Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg What the ****??? (connecttristates.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=274677)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2009_Honda_CRF230L_Motorcycle.jpgChad Douglas – Connect Tri-States (connecttristates.com ) – Mar. 17, 2009

2009 Honda CRF230L rider wearing the right gear unlike some Missourian’s.

I hope the MO legislators backing this one ride helmetless a lot so as to thin the gene pool... -- Ed.

HANNIBAL, MO -- There are about 500 reasons a police officer call pull you over in Missouri...

At the same time that bill is making its way through the legislature, a bill has passed the State Senate that would repeal the state's motorcycle helmet law.

The bill states it’s for riders who are at least 21 years old, and everyone would still have to wear a helmet on interstate highways.

"I could not be for it because I've seen the results of what could happen," says Sheriff Jimmy Shinn...

"One important statistic is looking back at the state of Texas when they repealed their helmet law. 55 people died in 1997. After the repeal, that number skyrocketed to 511 in 2001," says Gough.

Some legislators say requiring a motorcyclist to wear a helmet infringes on their civil liberties...

It needs to pass the House and be signed by Governor Jay Nixon before it becomes law… http://www.connecttristates.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=274677

Hi All:

___Arkansas tried the same thing and it fortunately failed...
The effort to repeal Arkansas' mandatory helmet law failed in the state's legislature and the bills sponsor won't try again this session.

Although Senator Kim Hendren, who proposed legislation that would allow riders to either wear a helmet or pay for additional insurance, said he won't bring the bill back this session many feel similar legislation will be presented at some point in the future. Some version of the motorcycle helmet bill has failed in every session over the last decade.

The issue appears to be so sensitive among law makers, the legislation is left to die in committee without a vote being taken.

Hendren is promising he will present the bill again in 2011, his last legislative session.

Several states are currently reviewing motorcycle helmet laws such as Missouri, Illinois and Maryland who all are following similar legislation of offer the opportunity of riders carrying extra insurance to forgo wearing a motorcycle helmet. Maine however is considering several pieces of legislation to strengthen their helmet laws.
___Anyone want to rent Kim a bike for a weekend so she can “Off” herself while paying a higher insurance premium?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

why do people who don't ride care if someone else rides w/ or w/o a helmet? or for that matter why do people who ride care? if you want to wear a helmet wear it, if not, don't... the only person that is going to be affected by not wearing a helmet is the person riding. (for the record I havn't been on a motorcycle in almost 4 years and have worn a helmet every time I've been on a bike (even though it is not required in the state of Illinois))

Hi Aaron:

___Similarly, why wear seatbelts?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Its for the loved one's I believe.

I think that it's a bit rich that a forum that avocates driving techniques that sometimes creates road rage and tiny cars worry about someone wearing a helmet or not. I drive a FIT. Plenty of my friends and family think I"m nut for doing that. I would hate for them to legislate away small cars.

why do people who don't ride care if someone else rides w/ or w/o a helmet? or for that matter why do people who ride care? if you want to wear a helmet wear it, if not, don't... the only person that is going to be affected by not wearing a helmet is the person riding. (for the record I havn't been on a motorcycle in almost 4 years and have worn a helmet every time I've been on a bike (even though it is not required in the state of Illinois))

Why should my tax dollars go toward hosing this idiots off the streets when the crash?

I've lost people close to me in Motorcycle crashes (they were wearing helmets). I've seen a low speed motorcycle crash, he didn't make it, he was cruising at about 25mph, not wearing a helmet, next thing I knew he was down, dead at the scene. (Quite a disturbing scene)

I think that it's a bit rich that a forum that avocates driving techniques that sometimes creates road rage and tiny cars worry about someone wearing a helmet or not. I drive a FIT. Plenty of my friends and family think I"m nut for doing that. I would hate for them to legislate away small cars.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no parallel between driving a Fit (which is quite safe) while obeying speedlimits and riding a motorcycle with no protective gear. It's an absurd argument.

I think that it's a bit rich that a forum that avocates driving techniques that sometimes creates road rage and tiny cars worry about someone wearing a helmet or not.
It's been stated often that safety ranks ahead of fuel economy here.

