National Helmet Law

[BillyOmaha]

In light of the Ben Roethisberger motorcycle accident, it seems topical to ask about the member's opinion regarding helmet laws.

The quesion is should a nationwide mandatory helmet use law be established on public roadways?

Your identity is not published.

.

[MarkEngland]

Bill;

I believe option two should include text something like:

"Helmets should not be required, and every individual is financially responsible for their own choice"

In short: If the tax payers have to pay for hospital treatment (or a funeral), then that could change the response from No to Yes.

My 1.5 cent
Mark

[BillyOmaha]

Bill;

I believe option two should include text something like:

"Helmets should not be required, and every individual is financially responsible for their own choice"

In short: If the tax payers have to pay for hospital treatment (or a funeral), then that could change the response from No to Yes.

My 1.5 cent
MarkHowdy Mark,

Good points and thanks for the comments.

I had thought about the question and believe that keeping it simple will keep it closer to an accurate reflection of peoples opinion.

When you start to add "financial responsibility" issues it gets difficult to determine a position that makes consistent sense. Anyone can simply look at a m/c rider and see if he is wearing a helmet and therefore an easily enforceable law. You would not be able to tell if a rider was wearing "financial responsibility".

Also, when was the last time you heard of anyone, with or without financial wherewithal, with or without insurance, that was denied a trip to the emergency room and necessary life saving emergency treatment. Long term care perhaps. Plastic surgery, perhaps.

Helmet or not, medical insurance or not, financial responsibility or not, life saving medical treatment is going to be administered.

.

[k12steve]

Bill;

I believe option two should include text something like:

"Helmets should not be required, and every individual is financially responsible for their own choice"

In short: If the tax payers have to pay for hospital treatment (or a funeral), then that could change the response from No to Yes.

My 1.5 cent
Mark

So if the taxpayers pay for hospital treatment for a broken back, shattered hip, broken legs, ankles, etc or funeral of someone who wore a helmet that's OK??? Because there are a LOT more of them than there are of head injuries to unhelmeted riders....

Sorry, but the logic (lack of) escapes me....

[zaphod]

In Arkansas it is legal to ride without a helmet but illegal to drive without seatbelts.
Go figure.

[NOGILLS2]

Shoulda had a "I dont care" selection, cause I will wear a helmet regardless of the laws!!!!! I have seenn what wearing a helmet can do. I wish I still had the one I was wearing when I crashed. Had holes in it you could stick your fingers through! Woulda been my head!!!!

[VickyBeads]

Shoulda had a "I dont care" selection, cause I will wear a helmet regardless of the laws!!!!! .....

Ditto!

I have a brother, 50 this year, can't live by himself because of a motorcycle head injury in 84 - no helmet - never found out how the accident happened.

Beady

[bigbear]

This is a touchy subject.
I wear a helmet all the time but look at this like the seat belt law. I don't like being told that I have to strap myself into my car just like some people don't want to stick there heads in a hot stinky helmet.

I would view this like the seat belt law, as another way for police to generate revenue

My $.02 worth

[tmgs]

Bill;

I believe option two should include text something like:

"Helmets should not be required, and every individual is financially responsible for their own choice"

In short: If the tax payers have to pay for hospital treatment (or a funeral), then that could change the response from No to Yes.

My 1.5 cent
Mark


dang near impossible,

what should be in effect is better insurance laws for motorcyclists

[DrGrabow]

This is a very picky point, but I would have like the question better had it been phrased as:

"Do you think every state should have a mandatory helmet use law?"

By a "nationwide" law I presume you mean a federal law, and there is no need for our bloated federal government to pass such a law when the states can do it ...

So, I didn't vote ;)

[nawlinsjohn]

By a "nationwide" law I presume you mean a federal law, and there is no need for our bloated federal government to pass such a law when the states can do it ...


Amen.... There is already to much BIG BROTHER overseeing our lives and his hand in our pockets....

[gunny]

Amen.... There is already to much BIG BROTHER overseeing our lives and his hand in our pockets....
Agree with that whole heartedly.

What about the folks who over eat? The ones who practise unsafe sex?

Drink too much? Engage in acts of stupidity? Gonna pass a law to make them wear helmets too?

We got way too many laws right now with more coming every day, most to protect us or to sperate us from our funds and some to do both.

A friend (very wise young man) has a saying about folks who mind their own business tend to live a little longer.

I wear a helmet but dont need or want big brother to tell me what I need to do.

[UncleRock]

Well this commie claptrap of an idea would seem a definite violation of the 10th amendment.
But "It is just a "God Damm Piece of Paper' GW Bush
Rock

[cfell]

I think with all the head injuries in automobile accidents there should be mandatory helmet wear there, too.

Once Miss Prissy messes up her $200 hairdo a few times she'll "cut off" the big guy and the rules will be in perspective.

The point being, I don't think the Gov. gives a rat's tail about the little man... my brothers, we are the little men... the little men that give the big men permission to run our lives.

I wear a helmet by my choice, not by their direction.

Is it possible my own balance of what's acceptable to myself and my family might influence how I live my life or how it reaches it's final chapter? Yes.

Is it possible with the technology available, a fair profit might remain to provide helmets and riding gear that keeps body temp regulated? Yes

It would be great to ride, in comfort when the temps reach 104 as they did last week in Texas or near freezing elsewhere and other times?

$200 isn't much to protect myself... but I think there is a huge markup... maybe even an obscene one on "safety gear". I would love to own and wear one of the $6-800 lids... it would certainly improve my looks and be more comfortable. It will also help me keep my burial directions in order, open casket and all... because you can bet the big men won't be there to console my survivors.

I wear a helmet by my choice.. the big men have no influence on that... we own The Constitution... "We the people..." and all that crud..

