Print

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

[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.