As far as road rage goes, it exists, people here don't "create" it.

why do people who don't ride care if someone else rides w/ or w/o a helmet? or for that matter why do people who ride care? if you want to wear a helmet wear it, if not, don't... the only person that is going to be affected by not wearing a helmet is the person riding. (for the record I havn't been on a motorcycle in almost 4 years and have worn a helmet every time I've been on a bike (even though it is not required in the state of Illinois))

Not exactly. The main conclusion of the Hurt Report back in the '80's was that wearing a helmet - ANY helmet - had a huge effect on reducing motorcycle fatalities. If another rider exercising their "right to expression" dies while riding helmetless, it affects me as another rider:
(1) it drives up motorcycle insurance premiums for ME
(2) it artificially raises the perception of motorcycle riding as an extreme hazardous activity, with multiple side effects;
- people forbid others from riding, which reduces the market for motorcycles and accessories and increases their cost
- lawsuits raise the cost of motorcycles and accessories
- employers' health insurance may exclude coverage for injuries incurred while riding

Consider their families as well. CT has a particularly silly law that requires helmets only for kids under a certain age. So a kid going riding with their Dad on his bike gets to watch their father die in a crash? And then has to manage without a father? In a way, the law should require that parents wear helmets since they have responsibilities to others.

Not to be a callous @$$...

But as a tax payer I find it disturbing that we are even paying for this debate.
Wear a helmut - wear your seatbelt or Immeditalely forgo any medical treatment.
You get hurt not hearing one - YOU have made a choice and i would interpret it same as a "living will" it was your choice and who am i to question your wishes.

My dad does not wear his seatbelt and though i wish he would - he never will.... I hope nothing happens to him - but when he is killed in an accident - the only one to blame will be him cause he knew better.

With these simple items we can reduce the chance of DEATH -
Seems like an obvious choice to me... but i like living and plan on doing so for a long time...

Not trying to flame here - but if i had to choose "Fealing the wind in my hair" moments before being killed or wearing a helmet. I would choose the helmet.

Steve

I found it interesting that PA passed a mandatory seatbelt law, and is currently considering making it tougher, while on 7/6/2003, PA repealed their manadatory helmet law. I always hear about the "public costs" when it comes to smokers health care, well what about helmetless riders?
Do you know the common nickname given to helmetless riders, especially among those in law enforcement and health care?

Organ donors.:(

Wear a helmut - wear your seatbelt or Immeditalely forgo any medical treatment...
Steve

The military looks at it this way...

No matter what the local laws are, you WILL wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle and you WILL wear your seatbelt while in a passenger vehicle.

If you don't, the military has the option of not paying for your medical care.

why do people who don't ride care if someone else rides w/ or w/o a helmet? or for that matter why do people who ride care? if you want to wear a helmet wear it, if not, don't... the only person that is going to be affected by not wearing a helmet is the person riding.
Wrong.

This came up in another recent thread. I'll repeat what I said there: The libertarian idealist within me generally disagrees with government involvement in my personal decision-making. In my concept of a perfect world, you make choices and you alone accept responsibility for the consequences. If that means you die because you can't afford long-term traumatic brain-injury care, then you die.

The realist within me acknowledges that, unfortunately, the value our culture places on personal responsibility is deteriorating, and today's society will not allow that. I and others will pay for it, whether through insurance or tax-subsidized health care. So as long as society expects me to help pay for someone's stupidity, I expect society to regulate stupidity.

To echo Jim, stupidity is in the news....what is happening to Detroit....AIG is stupidity and greed. :mad:.

No man is an island, and safety rules are everywhere....seat belts, airbags, what goes into food and drugs, building regulations...if safety is an option - how far do you want to go?

Related topic:
Richardson’s
condition is
‘very serious’ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29733775/)

...she was taking beginner ski lessions and that is not high risk, but apparently had a pre-existing condition and the story claims she is brain-dead. :(

She was probably going no more than 10mph, yet some want to go 70mph or faster with no protection amongst vehicles weighing thousands of pounds, etc....those riders are already brain-damaged.

Wrong.

This came up in another recent thread. I'll repeat what I said there: The libertarian idealist within me generally disagrees with government involvement in my personal decision-making. In my concept of a perfect world, you make choices and you alone accept responsibility for the consequences. If that means you die because you can't afford long-term traumatic brain-injury care, then you die.

The realist within me acknowledges that, unfortunately, the value our culture places on personal responsibility is deteriorating, and today's society will not allow that. I and others will pay for it, whether through insurance or tax-subsidized health care. So as long as society expects me to help pay for someone's stupidity, I expect society to regulate stupidity.

This argument was made (rather well IMHO) yesterday on the opinion page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/published-editorials/2009/03/who-pays-the-tab-for-when-motorcyclists-go-helmet-free/

I found it interesting that PA passed a mandatory seatbelt law, and is currently considering making it tougher, while on 7/6/2003, PA repealed their manadatory helmet law. I always hear about the "public costs" when it comes to smokers health care, well what about helmetless riders?
Do you know the common nickname given to helmetless riders, especially among those in law enforcement and health care?

