Topic: WV HELMET LAW REFORM (Read 14870 times)

HUBBARD · « **on:** March 03, 2005, 11:30:51 AM »

Hey Guys,
The newly elected Governor of the Great State Of WV, The Honorable Joe Manchin (D), in concert with the WV Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin, (D), have voiced their support for ABATE in their efforts to "Let those who Ride, Decide", in regards to Helmet Law Reform. ABATE has been unsuccessful in WV with their attempts to reform the Helmet Law since "Moby Dick" was a minnow! Governor Manchin and Senator Chafin are Harley Owners. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] The Local "Liberal Rag", [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] The Charleston Gazzette, stated the Governor's support was based on attracting more tourism revenue from Bikers, as it is not mandantory to wear Helmets in our neighboring States of Kentucky and Ohio. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] CVO MEMBERS, WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT? [smiley=nixweiss.gif] Later--HUBBARD

Dr. Evil · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2005, 11:50:20 AM »

ILLINOIS 100% Helmet free... as it should be.

mfgreen · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2005, 12:30:39 PM »

Wisconsin only makes newbies and those under 18 wear helmets. I think that they made a move in the right direction.
Mike

hd-dude · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2005, 12:50:43 PM »

I agree with Mike. I think that it should be the riders choice to wear a helmet or not. This is a battle that is being fought all over the US. I don't want to debate the benefit or lack of benefits of wearing helmets. To me it is a freedom of choice issue!! If you want to keep your rights and your choices you should join and support your local motorcycle rights organization.

HUBBARD · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2005, 12:50:55 PM »

Quote

Wisconsin only makes newbies and those under 18 wear helmets.

Twolanerider · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2005, 03:58:25 PM »

I've become a bit of a "waffler" on the helmet issue the last few years.

RedFXR2 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2005, 04:15:20 PM »

Quote

So not wearing a helmet doesn't hurt anyone but me.

the O`Fender · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2005, 04:20:21 PM »

Let those who ride, decide!! NJ hemlet law for all riders, I live near PA border, no helmet laws so I ride their frequently. Helmets detract from peripherial vision therefore I believe they are more hazardous than helpful!!! [smiley=cyclist.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=helmet.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]

Twolanerider · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2005, 04:52:53 PM »

Quote

Let those who ride, decide!! NJ hemlet law for all riders, I live near PA border, no helmet laws so I ride their frequently. Helmets detract from peripherial vision therefore I believe they are more hazardous than helpful!!!

Twolanerider · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2005, 05:04:51 PM »

Quote

One additonal point to this.

Screamin · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2005, 05:48:05 PM »

Thankfully we all agree, I think, that rider's choice is THE ISSUE. "Figures don't lie but liars figure" is never more relevant than when insurance companies, the NHTSI and others discuss accident statistics. Go for it mountaineers!!! [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif] You've a beautiful state and I'd love to spend more time in it instead of opting to more free states. I know that CMRO supports your efforts and would love to welcome you into the throng of lid free states.
Now if we can get Michigan on board ---?

110tHunDer · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2005, 07:53:49 PM »

DJW, just FYI (though, I'm sure you either already knew or would investigate), TN is also a helmet state.

Dr. Evil · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2005, 09:59:58 PM »

103, Yeah unfortunately this afternoon I pulled up the list.... I guess it'll be more than an hour with my hard hat on. Oh well, I'll have it on for days anyway... [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] [smiley=beerchug.gif]

Twolanerider · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2005, 01:10:35 AM »

Quote

Twolane I agree fully with you, which brings us to exactly what we are talking about and that is whether or not the government, on any level, is able to decide for us with laws that we must wear a helmet.

