided not to address it. In essence their decision was ... "it is our unqualified judgment that the purpose sought to be achieved by requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear clearly qualified as a proper subject for legislation - we don't care if it is constituional or not"

Nice ... huh?

[Twolanerider]

I am hardly liberal

Note I'd said "(classically) liberal."  Classical liberalism is/was very much what is now perceived as conservatism today.  

It is anything but "long settled law".

You'd suggested it was your opinion that the State should not have the right to legislate in ways to protect people from their own actions.  That is very much settled law.  In many ways.  Suggesting later that it's only meant in certain areas is separate and apart from the base fact.  State actions in the context of the State's perception of public safety or the State's interest in protecting an individual or group/class of people is absolutely settled.  And very often whether that person or group wish to be "protected" from the implications of whatever choice they are making is irrelevant.

[TIF2]

You'd suggested it was your opinion that the State should not have the right to legislate in ways to protect people from their own actions.  

Incorrect, what I stated was the fact that a government should not have the right to legislate my actions against myself. Or your actions against yourself. Your statement reads "their own actions" - it is "their own actions" that can cause harm to others, and that is neccessary to be regulated. Had you completed your statement with " ... against themselves" we would be in full agreement in my position.

State actions in the context of the State's perception of public safety or the State's interest in protecting an individual or group/class of people is absolutely settled.  And very often whether that person or group wish to be "protected" from the implications of whatever choice they are making is irrelevant.

Well ... duh.
The issue becomes whether the State is correct. As you limited it to be " ... in the context of the State's perception of public safety " it's a no brainer. I've shown how that "interpretation" is questionable. For the less astute among us you are stating that "I've (the State) said it to be true - therfore it is true". Doesn't mean they are correct, it just means "we'll state it until someone has an issue with it. Then we'll choose whether or not we'll decide on it".

I've noticed you have avoided whether or not a helmet law is constituional. We have one ruling that it is not, and one ruling that passed. Since one ruling passed, logic dictates that it is not. Otherwise the Michigan decision would have been addressed and quashed with supporting evidence by Rhode Island. I like to call this "case law by convenience" ... use case law that fully supports your decision and ignore case law that does not.

Actually, in the North Carolina decison, they referenced and stated that it was in the powers of the State, under police power, to enforce. Again from State of North Carolina. v. Kenneth Calvin Anderson:

"The rule is succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 49 S.Ct. 57, 73 L.Ed. 204:

" 'The police power may be exerted in the form of state legislation where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment only when such legislation bears a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or some other phase of the public welfare.' "

Again, I would challenge that helmet laws can be legislated under public safety laws. They can only truly be enforced under police power authority. The decision above is the decision Michigan did not support as they found no "real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or some other phase of the public welfare". And make sure to read this portion ... "where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment".

Hopefully I have shown that it is a leap to enforce under public safety (questionable interpretation), and can only be truly legislated under police power. And if the latter is true (which it is) then we really do live in a "Police State" of government.

[Twolanerider]

I just farted.

[SBB]

I just farted.

That's nothing new!




O Chit, wrong thread, sorry Don, thought I was in the "Three word story" thread.

SBB

[spydglide]

so did he

[Twolanerider]

so did he

Yeah, I noticed that too.  They might be contagious !

[AZ SESG]

I just farted.

  Please refrain from delivering these sudden gigantic curving linguistic spit-balls.  My laptop has adverse reactions to the various liquids spewed upon said device.

[TIF2]

I just farted.

C'mon now ... be completely honest ... there was just a bit of "solidarity" in there.

 

[Twolanerider]

C'mon now ... be completely honest ... there was just a bit of "solidarity" in there.

 

No; seriously.  Not a Pole in the group.

[TIF2]

No; seriously.  Not a Pole in the group.

Hehe ... good one.

[CVOJOE]

I just farted.

Yah, but were you wearing an OSHA/FDA/EPA/DOT/DEA approved helmet?

[Twolanerider]

Yah, but were you wearing an OSHA/FDA/EPA/DOT/DEA approved helmet?

No. Gear was to the Smell standard.

[spydglide]

No. Gear was to the Smell standard.

(groan)......har .   spyder

[CVOJOE]

     

[retired_colonel]

My wife and I 'choose' to wear full face helmets...but I don't want the government telling me I am 'required' to do so.  We have become a nation of rules...  there are some that just know better than us how to live our lives....and they will legislate it if we let them. 

