Helmet Laws...For or Against?

[hawg]

Yeh, evil ain't it?

But what is the deal...are YOU for helmet laws or against helmet laws? Maybe Billy Omaha will set us up with a poll...

Let the fireworks begin! :eek:

[DavidTaylor]

I'm for personal safety and think people should wear helmets. I am against the government dictating helmet use.

[amarider]

For Helmets - Against Laws that protect you from yourself.

Oh and the Social Burden Theory doesn't wash.

[ATLDB]

I'm for personal safety and think people should wear helmets. I am against the government dictating helmet use.

Agreed 1000%. I am for Helmet use, I use it. But it should NOT be dictated

[DrGrabow]

Well, I'm pretty new here, but I'll weigh in on the helmet law stuff -

The problem with not having helmet laws is that people want their freedoms but *not* the responsibility that goes with it.

In my field, I see people all the time with head injuries after motorcycle accidents (Wyoming has no helmet law). Guess what? A huge number of them are on Medicaid, many unable to work afterwards, some just simply stiffed the hospital for their $200,000 in direct medical costs which included 2 weeks in the ICU and 3 weeks in the Rehab unit, along with long-term outpatient therapy. So who's responsible for their "freedom" - you and me. WE pay for it.

I'd be all for the freedom aspect of not having helmet laws if those who chose not to wear helmets had to 1) post a $1 million bond against their direct and indirect costs to society when they get their head injury, or 2) had to show enough assets to pay for themselves, rather than dump the bill on the taxpayers, or 3) carried an advance directive card that they demand no medical/rehab/etc. services in the case of a head injury (still doesn't solve the problem of their long-term cost to society when they can't work and go on state support for the rest of their lives, or 4) some other remedy I haven't though of yet :confused:

Also, we who wear helmets of course pay for those who don't with our insurance premiums too, and that's not fair. How about tiered insurance at the least with the higher premiums for those who don't wear a helmet?

But to demand your freedom and have the other insureds or the taxpayers pick up your tab when you crack your head open is hypocritical BS.

End of rant.

[Zotter]

I'm all for helmet use.

Along the lines of "You can't legislate morality" - you can't legislate evolution either.

Choice is good - making bad choices improves the species. Let 'em go. (Society seems to have lost the ability to learn such basics)

Parallel to that:
If a rider chooses to not wear a helmet, fine. However, by doing so, they aughta waive all Medicare/Medicade publicly funded health benefits/care. Idea is if you choose to ride lid-less, don't saddle society with vegetable maintenance when you scramble your mellon. To ride lid-less, you must have your own, full ride insurance. Your choice! Your consequences.

You make a choice that'll cost me, then I get to tell you what to do.

Choice is good - it's only effective when the consequences stay with that choice.

[Zotter]

Seriously - we didn't plan that! Check the post times.

I used to work in the ER in Laramie - maybe why we've some similar ideas, eh?

[hschisler]

I'm for personal safety and think people should wear helmets. I am against the government dictating helmet use.Right arm (sorry, a little 60s humor).

I also like the idea of posting a bond and/or paying a higher insurance premium if you don't wear a helmet. Yet, what will the docs and nurses do when a non-paying patient shows up in the ER with a massive injury -- not treat him? Let him bleed to death on the gurney in the hallway? That seems unlikely, and inhumane. There needs to be a way to reconcile their irresponsibility and our desire (or right) to not have to pay the consequences of their actions.

Interesting debate. Not sure if it can ever be solved. Maybe that's why there are helmet laws in some states. :confused:

[jorawro]

I too think that helmet use is a "no brainer";) and wouldn't think of riding with-out one, but question whether it should be law for those past the age of majority.
But------I question the logic of people who argue they "should pay for their own medical bills" or "should have to carry X million dollars in insurance". I frequently hear these same people saying that helmets save lives (they do !) so how much insurance coverage is required for a dead person ?:confused:

[BillyOmaha]

Howdy Dave,

Here is the POLL (http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10111) you asked for.

.

[hschisler]

Hmmm...lemme think about this. *Soapbox On* Here on the hurricane magnet peninsula I don't have to wear protective headgear while riding my motorcycle (as long as I'm 21 years of age or older and carry $10k worth of medical insurance coverage) but my kid is required by law to wear it while riding his bicycle. I am however required to buckle up when I'm in a car or truck. Where is the logic? *Soapbox Off* With that said, I am in total agreement with all of the previous posts. I have not/do not/will not ride without the protection of a helmet/hat/skid lid/brain bucket, but let me make that decision.

Mike
'06 K12LTGood points, sir. Another way of impacting this topic: we can refuse to ride with others who won't wear a helmet. I don't ride with many other people and have never been confronted with this question, but I think I'd back out of a group ride if 1 or more were not wearing helmets.

I liken it to my policy of not playing racquetball (when I used to play) with anyone not wearing eye protection. That wasn't my policy until I saw a guy in the locker room one time who did not have eye protection on; he took a return volley right smack in the old eyeball. Not a happy person; never did hear what happened to his vision in that eye.

[andy]

Well, I'm pretty new here, but I'll weigh in on the helmet law stuff -

The problem with not having helmet laws is that people want their freedoms but *not* the responsibility that goes with it.

In my field, I see people all the time with head injuries after motorcycle accidents (Wyoming has no helmet law). Guess what? A huge number of them are on Medicaid, many unable to work afterwards, some just simply stiffed the hospital for their $200,000 in direct medical costs which included 2 weeks in the ICU and 3 weeks in the Rehab unit, along with long-term outpatient therapy. So who's responsible for their "freedom" - you and me. WE pay for it.

I'd be all for the freedom aspect of not having helmet laws if those who chose not to wear helmets had to 1) post a $1 million bond against their direct and indirect costs to society when they get their head injury, or 2) had to show enough assets to pay for themselves, rather than dump the bill on the taxpayers, or 3) carried an advance directive card that they demand no medical/rehab/etc. services in the case of a head injury (still doesn't solve the problem of their long-term cost to society when they can't work and go on state support for the rest of their lives, or 4) some other remedy I haven't though of yet :confused:

Also, we who wear helmets of course pay for those who don't with our insurance premiums too, and that's not fair. How about tiered insurance at the least with the higher premiums for those who don't wear a helmet?

But to demand your freedom and have the other insureds or the taxpayers pick up your tab when you crack your head open is hypocritical BS.

End of rant.

Thank you, couldn't have said it any better.

[Ron82much]

Right arm (sorry, a little 60s humor).

I also like the idea of posting a bond and/or paying a higher insurance premium if you don't wear a helmet. Yet, what will the docs and nurses do when a non-paying patient shows up in the ER with a massive injury -- not treat him? Let him bleed to death on the gurney in the hallway? That seems unlikely, and inhumane. There needs to be a way to reconcile their irresponsibility and our desire (or right) to not have to pay the consequences of their actions.

Interesting debate. Not sure if it can ever be solved. Maybe that's why there are helmet laws in some states. :confused:

Let those who ride decide!

I wear one most of the time, sometimes I choose not to. The wife and I have recently decided that your average Masshole is encroaching further into NH (pardon the regional slur, it's aimed at driving style not locale ;) ) and we will be wearing helmets and jackets more often around home. It's a personal risk tolerance question.

As for the social burden thing...as soon as they start regulating McDonalds, KFC, and the like and institute the cholestorol control laws in order to contain health care costs I'll listen to the arguments about MC rider's relatively microscopic cost to the public.

[hschisler]

Let those who ride decide!...I think that's the side I came down on, but with a nagging/lingering doubt about just how to implement that. I'm with you.

You decide not to wear a helmet? Cool. Now take responsibility for that decision and post a bond, pay a higher insurance premium, or something similar -- and reasonable.

[dshealey]

-------------
As for the social burden thing...as soon as they start regulating McDonalds, KFC, and the like and institute the cholestorol control laws in order to contain health care costs I'll listen to the arguments about MC rider's relatively microscopic cost to the public.

Now that strikes me as totally irrelevent.

That in no way relates to whether one should be required to wear a helmet or not. It would equate to NOT SELLING MOTORCYCLES! Or, you can sell a motorcycle but it must be sold WITH a DOT approved helmet. If you decice to buy a high cholesterol hamburger, then eat it, or a motorcycle (with helmet) and decide to ride without the helmet, YOU are responsible for the circumstances, not the company who sold it to you.

Why do we still have cigarettes? Then we end up with the total idiots who then sue the companies for health care when they get cancer!

[amarider]

If someone has hard numbers to post about the Social Burden of Motorcyclist injuries without helmets - then site it.

I don't believe that the Social Burden Theory holds up in the big picture.
Hard numbers from the AMA - http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp
Read it all the way through.

For me it's the greater of two evils - There is always going to be some social burden in a free capitalist society.
I'll always support Helmet use but never support Helmet Laws for Adults.

[dshealey]

I have to be one of the few who fall on the side of helmet laws.

I have never understood the "thinking" of those who state that it "only affects me". Total BS!

I would fully support any workable way that any negative result that would have been greatly affected by a good helmet should be paid for by the perpetrator. But I also know that would be almost impossible to do, so the only reasonable enforceable option is to make helmets mandatory for everyone.

Maybe a world wide law that states "Everyone other than Al Qaeda members must wear DOT approved helmets when riding a motorcycle". :D

[Zotter]

Some insurance companies are going the route of 'discouraging' poor health practices. These days of ever rising health costs, folks're getting their rates jacked or policies dropped if their eating/behavior choices put them 'outside the acceptable group'. There's a lot of state by state law invovled, so it's tough to make 'blanket' statements about who and how - but if you ain't seen it yet, get ready.