[Ron82much]

Bill;

I believe option two should include text something like:

"Helmets should not be required, and every individual is financially responsible for their own choice"

In short: If the tax payers have to pay for hospital treatment (or a funeral), then that could change the response from No to Yes.

My 1.5 cent
Mark

That would certainly slant the question and help support part of the rationale for HAVING a helmet law. A typical trick of misleading pollsters trying to provide "supporting" data...(nothing personal, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, just an observation)

[BillyOmaha]

Well this commie claptrap of an idea would seem a definite violation of the 10th amendment....Here is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I agree with you UncleRock, not about the "commie claptrap" part ;) , but the part about States rights versus the Federal authority. It is an issue worth taking into consideration.

In the spirit of constitutional "strict constructionist's" the laws would have to be on a State by State basis, except for a Federal Law affecting motorcyclists on the Interstate highways. To follow that logic the Fed's could mandate the States adoption of such a law or face witholding of Federal funds for Transportation and, or, health care related disbursements. Rightly or not, that is how these types of laws are "crammed down the States throats".

The poll question isn't about States rights.

IMO, the issue, question, is simple;

Do we make a universal rule that compels the foolish and unwise amongst us to use a helmet when riding a motorcycle on the public roadways?

It is so obvious that the wearing of a helmet when riding a motorcycle is such a HUGELY SAFER thing to do that any rational person amongst arguing to the contrary would stop mid-sentence out of embarrassment. Embarrassment for the words escaping their lips demonstrating their foolishness and, or, ignorance.

This leave us arguing about concepts and principles. Fair enough. I like to argue about concepts and principles as well as, perhaps more, than the next guy. But let us argue about them when they make a real difference. When the debate truly has an impact on our lives.

All of us telling each other to wear a helmet when we ride on the public roads is not an issue worthy of resistance. We tell our loved ones to wear a seatbelt in a cage. We don't resist the seatbelt laws, at least most of us. What is the difference?

I am reminded of seeing our soldiers in Iraq. Wearing 45 pounds of armor in 130 degree heat. I can just imagine one of the grunts deciding to go without his helmet. Telling his Sargent it's his "right" not to wear one. Fortunately in the military the grunts don't have a "right" to be stupid and foolish with their lives.


.

[dshealey]

--------------In the spirit of constitutional "strict constructionist's" the laws would have to be on a State by State basis, except for a Federal Law affecting motorcyclists on the Interstate highways. -----------------------


.

That is why Motorcycles can use car pool lanes nationwide. Federal statute, states cannot over ride it. Some people have been stopped and ticketed, but had the tickets overthrown when the local law enforcement found they could not over rule the federal statute.

[hig4s]

In Arkansas it is legal to ride without a helmet but illegal to drive without seatbelts.
Go figure.


I Florida it is illegal to drive without a seatbelt, and it is not only legal to ride without a helmet, but legal to drive a pickup around with people in the back. Really go figure.


I'm torn,, there are a lot of people that are just ignorant of how dangerous riding without a helmet is and need to be clued in, but I don't really believe in laws that suppress freedom for the idea of protecting people from themselves.. I don't really believe in seatbelt laws either, but would still wear one.

If helmet laws are OK,,, because it cost the public money, then where do we stop? Many serious auto injuries are caused by the head hitting the roof posts between the doors on 4 door cars, do we make people wear helmets in cars too. Do we ban anything uncesessary that is dangerous that costs the public money because of large amounts of injuries raising insurance rates, Like high school sports, mountain biking, surfing, skiing and motorcycling in general.. You can argue it is different, but it really is not, there are different levels of risk to oneself to be considered, and the only one that should have the right to decide what level is reasonable is the individual themselves. As long as the risk is only to the individual making the decision, it should be no one elses business.

The AMA is fighting right now where the coal industy is refusing employee insurance coverage to any motorcycle related injury.

[BillyOmaha]

This is a touchy subject.
I wear a helmet all the time but look at this like the seat belt law. I don't like being told that I have to strap myself into my car just like some people don't want to stick there heads in a hot stinky helmet.

I would view this like the seat belt law, as another way for police to generate revenue

My $.02 worthHowdy Roy,

You had me with your argument right up until th end, " I would view this like the seat belt law, as another way for police to generate revenue" Huh?

I don't know about anyone else, but I am an advocate for seatbelt use for one reason only and that is safety for me and anyone else that is a passenger in the vehicle I'm operating the vehicle. STATS (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf) on lives saved by seatbelts.
Besides, for States with universal helmet usage laws such as California, helmet usage was roughly 50% prior to the law and is over 99% after. In short, if nobody violates that law, then revenue is not the issue.

Here are some interesting facts (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html) on helmet usage.

[UncleRock]

Here is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I agree with you UncleRock, not about the "commie claptrap" part ;) , but the part about States rights versus the Federal authority. It is an issue worth taking into consideration.

In the spirit of constitutional "strict constructionist's" the laws would have to be on a State by State basis, except for a Federal Law affecting motorcyclists on the Interstate highways. To follow that logic the Fed's could mandate the States adoption of such a law or face witholding of Federal funds for Transportation and, or, health care related disbursements. Rightly or not, that is how these types of laws are "crammed down the States throats".

The poll question isn't about States rights.

IMO, the issue, question, is simple;

Do we make a universal rule that compels the foolish and unwise amongst us to use a helmet when riding a motorcycle on the public roadways?

It is so obvious that the wearing of a helmet when riding a motorcycle is such a HUGELY SAFER thing to do that any rational person amongst arguing to the contrary would stop mid-sentence out of embarrassment. Embarrassment for the words escaping their lips demonstrating their foolishness and, or, ignorance.