[jcraig147]

I've proposed this before, so here's an abridged version.  If a person decides they don't want to use mandated safety equipment, let's just add a waiver to the law that says all you have to do is post a bond of sufficient size to cover around the clock care for the rest of your life, and provide for your family, if you manage to bang your head on a curb and become a drooling imbecile.  That way the rest of society doesn't have to foot the bills for your "freedom".  I'm not sure how much all that would cost these days, and of course it would have to be tailored for each individual depending on current age, life expectancy, number of dependents, etc., but I'm guessing a minimum of 7 figures.  And sorry, but we don't take credit cards, that will be cash or hard assets only.

Jerry

And I bet you are on welfare living off the rewards of someone else.   Insurance is mandatory in every state.  If I choose not to wear a helmet that is strictly my choice.  You dont have to ride a motorcycle to experience injuries you describe.  Whats next?  Bonds to ensure you you can pay when you push just a little too hard and end up with a hemorrhoid?

Joe

[jcraig147]

"Riding or driving is a privilege, not a right.  Lots of things can restrict that privilege.  And thank god.  There are lots of old farts and others of diminished capacity I want the government to be able to restrict road use from.  It protects my ass everyday."


Since when is it the Governments job to grant the citizens privileges?  I understand leagally it is a privilege but I disagree with that concept.  I am an American and should not be regulated  PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe

[My Bagg]

My wife and I 'choose' to wear full face helmets...but I don't want the government telling me I am 'required' to do so.  We have become a nation of rules...  there are some that just know better than us how to live our lives....and they will legislate it if we let them. 

Damn Straight.

[Fireguy]

If you choose to ride without a helmet or a non DOT one and you get hurt,(head injury) that's your choice. But don't expect anyone else to pick up your medical bill. You pay for it out of your pocket. Not insurance or the state. I'm tired of paying for people who don't take the proper precautions when they have the ability to make the right decision. Wake up people.      

[rcamp2009]

Question for all you pro helmet law guys who always cry medical cost. Do you happen to give your Buddies or families a hard time when over weight they eat a cheeseburger or chili fries. We all have buddies we ride with that may have 3 or 4 beers and ride home, how about them? Give them any crap? Maybe you too are guilty? Just wondering because helmet cost to us is merely a fraction of obesity or drunk driving just to name two. So is this helmet thing a personal pet peeve for you guys or are you truly full fledged tree huggers?

[DESERTBEAR54]

 

[napalm]

Oh man, we all need to take a chill pill....I wear a helmet, mainly because head injuries are mostly fatal....don't like helmets, but I like my head!!!

napalm

[grc]

Question for all you pro helmet law guys who always cry medical cost. Do you happen to give your Buddies or families a hard time when over weight they eat a cheeseburger or chili fries. We all have buddies we ride with that may have 3 or 4 beers and ride home, how about them? Give them any crap? Maybe you too are guilty? Just wondering because helmet cost to us is merely a fraction of obesity or drunk driving just to name two. So is this helmet thing a personal pet peeve for you guys or are you truly full fledged tree huggers?

I submit that the need for a helmet should be evaluated through cost/benefit analysis.  If there is anything in the skull that is worth at least the cost of the helmet, then wear one.  If the skull doesn't contain much of value, then don't wear one.  Perhaps rather than pass laws requiring helmets, we should require proof of sufficient benefit to justify using up valuable resources before you are allowed to buy a helmet. 

Between you, me, and the fence post, I don't care if you wear a helmet or not, if you practice safe sex or not, if you drink yourself into oblivion or not, if you eat 10 Big Mac's a day or not, if you smoke 3 packs a day or not, etc.  As long as you don't expect me to take care of you, or pay to take care of you, or have to dodge your drunken azz on the highway, or have to give up my seat on an airplane so you can take up two seats, or in any other way be responsible for, or a victim of, your actions, then feel free to do whatever you want.  Remove your seatbelts from the car, disconnect the airbags, stand on the roof while your drunken buddy drives down the highway, stare down the barrel of a gun while pulling the trigger to make sure it isn't loaded, whatever.  As long as you take full responsibility, I really don't care.  We can't legislate intelligence or common sense, no matter how hard some legislators try.