And yes - these viwepoints are very much USA centric. Interesting to note that those countries with publicly funded health care do require skid lids. They also have the injury statistics to support that action.

ERs - that take any form of public funding at least - are required to treat any and every patient that walks in the door. That is the law now. We'll start another thread someday to talk about the 'System Abusers' that use ERs as their primary care providers.

May also want to take a look at the 'public burdon' of un-insured head injury patients. The expense is mind-boggling. 'Heart attack' patients are flip'n CHEAP by comparison.

[messenger13]

I think insurance companies should give a discount to helmet wearers. And if you get into an accident without your helmet on and head trauma results...than your coverage is compromised (i.e. 60% coverage, instead of 90%). Make non-helmet riders PAY for their actions. Furthermore, they (or a family member) should have to wash their brains off the street! :(

[BillyOmaha]

... http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp
Read it all the way through.
....Howdy John,

I did read it and I haven't made the social cost argument.

I pulled this from the article, which I believe to be the crux of the AMA position, "The AMA opposes provisions conditioning rider choice of helmet use on economic criteria such as, but not limited to, additional insurance coverage, which is based on the negative and incorrect view that motorcyclists are a social burden. The AMA believes accepting such requirements is contrary to the long-term interests of motorcycling. The Association further believes that helmet use alone is insufficient to ensure a motorcyclist's safety. There is a broad range of other measures that can be implemented to improve the skill of motorcycle operators as well as reduce the frequency of situations where other vehicle operators are the cause of accidents involving motorcycles."


So, let me see if I understand:

1- The AMA wants to spend money (money from my membership) to tell insurance companies that they can not charge me more in premiums because a rider chooses to not wear a helmet? Common sense tells any reasonable person that two riders, one with a helmet and one without, in identical accidents where they both survive, the one with the helmet is going to cost less. Of course the rider not wearing a helmet that dies is a lot cheaper for the insurance company, but who wants to stand on a soap box and make that argument?


2- The AMA says that avoidance of an accident is better than protection during an accident, which we'd all agree with. But then they say, therefore don't bother with protection go for prevention. Huh? So a pilot in a fighter plane doesn't need to wear a parachute because he should simply avoid having to bail out. Stuff happens, all the education in the world won't keep gravel out of the road, or grandma from making a left in front of a motorcycle. But the helmet will mitigate the injuries.

The AMA position is a popular opinion argument based on logic that is erroneous.

.

[Zotter]

Here ya go John - section 6

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

EDIT: Oops! Wrong section - see section 7!

[eljeffe]

I'm for personal safety and think people should wear helmets. I am against the government dictating helmet use.

BINGO!

[rixchard]

Two questions:

Are you willing to waive all publicly funded assistance for any medical bills resulting from head injuries for those who choose to ride without a helmet?


Are you willing to allow the insurance company to raise your rates to what they think is acceptble to deal with the added expense?

[amarider]

Here ya go John - section 6

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

EDIT: Oops! Wrong section - see section 7!

That's a benfit I would have never thought of - Less Motorcycle theft.....
But I find that the Hard numbers in section 7 interesting, only a 8 percent increase in cost for unhelmeted injuries which equated only to a $1201 increase.

Not that anyone should have to pay for anyone elses stupidty, but I would rather start with welfare, drug user health costs ect.

[andy]

Maybe something like in some European countries would work (as a deterrent). "If you don't wear a helmet all your insurance fly out the window. Not only if you are at fault, but also if you are NOT at fault. in not wearing a helmet you actually contributed to the accident and to the seriousness of the accident and therefore the insurances go free"

That goes so far as to: You get hurt at your foot in an accident were you are NOt at fault but weren't wearing your helmet, so even the insurance of the party at fault goes free since you opted to "contribute" to the seriousness of the accident.

I can tell you for a fact, once this was the case in Austria everybody VERY quickly started wearing helmets. I don't know what the situation is today but back when this law went into effect helmets were not mandated, but you lost ALL your rights as a victim if you didn't wear you helmet.

[KBandit]

i saw some stats once on the social financial burden from helmetless accidents. the financial costs are a drop in the bucket compared to the effect of things like:

- smoking cigarettes
- being overweight
- shunning exercise
- eating sweets

so the question is ... are you willing to deny insurance coverage to people who fall in these categories too? their financial burden on you greatly outweigh anything helmetless motorcyclists could possibly inflict.

[motorman587]

All states have some sort of seatbelt law, what is the difference with helmets that make persons so uptight???

[rixchard]

Works for me. Let's see personal choice folks put up or shut up

[rixchard]

There are more of us than you think

[rixchard]

So you want to start with the stuff that does not touch your pocketbook first. Well if you don't look out for number one, who will, eh?

[rixchard]

I would say his logic is flawed if he is truly thinks the judgement skills of children to be on par with adults.

[lnowell]

[QUOTE=dshealey]I have to be one of the few who fall on the side of helmet laws.

I have never understood the "thinking" of those who state that it "only affects me". Total BS! [QUOTE]


I agree with a helmet law also. A real one.

There is a helmet law in Georgia, but according to local law enforcement officers - it seems that when the state legislature passed the law, it required the Georgia State Patrol to formulate a list of approved helmets for wear in the State. Then this same legislature decided not to fund the State Patrol for preparation of said list of approved helmets. So, what we have is a law that seem to require that a rider must wear something on their head whilst riding / operating a motorcycle. In Georgia, it would be interesting to find out the percentage of riders that use actual DOT (not brain buckets with a purchased DOT label) helmets.

How many times can I vote in the survey?

[amarider]

All states have some sort of seatbelt law, what is the difference with helmets that make persons so uptight???

one word...............

Passion!

I've been on both sides of this and around more times than I can remember. In my younger days I was all for social good of all. As with many I became more conserative with age about over Legislation.
I see both sides of this and lean ever so slightly toward freedom of choice.
One thing is for sure - I've never seen anyone change their mind about this subject no matter what is said.

[messenger13]

All states have some sort of seatbelt law, what is the difference with helmets that make persons so uptight???People that don't wear helmets are morons. There's no rationalizing with them, or their behavior. You know...they're born to be wild and all. :rolleyes:

[JDW]

I am new to this board. I always wear a helmet and proper clothing. Just recently bought an 03 LT. Some things I have a hard time keeping quiet about and this is one of them. It pains me to see some dude on a bike with his young son on the back both in shorts and no helmet, but i dont think I have the right to impose my opinions about riding. Maybe we should have every facet of our lives legislated and taxed. Just about is now. I agree that the cost to society argument doesnt wash. It is the insurance lobbyists that are always trying to get helmet laws passed.

[Tat_n_Telle]

I'm all for helmet use.

Along the lines of "You can't legislate morality" - you can't legislate evolution either.

Choice is good - making bad choices improves the species. Let 'em go. (Society seems to have lost the ability to learn such basics)

Parallel to that:
If a rider chooses to not wear a helmet, fine. However, by doing so, they aughta waive all Medicare/Medicade publicly funded health benefits/care. Idea is if you choose to ride lid-less, don't saddle society with vegetable maintenance when you scramble your mellon. To ride lid-less, you must have your own, full ride insurance. Your choice! Your consequences.

You make a choice that'll cost me, then I get to tell you what to do.

Choice is good - it's only effective when the consequences stay with that choice.

I agree with your ideas, BUT (and there's always one of those, isn't there?):

Here in Massachusetts we have had a mandatory helmet law in place for as long as I can remember. So, to get around it, a lot of riders wear beanie caps - non DOT approved cheap fiberglass salad bowls with a chin strap usually worn so loosely the helmet is flapping behind your head when on the highway. Occasionally, you'll get stopped and ticketed (I was, twice) and you go to court and beat it (I did, twice).
Would that beanie have saved me in a crash? Highly doubtful, since it fell off my bike seat once and cracked in two when it hit the pavement (I held it together with duct tape in order to get home "legally") So, would wearing something as useless as that allow me to ride without my million dollar coverage? If I crashed and they had to pick bits of my helmet out of my cracked skull, would they still have to pay my medical and recovery costs?

This may sound crude, but the only way to get around the cost of caring for someone who chooses not to wear a helmet is to somehow assure they only crash with sufficient force to kill them before the ambulance arrives.

Just my $.02

[Tallyho]

I just know my comm system would be worthless without a helmet. I have to go back to yelling at the pillion, blasting the radio, using a hand mike for the CB, holding my cellphone up to my head, and wearing earplugs. Think of all the money I would have saved on farkles and convenience if I had just moved to Wyoming and bought a doo-rag.;)

[amarider]

I posted a Companion Poll - Why do you wear a helmet - in the poll section with Billy's poll.
Just want to see why we wear the helmet or not, besides why we support helmet laws or not.

[petepeterson]

How can ya'll holler about medical cost for the guy without the helmet.......

Dr grabow that $200,000. bill is full retail for treatment to someone without insurance,, People with insurance especially group insurance don't get the $200,000. bill because they have a prior agreement with the hospitals to only pay wholesale.. My insurance pays what they consider is a reasonable amount, the hospital writes off part of the bill and I pay a small co-payment..
So the argument about cost on medical bills is bogus, nobodies insurance has gone up due to the cost of motorcycle accidents... Heres a FACT for you,, More people are killed or injured percentage wise in automobiles than on motorcycles due to head injures.. So if ya want to call for people to wear helmets or waiver their insurance due the same to cage drivers, that is where the money is spent....

That quarterback would have gotten the same injures with or without a helmet,, Maybe .. If he would have had a full face helmet on he would have had some protection, but a 3/4 or 1/2 helmet on would not have stopped any of his injures...