MObe · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2005, 05:09:50 PM »

I may be way off base here, and can't remember where I read these statistics, but as far as head injuries and cost to society goes, it seems that I recall that compact pickup trucks have the highest total number of head injuries of any vehicle.
Sooooo if cost of head injuries to society is an issue, all compact pickup drivers and their passengers should be required to wear a helmet.
Bottom line: while number of head injuries per x number of accidents may be higher for motorcyclists, (both helmeted and unhelmeted), there is just not enough of us to have a huge financial impact on society as a whole.
Now.... lets discuss the impact of smoking or alcohol as they relate to being a financial burden on society. Those are truly huge numbers.
I wear a helmet but that should be my choice. I wear a seatbelt but that should be my choice.
I resent any law that attempts to "protect me from myself". I'm a responsible adult and can make my own choices, thank you very much! [smiley=drink.gif]

Screamin · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2005, 06:36:01 PM »

Quote

Twolanerider · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2005, 09:01:03 PM »

Quote

RedFXR2 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2005, 09:13:03 PM »

There's an interesting article on this subject in the Orlando (Florida) Sentinel.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-asecdeadlyhelmet03030305mar03,1,909561.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

There's a lot of data in it--it's about the difference in injury rates from when Florida required helmets versus now that the state doesn't. One quote I wanted to bring here is about the costs of hospitalization:

"A 2002 survey of three trauma-center hospitals in Florida found average medical costs ranged from $32,426 to $44,053 for riders who suffered head injuries while not wearing helmets, and $28,602 to $31,437 for those who wore helmets."

These costs are what the insurance industry uses to calculate premium rates for all riders--helmet or not. I maintain that the whole motorcycle world pays for the consequences of those choosing to ride helmetless--those that wear helmets did not make that choice. It was made for them by those that don't wear helmets. And this doesn't include taxpayer supported resources like county ambulance services with EMT's and such.

I've never seen anyone who wants to go helmetless also volunteer to pay their own way through serious injury so as to not impose their individual cost of risk onto others. This is why I favor allowing the insurance companies to escape liability if a rider took out a policy agreeing to war a helmet, then was injured while not wearing one.

Motorcycling carries a set of increased risks. Me, I think it's my responsibility to decide how much risk I'm willing to accept--and then to be responsible for those risks. I'm going to do what I can to minimize the risks, to myself and others, and still enjoy riding.

Frankly, the whole helmet, no-helmet thing has always been a puzzle to me. I don't feel imposed upon in the least by wearing a helmet. Any more than a leather jacket or gloves, or boots. It's just something that makes good sense if you're going to ride. I said before, I think they come in handy in keeping flying objects off my head, face and eyes, never mind crash protection. I've had things bounce off of them and been really glad I had it on.

Not trying to pi$$ anybody off. Just my opinion.

Dr. Evil · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2005, 09:22:22 PM »

It may indeed (AND DOES) make good sense... even though I don't... but it should be YOUR choice. Not some senator who doesn't ride... [smiley=beerchug.gif]

Twolanerider · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2005, 09:30:12 PM »

Quote

These costs are what the insurance industry uses to calculate premium rates for all riders--helmet or not.

Dr. Evil · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2005, 09:37:27 PM »

me too...... Funny... [smiley=1syellow1.gif]

MObe · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2005, 03:17:42 PM »

"The last time I checked NHTSA numbers the highest frequency of what was categorized "severe" injury per miles driven on public roads was us on our bikes. "

Twolane; you are talking about injuries per mile driven, I was talking about TOTAL NUMBER of head injuries, regardless of miles driven. I don't think you will disagree that there are a lot more compact pickup trucks that travel a lot more miles per unit than motorcycles of all types.

Twolanerider · « **Reply #22 on:** March 07, 2005, 06:01:04 PM »

Quote

Sure, agreed Mike. But that doesn't speak to issue. In fact it speaks against it. For purposes of illustration only:

Assume a million people drove small trucks and a thousand people rode motorcycles. One would expect to see significantly more accidents and injuries with small trucks. That has nothing to do, however, with the inherent safety of each mode of transportation or whether any given driver is choosing a safer mode of transport and, thereby, not heightening the risk of his own injury and costs attendant thereto. It just says that there is a whole lot more trucks than bikes.

Consider the Air France Concorde that went down after take off from Paris a couple of years ago. That airframe was, statistically per passenger mile or cycles, the safest commercial transport air frame in the air up until that incident. After that one accident it was the worst.

Why such a huge difference from one accident? Compared to the Boeing and Airbus fleets out there the British Airways and Air France Concorde's flew an almost insignificant amount of passenger miles and cycles with only something like 12-14 airframes in the fleet. So its comparison within the statistical framework used (for comparison) was both irrelevant and misleading. People flew the Concorde being told it was "safe" when what they should have been being told was that it hadn't yet crashed. Those aren't the same thing.