This leave us arguing about concepts and principles. Fair enough. I like to argue about concepts and principles as well as, perhaps more, than the next guy. But let us argue about them when they make a real difference. When the debate truly has an impact on our lives.

All of us telling each other to wear a helmet when we ride on the public roads is not an issue worthy of resistance. We tell our loved ones to wear a seatbelt in a cage. We don't resist the seatbelt laws, at least most of us. What is the difference?

I am reminded of seeing our soldiers in Iraq. Wearing 45 pounds of armor in 130 degree heat. I can just imagine one of the grunts deciding to go without his helmet. Telling his Sargent it's his "right" not to wear one. Fortunately in the military the grunts don't have a "right" to be stupid and foolish with their lives.


.
You have a right to think what you want, I personally thinks its BS.
I don't tell people to wear a seatbelt or a helmet.
If you want to wear a helmet wear it, if not don't.
Get the fat asses out of the Fast food joints, now that would make an impact on the health of America, if you really cared about it.
If you care about motorcyclists lives, work on stiffer penalities for those that cut them off. I didn't see Him is and admission of guilt , not an excuse. Over 50% of motorcycle accidents are caused by other vehicles.
It was never about the helmet for me, the government has no place telling me how to live my life.
Drop the retoric and post some real numbers to back your "Hugely Safer"statement!
Rock

[BillyOmaha]

Howdy Rock,

I understand your stance on keeping "big brother" out of our lives. I use to strictly adhere to it myself. I have mellowed a bit in my mid-life and now only apply it when I think the intrusion is unreasonable. That said, I respect your right to be let alone on the issue. However, you did make a point and ask a question, so I'll reply to them.

......If you care about motorcyclists lives, work on stiffer penalities for those that cut them off. ....You won't get a disagreement from me. I advocate for advertising on billboards telling cages to look out for m/c's. But I don't think that this solves the problem of head injuries that occur during an accident. It might reduce the number of accidents, not eliminate them. And this does nothing to minimize the severity of the injuries in the remaining collisions, which of course, a helmet does.


.....Drop the retoric and post some real numbers to back your "Hugely Safer"statement!...I had done this in a POST (http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=77281#poststop) earlier in this thread.

Here is the related link to some of the real numbers (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html). Here is an excerpt: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a crash fatality by 37 percent.1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html#cite1) Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.2 (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html#cite2) Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html#cite1)"
Footnote references in the source document.

I have sent a letter to the AMA stating my position, which is to take the money they're spending on fighting helmet laws and use it to promote legitimate motorcycling issues, such as the one you mentioned. Legislating tougher cage driver education and more severe penalties for drivers that assault m/c in "road rage" type incidents, etc., etc., etc..

.

[UncleRock]

Howdy Rock,

You won't get a disagreement from me. I advocate for advertising on billboards telling cages to look out for m/c's. But I don't think that this solves the problem of head injuries that occur during an accident. It might reduce the number of accidents, not eliminate them. And this does nothing to minimize the severity of the injuries in the remaining collisions, which of course, a helmet does.


I had done this in a POST (http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=77281#poststop) earlier in this thread.

Here is the related link to some of the real numbers (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html). Here is an excerpt: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a crash fatality by 37 percent.1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html#cite1) Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.2 (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html#cite2) Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.1 (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html#cite1)"
Footnote references in the source document.

I have sent a letter to the AMA stating my position, which is to take the money they're spending on fighting helmet laws and use it to promote legitimate motorcycling issues, such as the one you mentioned. Legislating tougher cage driver education and more severe penalties for drivers that assault m/c in "road rage" type incidents, etc., etc., etc..

.

Are you kidding NHTSA?
Ask your self these questions
Who is the Doctor Jeffry Grunge (however you say it) that heads this org. He has stated, (the memo resides in the SoLR office) that motorcyclists are the scoruge of the highway.
They have repeatly violated the ban on using Federal money to lobby their efforts against motorcyclists. While they continue to fail at that, they attemp another frount with the pushing of the UN regs for mototrcycles (Talk about Commie)
They are made up of Doctors, insurance companies and do gooders.
Do you know what they call their convention? or where the last one was held?
I do they call it lifesavers, I helped raise the bread to send 2 people into their closed convention to gather information..
Next page
I know that brain injuries can happen in bike wreck, I also know that helmets can be useless over 20mph. Head injuries also happen in cars, if you take just the sheer number of car wrecks vs bikes, the head injury % would be astronomical. Why don't they lobby for helmets in cars?
Our governor (Fast Eddie Rendel) told me
" Rock it is your choice, your an adult, whether you wear a helmet, take that next drink, smoke that next cigerette, or eat that extra cheeseburger. It is not the governments place to make these calls for you!"
Personlly I think that is part of whats wrong in this country, they took prayer out of schools, started making the kids wear helmets on bikes and roller skates on an on ad nauseam. Now you got all these stupid mouth breathers living long enough to breed more mouth breathers, when before they would have taken themselves out of the gene pool.
YMMV
Rock
PS I also work for the education of cagers, every licence renewal goes out with a card that has a motorcycle on it. Look twice save a life motorcycles are everywhere.
Then a list of where you need extra attention for bikes.

[tmgs]

I know that brain injuries can happen in bike wreck, I also know that helmets can be useless over 20mph.

HUH? your kidding right! yea I know you are, or you are quoteing someone else saying that,

cause that is complete BS that a helmet is useless above 20mph.

they are designd for different direct impact speeds true, which is something ABATE can never seem to get thier facts correct on. testing is done at direct impact speeds.

useless over 20mph yea right........