Anyway I'm all for helmets I wear one just like my seat belt but I hate the law telling me I must wear one.. One of these days they will tell us what kind of razors to use so we don't hurt ourselves:rolleyes: ...........Regards Pete

[BUGKILLER]

Years ago I used to donate time and supplies to a head injury institute in California. They trained people with head injuries to enter the food service and hospitalities industries. The vast majority of young adults had injuries as a kid from bicycles hitting parked cars ,fences or street lite poles and slamming their heads onto the object crushing the frontal lobe. Many rumored to have actually been abused as a child and shaken or struck, the parents used the accident as an excuse.Unfortunately mandatory helmet laws for bicycles on kids didn't statistically change the situation very much.Granted some kids don't wear them,others wear them incorrectly etc.

The argument that motor cycle helmets save lives is correct but to what percentages.If they want to save all motorcycle lives will they stop until they ban the motorcycle completely. If we are to argue the life saving aspect where will the legislation end.

The statistical argument will be debated forever...Cigarettes,booze and greasy food killing many more than are killed on motor cycles without helmets. Leave it up to the individual and let nature thin the heard.

[GeorgeS]

This is really an non-issue in Canada, every province and territory has a mandatory helmet law, I can't remember the last time I saw someone riding without one, It must have a DOT approval on it so easy enforcement, Even the H.A. wear them here. We have universal health care so the gov't has a financial as well as a moral obligation for helmet use. I can't remember any fellow Canadian motorcyclist complaining about "having to wear one" I think its more of a European bias culture here of freedom vs. societal obligation.

[KBandit]

We have universal health care.


oh sure ... go ahead and rub it in.

BTW ... do you know when my prescription will be ready?

[BUGKILLER]

Right arm (sorry, a little 60s humor).

I also like the idea of posting a bond and/or paying a higher insurance premium if you don't wear a helmet. Yet, what will the docs and nurses do when a non-paying patient shows up in the ER with a massive injury -- not treat him? Let him bleed to death on the gurney in the hallway? That seems unlikely, and inhumane. There needs to be a way to reconcile their irresponsibility and our desire (or right) to not have to pay the consequences of their actions.

Interesting debate. Not sure if it can ever be solved. Maybe that's why there are helmet laws in some states. :confused:

Didn't they do something like that in Florida in 2000-2001? If you wanted to ride without a helmet you paid a higher ins premium. Does anyone from Florida know if this is true and how did it turn out?

[Stan]

I'm sure big Ben R from the Steelers is thinking a bit more about riding with a helmet today. PA's law is anyone over 21 doesn't have to wear a helmet. Sounds like the Superbowl MVP would have had relatively minor injuries with a helmet on his head instead of an oversized ego.

Stan

01LTC (MAUVLUS)
Laake Tahoe

[Hunter20]

What is the difference between a seatbelt law for drivers and passengers and a helmet law that states....wear one?

Both infringe on my "free spirit" to drive my car or my motorcycle......

Financial burden......personal choice.....it's just hot here in the southwest.....all of these are ridiculous arguments.....is our government sooooooooooo bad that a simple law that says "wear a helmet you dumbass motorcycle rider"....so you don't wreck your head 37% as bad....completely crazy?Z!@

We all agree on one thing.....wearing a helmet = smart. Why is it that we aren't up in arms about seatbelt laws or laws that say....drive 55MPH....if we all just took personal responsibility for our actions.....

World don't work that way.....nice theory...but it don't.....mandate the use.

Course....why do i really care....i wear mine....so what doesn't affect me....shouldn't concern me!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? That's what reading most of these post leads me to believe....

[BUGKILLER]

Well, I'm pretty new here, but I'll weigh in on the helmet law stuff -

The problem with not having helmet laws is that people want their freedoms but *not* the responsibility that goes with it.

In my field, I see people all the time with head injuries after motorcycle accidents (Wyoming has no helmet law). Guess what? A huge number of them are on Medicaid, many unable to work afterwards, some just simply stiffed the hospital for their $200,000 in direct medical costs which included 2 weeks in the ICU and 3 weeks in the Rehab unit, along with long-term outpatient therapy. So who's responsible for their "freedom" - you and me. WE pay for it.

I'd be all for the freedom aspect of not having helmet laws if those who chose not to wear helmets had to 1) post a $1 million bond against their direct and indirect costs to society when they get their head injury, or 2) had to show enough assets to pay for themselves, rather than dump the bill on the taxpayers, or 3) carried an advance directive card that they demand no medical/rehab/etc. services in the case of a head injury (still doesn't solve the problem of their long-term cost to society when they can't work and go on state support for the rest of their lives, or 4) some other remedy I haven't though of yet :confused:

Also, we who wear helmets of course pay for those who don't with our insurance premiums too, and that's not fair. How about tiered insurance at the least with the higher premiums for those who don't wear a helmet?

But to demand your freedom and have the other insureds or the taxpayers pick up your tab when you crack your head open is hypocritical BS.

End of rant.

I think the statistical link to medicaid or other public funding healthcare would be more for people at the bottom of the economical ladder who ride a bike full time because they have too.Lower payments or initial investment in a bike,lower gas bills etc.These people along with younger people and students are more likely to opt not to buy health insurance and only purchase the minimum coverage for the bike. These are the people that end up on the public dime for healthcare. As opposed to the older weekend warrior with a fully decked out bike and all the gear and insurance. Helmet or not if I end up in the ER the bill is getting paid.
I am for helmets as well as the choice to wear them.
Charging people more who don't wear a helmet will only fly with me if healthcare insurers charge more to smokers,drinkers and fat people. I am paying for them in my premiums every month.
I also think if you don't wear a helmet you should automatically be put on the organ donor list .
By the way..Welcome DrGrabow!

[BUGKILLER]

What is the difference between a seatbelt law for drivers and passengers and a helmet law that states....wear one?

Both infringe on my "free spirit" to drive my car or my motorcycle......

Financial burden......personal choice.....it's just hot here in the southwest.....all of these are ridiculous arguments.....is our government sooooooooooo bad that a simple law that says "wear a helmet you dumbass motorcycle rider"....so you don't wreck your head 37% as bad....completely crazy?Z!@

We all agree on one thing.....wearing a helmet = smart. Why is it that we aren't up in arms about seatbelt laws or laws that say....drive 55MPH....if we all just took personal responsibility for our actions.....

World don't work that way.....nice theory...but it don't.....mandate the use.

Course....why do i really care....i wear mine....so what doesn't affect me....shouldn't concern me!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? That's what reading most of these post leads me to believe....

Decaf coffee tomorrow amigo and maybe get a cat to pet. :D

Had I not lived in Phoenix,Arizona and collapsed on a bike at an intersection in 130 degree heat from a helmet that had to be cut off of my head ,your argument might hold water. That's why we leave it up to the states to work out these situations.
You bet the trucking industry and drivers had heated arguments when the 55 mph went into effect. We all get involved with the issues that effect us.
The seat belt issue is an easy one to swallow,the only real argument is that it wrinkled clothing.Air bags on the other hand was disputed by the auto industry because it forced expensive retooling and production cost on them and didn't add customer appeal value for quite some time after introduction.

[ben1364]

Yeh, evil ain't it?

But what is the deal...are YOU for helmet laws or against helmet laws? Maybe Billy Omaha will set us up with a poll...

Let the fireworks begin! :eek:

I generally stand on the side of fewer laws of any type as most are passed for political reasons and subsequently ignored. I would prefer that there be on law regarding helmet use but concede that this is a case that may warrant a law, provided it is enforced. My reason is that taxpayers and insureds pay a tremendous price to care for irresponsible people.

[ben1364]

For Helmets - Against Laws that protect you from yourself.

Oh and the Social Burden Theory doesn't wash.


Please explain.

[ben1364]

Maybe something like in some European countries would work (as a deterrent). "If you don't wear a helmet all your insurance fly out the window. Not only if you are at fault, but also if you are NOT at fault. in not wearing a helmet you actually contributed to the accident and to the seriousness of the accident and therefore the insurances go free"

That goes so far as to: You get hurt at your foot in an accident were you are NOt at fault but weren't wearing your helmet, so even the insurance of the party at fault goes free since you opted to "contribute" to the seriousness of the accident.

I can tell you for a fact, once this was the case in Austria everybody VERY quickly started wearing helmets. I don't know what the situation is today but back when this law went into effect helmets were not mandated, but you lost ALL your rights as a victim if you didn't wear you helmet.

Andy,
Good idea but the ACLU isn't active in Europe. <g>

[amarider]

Please explain.

I did - page two of this thread.

[BUGKILLER]

I generally stand on the side of fewer laws of any type as most are passed for political reasons and subsequently ignored. I would prefer that there be on law regarding helmet use but concede that this is a case that may warrant a law, provided it is enforced. My reason is that taxpayers and insureds pay a tremendous price to care for irresponsible people.

Do you believe that same rule should apply to smoking, alcohol and fatty foods? The numbers are staggering regarding health care associated with those three areas of our American lifestyle. Motorcycle head injuries and it's impact on everyone else is a drop in the bucket compared to the others.
I do agree that "less laws the better". Save them for the criminal activities.

[Ron82much]

All states have some sort of seatbelt law, what is the difference with helmets that make persons so uptight???

Seatbelt laws suck too.

[k12steve]

I'm sure big Ben R from the Steelers is thinking a bit more about riding with a helmet today. PA's law is anyone over 21 doesn't have to wear a helmet. Sounds like the Superbowl MVP would have had relatively minor injuries with a helmet on his head instead of an oversized ego.

Stan

01LTC (MAUVLUS)
Laake Tahoe

Sorry, but broken jaw and nose are EXACTLY the injuries he would receive had he done the same face plant with an open face helmet.