So we can't just say that there are more injuries in trucks (or more crashes in the Boeing 747). A given truck could be the single "safest" vehicle on the road and the driving population could be exercising the greatest amount of personal and civic responsiblity (in termes of injury protection) by driving it. But the truck would still have a lot more total injuries just because there were hundreds of thousands or millions of it on the road versus a hugely smaller amount of motorcycles.

MObe · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2005, 06:31:22 PM »

Twolane:
That was my point exactly.
Total cost to society due to head injuries is greater from injuries to drivers of compact pickup trucks, not because they are less safe than motorcycles, but because there are so many of them, thus the higher total number of head injuries in these vehicles. There are a greater total number of automobiles on the road, but there are less total head injuries in automobiles than in compact pickup trucks.
Head injuries per mile driven is greatest to motorcyclists, followed by compact pickup occupents, followed by occupents of automobiles.
But there just aren't that many motorcycle riders and passengers relatively speaking in comparison to the number of compact pickup or automobile occupents.
If head injuries place a certain amount of financial burden on society, then the most effective way to decrease that burden is to stop them in the vehicle type that causes the greatest total number of head injuries, which would be compact pickup trucks.

Dr. Evil · « **Reply #24 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:30:25 PM »

MFG, we know a few of those... [smiley=confused5.gif]

ccr · « **Reply #25 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:44:35 PM »

Quote

MFG, we know a few of those...

hd2003-se2005 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:53:01 PM »

Mrs. WeCVO

Your a silly girl!

Bet that's why the Mr. loves you! [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]

Twolanerider · « **Reply #27 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:27:36 PM »

Quote

I can't believe you guys are arguing

Whose arguing MFG. It's a conversation. With grownups there's a difference. Hell, even with us there's a difference [smiley=laugh.gif]

Twolanerider · « **Reply #28 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:39:21 PM »

Quote

Twolane:
That was my point exactly.
Total cost

Ohhh, ok. Now I'm clueing in to the differences of perspective that were feeding the different sides of this conversation. You really are speaking to total costs, writ large, and how they might (hypothetically) be addressed (especially when the fact that they won't be addressed writ large becomes a "fairness" argument against imposing universal manadatory helmet laws [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif] ).

On the other side I was using the large examples only to illustrate the notion of the societal responsibilites we might incur as riders choosing not to wear hats when wearing might make us in some way more generally responsible (not just to ourself but to others). I was thinking of the whole discussion still within the confines of illustration to the helmet question but not in using the larger examples to justify in either way, just to illustrate. That's a big difference in defining the conversation.

Coming at it from the other way it makes perfect sense (in what becomes a counter productive way). If a given vehicle racks up a bazillion more road miles and is a safer vehicle it will still have more accidents just because it gets a bazillion more miles. Therefore, (while not on any representative scale but in total nonetheless) you decrease costs by making the members of that statistical cohort do something safer (wear helmets while driving their mid size trucks).

Of course those drivers then switch to something else without the requirement and the class moves. Eventually everyone (including kids in shopping carts) have to wear helmets just because Mobe pointed out that everyone drives trucks !!

Geez, thanks Mobe !!!!

mfgreen · « **Reply #29 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:43:01 PM »

In some communities kids are required to wear helmets while bicycle riding.......

Twolanerider · « **Reply #30 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:46:11 PM »

Quote

In some communities kids are required to wear helmets while bicycle riding.......

Yes..... And your point is?

Twolanerider · « **Reply #31 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:54:04 PM »

Quote

The government makes bad decisions when interfering with survival of the fittest.
The government makes bad government when it oversteps its bounds
The government makes bad government when it tells you they have to make inane laws and restrictions to prove to the masses how free that the masses are.

Yes, which is exactly what we just pointed out in illustrating that mandating a policy based on bad application of data or poor assumptions would lead to bad or intrusive overall policy decisions. We were just subtle [smiley=7.gif] [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]

starvin · « **Reply #32 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:03:12 PM »

O.K. I've got a couple of pennies to throw in, If its O.K. for government to mandate helmet laws becuse the cost of crashes would be less, why should'nt they outlaw motorcycles all together, your obviously safer in a car. I see some of these guys with thier crocth rockets helmets and full leathers with the way they drive and me with no helmet and the way I drive theres no doubt they have a better chance of a insurance claim than me. Personally I will not have a bike if I have to wear a helmet most of the time I don't see the point, but I don't think I would ride if i had kids at home and a family to support.