[hschisler]

HUH? your kidding right! yea I know you are, or you are quoteing someone else saying that,

cause that is complete BS that a helmet is useless above 20mph.

they are designd for different direct impact speeds true, which is something ABATE can never seem to get thier facts correct on. testing is done at direct impact speeds.

useless over 20mph yea right........Tom, I think Rock is mostly correct with that statement. Just a couple of days ago, maybe in this very thread, someone posted a link to a very, very long discussion/review of helmets, how they are made, materials, etc., etc. I believe in that article they discussed the usefulness of helmets at higher speeds. My understanding is: the helmet works best at slower speeds... or more crashes happen at slower speeds, or at higher speeds the other injuries would kill you anyway -- something like that. I'll still wear mine regardless of the speed, however.

[BillyOmaha]

Howdy Rock,

I know I'm not going to change your mind, so this response is directed at those that may be following this argument.

I respect your opinion and hold you in high regard for sticking with your principles.

Are you kidding NHTSA?Here is the link to the NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.9fa154a4d39f02e770f6df1020008a0c/;jsessionid=EMyPS4zjvEasDAYBAlHs1Qm9ncn71vGM2plOk6RHZGrZD1YKNjuK%2128012360),which is a U.S. Government organization, so that others can investigate. While it may have a partisan agenda, as political offices frequently do, it seems less overt since it's not privately funded.


Ask your self these questions
Who is the Doctor Jeffry Grunge (however you say it) that heads this org. He has stated, (the memo resides in the SoLR office) that motorcyclists are the scoruge of the highway.
They have repeatly violated the ban on using Federal money to lobby their efforts against motorcyclists. While they continue to fail at that, they attemp another frount with the pushing of the UN regs for mototrcycles (Talk about Commie)
They are made up of Doctors, insurance companies and do gooders.
Do you know what they call their convention? or where the last one was held?
I do they call it lifesavers, I helped raise the bread to send 2 people into their closed convention to gather information..I'm not sure about all of what describe. I believe there would be Doctors and insurance industry representatives involved along with other "do gooders". I would like to think that the AMA would vounteer to provide a representative to advocate m/c safety concerns.

I'm not a fan of "big government". But I don't subscribe to the notion that in every instance less government is better. Taking that position to it's logical extreme, then no government is the best situation. Anarchy the result.

I believe a simple law saying, "all riders of motorcycles on public roadways and lands must wear a DOT approved helmet", is in the spirit of what you're saying. It's simple and eliminates a lot of State regulatory "hair splitting" (http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/helmet_history.html), i.e. under 18 must, over 18 don't have to, or two years experience don't, or those with financial responsibility in place don't.

Keep it simple. Ride a m/c on public property, wear a helmet.


Next page
I know that brain injuries can happen in bike wreck, I also know that helmets can be useless over 20mph. Head injuries also happen in cars, if you take just the sheer number of car wrecks vs bikes, the head injury % would be astronomical. Why don't they lobby for helmets in cars?The operative word in your sentence was "can". Of course there is the rare anecdotal evidence about a "helmet caused an injury", or "not using a seatbelt saved someone's life", but that is not a sustainable position. The sheer volume of factual evidence far outways the insignificant anomaly. Someone surviving a failure of a parachute to open during a jump is not a valid argument that parachutes are "optional" equipment.


Our governor (Fast Eddie Rendel) told me
" Rock it is your choice, your an adult, whether you wear a helmet, take that next drink, smoke that next cigerette, or eat that extra cheeseburger. It is not the governments place to make these calls for you!" Who would disagree with that? But what he didn't say is that we do have laws affecting exactly what he's referring to; there are laws prohibiting driving with an "arbitrary blood alcohol level of X"...even if you haven't violated any other rules of the road. That's because doing so increases the probability that the operator is a danger to themselves and, or, others. We have laws that hold the bar owners legally, both criminally and civily, liable if they served extra drinks to an already obviously intoxicated patron. Those laws have had a large impact on reducing the number of the recreational drunk drivers, those that are not drunks, per se, but might have unintentionally over indulged due to impaired judgement of the prior drinks.

As an aside, and to show I have "a little redneck in me" still :) , I personally thought that the old Texas right to drive a car with an "open container" was perfectly fine. Driving along drinking a beer is not a problem. Driving drunk is a problem, but sipping a beer is no more a hazard than sipping a coke.


..... started making the kids wear helmets on bikes and roller skates on an on ad nauseam. Yep. Now if a kid pops out from between two cars on a bike and I hit them, they are far less likely to suffer brain damage. Less medical expense and less emotional trauma for me. Here in the Republic of Kalifornia, it is encouraging to see every youth bicyclist, cool kids, rich kids, poor kids, nerds and geeks all wearing helmets. Any cop anywhere can stop them if they're not wearing one because it's a simple rule to comply with and to enforce.


Now you got all these stupid mouth breathers living long enough to breed more mouth breathers, when before they would have taken themselves out of the gene pool.The argument seems counter intuitive. You argue that we all capable of making the choice that's in our interest and then argue that many are so stupid they should be allowed to die. The law I would advocate would eliminate the option to exercise poor judgement, a la Roethisberger. He is not stupid, but was foolish and the helmet law would have, most likely, mitigated his injuries in his collision.


PS I also work for the education of cagers, every licence renewal goes out with a card that has a motorcycle on it. Look twice save a life motorcycles are everywhere.
Then a list of where you need extra attention for bikes.I endorse and support your efforts. Rock, you my friend, whether you believe it or not, are one of those "do gooders". ;)

.

[UncleRock]

Howdy Rock,

I know I'm not going to change your mind, so this response is directed at those that may be following this argument.

I respect your opinion and hold you in high regard for sticking with your principles.

Here is the link to the NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.9fa154a4d39f02e770f6df1020008a0c/;jsessionid=EMyPS4zjvEasDAYBAlHs1Qm9ncn71vGM2plOk6RHZGrZD1YKNjuK%2128012360),which is a U.S. Government organization, so that others can investigate. While it may have a partisan agenda, as political offices frequently do, it seems less overt since it's not privately funded.