[k12steve]

Please explain.

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ourplace/Biker/burden.htm
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ourplace/Biker/aprilama.htm
http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp
http://www.mrf.org/pdf/WhitePapers/Volume7-2000/MoreSocialBurdenFallacy.pdf

So, there are some facts. Bottom line, like it or not, motorcyclist, as a percentage are LESS liable to be a "burden on society" than other road trauma victims.

I challenge any "burden to society" advocates to refute the above data.

[dsidler]

I am against laws such as helmet laws, but on the other hand maybe we need helmet laws to protect the IDIOTS from themselves. I wonder if Rothlisberger will wear a helmet if and when he gets on a bike again.

And I wouldn't be here today if not for the helmet I was wearing when I went down.

[rickcavanaugh]

Kind of funny. Most on this board argue ATTGATT but are against helmet laws. Not me, I am most of the gear some of the time.

In Maryland it seems those who are against helmets say they are unsafe and thus wear the "beanie" helmets that state "For Novelty Use Only" on the inside.

I don't like Government creating any more laws. We have enough. But don't pull money out of my pocket for head traumas on someone who did not wear the helmet. It is their choice and it is my choice not to pay for their medical care.

It is just ashame that people with very little riding experience don't wear them.

Hey You have to look cool!

[dshealey]

----------- But don't pull money out of my pocket for head traumas on someone who did not wear the helmet. It is their choice and it is my choice not to pay for their medical care. -------------

Unfortunately, you have not choice, you are already paying for it. That money does not come out of thin air, there are numerous hands already pulling it from your pocket. WE are ALL paying it. They are too, but not any more than the rest of us are, probably less in many cases (no insurance) which is the sore point.

[Ron82much]

Now that strikes me as totally irrelevent.

That in no way relates to whether one should be required to wear a helmet or not. It would equate to NOT SELLING MOTORCYCLES! Or, you can sell a motorcycle but it must be sold WITH a DOT approved helmet. If you decice to buy a high cholesterol hamburger, then eat it, or a motorcycle (with helmet) and decide to ride without the helmet, YOU are responsible for the circumstances, not the company who sold it to you.

Why do we still have cigarettes? Then we end up with the total idiots who then sue the companies for health care when they get cancer!

I think it was a perfectly valid answer to the many calls for helmet laws based on "social burden" issues, the cost of helmetless riders to the public is a drop in the bucket relative to the overall damage to society caused by fastfood and irresponsible eating habits. I didn't equate it to banning fast food...I equated it with CONTROLLING fast food, it could be mandating fat levels, requiring certified cholesterol tests prior to purchase, whatever. Putting legal controls on the consumption of food would save FAR more lives than helmet laws. The difference is everyone eats and the majority (apparently) likes to eat badly and risk killing themselves doing it (however slowly) so no such controls would ever pass muster. So we let those who eat decide. Millions do it, it just takes years to die from it.

The only real argument is one of protecting me from myself while doing something you consider a "stupid" risk under your personal value system which you would impose on me.

The social burden arguments are red herrings thrown out to add (percieved) weight to the social engineering aspect of helmet laws, ones with relatively insignificant impact on the public compared to so many other issues.

I think time and effort would be MUCH better spent trying to make the roads safer FOR motorcycling rather than on this issue. Let's see all motorcyclists answer the call for helmet laws with a counter-call for stiff penalties for those who violate OUR rights! Call for studies into how to design roads and create laws that make the NEED for a helmet a little less (please don't latch onto that one, I said a LITTLE). Not wearing a helmet results in more injuries but what about the cause of the CRASH! Let's address that, helmet or no if there were less crashes there would be less injuries to start with. Mandate rider training, mandate motorcycle awareness and a basic understanding of motorcycles at the conceptual level for ALL drivers so that they know what we are up against and have at least a feeling of familiarity with the subject. Why not use these calls as an opportunity to bring the REAL danger to motorcylcists into the public eye rather than help bolster those who would push us over the slippery slope toward a total ban on motorcycles? The AMA has already fought off several instances of health insurance bias where riding a motorcycle negated ALL coverage! (strangely enough, Sturm-Ruger was a company with just such a policy, imagine that...a fire arms manufacturer condoning insurance discrimination against "dangerous pastimes"!)

Are you going to support mandatory CE armor? Is an ATGATT law OK with everyone that supports helmet laws? How about Rev limits and governors? Once helmet laws and the loud pipe issues are solved what do you think will be next? A ban on bikes won't happen at once, and it may not happen at all, BUT if it moves in that direction you're going to be looking for all the helmeted, stock piped, formerly loud but still slow cruiser riders to help defend your right to ride a 180+ MPH capable sport bike because I can assure you that is where it will go next! Look down that slippery slope with truly objective eyes and tell me what you see. I'm not asking anyone to condone my choice to ride with the sun on my head and wind in my hair, I'm asking you to defend my right to be stupid because your brand of stupidity might be next...seems like that's about as American a request as I could make.

Oh, if the above DOES happen someday...don't come running to me ;) (I'll save the wise-asses the trouble...) That is if I haven't already died in a 20mph get off because I didn't have a helmet on...REAL constructive commentary)

[DrGrabow]

Some have said the "societal costs" argument doesn't wash in favor of helmet laws. Just a few "fun facts" to chew on:

Cost Savings

Analysis of linked data for three states with universal helmet laws in the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have been almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000.
A number of studies have been conducted that compare hospital costs for helmeted and nonhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. They have found unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes.
The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as nonbrain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the unhelmeted motorcycle inpatients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.75 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs are not included.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $669 million in 1998 alone. An additional $454 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $12.1 billion in economic costs from 1984 to 1998. An additional $10.4 billion would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets during the same time period.
In Louisiana, the average cost per motorcycle crash decreased by 48 percent from 1981 to 1982, the first year of its helmet use law. Dramatic differences were found in hospital stay lengths between helmeted and nonhelmeted riders.


Let the debate rage!

[KBandit]

Some have said the "societal costs" argument doesn't wash in favor of helmet laws. Just a few "fun facts" to chew on:

Cost Savings

Analysis of linked data for three states with universal helmet laws in the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have been almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000.
A number of studies have been conducted that compare hospital costs for helmeted and nonhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. They have found unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes.
The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as nonbrain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the unhelmeted motorcycle inpatients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.75 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs are not included.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $669 million in 1998 alone. An additional $454 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $12.1 billion in economic costs from 1984 to 1998. An additional $10.4 billion would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets during the same time period.
In Louisiana, the average cost per motorcycle crash decreased by 48 percent from 1981 to 1982, the first year of its helmet use law. Dramatic differences were found in hospital stay lengths between helmeted and nonhelmeted riders.


Let the debate rage!

dear doctor ... what would you guess the savings would be if we could outlaw cigarettes tomorrow? or alcohol?

[dsidler]

ANd how about the social burden and rising insurance costs for the rest of us, for taking care of all the illegal and even legal immigrants in our emergency rooms. The emergency rooms here are full of them, and I'd bet my pension check that they aren't paying their own bills.

[Ron82much]

Some have said the "societal costs" argument doesn't wash in favor of helmet laws. Just a few "fun facts" to chew on:

Cost Savings

Analysis of linked data for three states with universal helmet laws in the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have been almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000.
A number of studies have been conducted that compare hospital costs for helmeted and nonhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. They have found unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes.
The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as nonbrain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the unhelmeted motorcycle inpatients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.75 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs are not included.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $669 million in 1998 alone. An additional $454 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $12.1 billion in economic costs from 1984 to 1998. An additional $10.4 billion would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets during the same time period.
In Louisiana, the average cost per motorcycle crash decreased by 48 percent from 1981 to 1982, the first year of its helmet use law. Dramatic differences were found in hospital stay lengths between helmeted and nonhelmeted riders.


Let the debate rage!

Impressive numbers when taken as an aggregate...however it isn't a debate until you cite the other half of the data...the total cost to society of other, more common and preventable illnesses and death that we all pay for...obesity, smoking, you name it. I reasonably sure it dwarfs the cost of ALL motorcycle related injury costs.

[DrGrabow]

Now, of course, you can argue that this agency has an agenda and is only presenting facts that support their position, but those in favor of personal "freedom" in the form of no helmet laws might just take a look at:


NHTSA (http://nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/21qp/html/fact_sheets/Motorcycle_Helmet.html)

I personally think that we legislate against stupidity all the time (deadman switches on lawnmowers come immediately to mind) so why the uproar over helmets? I believe the societal costs ARE significant and I for one don't want to keep paying for someone else's stupidity! As for the arguments about fast food, smoking, and obesity, well, yeah, it would be nice if I didn't have to pay for that either! But, we're here to talk about helmets not solve every problem in the world. Not much of an argument either that we have to solve the other problems like smoking before requiring helmets.

Regarding the direct healthcare costs, whether someone has Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, HMO, etc - the costs of the hospital, drugs, physicians, nurses, support staff, etc., etc. are the SAME to society and the dollars have to be paid no matter how they're spread around with copays and writeoffs and cost shifting. I still pay for other people's stupidity every day...

Thanks for listening!

[DrGrabow]

Impressive numbers when taken as an aggregate...however it isn't a debate until you cite the other half of the data...the total cost to society of other, more common and preventable illnesses and death that we all pay for...obesity, smoking, you name it. I reasonably sure it dwarfs the cost of ALL motorcycle related injury costs.

Not trying to be disrespectful, but it's not much of an argument to say that you shouldn't try to solve one problem just because bigger problems also exist ...

[DrGrabow]

dear doctor ... what would you guess the savings would be if we could outlaw cigarettes tomorrow? or alcohol?