Dave

Twolanerider · « **Reply #33 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:06:36 PM »

Quote

Breakfast anyone?

We're at the WAFFLE HOUSE

No, MFG, notsomuch. No real waffling when you write:

"The government makes bad decisions when interfering with survival of the fittest.
The government makes bad government when it oversteps its bounds
The government makes bad government when it tells you they have to make inane laws and restrictions to prove to the masses how free that the masses are. "

Just before that the same thing had been illustrated by suggesting a hypothetical series of events that ends up with a mandate for everyone including kids in shopping carts to be wearing helmets. You're directly describing bad policy. Bad policy had simply been illustrated with more subtlety previously. You just didn't get it.

starvin · « **Reply #34 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:12:46 PM »

Quote

The government makes bad decisions when interfering with survival of the fittest.
The government makes bad government when it oversteps its bounds
The government makes bad government when it tells you they have to make inane laws and restrictions to prove to the masses how free that the masses are.

Mike, It sounds like your almost quoting the great govener of Mn. Jessie (the body) Ventura, "stupidity is gods way of thining out the weak"

Twolanerider · « **Reply #35 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:15:56 PM »

Quote

O.K. I've got a couple of pennies to throw in, If its O.K. for government to mandate helmet laws becuse the cost of crashes would be less, why should'nt they outlaw motorcycles all together,
Dave

Hey Dave, absolutely play along [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif].

Unfortunately the short answer is that gov't could (outlaw motorcycles entirely). Driving is a privilege (or at least a granted right) after all and can be limited or controlled based on a variety factors (age, enironmental effects, and God knows how many other ideas some hare brained legislature might come up with).

It's also certainly the case that some types of motor vehicular transportation is already banned on public highways (for being too large or too small or too slow or too noisy; just to name a few). So a governmental entity at some level could "ban" motorcycles.

Fortunately in any practical sense we don't have to worry about it except on the most limited of scales. There is an effective lobby. There is important historical precedent. And even though we're not a starri decisis system precedent does count for a tremendous amount. We also have our culture of appreciating individual freedoms and open spaces. So just because gov't could, it ain't anything to lose any sleep over. Hell, the Europeans still get to ride so we don't have anything to worry about [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif] .

starvin · « **Reply #36 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:25:22 PM »

in case some people don't know Jesse made that quote when he was being pressured to enact a law to prevent snowmobilers from going out on to frozen lakes too soon. It was after a few went threw the ice and drowned. Unfortunate but I still loved the quote.

Twolanerider · « **Reply #37 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:43:06 PM »

Quote

O.K. thats the second funniest quote I heard. [smiley=drink.gif]

Starvin, just noticed the picture. It's hard to tell with all the cool blue lights but what is the bike that is all lit up there? Seeing that great pic just reminds how much I need to get the red lights from Dude installed.

starvin · « **Reply #38 on:** March 08, 2005, 08:48:01 PM »

Twolanerider, the lights are on my seeg. I had them installed by Steel Horse Nitelites at the millwaukee dealer rally last year. Paid $420 kind of expensive but I couldn't of done the job they did.

Twolanerider · « **Reply #39 on:** March 08, 2005, 09:21:07 PM »

Quote

Twolanerider, the lights are on my seeg. I had them installed by Steel Horse Nitelites at the millwaukee dealer rally last year. Paid $420 kind of expensive but I couldn't of done the job they did.

That pic is very sharp Starvin. I'm hoping to cheap out on mine and not have nearly that much tied up in the illumination. Dude from here on the site sold me what I'm sure will prove to be a nice bunch of lights for about a hundred bucks. The rest of how sanitary the install proves to be will depend on how handy I prove to be. Just hope it looks close to as good as yours when its done.

MObe · « **Reply #40 on:** March 09, 2005, 08:04:48 AM »

" Of course those drivers then switch to something else without the requirement and the class moves. Eventually everyone (including kids in shopping carts) have to wear helmets just because Mobe pointed out that everyone drives trucks !!