Organ donors.:(


After one or two riding seasons, some group published numbers that said that Fatalities were down by like 50% on motorcycles, but head injuries up like 37%.

I don't know how I feel about that; I'd rather be dead than a vegetable, but rather be alive and recovering from head trauma than dead.


Mostly the reduction was due to cyclists having better peripheral vision making them more agile in avoidance because you can see more with your helmet off.


I'll always wear one, though.

Mostly the reduction was due to cyclists having better peripheral vision making them more agile in avoidance because you can see more with your helmet off.


I'll always wear one, though.

The concept that motorcyclists who don't wear helmets have a lower accident is a complete myth. In fact, a study in Hawaii shows that riders without helmets have a higher accident rate than motorcyclists who wear helmets.

A recent study from New Zealand shows that riders who wear white helmets have a 24 percent lower accident rate than riders who wear black helmets. It would be reasonable to suppose from that study that wearing a white helmet while riding a motorcycle would lower your accident rate considerably over riding a motorcycle with no helmet.

Riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than driving a car. Anyone who decides to compound that by not wearing a helmet is unnecessarily increasing his risk, and is not getting any reward for that.

I know a woman who was a passenger on a motorcycle. Her macho boyfriend had them remove their helmets when they got to Pennsylvania. He dumped the bike, she hit her head, and now she has what looks like stroke symptoms: her face is distorted due to brain damage.

Helmets? I have a white full-face Arai, and wear it anytime I ride, including in "helmet-free" states.

Harry

A recent study from New Zealand shows that riders who wear white helmets have a 24 percent lower accident rate than riders who wear black helmets. It would be reasonable to suppose from that study that wearing a white helmet while riding a motorcycle would lower your accident rate considerably over riding a motorcycle with no helmet.

Interesting, the results make sense. Doesn't this also shoot down the argument that helmets are too hot, as a white helmet would be SIGNIFICANTLY cooler than a black one?

You just have to be careful about taking correlation to mean cause. It's possible that people who wear white helmets are of older age and have more experience on a motorcycle and therefore have less accidents. In fact I would guess that that's at least partially true as I rarely see someone on crotch-rocket with a white helmet, but see them with black helmets all the time.

Even though the thought of idiotic risk-takers removing themselves from the gene-pool with their own behavior brings a small grin to my face, the thought of me having to pay for their health care at the hospital when I shouldn't have to, and having to pay higher insurance premiums makes me support laws which greatly increase safety as only a small cost of inconvenience.

I hate big intrusive government. That's why I can not support helmet law and thats why I stopped voting Republican.

You just have to be careful about taking correlation to mean cause. It's possible that people who wear white helmets are of older age and have more experience on a motorcycle and therefore have less accidents.

You can Google up that New Zealand study. You'll find that it was done impartially, and was a good-faith effort to identify what is really going on.

It should be obvious to anyone who really digs into the issue that the biggest problem with motorcycling is that car drivers can look right at you and not perceive your presence. White helmets counter-act this tendency, and that's why motorcyclists fare better with white helmets. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense.

So of course most bikers wear black from head-to-toe. Go figure.

Harry

Hi Aaron:

___Similarly, why wear seatbelts?

___Good Luck

___Wayne


If people want to act foolishly, they should be able to do so in a free society if their actions hurt only themselves.

*Sigh*. Where have all the liberals gone? I never cease to be amazed how many people are willing to justify state controls in the name of safety.

While it was made in regards to Natasha Richardson's injury, this WebMD article (http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20090318/natasha-richardsons-brain-injury-faq) is still a good read.

Facts:

Bikers have very little protection
Head injuries may not be immediate - just like Natasha's instance.
Bleeding can occur on the surface on deep in the brain
The part of the brain flooded with bleeding can't function :eek:
Bleeding increases pressure (which apart from prompt surgery can't be relieved).
Pressure can result in permanent brain damage

I hate big intrusive government. That's why I can not support helmet law and thats why I stopped voting Republican.

I used to think that way, but then I got older and realized big intrusive government does for us a whole lot of things people are not smart enough to do on their own. Until the last election we couldn't even get >50% of the voting age "adults" in this country to vote. And to be quite frank, there is no "intrusion" when you are on a public roadway. There is no right to privacy. You are more than welcome to build your own road with your own dollars and race up and down it all day long with no seat belt or helmet.

If you remove the laws that exist today to protect people from themselves (i.e. laws against things without victims like drug use) than you will only (inevitably) end up with more folks siphoning off the public coffers, which is paid for by everyone else.