I think the cost savings would be fantastic. But again, what kind of argument is it to turn away from solving one problem (helmetless riders) because other, larger problems also exist??? What's that rationale? I'd LOVE to have the true costs of alcohol and cigarettes borne by those who consume them!

[KBandit]

I personally think that we legislate against stupidity all the time (deadman switches on lawnmowers come immediately to mind) so why the uproar over helmets?

i can't speak for everyone but the reason for MY uproar is that i know a slippery slope when i see one. thanks to several popular U.S. stereotypes, the public at large is inclined to dislike motorcycles and will readily support legislation that curbs what they see as an intrinsically dangerous activity. today it's helmet laws, tomorrow it's horsepower restrictions. then airbags. then engine size. and on and on.

you see where this is going, don'cha? it won't be long before motorcycles as we know them will be outlawed. they are, after all, a noisy nuisance that we would all be much better off without.

my opinion.

[DrGrabow]

I'm personally most sickened by the data about minors not wearing helmets, and especially when I see adults taking kids out on motorcycles without the kids having helmets.

Anyway, after reviewing my last few posts, looks like I've gotten a bit strident and I just want to say that I'm not trying to offend anyone. Hey, I'm new here and just jumped in :)

I'm just going to step aside now before I tick off too many people ...

:) :) :)

[tkramer]

... a lot of riders wear beanie caps - non DOT approved cheap fiberglass salad bowls with a chin strap usually worn so loosely the helmet is flapping behind your head when on the highway.

I've always wondered at what the point of such "novelty" headgear is. If you're going to strain yourself lifting a helmet to your crainuim and buckling a strap under your chin, why not just substitute a DOT approved bowl or open-face. Heck, even a bicycling helmet would make more sense.

It reminds me. I had a neighbor in Colorado ( helmets optional ) who, I kid you not, would ride around on his H-D FLXYZ with a tophat tied on with a shoe lace.

What a dandy!

[Tat_n_Telle]

I've always wondered at what the point of such "novelty" headgear is.

Mostly, it was to keep 99% of the police officers from busting your chops about not wearing any helmet at all. You also didn't have to worry too much about someone stealing it off your bike. Usually, a helmet sticker saying "Owner has head lice" would do the trick. If it did get stolen, you were out 20 bucks instead of hundreds.

[the1mavin]

I'm all for helmets or whatever safety gear you CHOOSE to wear and totally against any laws mandating what must be worn.
Tim

[Dick]

Unfortunately, you have not choice, you are already paying for it. That money does not come out of thin air, there are numerous hands already pulling it from your pocket. WE are ALL paying it. They are too, but not any more than the rest of us are, probably less in many cases (no insurance) which is the sore point.
I've posted this sometime way in the past, butt FWIW, here it 'tis again.

When I first bought ole Toad and applied for insurance, I selected Med Pay for an additional policy premium of $71.00/yr. After a coupla years, my renewal policy showed the same Med Pay limits, butt the premium tripled to $215.00/yr. I inquired of my agent - "whazzup with this"; he said to the effect - "the Tejas helmet law wuz repealed and now you can ride without one"!!!!!!!! :eek: :confused:

And he's a biker!! :rolleyes: We both surmised the insurance companies recognize that their risk exposure and liability, in the event of a get-off with injuries to an insured, wuz increased at the advent of the helmet law repeal.

I'm not positive that the triple premium is justified, nor that a portion of what I pay is for someone else's injuries. Butt if their actuaries are any good, it certainly figgers that related data obtained before and after the repeal is used in their Med Pay premium promulgation. And of course, along with many other risk factors.

Would the insurance companies lower the Med Pay premium if Tejas passes a helmet law now? Comedic question, folks!! :D :D

[flyby]

Do you object to mandatory seat belt laws? Frankly, I don't see the difference between the two.

[hschisler]

Anyway, after reviewing my last few posts, looks like I've gotten a bit strident and I just want to say that I'm not trying to offend anyone. Hey, I'm new here and just jumped in :)

I'm just going to step aside now before I tick off too many people ...

:) :) :)Don't go away on this or any other topic. From your first post to your 8,000th, one of the hallmarks of this site IMO is that an opinion is welcome and 99.999% respected. When a friendly jab or mock-disrespect is intended for the sake of humor you'll see an emoticon. Usually. :D

[mwnahas]

I was against a seat belt law. I got in the habit of before you start the engine, taught me by my flight instructor. I was against a helmet law. Always wore one, always will. I felt it was nobody's business to tell me to do it.

That was yesterday.

Until someone you love decides since "its not a rule to wear" one so I won't, and gets into an accident. Now I find myself wishing for something to make them protect themselves. Sad I know.

[charlieg]

i can't speak for everyone but the reason for MY uproar is that i know a slippery slope when i see one. thanks to several popular U.S. stereotypes, the public at large is inclined to dislike motorcycles and will readily support legislation that curbs what they see as an intrinsically dangerous activity. today it's helmet laws, tomorrow it's horsepower restrictions. then airbags. then engine size. and on and on.

you see where this is going, don'cha? it won't be long before motorcycles as we know them will be outlawed. they are, after all, a noisy nuisance that we would all be much better off without.

my opinion.

Gerhard, I agree about the slippery slope. Politicians will jump on any easy target. We as motorcyclists are in the minority so the "elected officals" can look good to the masses by beating us up. As the previous posts have stated the social impact of unhelmeted riders is miniscule compared to the overweight, out of shape, lazy a$$ general public. This thread and it's social value is a microcosm of our society, the save us from ourselves mentality. I wear most of the gear most of the time but I always wear my hat. I just don't believe such things as helmets, seatbelts, overeating or smoking should be controlled by big brother. -Chuck-

[tmgs]

Yeh, evil ain't it?

But what is the deal...are YOU for helmet laws or against helmet laws? Maybe Billy Omaha will set us up with a poll...

Let the fireworks begin! :eek:


I'm not for any laws that effect choice, however, if it impacts others finacially yes.

BTW HAWG Give me a call will ya, I need some info for my Cannon A-1 that and you really need to get here quickly before these baby hawks leave the area!

Tom

[bwbcpa]

Figure this out, when I got back into riding after being off motorcycles for 20 years, the first thing I did was sign up for a rider safety course taught by the Arkansas chapter of ABATE. One of the main things they hammered you on was wearing your helmet - in fact, they spent thirty minutes just showing how you should properly put the helmet on and secure it before you were allowed to even mount your training bike. Five years ago, when Arkansas considered removing the mandatory helmet law, guess who was the loudest lobby in favor of repealing the law - ABATE of Arkansas! We ride with helmets.

[UncleRock]

Well, I'm pretty new here, but I'll weigh in on the helmet law stuff -

The problem with not having helmet laws is that people want their freedoms but *not* the responsibility that goes with it.

In my field, I see people all the time with head injuries after motorcycle accidents (Wyoming has no helmet law). Guess what? A huge number of them are on Medicaid, many unable to work afterwards, some just simply stiffed the hospital for their $200,000 in direct medical costs which included 2 weeks in the ICU and 3 weeks in the Rehab unit, along with long-term outpatient therapy. So who's responsible for their "freedom" - you and me. WE pay for it.

I'd be all for the freedom aspect of not having helmet laws if those who chose not to wear helmets had to 1) post a $1 million bond against their direct and indirect costs to society when they get their head injury, or 2) had to show enough assets to pay for themselves, rather than dump the bill on the taxpayers, or 3) carried an advance directive card that they demand no medical/rehab/etc. services in the case of a head injury (still doesn't solve the problem of their long-term cost to society when they can't work and go on state support for the rest of their lives, or 4) some other remedy I haven't though of yet :confused:

Also, we who wear helmets of course pay for those who don't with our insurance premiums too, and that's not fair. How about tiered insurance at the least with the higher premiums for those who don't wear a helmet?

But to demand your freedom and have the other insureds or the taxpayers pick up your tab when you crack your head open is hypocritical BS.

End of rant.
You did not state your profession, but it sounds like a doctor
When I wrote the piece "Murder By Medicine" about the 12,000 people that contracted hospital based infections, the 1800 people who died from the same said infections. The 200,000 taxable man days lost from work and the 2billion dollars added to the hospital bills.
(The number killed was more than half of all motorcycle deaths in the entire country)
All that in just one year in one state (Not that I was picking on that state, they were the only ones who complied with the law and reported the truth.
Dirty hands Dirty Lies, doctors should spend the time washing their hands that they use trying to tell other people how to live. Maybe they would kill less.
End of Rant for Now
Rock

[tkramer]

Mostly, it was to keep 99% of the police officers from busting your chops about not wearing any helmet at all.

I realize that. But you just voluntarily chose to strap something to your noggin! Why not make it worth your while? It's as if you're starving and you come upon a pile of horse dung at the top of a tall ladder and a plate of broccoli on another. You hate broccoli, so you climb the first ladder and chow down on the road apples: "No one's makin' ME eat broccoli dagnabit! I'm gonna eat this entire heap of horse sh!t. That'll show 'em." Toddler politics.

You also didn't have to worry too much about someone stealing it off your bike ... If it did get stolen, you were out 20 bucks instead of hundreds.

Truly, how often does that happen? A $5 cable lock is enough of a deterrent in the majority of cases. Why not ride a moped. You don't have to worry about your expensive motorcycle getting stolen when you park it.

[Ron82much]

guess who was the loudest lobby in favor of repealing the law - ABATE of Arkansas! We ride with helmets.

That should be no surprise, ABATE was formed specifically to fight helmet laws. Like me they don't oppose helmets, they want you to be safe...they oppose Big Brother.