I'm not sure about all of what describe. I believe there would be Doctors and insurance industry representatives involved along with other "do gooders". I would like to think that the AMA would vounteer to provide a representative to advocate m/c safety concerns.

I'm not a fan of "big government". But I don't subscribe to the notion that in every instance less government is better. Taking that position to it's logical extreme, then no government is the best situation. Anarchy the result.

I believe a simple law saying, "all riders of motorcycles on public roadways and lands must wear a DOT approved helmet", is in the spirit of what you're saying. It's simple and eliminates a lot of State regulatory "hair splitting" (http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/helmet_history.html), i.e. under 18 must, over 18 don't have to, or two years experience don't, or those with financial responsibility in place don't.

Keep it simple. Ride a m/c on public property, wear a helmet.


The operative word in your sentence was "can". Of course there is the rare anecdotal evidence about a "helmet caused an injury", or "not using a seatbelt saved someone's life", but that is not a sustainable position. The sheer volume of factual evidence far outways the insignificant anomaly. Someone surviving a failure of parachute to open during a jump is not a valid argument that parachutes are "optional" equipment.


[/b] Who would disagree with that? But what he didn't say is that we do have laws affecting exactly what he's referring to; there are laws prohibiting driving with an "arbitrary blood alcohol level of X"...even if you haven't violated any other rules of the road. That's because doing so increases the probability that the operator is a danger to themselves and, or, others. We have laws that hold the bar owners legally, both criminally and civily, liable if they served extra drinks to an already obviously intoxicated patron. Those laws have had a large impact on reducing the number of the recreational drunk drivers, those that are not drunks, per se, but might have unintentionally over indulged due to impaired judgement of the prior drinks.

As an aside, and to show I have "a little redneck in me" still :) , I personally thought that the old Texas right to drive a car with an "open container" was perfectly fine. Driving along drinking a beer is not a problem. Driving drunk is a problem, but sipping a beer is no more a hazard than sipping a coke.


Yep. Now if a kid pops out from between two cars on a bike and I hit them, they are far less likely to suffer brain damage. Less medical expense and less emotional trauma for me. Here in the Republic of Kalifornia, it is encouraging to see every youth bicyclist, cool kids, rich kids, poor kids, nerds and geeks all wearing helmets. Any cop anywhere can stop them if they're not wearing one because it's a simple rule to comply with and to enforce.


The argument seems counter intuitive. You argue that we all capable of making the choice that's in our interest and then argue that many are so stupid they should be allowed to die. The law I would advocate would eliminate the option to exercise poor judgement, a la Roethisberger. He is not stupid, but was foolish and the helmet law would have, most likely, mitigated his injuries in his collision.


I endorse and support your efforts. Rock, you my friend, whether you believe it or not, are one of those "do gooders". ;)

.


As you travel the less trod paths, sometimes the only illumination comes from those who'se fire of passion is brilliant enough to light their way.
Even if they are headed in the opposite direction. You can still respect and enjoy the illumination of their passion. :cool:
Hats off to you Sir! (no helmet pun intended)
Rock

[nawlinsjohn]

I'm not sure about all of what describe. I believe there would be Doctors and insurance industry representatives involved along with other "do gooders". I would like to think that the AMA would vounteer to provide a representative to advocate m/c safety concerns.

I'm not a fan of "big government". But I don't subscribe to the notion that in every instance less government is better. Taking that position to it's logical extreme, then no government is the best situation. Anarchy the result.

I believe a simple law saying, "all riders of motorcycles on public roadways and lands must wear a DOT approved helmet", is in the spirit of what you're saying. It's simple and eliminates a lot of State regulatory "hair splitting" (http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/helmet_history.html), i.e. under 18 must, over 18 don't have to, or two years experience don't, or those with financial responsibility in place don't.

[nawlinsjohn]

Sorry about previous post





Quote
I'm not sure about all of what describe. I believe there would be Doctors and insurance industry representatives involved along with other "do gooders". I would like to think that the AMA would vounteer to provide a representative to advocate m/c safety concerns.

I'm not a fan of "big government". But I don't subscribe to the notion that in every instance less government is better. Taking that position to it's logical extreme, then no government is the best situation. Anarchy the result.

I believe a simple law saying, "all riders of motorcycles on public roadways and lands must wear a DOT approved helmet", is in the spirit of what you're saying. It's simple and eliminates a lot of State regulatory "hair splitting" (http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/helmet_history.html), i.e. under 18 must, over 18 don't have to, or two years experience don't, or those with financial responsibility in place don't. End quote>>>

What is next? Government requiring ATGATT. Where does it end? They and the special interest "Do gooders" will not stop with helmets once they get past that hurdle. Right in line with the anti-gun group.... just let them get on a roll and see where your right to bear arms goes... IMO
__________________

[UncleRock]

Sorry about previous post





Quote
I'm not sure about all of what describe. I believe there would be Doctors and insurance industry representatives involved along with other "do gooders". I would like to think that the AMA would vounteer to provide a representative to advocate m/c safety concerns.

I'm not a fan of "big government". But I don't subscribe to the notion that in every instance less government is better. Taking that position to it's logical extreme, then no government is the best situation. Anarchy the result.