And by the way, I also used to be Republican until Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity became the leaders of the party.

Here's the New Zealand study:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7444/857

I encourage all motorcyclists to read it. Looking at it just now, it also states that riders who wear fluorescent colors or reflective tape lower their accident rate by 37 percent.

I've been wearing my hi-viz vest so far this season, and it's a good habit I should stick with. My reasoning is that motorists haven't seen a biker (where I live) in almost six months, so they would be even more likely to fail to notice motorcyclists.

By the way, the New Zealand study is in very good agreement with the Hurt study done a long time ago. Again, it's not rocket science, just common sense. Leave the philosophical arguments about freedoms out of it. It's about safety, it's important on a bike, so just do the right thing.

An exerpt from the study, which also addresses some of the points debated in this thread:

" The study suggests that low physical conspicuity is a contributing factor in a significant proportion of road traffic crashes causing injury. The social costs of motorcycling deaths and disability are high, not only through premature deaths and hospital admissions but also through costs of rehabilitation, lost income, sickness benefits, insurance, property, and legal expenses as well as personal costs of grief and suffering. This study supports the introduction of both active and passive injury prevention strategies through laws requiring daytime use of headlights and measures encouraging greater visibility of motorcycle riders on the roads. "

Harry

I used to think that way, but then I got older and realized big intrusive government does for us a whole lot of things people are not smart enough to do on their own. Until the last election we couldn't even get >50% of the voting age "adults" in this country to vote. And to be quite frank, there is no "intrusion" when you are on a public roadway. There is no right to privacy. You are more than welcome to build your own road with your own dollars and race up and down it all day long with no seat belt or helmet.


Yes, it's always the conviction that one knows better than others that leads one to believe that he should run their lives for them. :(

Yes, it's always the conviction that one knows better than others that leads one to believe that he should run their lives for them. :(

It's those kind of people who gave us building codes, electrical codes, medical standards, and help keep our homes from burning to the ground with us inside.

Yeah, busy-body people who know better than anybody else should be applauded. Think what kind of world it would be without them. I can sleep at night knowing my wiring is safe, my furnace won't kill me, and my house won't catch fire.

Harry

PS: I forgot plumbing codes. The Romans were poisoned by huge doses of lead from lead pipes and cookware. I don't have to worry about that, because some know-it-all busy-body took care of the problem for me.

Your analogy fails.

It is one thing to regulate contractual dealings between parties where there is an information deficiency that can benefit one to the detriment of another (e.g., a building contractor dealing with an uneducated customer.) There, clearly one party can be hurt by the actions of another.

It is quite another to devote time money and resources to telling people to wear a helmet because it's "better for them."

Once again, those who would increase state involvement in our lives wrap themselves in the flag of safety. Eating fruits and vegetables are also good for our health, should we have a law mandating that, too? How about a law not to run in the house with scissors?

And while we're at it, from where shall we get the resources that will now be devoted to enforcing helmet laws?

It's those kind of people who gave us building codes, electrical codes, medical standards, and help keep our homes from burning to the ground with us inside.

Yeah, busy-body people who know better than anybody else should be applauded. Think what kind of world it would be without them. I can sleep at night knowing my wiring is safe, my furnace won't kill me, and my house won't catch fire.

Harry

PS: I forgot plumbing codes. The Romans were poisoned by huge doses of lead from lead pipes and cookware. I don't have to worry about that, because some know-it-all busy-body took care of the problem for me.

An example of insufficient standards (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/18/chinese.drywall/index.html)....from the same country that has introduced the possibility that our food may have filth in it for the first time since Sinclair's The Jungle a century ago.

Do we have to consider only a completely unregulated society vs an OSHA death by red tape one? Life usually falls somewhere in between, so why not insist reasonable safety, and compliance with traffic regulations?

I'd like the least-regulated society practical. How does that happen? When people behave intelligently, ethically, responsibly. That would be when Detroit looks five years and beyond in the future and focus on more than pickups/SUVs. That would be not offering a glut of sub-prime mortgages to people that are a poor risk. That would be investors exhibiting ethics exceeding AIG and Bernie Madoff.