From the California chapter website:

ABATE of California, Inc. (ABATE) is a not-for-profit, social membership-driven, tax-exempt California corporation dedicated to preserving motorcyclists' freedom of choice and freedom of the road. Our main goal is to promote motorcycling, advance motorcycle safety on the roads of California and protect the rights of motorcyclists everywhere.

In the early 1970's, a mandatory helmet use bill was first introduced in California and brought the motorcycle community together. Easyriders magazine and a few supportive groups formed a new national organization named ABATE, standing for "A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments". Presently, depending on the state, the letters stand for "American Brotherhood Aimed Towards Education", or American Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments". Whatever the name, all ABATE organizations around the country share the same common concerns and goals.

[johnrehder]

I wear them but the Government should not tell us to do so.


I'm for personal safety and think people should wear helmets. I am against the government dictating helmet use.

[motorman587]

But doesn't the Government already tell you what and what not to do?? Why the big debate????

[mantan]

I don't believe that the Social Burden Theory holds up in the big picture.
Hard numbers from the AMA - http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp
Read it all the way through.

AMA is such a pathetic organization that it is not even funny. No wonder they come up with this handwaving. It is no different than their position on loud pipes. Obviously the author(s) have no training in logic whatsoever or they are just suckers :(

I have no problem with the "pro-choice" Helmet folks as long as they post a significant bond and buy higher liability insurance.

What is funny in US is that most of the anti-helmet-law people are also the ones who complain about the other social cost items like illegal immigration (which I do believe is also wrong).

[BUGKILLER]

AMA is such a pathetic organization that it is not even funny. No wonder they come up with this handwaving. It is no different than their position on loud pipes. Obviously the author(s) have no training in logic whatsoever or they are just suckers :(

I have no problem with the "pro-choice" Helmet folks as long as they post a significant bond and buy higher liability insurance.

What is funny in US is that most of the anti-helmet-law people are also the ones who complain about the other social cost items like illegal immigration (which I do believe is also wrong).

I think that people that are over weight should do the same.
People that die from heart disease every year not long after their expensive heart bypass and transplant surgeries 936,923
People that die from motor cycle accidents 2500-3000?

[RideIt]

I think that people that are over weight should do the same.
People that die from heart disease every year not long after their expensive heart bypass and transplant surgeries 936,923
People that die from motor cycle accidents 2500-3000?

Damn, that hurts! But, that being said I think we should all wear helmets, but I don't want to be forced to by Big Brother.
Leon
05 Blue LT

[Ron82much]

AMA is such a pathetic organization that it is not even funny. No wonder they come up with this handwaving. It is no different than their position on loud pipes. Obviously the author(s) have no training in logic whatsoever or they are just suckers :(

I have no problem with the "pro-choice" Helmet folks as long as they post a significant bond and buy higher liability insurance.

Pretty harsh words for an organization that has done so much, IMO, to protect your right to ride.

Did you READ the page from that link? The AMAs primary reason for opposing ANY law that limits our rights is because they believe we are on a slippery slope.

From the AMA page...

"
The AMA opposes provisions conditioning rider choice of helmet use on economic criteria such as, but not limited to, additional insurance coverage, which is based on the negative and incorrect view that motorcyclists are a social burden. The AMA believes accepting such requirements is contrary to the long-term interests of motorcycling. (emphasis mine)

The Association further believes that helmet use alone is insufficient to ensure a motorcyclist's safety. There is a broad range of other measures that can be implemented to improve the skill of motorcycle operators as well as reduce the frequency of situations where other vehicle operators are the cause of accidents involving motorcycles.
"

Of course they are going to use whatever data they have in ways that support their arguments, any good PR campaign will. Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow the idea the the insurance and government interpretations of the data contain NO spin? As the saying goes...if you torture the data long enough it will admit to anything.

What is funny in US is that most of the anti-helmet-law people are also the ones who complain about the other social cost items like illegal immigration (which I do believe is also wrong).

Exactly what do you base such a condemnation on? I have seen no data that support such a generalization, or why it matters anyway...the argument is about the right to coose one's own risk level, not if it would save money. No one denies it would, we only argue that the savings IN THE BIG PICTURE is not sufficient to justify surrendering the right to choose for ourselves. If your only criteria is saving money then there are much bigger issues to be fighting for than helmet laws.

FWIW I would be willing to wager that many who support helmet laws will also complain loudly when the government tries to regulate something that effects them "for their own good".


What exactly is YOUR answer to my questions in an earlier post...do you also support mandated ATGATT? How about just updating the legal definition of a helmet to be fixed full-face only? I'm sure even more medical costs could be saved by much more aggressive protective gear. How about limits on MC horsepower and top speed? Or a ban on motorcycles altogether, after all they are just 2 wheeled RVs in most of the public eye...think of how much MORE could be saved by getting donor-cycles off the road altogether! A carefully orchestrated PR campaign by the insurance companies could make a serious dent in what you now know as motorcycling. Will you only start supporting a motorcyclists right to choose their own risk level when the law begins encroaching on YOUR threshold of acceptable risk? Would you accept laws that require you to pay extra on your insurance to go skiing, or mountain biking, or rock climbing? To allow your child to ride a bicycle? ANY behavior that can be shown to have an "X" percent higher risk of incurring medical costs for people who do vs people who don't?

You just don't seem to get it...it's NOT ABOUT HELMETS, it's about RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS. We, as Americans enjoy many freedoms that allow us to risk our lives and helath at great cost to the public, many of far greater cost than helmet laws. The insurance companies are picking the lowest hanging fruit and trying to eliminate risk to maximize profit...you can be sure it is NOT to save you money.

[BUGKILLER]

Pretty harsh words for an organization that has done so much, IMO, to protect your right to ride.

Did you READ the page from that link? The AMAs primary reason for opposing ANY law that limits our rights is because they believe we are on a slippery slope.

From the AMA page...

"
The AMA opposes provisions conditioning rider choice of helmet use on economic criteria such as, but not limited to, additional insurance coverage, which is based on the negative and incorrect view that motorcyclists are a social burden. The AMA believes accepting such requirements is contrary to the long-term interests of motorcycling. (emphasis mine)


The Association further believes that helmet use alone is insufficient to ensure a motorcyclist's safety. There is a broad range of other measures that can be implemented to improve the skill of motorcycle operators as well as reduce the frequency of situations where other vehicle operators are the cause of accidents involving motorcycles.
"

Of course they are going to use whatever data they have in ways that support their arguments, any good PR campaign will. Do you honestly expect anyone to swallow the idea the the insurance and government interpretations of the data contain NO spin? As the saying goes...if you torture the data long enough it will admit to anything.



Exactly what do you base such a condemnation on? I have seen no data that support such a generalization, or why it matters anyway...the argument is about the right to coose one's own risk level, not if it would save money. No one denies it would, we only argue that the savings IN THE BIG PICTURE is not sufficient to justify surrendering the right to choose for ourselves. If your only criteria is saving money then there are much bigger issues to be fighting for than helmet laws.

FWIW I would be willing to wager that many who support helmet laws will also complain loudly when the government tries to regulate something that effects them "for their own good".


What exactly is YOUR answer to my questions in an earlier post...do you also support mandated ATGATT? How about just updating the legal definition of a helmet to be fixed full-face only? I'm sure even more medical costs could be saved by much more aggressive protective gear. How about limits on MC horsepower and top speed? Or a ban on motorcycles altogether, after all they are just 2 wheeled RVs in most of the public eye...think of how much MORE could be saved by getting donor-cycles off the road altogether! A carefully orchestrated PR campaign by the insurance companies could make a serious dent in what you now know as motorcycling. Will you only start supporting a motorcyclists right to choose their own risk level when the law begins encroaching on YOUR threshold of acceptable risk? Would you accept laws that require you to pay extra on your insurance to go skiing, or mountain biking, or rock climbing? To allow your child to ride a bicycle? ANY behavior that can be shown to have an "X" percent higher risk of incurring medical costs for people who do vs people who don't?

You just don't seem to get it...it's NOT ABOUT HELMETS, it's about RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS. We, as Americans enjoy many freedoms that allow us to risk our lives and helath at great cost to the public, many of far greater cost than helmet laws. The insurance companies are picking the lowest hanging fruit and trying to eliminate risk to maximize profit...you can be sure it is NOT to save you money.

I couldn't agree more...more people die from falls than motorcycle riding...Falls 13,322. I think everyone should wear a helmet while walking.
Hell more people drown in pools every year than bikes..Drowning 3,842 .
I make a motion that if you have a pool then we have mandatory scuba equipment. Lets make a law for every aspect of hazard in our lives...Utopia at last ,no one gets hurt. We can wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and sit in hyperbaric chambers and die a slow natural death and be a burden to no one. Wasn't that a movie.Oh yeah..The Matrix.

[rickcavanaugh]

I really do not think the insurance companies care if there is a helmet law or not.

They just charge more for health insurance. Our corporate health insurance rates have been going up about 20 to 25% a year.

Increase the revenues and their bottom line increases as they keep their profit margins at the same percentage.

Bottom line. Regardless of what it is. No Helmet, No Seatbelt, fatty foods YOU PAY FOR IT!

In Maryland, the state determines what is covered and what is not covered in an employer based health package. A family plan for a small business in MD costs about $1200 per month now. With the increases of 20% a year just imagine what the costs will be in 10 years. This just forces more and more small businesses to stop offering insurance to its workers. Small business employee a large percentage of Americans.

Big Brother has its hands all over this issue and he is not making it any better. Remember, Hillary was going to take care of this many years ago.



Regardless, the majority of the people I see NOT riding with helmets or wearing "beanie helmets" are low experience riders with very few miles. Most ride their "Cruiser" to the local bar for a few beers to talk to their other buds about their bike.