BTW, I'm pro helmet, not necessarily pro helmet law.  But the facts are, without all the safety laws and regulations currently on the books, there would be tens of thousands of additional preventable deaths in this country every year, and probably hundreds of thousands of serious injuries.  Safety laws and regulations have had a huge impact on the lives, health, and well being of the average citizen in this country.  Intimating that anyone who supports such laws and regulations is some sort of "tree hugger", whatever that means, reflects a lot more on the one making that statement than it does on the supposed "tree huggers".  If you prefer to live the way they did in the wild west, feel free to choose one of the many countries in the world where the people in power don't give a rat's butt if you live or die.  They don't waste time with safety rules.


Jerry

[rcamp2009]

Did not call anybody a tree hugger. Simply asked a question. Every time they mandate another law, rule, or whatever you want to call it we loose another civil liberty. Period. If you think big government is big now keep laying down.
By the way. I call anybody who tries to take away any of my civil liberties in an effort to make our country Shangri La and Teflon. A Tree hugger. Just IMHO

[tazmun]

I believe everyone has a right to do what they want "within the Laws of our country".
IF you want to ride without a helmet, I think that's your right! HOWEVER, IF you LIVE
then the state, or federal government should not have to take care of you, JUST the same
for those how wear helmets. NO SPECIAL treatments.............. I wear a helmet, because
it's my choice. IF anything makes (gives) me a chance to live life with my kids, or grand
kids, I'M taking it! I've seen numerous accidents where "IF" the person had a helmet on,
they would have survived. I've also seen people with NO other injuries, except head, DIE.
I love riding motorcycles, but with all the crazy people on the road.........."I'm thinking"!!!!!

Just my two cents.......BLESS ALL!

[rcamp2009]

I agree. I wore a seat belt before it was made a law. My BS rider and I wear helmets now. I just don't want to be told it is mandatory to wear either.

[Fireguy]

Last note...Trust me when I say that I HATE government telling me what I can or can not do.  I am just fed up with people taking more and more of my hard earned money from my pocket. If there are ways to help keep cost down for all of us then lets do it. And keep the government from having to regulate our lives. We don't need a babysitter to tell us what to do, we are all grown adults and should make the right choices to begin with.

[Keats]

I respect your opinions, and unfortunately it is true that until recently law enforcement and hospitals didn't keep good records that could help prove or disprove the benefits of helmets.  Without good data, the statistics can be and are constantly manipulated to serve the purpose of the one's doing the manipulating.  As the old saying goes, "figures don't lie, but liars figure".  I'm reminded of all the credit folks were taking recently when highway fatality numbers were released for last year, showing another significant reduction.  The governor took credit because of his directives to the state police to increase highway patrols.  Local governments took credit for their safe driving classes.  The list of credit takers was extensive, so I won't list them all.  Unfortunately, very few in the media saw through all the BS and came up with the real answers.  Drivers aren't any better than they were before, the number of incidents keeps going up.  Fatalities are down because cars and trucks have gotten exponentially safer over the past couple decades due to mandated safety features, with things like airbags, seatbelts, stability control, crush zone design, etc., making what used to be unsurvivable crashes very survivable.  If everyone fought as hard against all of those safety improvements as motorcycle riders do against helmets, I'm quite sure we wouldn't be celebrating reduced fatalities on the highways.

As for the cost to society, if you really believe that everyone has gold plated insurance that will cover that lifetime of care and the lost income to support the family, I respectfully submit that you are living in a fantasy world.  There is a large and growing percentage of the population that has no medical coverage whatsoever, and another even larger percentage that has fairly basic coverage that tends to be cancelled at the whim of employer's and insurance companies.  As in, file a claim, lose your coverage.  And many of those policies have upper limits on lifetime benefits, they don't just agree to pay forever.  And then you have the actual motorcycle insurance policy.  Read your policy, I don't think the medical cost coverage on most policies would cover a week in the hospital, much less a lifetime.  And that's on the good policies, not the ones that young folks on a tight budget tend to have.  Minimum coverage requirements in many states are laughably low, and there are a lot of folks who opt for that minimum coverage.

If the available evidence, statistically shaky or not, doesn't convince you, or if common sense doesn't convince you, and you still don't want to wear a helmet, then don't wear one.  When, and I'm convinced it will just be a matter of time, the Fed's force all the states to require helmets, don't be surprised when you get pulled over and ticketed, or when you lose the privilege to drive on public roads after several tickets don't convince you.  Note, you won't be losing any rights, you will still have the right to not wear a helmet.  You will just lose the privilege of doing so on public roads.


Jerry

With this logic, one could come to the conclusion all motorcycles should be banned.
They are unsafe
Fatalities are highest with this group of vehicles
helmets do very little to improve their overall safety
the cost to society is burdonsome
they are responsible for a large number of deaths to young people

This is why we should never make that argument.........why stop at a helmet law?