Not only am I a conservative (disenchanted with the party Rush is ruining), but a social conservative. That means morality matters. Since we will always have plenty of greedy, irresponsible, and unethical people, regulations and a justice system is the only recourse. The moral failures I've mentioned are the reason for the current recession. That and over a generation of debtheads in the US. America is great because America is good....When America ceases to be good it will cease to be great
Today, Ike would be derided as a RINO by his party, who abandoned responsibility and balanced budgets this decade (believe he had balanced budgets) :(

Here in Kentucky you can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, but you can ride helmet less, no problem .. This make a lot of sense to me. I don't wear my seatbelt and never will.. I recently went through a roadblock without a seatbelt the officer looked at my license and my tags and proof of insurance and said have a nice day and you need to be sure and wear your seatbelt. I said sure thing and drove off... They need to stay out of my business:mad:

{In the most diplomatic voice I can muster} Why is spending less than five seconds to buckle up a problem? I'll admit to doing it while in motion.

And while we're at it, from where shall we get the resources that will now be devoted to enforcing helmet laws?

The same resources that we use to enforce seatbelt laws, only less. I could teach a second-grader how to spot a fake helmet in about two minutes, and spotting a helmetless rider would be far easier than spotting a motorist without a properly fastened seatbelt.

I don't really give a crap whether some guy wears a motorcycle helmet. Just don't try telling me it's a good idea to not wear one, or rationalizing your way around around the issue.

Harry

I have logged a LOT of miles on motorcycles.
I have always worn my helmet.
I don't want a helmet law.
but... If we don't have a helmet law, I want the law also written so anyone injured due to not using a helmet to be allowed to die with NO medical assistance.

I do NOT want to pay tax's to support people injured due to poor choices they made.

I say as a rider. IF you want the right to choose to increase your odds of dying from no helmet, they you should have the right to die.

For nearly ten years I worked at a county hospital. In the US, county hospitals are REQUIRED to render aid when other hospitals don't - law.

A biker is in the ICU unit - how do you know he used his helmet or has insurance?

Question for the no-helmet required advocates?

Why stop at this intrusion?

Why not stop requiring airbags, seatbelts and stronger bumpers? That's an intrusion too.

And don't require a posted speed limit.

We are all big boys and girls and can handle it - right? ;)

Just taking your premise to it's logical conclusion.

Be sure to mention why the items should not be required along with helments in your next post....I'll remind you if you forget. ;)

Just be consistent - helmets, seatbelts, airbags, stronger bumpers, crumple zones should either be required or optional for all of the above.

I'm pro helmets, if your on public roads I think you should have a lid. It's just common sense, no one knows when someone is going to run a light, a dog or deer is going to cross your path or some kind of debris is going to be in your lane just around the curve. You are going to get hurt if you fall on pavement, period, so why increase your chances of becoming a fatality.

It should be a law to protect those who don't have self preservation foremost while riding. Motorcycle deaths affect many people, the deceased, their loved ones, the EMTs who could be on the scene of an accident or illness somewhere else, law enforcement who could be stopping criminals, emergency room doctors, fellow riders insurance premiums...I'm sure there are more examples.

Dieing by a head injury on a motorcycle because you want to have your freedom is bad judgment every time. If it saves just a few deaths each year it is worth it, should others die because you want to feel the wind in your hair and can oppose this law successfully? It just seems selfish to me. - Dale

I think having a helmet law is a no-brainer.

Seriously, though, the human skull simply is not designed to withstand the impact from falling vertically from the height of a motorcycle onto hard pavement. The Hurt report found that this is the problem, horizontal velocities are secondary.

Or falling from a bicycle for that matter. I fell from a bicycle years ago and got a serious concussion from hitting my skull on the pavement (and broke a collarbone). Everything was fuzzy for about a week. I was very lucky. I was wearing an old-fashioned leather strap helmet, which probably made the difference between a concussion and a fractured skull. Helmets should be required on bicycles as well because you sit even higher on a bicycle than you do on most motorcycles.

Requiring helmets means that people just do it and are then free to argue about other things. Plus requiring helmets eliminates the "herd" tendancy for people to do what they see others doing (not wearing helmets) without thinking whether it is safe or not.

It's interesting that racers never whine about wearing helmets, and these are the people who are truly into motorcycles. STM that the complaints about wearing helmets are more about "personal rights" than riding motorcycles, and that folks who feel this way should simply wear helmets and express their personal rights in other ways.