I sure there are some highly experience longer distance riders without helmets, but I don't see too many.

[tmgs]

Pretty harsh words for an organization that has done so much, IMO, to protect your right to ride.

Did you READ the page from that link? The AMAs primary reason for opposing ANY law that limits our rights is because they believe we are on a slippery slope.

From the AMA page...

"
The AMA opposes provisions conditioning rider choice of helmet use on economic criteria such as, but not limited to, additional insurance coverage, which is based on the negative and incorrect view that motorcyclists are a social


The ama is correct , this was my main argument when they started dropping helmet laws but yet had added a medical paymnet coverage so you COULD legally ride wtithout a helemt, particularly in florida where there is NO mc insurance requirement nor are you able to purchase PIP and med payyment is out rageous with some ins ciompanies not even offering it. I brought this up in a slight argument with a ama member some time back, and ABATE has well known my stance on this issue for years

AMA has it right, abate could care less about any other effects a mandatory EXTRA insurance requirement can and is doing.

Tom

[McRuss]

But wait a minute...what do we (the group 'we') think about seat belt laws? I personally feel the same way as I do about helmets. I would not leave my driveway without belting up (or ride across my yard without a helmet) but it irks me to know that the law can stop someone and ticket them for being stupid. Texas is going through a phase now with adds for 'Clickit or Tickit.' Catchy, eh? And I read where a Texas State Trooper was ejected from his squad and killed. Anytime I see or hear 'edjected' I figure no seat belt was involved, much as I hear of a MC rider with head injuries and assume no helmet. Neither is true 100% of the time but much more often than not.

[Dick]

But wait a minute...what do we (the group 'we') think about seat belt laws? I personally feel the same way as I do about helmets. I would not leave my driveway without belting up (or ride across my yard without a helmet) but it irks me to know that the law can stop someone and ticket them for being stupid. Texas is going through a phase now with adds for 'Clickit or Tickit.' Catchy, eh? And I read where a Texas State Trooper was ejected from his squad and killed. Anytime I see or hear 'edjected' I figure no seat belt was involved, much as I hear of a MC rider with head injuries and assume no helmet. Neither is true 100% of the time but much more often than not.
To sidetrack this thread for a sec --- I prolly haven't been paying REAL close attention, butt it sure seems to me that almost 100% of the bicycle riders around here wear a helmet. Granted, they aren't the moto helmets, butt they surely do more than keep your hair quaffed (Guiness term!). I don't know if there is a law on the books making it mandatory to wear a helmet whilst riding a bicycle, butt bike riders pretty much do just that, to a person. Just an observation on my part -

[bwbcpa]

... ABATE, standing for "A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments". Presently, depending on the state, the letters stand for "American Brotherhood Aimed Towards Education", or American Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments". Whatever the name, all ABATE organizations around the country share the same common concerns and goals.


I believe, in Arkansas, they claim their name is "American Bikers Aiming Towards Education". Maybe someone else reading this knows for sure...

[DABubba]

In a society were my and your tax dollars pay for the long term health care of the person who chooses not to wear a helmet, the government does have a right to say "wear one".

[rickcavanaugh]

Their Original name was
A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments

They started changing it when it was politically incorrect and they were not being effective.

[harrowbmw]

Greetings people.

I'm without doubt an advocate for helmet use. I've been nailed twice on our roads the first time "she" didn't see me and continued her right turn, the second time "he" was too drunk to see me. Both trips down the road left awesome grind marks in my helmet and leathers. Thankgod I had a great quality helmut and protective clothing on. My poor base K100 wasn't so lucky. She gave her life for mine. (now rebuilt)

Make strapping on your helmet a part of motorcycling as pulling on your pants is. Remember, the longer you can remain riding, the better life is.

Kindest regards to all.

Paul Harrington
Road Crash Rescue Instructor
South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service
Australia
corcaigh@internode.on.net

[paul_moore]

I'm against the government telling me I have to wear a helmet --- but I always wear one when I ride.

Kentucky laws say you can ride without one - a bunch of my friends helped repeal the mandatory helmet law several years ago.

Remember when you didn't have to wear a helmet riding a bicycle when you were a kid - ? Now the parents are considered unfit parents and prolly get their children taken away from them if their kids don't wear a helmet.

[BillyOmaha]

...You just don't seem to get it...it's NOT ABOUT HELMETS, it's about RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS. ....Howdy Ron,

I will defend your right to get on your bike without a helmet and ride all over your own property, or another private individual's property that is naive enough to risk being sued by you and, or, your medical insurance company if you're injured, whenever you want.

But no one has the "right" to be stupid/foolish on the public roadway. We all pay for that road and we, therefore have a say in how users of that public road shall use it.
Example:
No drinking of alcohol while driving.
No driving while intoxicated, even if you violate no other regulations.
Wear a seatbelt in a cage.
Buckle up your kids in a cage.
Maintain your vehicles condition.
Regulate speed and standards of interaction.

Wearing a helmet is so obviously required and reasonable that, if we had a neighbor that allowed their underage children to go riding without a helmet, most of us would be calling child protective services.... or end up feeling guilty the rest of our lives if the child suffered a head injury when we did nothing.


The argument that forcing the wearing of a helmet is "one step onto a slippery slope" doesn't reconcile with the cage examples. Aside from the compelling of cage occupants to "actively" fasten seat belts, the balance of the safety enhancements are "passive" (airbags, abs, etc.). Helmets are not required in cages, five point safety harnesses are not required, even though both of these would make riding in a cage "marginally" safer. But no one with an ounce of common sense would argue that helmets are less than a "huge" increase in safety.





.

[pete1102]

Earlier in the week I was reading the commentaries following big Ben's crash and clicked on a readers response which had an excellent site showing the numerous consequenses of being a motorcycle operator and tangling with various objects. Does anyone remember the link? Thanks!

[hawg]

To sidetrack this thread for a sec --- I prolly haven't been paying REAL close attention, butt it sure seems to me that almost 100% of the bicycle riders around here wear a helmet. Granted, they aren't the moto helmets, butt they surely do more than keep your hair quaffed (Guiness term!). I don't know if there is a law on the books making it mandatory to wear a helmet whilst riding a bicycle, butt bike riders pretty much do just that, to a person. Just an observation on my part -

Hey, Dick!

As a former "biker" in my younger days, maybe those cyclists are real bikers! They are not afraid to be seen wearing something on their head (i.e.-geeks), nor are they annoyed by an "uncomfortable" helmet in the heat. Hayell, they are workin their butts off whilst pedaling the bike, but what do we motorcyclists do except sit on our arses whilst riding? And some motorcyclists complain about the heat? :rolleyes:

Good point, Dick...and I gotta hand it to the cyclists for their energy, tenacity and just plain athleticism... :thumb:

Now, if we could just keep 'em off busy thoroughfares around my parts!!! :rolleyes:

[rickcavanaugh]

One more risk no one has mention with not wearing a helmet.

The increased risk of skin cancer.

I know a guy who died from a melanoma that he got from the sun exposure while riding a motorcycle.

The heat issue? Don't wear a black helmet. White reflects the radiant light where as black absorbs it.

oh I forgot, black looks cool!

[hbamford]

I also have a financial argument concerning helmet laws, but perhaps not so altruistic:

I wear a helmet and recommend that others do also but I oppose helmet laws. Why? Because helmet laws promote theft of my helmet fastened to my bike!

There! I said it!

[Ron82much]

Howdy Ron,

I will defend your right to get on your bike without a helmet and ride all over your own property, or another private individual's property that is naive enough to risk being sued by you and, or, your medical insurance company if you're injured, whenever you want.

But no one has the "right" to be stupid/foolish on the public roadway. We all pay for that road and we, therefore have a say in how users of that public road shall use it.
Example:
No drinking of alcohol while driving.
No driving while intoxicated, even if you violate no other regulations.
Wear a seatbelt in a cage.
Buckle up your kids in a cage.
Maintain your vehicles condition.
Regulate speed and standards of interaction.

Wearing a helmet is so obviously required and reasonable that, if we had a neighbor that allowed their underage children to go riding without a helmet, most of us would be calling child protective services.... or end up feeling guilty the rest of our lives if the child suffered a head injury when we did nothing.


The argument that forcing the wearing of a helmet is "one step onto a slippery slope" doesn't reconcile with the cage examples. Aside from the compelling of cage occupants to "actively" fasten seat belts, the balance of the safety enhancements are "passive" (airbags, abs, etc.). Helmets are not required in cages, five point safety harnesses are not required, even though both of these would make riding in a cage "marginally" safer. But no one with an ounce of common sense would argue that helmets are less than a "huge" increase in safety.





.

Just back from Laconia (where I wore a helmet at all times, I was not in places and this is NOT a weekend where I feel comfotable without one)

Most of your examples are pretty poor comparisons, drinking and traffic safety laws address your effect on others. You don't have the right to stupidly risk other's right to a safe road (although there are plenty of riders here who seem to think it's ok to ride on public roadways at triple digit speeds). I have already said what I think of seatbelt laws and children should be afforded extra protection until they grow up to make choices for themselves.

[DrGrabow]

Yeah, I know, I earlier said I was through ticking off people with this thread...

I just keep reading ALL the responses talking about "rights". Your "right" to not wear a helmet, the government trampling on your "rights", the slippery slopes, etc. "Let's not let the government restrict our rights any more than they already do" type of stuff.

News for you: You have no "rights" whatsoever to even ride a motorcycle, much less ride one without a helmet. The use of the public roads is a privilege, not a right. You have no right to drive a car, ride a motorcycle, ride a motorcycle with a helmet, ride without a helmet, ride without brake lights, ride without license plates, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Do I have to go on?