I believe a simple law saying, "all riders of motorcycles on public roadways and lands must wear a DOT approved helmet", is in the spirit of what you're saying. It's simple and eliminates a lot of State regulatory "hair splitting" (http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/helmet_history.html), i.e. under 18 must, over 18 don't have to, or two years experience don't, or those with financial responsibility in place don't. End quote>>>

What is next? Government requiring ATGATT. Where does it end? They and the special interest "Do gooders" will not stop with helmets once they get past that hurdle. Right in line with the anti-gun group.... just let them get on a roll and see where your right to bear arms goes... IMO
__________________
Whats next???
How about a law, that people step onto a scale when they go into a fast food restaurant . With loud speakers that go off BEEP BEEP BEEP, FAT ASS ALERT, YOU ARE 37 LBS OVER TARGET WEIGHT. ORDER FROM THE PLUMPERSTILTSKIN MENU ONLY1
Lets face it, if your talking about care for public health and the cost that go with it. The largest area (pun intended ) to attack is the bulging American waist line. On average men with a waist line over 40" have an 80% increase in heart disease and heart attack. Why do think a pair of gloves in the hospital cost $10 dollars, I use the exact same gloves from the same maker, for $10 dollars you get 100 pair (2boxes @ 100 gloves each $4.95)
Take all the resulting problems that go along with that on a dollar scale place them along side those from motorcycle wreck injuries without helmet, and I'm sure you will find the latter in the bottom 1%, it is just motorcycles have all ways been an easy target. They are highly visible (except to drivers making left turns) and a small group, so do gooder politicians attack their rights on the grounds of safety so they can justify their jobs. It is hard for motorcyclist to defend themselves since they are a small group so the politicians have a good success margin.
So lets start making laws against people that really make the cost of health care go up for everyone. You will never see that cause they or their fat ass old lady will be up in arms instantly, (not an easy target like the mototrcyclist) even though the resulting savings in health care cost would be astronomical compared to MC related stuff.

Rock

[tmgs]

Tom, I think Rock is mostly correct with that statement. Just a couple of days ago, maybe in this very thread, someone posted a link to a very, very long discussion/review of helmets, how they are made, materials, etc., etc. I believe in that article they discussed the usefulness of helmets at higher speeds. My understanding is: the helmet works best at slower speeds... or more crashes happen at slower speeds, or at higher speeds the other injuries would kill you anyway -- something like that. I'll still wear mine regardless of the speed, however.



to say a helmet is useless over 20 mph, is wrong period.

a direct 20mph impact will permantantly damage a helmet yes, it is designed to be that way so your noggin doesn;t do the impact absorbtion, the helmet does instead.

i took a flip at over 70mph once landed right on the back of my head split the helmet in half, head was fine.

I've done some serios reasearch on helmets myself, tis the reason my daughter wears a shoie and no other. dual denisty foam, still helps slow speed impacts and higher speed impacts as well.

one reason they (most) say a straight Snell rated helmet might be to hard for everyday riding, Snell ratings are more for high speed racers. same reason a straight DOT helemt might be too soft, not good enough for high speed impacts, it has been argued that the ece spec helmet are better for both worlds

it can argued all day long that any Snell, DOT, ECE, BSI rated helmets are worthless and also argured they are great. fact is NO way is any of them useless at 20 mph

that is plain HOG WASH! and irresopnsible to post something like that

here is a link to get ya started on researching helmets, there are a bazillion links out there,

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/safetypage.htm
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/22rv4e.pdf

[UncleRock]

to say a helmet is useless over 20 mph, is wrong period.

a direct 20mph impact will permantantly damage a helmet yes, it is designed to be that way so your noggin doesn;t do the impact absorbtion, the helmet does instead.

i took a flip at over 70mph once landed right on the back of my head split the helmet in half, head was fine.

I've done some serios reasearch on helmets myself, tis the reason my daughter wears a shoie and no other. dual denisty foam, still helps slow speed impacts and higher speed impacts as well.

one reason they (most) say a straight Snell rated helmet might be to hard for everyday riding, Snell ratings are more for high speed racers. same reason a straight DOT helemt might be too soft, not good enough for high speed impacts, it has been argued that the ece spec helmet are better for both worlds

it can argued all day long that any Snell, DOT, ECE, BSI rated helmets are worthless and also argured they are great. fact is NO way is any of them useless at 20 mph

that is plain HOG WASH! and irresopnsible to post something like that

here is a link to get ya started on researching helmets, there are a bazillion links out there,

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/safetypage.htm
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/22rv4e.pdf
First how often do you wash your hog? Seeing as it is plain hog wash vs sunday hogwash :D
Lets just look at what it says in side the helmet, for impact speeds! Then change useless to ineffective if it will make you happy, now go wash your hog.
Rock
Get out of the donut line

[tyroneteeth]

I mostly wear boots when I ride. If I put boots on my feet, it seems intuitive to me to put a helmet on my head.

What would make me the most upset with Uncle Brother Sam is if he would make it illegal to WEAR a helmet while riding a m/c. I'm ok with big brother telling me I have to wear a helmet.

[dshealey]

--------------------------------------------
Lets just look at what it says in side the helmet, for impact speeds! Then change useless to ineffective if it will make you happy, ------------------

Wow! This "innefective above 20 MPH is the BIGGEST line of BS I have seen, well, maybe EVER!

I have way too much personal proof that this is hogwash of the highest (or guess that should be lowest) caliber.

I have had three MAJOR accidents, and I am positive that at least two of them would likely have been fatal, or at minimum severe disabling if I had not had on a good helmet. Even though they were 3/4 Arai helmets, they have saved my bacon without doubt. The first accident was at around 55-60 MPH, the second one a pickup swerved into me when we were going 45-50 MPH, and the last and most drastic one was a 80 plus MPH tumble and roll for 75 yards down Interstate 8. The second and last crash would undoubtly been fatal or near fatal, but I suffered no severe head injuries.

In the pickup accident my head slammed into the passenger side top of the cab, the whole left side of my face, top of forehead to down my neck was purple and swollen, with my eye swollen shut. Don't think I would possibly have made it without the helmet. I was knocked out for a while.