Seriously, though, the human skull simply is not designed to withstand the impact from falling vertically from the height of a motorcycle onto hard pavement. The Hurt report found that this is the problem, horizontal velocities are secondary.
I can agree with this on scientific basis, but not in real life. Most accidents with motorcycles will conclude the skull to hit some vertical object (other car, telephone pole, brick wall) and the others are accidents where the driver loses control and skid over the pavement.
This aside, wearing a helmet is common sence, IT IS SAFER. period.
Should it be mandatory. yes. If you don't do this, you can't enforce other safety rules either (Like Delta Flyer said).
Is it an intrusion into "personal rights". No The cost of an accident are for greater than just the cost to the biker himself, and most of these cost are diverted to the whole community. So the community (government) should dictate rules to minimize these costs, so everybody can pay less taxes. The other way is total liberty and no government (which lead to -in my opinion- far worse conditions to live in)

Yes, it's always the conviction that one knows better than others that leads one to believe that he should run their lives for them. :(

I never said that. What I said is that I have become wiser with age. Re-read my post and that will be clear; I did not mince my words. We all become wiser as we get older; some at faster rates, some at slower rates.

And again, I can say with conviction (because I have a degree in Criminal Law to back it up) that there is no intrusion if you are on a public road. You walk into a public shopping mall you have to follow the rules they have set in place which may include but not be limited to forfeiting your (legal) concealed carry firearm at the door, removing a bandana or other non-approved headwear, banning smoking if the state does not already do so, etc. Send your child to public school and see how far your argument goes that they have a right to wear a t-shirt advertising alcohol.

You can do just about anything you want on your own private property, even more so within the confines of your private residence, but you forfeit much if not all of your right to privacy when you step onto public property which includes 99% of all roads.

It's ridiculous that there are helmet laws - let Darwin do his thing! I personally wear a Snell approved helmet... just don't tell me I have to. We should be treated as responsible adults, not children (wear a sweater, it's cold out). Might as well make it a law to wear a profolactic when holding sexual congress with strangers (lets see them enforce that one).

If you want to make anything manditory, it should be the Motorcycle Safetly Foundation class. Way more valuable than any helmet law, and you'd probably get more people wearing helmets who wouldn't.

Besides, just because someone is wearing a helmet, doesn't mean the helmet is any good. Also, I would LOVE it if those jerks doing wheelies on the highway would go without helmets. There would be so few left...

...just don't tell me I have to. We should be treated as responsible adults, not children (wear a sweater, it's cold out).

While I like the Darwin comment, please don't take offense, but I have to say when I hear someone saying "don't tell me I have to..." or "don't treat me like a child", it's often because they are acting like a child. And someone who does not wear a helmet is not - as you say - "responsible", so why should they be treated as such?

I'm at the very tail end of Gen X and I see this mentality a lot from Gen Y, those just a few years younger than myself.

No offense taken. I feel that way because I'm stubborn and anti- Big Brother.

End of Gen X here too - I'm 29... and a half (this next half is going to be a b!tch).

So for the record, do you also favor a repeal of seatbelt, airbag, and crash protection regulation?

Until we as a society can act responsibly - there will be laws to regulate the ways we can hurt ourselves - hurt those who love us - hurt those who have to pay for our actions.

If i chose to do the right things - (wear a seatbelt - drive responsibly, get a mortgage i can afford to pay) Is it not an intrusion into MY rights to pay for someone who KNOWINGLY made a bad choice?

RANT WARNING -
I am freaking tired of the irresponsible people getting all the breaks. I pay my bills - AND MY TAXES - I am cautious with spending. what do i get for it? Higher Taxes - lower home values - bailouts and bonuses to OTHER PEOPLE WITH MY MONEY.

Not to offend the bikers without helmets and I hope you are 100% Save every time you ride- and more importantly that OTHERS are safe around you...

- But i would appreciate a signed / notarized affidavit from you indicating that you absolve yourselves from the use of my tax dollars for your healthcare and such. As you have pointed out - you feel you are not hurting me - this will make things cleaner once you are brain dead and cannot verbally communicate after the accident

It's ridiculous that there are helmet laws - let Darwin do his thing! Does it sound funny and cool to say this? You are talking about human lives. What about the girl on the back who trusts the biker when he tells her it's safe to not wear a helmet. The new rider with a permit who wants to be just like the more experienced riders but doesn't have the skills. These people could be your son or daughter one day.

I personally wear a Snell approved helmet... just don't tell me I have to. We should be treated as responsible adults, not children (wear a sweater, it's cold out). This way of thinking means that you approve of a law that requires children to wear a helmet? We have laws to protect children because adults don't behave with children's safety as the most important goal. Both children and adults are required to wear seat belts in cars (at least in my state) so it would be a natural extension of the law to protect the driver of the child in order to be able to protect the child.

Might as well make it a law to wear a profolactic when holding sexual congress with strangers (lets see them enforce that one). Prophylactics are meant to prevent injury to participating parties (by decreasing the chances of possibly passing a disease, in addition to preventing pregnancy). So you support passing diseases and/or getting strangers pregnant? You mention in your post Darwin, eluding to natural selection by way of faulty decisions. Wouldn't wearing condoms prevent the carrying on of those genes in future generations?