Because driving and riding are privileges, that is precisely why the government can and does have volumes of regulations and laws on the subject. Even if it only affects your personal safety, the government is well within its bounds to require a helmet, just as they require seatbelts, horns, headlights, safety glass, airbags, etc., and require you to obey speed limits, traffic signals, road closures, license requirements, etc., etc.

Whether our privileges SHOULD be curtailed is the question (don't assume I'm personally in favor of helmet laws) but let's stop the misleading chest-thumping about our "rights" when we have none in that area. Maybe we should enjoy our privileges on the public roads and work to preserve them rather than braying about "rights" that don't exist ...

[ansonk1200lt]

It is no different than state mandated seat belt laws. Wearing seat belts save lives, minimize tax costs and insurance premiums because of the uninsured, and cover up faces we don't want to see (just kidding about that). "Freedom" always comes with a price, and what is happening now clearly proves that!

[UncleRock]

Yeah, I know, I earlier said I was through ticking off people with this thread...

I just keep reading ALL the responses talking about "rights". Your "right" to not wear a helmet, the government trampling on your "rights", the slippery slopes, etc. "Let's not let the government restrict our rights any more than they already do" type of stuff.

News for you: You have no "rights" whatsoever to even ride a motorcycle, much less ride one without a helmet. The use of the public roads is a privilege, not a right. You have no right to drive a car, ride a motorcycle, ride a motorcycle with a helmet, ride without a helmet, ride without brake lights, ride without license plates, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Do I have to go on?

Because driving and riding are privileges, that is precisely why the government can and does have volumes of regulations and laws on the subject. Even if it only affects your personal safety, the government is well within its bounds to require a helmet, just as they require seatbelts, horns, headlights, safety glass, airbags, etc., and require you to obey speed limits, traffic signals, road closures, license requirements, etc., etc.

Whether our privileges SHOULD be curtailed is the question (don't assume I'm personally in favor of helmet laws) but let's stop the misleading chest-thumping about our "rights" when we have none in that area. Maybe we should enjoy our privileges on the public roads and work to preserve them rather than braying about "rights" that don't exist ...
Here ya go
IT is a Right not a privilge
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposos of life and business. It is not a mere privilge, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will."

Key emphasis added. Indisputable wisdom recorded in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929. :cool:
Rock

[hawg]

Here ya go
IT is a Right not a privilge
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposos of life and business. It is not a mere privilge, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will."

Key emphasis added. Indisputable wisdom recorded in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929. :cool:
Rock

Careful, Rock...we do have others besides me who went to law school who just might add to this thread...:rolleyes:

Anyways, thanks to ALL who have contributed to this thread!!1 :thumb:

[BUGKILLER]

Here ya go
IT is a Right not a privilge
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposos of life and business. It is not a mere privilge, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will."

Key emphasis added. Indisputable wisdom recorded in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929. :cool:
Rock

Many moons ago a work acquaintance tried to get me involved in a "you don't have to pay federal income taxes scheme". This person was into all the get rich quick and multi level programs. While riding to an appointment with her she was pulled over for no plates on the car. She produced a pre printed placard that had some legal jargon about DMV fees only applicable for commercial vehicles and "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty". To my amazement the cop let her go. She told me she gets pulled over 3-4 times per week. Some cops write the ticket and she ends up in traffic court to get a release. My point to her was that to save $300 in fees she spent hundreds of hours per year dealing with this nonsense. As far as the federal taxes I let her know I liked supporting the military,FBI,CIA Fed courts etc. She eventually fled the country to avoid prosecution.

[hawg]

Don't know who all has caught this on CNN, but go here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/18/helmet.law.ap/index.html

:confused:

[UncleRock]

Many moons ago a work acquaintance tried to get me involved in a "you don't have to pay federal income taxes scheme". This person was into all the get rich quick and multi level programs. While riding to an appointment with her she was pulled over for no plates on the car. She produced a pre printed placard that had some legal jargon about DMV fees only applicable for commercial vehicles and "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty". To my amazement the cop let her go. She told me she gets pulled over 3-4 times per week. Some cops write the ticket and she ends up in traffic court to get a release. My point to her was that to save $300 in fees she spent hundreds of hours per year dealing with this nonsense. As far as the federal taxes I let her know I liked supporting the military,FBI,CIA Fed courts etc. She eventually fled the country to avoid prosecution.
Well that is the governments plan, since they know most people have not the will to fight. That they will just go along with every little inconvenice that the Goobermints thinks up to tax you, they do these things.
(All in small increments, they don't want to make them big enough to get you stirred up to fight. For if the people looked at all the things they do to us on a daily basis, they would start a revolution. If our founding father were here today, they would have already taken up arms!)
Well you have to go the next step and sue the cop his station/district and the court for your lost time and expenses, yes it is a pain but win once and they avoid you like the plague.
As a Sons Of Liberty Rider, there was always a national defence fund, as long as you fought by the guidelines set down, there was no out of pocket expense. Judges have told DA's this is your last chance to withdrawl charges before a precedent is set in writing. We have not lost.
(The Sons of Liberty were founded by a guy named Samuel Adams, they had tea at some party in Boston, before there ever was a USA.)
There is still a real America, just have to get it back from the politicians and lawyers.
As for the income tax, not one major media outlet published the fact that a female piolet beat the government, to the tune of almost 1 million dollars. Guess the media's masters didn't want that getting out, it was in TN.
Rock

[Ron82much]

Yeah, I know, I earlier said I was through ticking off people with this thread...

I just keep reading ALL the responses talking about "rights". Your "right" to not wear a helmet, the government trampling on your "rights", the slippery slopes, etc. "Let's not let the government restrict our rights any more than they already do" type of stuff.

News for you: You have no "rights" whatsoever to even ride a motorcycle, much less ride one without a helmet. The use of the public roads is a privilege, not a right. You have no right to drive a car, ride a motorcycle, ride a motorcycle with a helmet, ride without a helmet, ride without brake lights, ride without license plates, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Do I have to go on?

Because driving and riding are privileges, that is precisely why the government can and does have volumes of regulations and laws on the subject. Even if it only affects your personal safety, the government is well within its bounds to require a helmet, just as they require seatbelts, horns, headlights, safety glass, airbags, etc., and require you to obey speed limits, traffic signals, road closures, license requirements, etc., etc.

Whether our privileges SHOULD be curtailed is the question (don't assume I'm personally in favor of helmet laws) but let's stop the misleading chest-thumping about our "rights" when we have none in that area. Maybe we should enjoy our privileges on the public roads and work to preserve them rather than braying about "rights" that don't exist ...

You're just reinforcing my point, the one that everyone keeps ignoring. Your post is latching onto a minor symantic argument, I'm talking about rights with a small "r", the kind the government grants you that may or may not be enshrined in the constitution as one of the inailenable human Rights (big "R") that our country is based on.

The rest of your post goes on to back up the major part of my argument against helmet laws...the government can and will create laws for a variety of things including protecting ourselves against ourselves, if they are popular enough on the whole it won't matter how much they piss off a smaller segment of society. MC riders ARE a smaller segment of society and we need to be careful as a group. The AMA believes no one should ever ride a motorcycle sans helmet, they also see the danger in stopping the fight against helmet laws and drawing the line in the regulatory sand elsewhere.

I'm STILL WAITING for anyone who supports helmet laws to answer my questions about taking it further. How many MORE PROTECTIVE GEAR LAWS WILL YOU SUPPORT? If a full ATGATT law were shown, through statistics, to save another 25% in medical costs beyond helmet laws would you support it? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[dshealey]

---------I'm STILL WAITING for anyone who supports helmet laws to answer my questions about taking it further. How many MORE PROTECTIVE GEAR LAWS WILL YOU SUPPORT? If a full ATGATT law were shown, through statistics, to save another 25% in medical costs beyond helmet laws would you support it? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I am for helmet laws, having been saved three times by good helmets.

There is always the danger of governments over stepping bounds, but we do have the overall checks and balances in place to correct things, only it can take years to do so, IF enough of the populace feels the need to.

Helmets are by far the most valuable protective equipment one can wear, except as I found out the hard way, a back protector.

The arguments of the "slippery slope" for added regulations really don't hold much water. Helmets help greatly to protect against severe disability and death, the other protective gear against road rash and broken bones. Not even in the same ballpark, period. Severe head injuries cost society far more than healable broken bones and contusions. If you feel that severe head injuries would only affect YOU if you had an accident, then you are very sadly mistaken.

[bruce2000ltc]

the major part of my argument against helmet laws...the government can and will create laws for a variety of things including protecting ourselves against ourselves, if they are popular enough on the whole it won't matter how much they piss off a smaller segment of society. MC riders ARE a smaller segment of society and we need to be careful as a group. The AMA believes no one should ever ride a motorcycle sans helmet, they also see the danger in stopping the fight against helmet laws and drawing the line in the regulatory sand elsewhere.

I'm STILL WAITING for anyone who supports helmet laws to answer my questions about taking it further. How many MORE PROTECTIVE GEAR LAWS WILL YOU SUPPORT? If a full ATGATT law were shown, through statistics, to save another 25% in medical costs beyond helmet laws would you support it? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Your question doesn't need to be answered because your premise is just the old "one law will lead to many laws" argument. Many states have had helmet laws for decades without enacting more stringent protective apparel laws. Helmet laws haven't been the watershed law that opened the floodgates to more safety laws. On the contrary, repeal of helmet laws has opened the door to more restrictive state insurance laws.

The AMA has drawn it's line in the financial sand. Knowing that helmets save lives, they are willing to accept the death of a few to maintain their membership numbers ($$$$).

Bruce Hodges