[TIF2]

I am just fed up with people taking more and more of my hard earned money from my pocket. If there are ways to help keep cost down for all of us then lets do it.

There is no evidence that helmet laws have any effect whatsoever on increased costs to society.
Crazy that the same points of argument are stated without any new (or even existing) factual information for support.

Time for me to breakout the  ....

[rcamp2009]

Men and women have and still are giving their lives for our freedom and civil liberties. Stop harping about the money it cost us to keep them.

[09S/E roadglide]

 

Gets them every time!!!!  good job!

Nice closer !

[CVORick]

[qoute]If you prefer to live the way they did in the wild west, feel free to choose one of the many countries in the world where the people in power don't give a rat's butt if you live or die.  They don't waste time with safety rules.

Ouch! Like the "people in power" here give a "rat's butt" about this topic...

[indcoltz]

You can thank your insurance companies for any changes in traffic laws. They are the ones that send the lobbyists to the capital to bend the ears of the politicians. They are responsible for most of the traffic laws that you have to abide by. I'm a retired deputy, you should see all the information that has to be put into a traffic accident. This information is collected by the insurance companies and this is how the arrive at your premiums you pay. Do you think an officer cares if your driving a red or green car a 2 door of 4 door. The only thing an officer cares about at an accident is who was at fault. Insurance companies pick up these reports and  collect all of this data yes it makes a difference in your premiums in the color they will not tell you this but it does. Do you think an officer cares where everyone is setting in a car? It's added to the report. I promise you the insurance companies want us to wear helmets because they do not want to pay the high hospital bills associated with a head injury.

[moscooter]

" yes it makes a difference in your premiums in the color they will not tell you this but it does. "


  You know,  I tended to agree with most of what you said.......till I got to this part.   I'm not a fan of insurance companies and have my own sad tales of high and higher premiums, etc.

But I gotta say......My insurance company has not asked for nor do I believe they know what (color) my car/truck/boat, etc. happen to be.

[spydglide]

" yes it makes a difference in your premiums in the color they will not tell you this but it does. "


  You know,  I tended to agree with most of what you said.......till I got to this part.   I'm not a fan of insurance companies and have my own sad tales of high and higher premiums, etc.

But I gotta say......My insurance company has not asked for nor do I believe they know what (color) my car/truck/boat, etc. happen to be.

Gotta say that I now remember my insurance agent taking pics of the cars, boat, scooters, house, etc.. ..maybe I pay more for a cobalt blue SEEG?   dunno.  spyder

[Twolanerider]

Gotta say that I now remember my insurance agent taking pics of the cars, boat, scooters, house, etc.. ..maybe I pay more for a cobalt blue SEEG?   dunno.  spyder

It's not the bike that costs you extra Spyder; it's the helmet.

[spydglide]

It's not the bike that costs you extra Spyder; it's the helmet.

:drink:spyder

[indcoltz]

Everything you want to know about your vehicle is in your VIN ( vehicle identification number)
Bright color cars are less likely to be involved in an accident, like yellow. Again all the information that an officer takes and puts in an accident form is used by your insurance companies to charge you your premiums. Next time you have an opportunity to get your hands on a blank report, look at it and then ask yourself on most of the questions, what difference does it make. Accidents are not determined by the courts anymore on who is at fault. Use to be that way several years back. The officer would take down all that information and a judge would determine who is at fault. Now most states are a 50/50. This means if it is not totally clear who was at fault your insurance companies make the decision. If there is any litigation done in the courts now days it is only civil unless there was a crime involved in the accident. Trust me when I tell you, your insurance companies are responsible for the majority of the traffic laws that are on the books. Do you really think an officer cares if you are wearing a seatbelt or not? No he does not. Now your going to say why do they write tickets for this then. Well it's because every year the companies call your states governor and ask for it. Look at the billboards that read stuff like Operation pull over and usually you will find in small print sponsored by some insurance institute. I know this because I worked these grants and worked accidents for over 20 years and I do not think your insurance companies should have the right or power to get these laws passed. It should be an individuals right to wear a seatbelt or helmet.

[Billy]

Just curios why we are debating common sense . Why is it OSHA law to wear safety glasses  hearing protection  eye protection. Never see anyone arguing this point  Billy

[Screamin]

Didn't realize we were debating common sense. I thought it was big brother controlling yet another aspect of our lives.