If you want to make anything manditory, it should be the Motorcycle Safetly Foundation class. Way more valuable than any helmet law, and you'd probably get more people wearing helmets who wouldn't. I think everyone will agree with you that safety classes are just as important. Mandatory classes and helmet laws combined are even more effective. As with a condom, giving them the tool :p without proper instructions is less effective and often deters proper use. You are right.

Besides, just because someone is wearing a helmet, doesn't mean the helmet is any good.This is a weak statement. Sounds like your trying to convince yourself that you have a valid position, All states that currently require helmets have guidelines for what is an approved helmet. All helmets must meet or exceed DOT requirements.

Also, I would LOVE it if those jerks doing wheelies on the highway would go without helmets. There would be so few left...It is for this reason that helmets should be mandatory, sometimes youthful riders will take unnecessary chances. They shouldn't have to pay with their lives for their exuberant behavior. Suspension of their motorcycle endorsement and mandatory riders safety courses would certainly reduce that kind of activity.

Your enthusiasm for others physical harm doesn't give credence to your position, it only makes me wonder if your anger exists on a more deeper level. People are emotional and often times irrational, getting angry when people act like people is useless. Anger is harmful to all involved.

Maxx, you admit to knowing that you have the common sense to protect yourself and if your around when others less intelligent than you fall, I hope you will call for assistance and try to save a life. You can still call them dumb@$$ if it makes you feel better. Just try not to kick them while their down. ;) - Dale

I would think the helmetless are doing a great service to the organ donor industry.

My guess is the helmetless cost society less dead than the helmeted injured, cost isn't a good argument if that is true.

Smokers have a lower social cost than non-smokers, since they die younger.

"To be sure, smokers do incur higher medical costs—about five cents per pack in Massachusetts in the mid-1990s. Yet, because smokers have a shorter life expectancy than nonsmokers, smokers incur a cost of 11 cents per pack less in nursing home costs and nine cents per pack less in pension costs. On balance, smokers incur about 14 cents less per pack in costs paid by Massachusetts, while contributing an additional 51 cents per pack in excise taxes."

http://books.google.com/books?id=jNYko4aIIO8C&dq=kip+viscusi+smoke+filled+room&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=jd3CSc-fEoKEsAPJr-ybBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1

If a helmetlaw is to be Federalized I would expect an Amendment to the Constitution as is required.

I'd sort of like to see things read like this: There are plenty
of ways to be stupid. Here are some guidelines on a few more
stupid things you can do and what the consequences are, this is
generally part of society's collected knowledge. If you still
want to be stupid, go for it, with the following caveats. If you
hurt yourself being deliberately stupid, we'll laugh at you and
kick the remains into the nearest dumpster. We won't patch you up
if you provably put yourself in that predicament. If you are
stupid in ways that harm or threaten others, however, that's
when we come after you and make you stop. Go ahead and be stupid
by yourself; don't bring other unwilling parties into your
crash-n-burn.
.
Unfortunately, our society seem to be wired to regard individual
stupidity as a "terrible tragedy" and bends over backwards to
save its people from themselves. Other countries aren't quite
as nannying in some ways, but still hold people to an expectation
of responsibility for *others* around them.
.
_H*

Well, after 4 attempt to write a complete response, I give up. Everything sounded too rude despite the fact that everyone should have their own opinion and mine isn't likely to change anyone elses.

Short version:
I don't have a problem with adults being allowed to not wear a helmet. People underage should be required to wear them no matter their parents view.

However, if such a rider is injured or killed, lawsuits against anyone else should be severly restricted even if the other person was at fault for the accident. I believe the same for lack of seatbelts.

The government, hospitals, and insurance companies should be allowed to pursue recovery of costs associated with care of such individuals if the injury is "likely" to have been avoided by wearing a helmet.

...and I'll just leave it there.

My "consistency test" was not intended to be rude at opposing views...you were not the one I had in mind - Johnathan. Consistency (read: fairness) is what lawyers debate and lawmakers seek.

The "don't tell me what to do" viewpoint seemed to pick and choose as many things have safety regulations for the public good. As already mentioned, seatbelts, airbags, car crumple zones, the FDA administers the content in food and drugs, building codes, etc, etc.

The one or two trying to make helmets a civil liberties issue shied away from my challenge everything else be deregulated - sorry, I don't think this would be the real world...imagine the lawsuits. Also imagine trauma units - how do they know who has a helmet waiver?....when in doubt, you still have to render aid.