The last one, If not fatal certainly would have left me with permanent massive scars at best. I got up and walked to the bike and helped get it to the side of the highway and on the centerstand, not even knocked out for any time. Pictures of the result on the helmet:

[UncleRock]

[QUOTE=dshealey

I have had three MAJOR accidents, and I am positive that at least two of them would likely have been fatal, or at minimum severe disabling [/QUOTE]
Your best gesstimate that they would have been disabling. You can't be positive of anything, including your skills or ability to avoid an accident. On anyday the best can go down Period. You got lucky 3 times, is that why you have no bike now. Do you Figure you have run that string out and are done pressing your luck?
What does it say inside the helmet?
How do you come to wreck all these bikes?
Rock

[dshealey]

Your best gesstimate that they would have been disabling. Yes, a GOOD guess, probably high percentage of accurracy due to the violence of the impacts.You can't be positive of anything, including your skills or ability to avoid an accident. No argument there, NOTHING is absolute.On anyday the best can go down Period. You got lucky 3 times, is that why you have no bike now. Do you Figure you have run that string out and are done pressing your luck?I certainly have good reason to look at the accidents in retrospect, as I have done over, and over, and over. I have never claimed to be a great rider, but always felt competent.

The first accident my doctor and I feel was brought on by dehydration. I just "phased out" and rode the bike off the road into a 5 foot high embankment. That one hurt me the worst of all the accidents. Shattered shoulder, 5 broken ribs, three fractured vertebrae, hemorraghed retinas. My head hit hard enouogh to hemmoraghe my retinas, could not see good for a couple weeks, but no concussion or other brain disfunction. (Some people close to me believe that having a new LT in the garage three weeks before I could even sit on it is sign of brain damage though). :D I never rode any distance again without wearing a CamelBak, did not want dehydration to ever be a possible contributor again.

I cannot think of anything I could have done to avoid the second accident, where the pickup swerved into me to cross my lane and go into a parking lot. He just did not know I was there, and I had absolutely no reason to be on the lookout for him. That one was just a "shit happens" event.

The last accident was the strangest one, I was riding in the left lane, still not sure what distracted me just long enough to drift to the left shoulder, I was on I-8 near Gila Bend headed for Deming, NM, About 9:30 in the morning, I had been riding for about 4-5 hours. Not sleepy, but when I hit the rumble strips I looked up, but unfortunately found the only torn up spot on the shoulder for many miles. Coming back from the hospital in Phoenix my wife and I U-turned and rode slowly along the accident area looking it over. When I hit that the bike fishtailed two quick times and the next thing I knew I was a tumbling rag doll on the freeway. Yes, the accident was caused by ME, inattention for a couple seconds at the wrong time. Sure can happen fast!

My wife has had three phone calls, and the last one hit her hard. She does not want me to get another bike now since we live on the opposite coast from all our family. We are trying to sell our home and semi-retire to NC/TN, and she fully expects me to get another bike when we do. She just does not want to be by herself here in SoCal if I don't come home next time. I can certainly understand her feelings. Three times is a lot. I still want another bike badly, but no guarantee whatever life has in store for us will allow it anytime soon.

I did ride 120,000 miles in 4 years, which does automatically put one in a higher statistical area for accidents to happen, but I also know several other high mileage riders who have had less accidents in more miles.Don't know many LD riders who have had none though.
What does it say inside the helmet?
I just looked:
Sticker #1
"No protective gear can protect the wearer against all forseeable impacts."
(plus several lines on how it should fit, how to wear it, and that all retention straps must be securely fastened).

Sticker #2:
"Some reasonably foreseable impacts may exceed this helmets capability to protect against severe injury or death."

Nowhere is any reference to speed made, and I have never heard of any helmet that does reference speed.

My point is that your seeming dependence on the fact that helmets are ineffective above 20 MPH seems to be totally ludicrous. Many people have been seriously injured or killed in far less violent accidents than the three I experienced. Yes, it can be luck of the draw, but for some to be severely injured or killed at low speed in ONE accident, while I came out with little head injuries in three is more than enough empirical proof to me, even borders on statistics to some extent.

I say that anyone that truly believes helmets are ineffective above 20 MPH is in severe denial, trying desperately to assuage an unfathomable desire to believe it, or is just plain ignorant about it.

There is no way to not believe that in my two worst accidents if I had not had on a good helmet I would at minimum have severe scarring/disfigurement, highly likely much worse. I feel lucky to have come out as well as I did, but dressing in good riding gear had a lot to do with it, far more than just luck itself.

[hig4s]

I guess all those guys racing MotoGP that have dropped their bikes at over 100mph and got up and walked away didn't really need the helmets after all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4282634204885245498&q=motogp


Yeah, he'd a been fine with out a helmet.

[UncleRock]

[QUOTE=dshealey]





I did ride 120,000 miles in 4 years, which does automatically put one in a higher statistical area for accidents to happen, but I also know several other high mileage riders who have had less accidents in more miles.Don't know many LD riders who have had none though.
I just looked:
Sticker #1
"No protective gear can protect the wearer against all forseeable impacts."
(plus several lines on how it should fit, how to wear it, and that all retention straps must be securely fastened).

Sticker #2:
"Some reasonably foreseable impacts may exceed this helmets capability to protect against severe injury or death."

Nowhere is any reference to speed made, and I have never heard of any helmet that does reference speed.


QUOTE]
Luck of the draw, when it is your time you go thats all. I have seen people killed at low speed and high speed. Some helmets are better than others.
I averaged over 30K per year for the past 10 years, have been riding on the street 33 years.
Been down 5 times, last was a deer on I-40 west of Hickory NC enroute to the Dragon. Totaled 88 K100LT
There are plenty of helmets that have a speed reference in them, I have helmets that are over 30 years old (don't wear them) they used to say if you drop a helmet, you needed to replace it.
I wasn't bustin your balls, just thought you might have decided to retire, alive!
Rock

[dshealey]

I guess all those guys racing MotoGP that have dropped their bikes at over 100mph and got up and walked away didn't really need the helmets after all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4282634204885245498&q=motogp


Yeah, he'd a been fine with out a helmet.