Geez, thanks Mobe !!!! "

Just doing my part for a safer America!!!! [smiley=beerchug.gif]

Daddyschog · « **Reply #41 on:** March 09, 2005, 09:54:42 PM »

In Pa its riders choice! [smiley=laugh.gif] We became free a little more than one year ago. I say free the brothers and sisters in WV. Let those who ride decide! [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]

Screamin · « **Reply #42 on:** March 09, 2005, 10:13:24 PM »

Quote

In Pa its riders choice! [smiley=laugh.gif]

Twolanerider · « **Reply #43 on:** March 10, 2005, 03:15:55 PM »

And then here it is.

HUBBARD · « **Reply #44 on:** July 05, 2005, 11:24:05 AM »

Quote

Hey Guys,

BLM777 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 05, 2005, 02:15:39 PM »

Quote

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Members & Guests,

Screamin · « **Reply #46 on:** July 05, 2005, 09:36:03 PM »

Quote

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Members & Guests,

Twolanerider · « **Reply #47 on:** July 05, 2005, 09:42:37 PM »

Quote

in what should be a no brainer fight.

Really sorry to be laughing so hard at this. And it's not that I support helmet laws. But that was the funniest (probably) unintended bad pun (in a Gary Busey kind of way) that I've ever seen in a discussion of hat laws. [smiley=7.gif]

spydglide · « **Reply #48 on:** July 05, 2005, 10:50:14 PM »

That's not the point, Woodrow! We ought to have the right to decide whether or not to wear one. I usually wear one like you, shovel, and did in NC before they made it a law, but I still want the option to not wear it. People driving cars don't have to wear one and they get head injuries in auto crashes. Where's the justice? [smiley=brood.gif] spyder

hd-dude · « **Reply #49 on:** July 05, 2005, 11:38:38 PM »

Quote

That's not the point, Woodrow!

Twolanerider · « **Reply #50 on:** July 06, 2005, 01:37:40 AM »

Quote

That's not the point, Woodrow!

HUBBARD · « **Reply #51 on:** July 06, 2005, 02:24:48 AM »

Quote

C'mon now Spyder.

Twolanerider · « **Reply #52 on:** July 06, 2005, 03:25:29 AM »

Quote

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Twolane,

hd2003-se2005 · « **Reply #53 on:** July 06, 2005, 07:22:08 AM »

OMG

Tater was up at 2:24 AM?

his quote below,

" Re: WV HELMET LAW REFORM

ccr · « **Reply #54 on:** July 06, 2005, 07:43:12 AM »

And unless Hubbard has gone out and got himself a puter for home, he had to get in/on a vehicle and drive to work.

hd2003-se2005 · « **Reply #55 on:** July 06, 2005, 02:21:15 PM »

[smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif] [smiley=shocked2.gif]

Tater, in charge of vice!

Damn, what a concept!

[smiley=pumpkin.gif] [smiley=jalapeno.gif] [smiley=cherry.gif] [smiley=banana.gif]

Screamin · « **Reply #56 on:** July 06, 2005, 07:29:55 PM »

First it's helmets. Next it's reflective apparel, next it's airbags. Seriously, they're testing frickin airbags. Airbags!! I'm not sure when some will say enough's enough but clearly the line has been drawn on helmets and it damn well should be. [smiley=furious2.gif]

spydglide · « **Reply #57 on:** July 06, 2005, 07:51:37 PM »

Air Bags??? I need 'um.........the way I ride..........I need 'um and want 'um as soon as they're prefected for the SEEG. But, I want a 'choice' as to whether or not to have 'um! That's the ticket................CHOICE! By Damn! Har! [smiley=mean.gif] spyder

Twolanerider · « **Reply #58 on:** July 06, 2005, 07:52:09 PM »

Quote

First it's helmets. Next it's reflective apparel, next it's airbags. Seriously, they're testing frickin airbags. Airbags!! I'm not sure when some will say enough's enough but clearly the line has been drawn on helmets and it damn well should be.

Author Topic: WV HELMET LAW REFORM (Read 14870 times)

mfgreen

RedFXR2

RedFXR2

hd2003-se2005

mfgreen

starvin

starvin

starvin

starvin

hd2003-se2005

hd2003-se2005