If helmets should be required for safety's sake, should we not also ban motorcycles? Smoking? Sun bathing? etc

Hi Southerncannuck:

___I would rather see a ban on SUV's and full-sized P/U trucks as they definitely cause more havoc on and to our roadways than any motorcycles let alone the ridiculously low fuel economy that funds those that hate us.

___The helmet issue is way to low hanging fruit on the safety side of the equation not to enforce it. Helmets for bikers are far more important than Seat belts for the average consumer in cars and trucks and there is maybe one in a thousand on this site that would forego those...

___I have another just as idiotic regarding Georgia that I will post this weekend. The lunacy is simply outrageous!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

If helmets should be required for safety's sake, should we not also ban motorcycles? Smoking? Sun bathing? etcI won't flinch from this one, as I've challenged others.

I won't deny two wheels is less stable and less safe than four wheels.

A trained, responsible, and alert biker is safe. Yes, it takes more effort than driving a car.

The distinction between a responsible biker and smokers, sun bathers, drivers that don't wear seatbelts, etc, is everyone other than the biker is being reckless. I draw the line between an able person taking a calculated risk and others taking risks for no particular reason.

In the spirit of harmony I agree with everybody. For what it's worth I always wear a helmet, even on a bicycle.

In the spirit of harmony I agree with everybody. For what it's worth I always wear a helmet, even on a bicycle. OK, I'm switching to southerncannucks side. :D - Dale

Hi Dale:

___I one up you and nominate Southerncannuck for VP of the United States :)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Dale:

___I one up you and nominate Southerncannuck for VP of the United States :)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

LOL. Wayne you win and I'll second that nomination but I think he might not be eligible, that cannuck thing could get in the way. However Governor of his state of choice... I'll give him points for being a FLA resident. :flag: - Dale

I promise to be a benevolent meglamaniac.

Riding a motorcycle and any vehicle for that matter, on public roads is a priviledge, not a right. You can all fill in the blanks.

I ride a motorcycle and have for over 30 years. I've seen the dangers and had some close calls myself even having a tractor turn left in front of me once while I was passing him (driver never even looked beside or behind him before turning and said that was the second time that had happened to him that day) and I had to lay the bike down in order to keep from hitting him or possibly going underneath the tractor. Personally I can't understand anyone wanting to be on the highway without a helmet. Why should requiring a biker to wear a helmet be any different than requiring the driver or passenger in a car or truck to wear a seat belt?

I agree with whoever suggested training. I'm convinced real training would convince almost everyone to wear a seatbelt and helmet. Not everyone, I know, but nearly everyone.

I grew up not wearing a seat belt. Then one night I was driving about 40 to 50 mph on my way home on a 2 lane + 2 lane road, behind 2 cars. Suddenly the 2 cars veered apart, revealing a car pointed right at me. I managed to miss the drunk fool, but if I had been driving anything other than a Honda Prelude I might have rolled it. I missed her, but just barely... From that day on I wore a seat belt. I never remember until I'm on the road, but it's usually clicked within 15 seconds of starting out.

Before I ever bought a motorcycle, I saw some guy who was down. Don't know if he dumped or was hit, but he was pretty messed up. The paramedics were acting odd, but not treating him, maybe trying to figure out what to do. I don't know the specifics, but it was really creepy. Anyway, something I'll always remember, and makes me be careful.

My first time riding up in NH, I took off my helmet for a bit, just to see. It felt absurd. I stopped after a short time, and put it back on. Not more than a mile later, a huge beetle smacked right into the front of it. Gross... So glad I put it back on.

Anyway, my point is that I learned these lessons. I learned them by seeing something actual. Making people wear helmets is one way to do things. Showing people the actual carnage is another way, that I suspect would work quite well.

Before I ever bought a motorcycle, I saw some guy who was down. Don't know if he dumped or was hit, but he was pretty messed up. The paramedics were acting odd, but not treating him, maybe trying to figure out what to do. I don't know the specifics, but it was really creepy. Anyway, something I'll always remember, and makes me be careful.
Although I don't drive a motorcycle (maybe one day, still dreaming) I saw this once too, it was on a rural road with trees on each side. The biker drove way to fast and lost control. Smacked into one tree, and was catapulted into another. Paramedic arrived (I drove past just moments later) and they were all just standing there, some were clearing the motorcycle reck, and the body was quickly covered by a sheet, as was the side of the tree. I luckely didn't see it, but later I heard the guy wasn't wearing a helmet, and his brains and other organs found inside the skull, were all over the side of the tree.