I was thinking the same thing after my last post. If helmets are ineffective over 20 MPH the professional road racers would all stop wearing them to save the weight! They are almost never under 20 MPH.

[hig4s]

Luck of the draw, when it is your time you go thats all. I have seen people killed at low speed and high speed. Some helmets are better than others.


God help those that help themselves, Darwin gets the fools that don't.

Anyone that doesn't want to wear a helmet, that is up to them. I'm against laws that take away personal freedoms. But to argue that helmet laws shouldn't exist because helmets can't protect a person is misinformation. No protective gear can protect against everything, just as locks on your car and home will not protect against all thiefs, but you still lock your car and home don't you? It is a matter of deciding which steps to take in minimizing the chances of having somthing bad happen to you.

[UncleRock]

God help those that help themselves

Where did you get that quote???

Darwin gets the fools that don't.
Dawin and God in the same game how does that work?


Anyone that doesn't want to wear a helmet, that is up to them. I'm against laws that take away personal freedoms. But to argue that helmet laws shouldn't exist because helmets can't protect a person is misinformation.

Helmet laws should not exsist period.

No protective gear can protect against everything, just as locks on your car and home will not protect against all thiefs, but you still lock your car and home don't you? It is a matter of deciding which steps to take in minimizing the chances of having somthing bad happen to you.
No I don't lock my car or my house, that only keeps honest people out.
Rock :eek:

[hig4s]

The first part I've heard from family members all my life, the rest I added myself.

Anyone that thinks God and Darwin are mutually exclusive has a terribly myopic view of the world. People agruing against the fact the evolution happens, with faith based opinions, are just plain clueless.




No I don't lock my car or my house, that only keeps honest people out.
Rock :eek:

Speaking of myopic, that just is not true. Trouble making kids, and oppertunist crooks will take easy advantage of unlocked doors, often bypassing locked ones. Again, locked doors will not stop all people trying to violate your personal property, but they definitly will stop some, and is better than doing nothing. Just as helmets will not protect riders in all crash situations, but they definitly protect in a fair percentage of crashes. And IMHO is better than doing nothing, but your choice, knock yourself out. But to argue against the facts that helmets do protect, using faith based opinion is,, well 'nuff said.

[UncleRock]

[QUOTE=hig4s






Speaking of myopic, that just is not true. Trouble making kids, and oppertunist crooks will take easy advantage of unlocked doors, often bypassing locked ones. Again, locked doors will not stop all people trying to violate your personal property, but they definitly will stop some, and is better than doing nothing. [/QUOTE]
It is true where I'm at, maybe if I was a pussy and they thought they could get away with it, then they might try it. However I been around here for a long time, people know who I am, so I don't have such problems.
It's called Respect!
Rock

[hig4s]

It is true where I'm at, maybe if I was a pussy and they thought they could get away with it, then they might try it. However I been around here for a long time, people know who I am, so I don't have such problems.
It's called Respect!
Rock

In the natural order of things, the average life expectancy of tigers, lions and wolves, is less than that of rabbits, and sheep. Cautious animals live longer. Again and again nature points out the folly of men.

[tmgs]

My point is that your seeming dependence on the fact that helmets are ineffective above 20 MPH seems to be totally ludicrous. Many people have been seriously injured or killed in far less violent accidents than the three I experienced. Yes, it can be luck of the draw, but for some to be severely injured or killed at low speed in ONE accident, while I came out with little head injuries in three is more than enough empirical proof to me, even borders on statistics to some extent.

I say that anyone that truly believes helmets are ineffective above 20 MPH is in severe denial, trying desperately to assuage an unfathomable desire to believe it, or is just plain ignorant about it.


Not to worry David, there are many that think a helmet is completely useless at any speed, trust me when I say that, and when i do I am dead serious that many REALLY belive the helmet will kill you or break your neck long before it will save your noggin, Like you I have had serious accidents TWO of them, one at 70+ MPH a direct hit to the head when I landed on it, the other was from a flatbed truck that had a direct hit to my helmet. both times the helmet saved my noggin and way more than likely my Life.

IT IS HOGWASH to believe a helmet is USELESS above any 20 mph impact speed, and NO I'm not talking about the speed you are going when you wreck, I am talking about a DIRECT to the HELMET impact speed. I think Mr Rock might have been talking direct to the helmet impact speed. but that is giving him the benefit of doubt since he did not directly state that fact.

one thing I cannot stand, is for someone to go out and say a completely useless statement like a helmet is no good over 20mph. it is irresponsible to do so IMNSFHO. it really gives the newbie very bad incorrect information.

Dealing with many through some interestingly poor facts aout helmets helmet laws the impacts on INS , i grew tired of trying to get folks to wake up and smell the roses before they are on thier own grave.

I am a firm believer in Choice for sure, but I am a firm beliver in properly educating folks about thier choice.
If they are well aware of the pros and cons and don't have this kind of bullshit fed to them let them make thier choice.

just stop feeding the folks BS like this!

Tom

[tmgs]

Howdy Rock,

I know I'm not going to change your mind, so this response is directed at those that may be following this argument.

I respect your opinion and hold you in high regard for sticking with your principles.

Sticking with his principles about CHOICE is one thing, feeding the public BS is another

i definitely respect someone who defends their ground particularly when it comes to added laws. but Do so with truth instead of BS, the whole helmet thing is about CHOICE period, no one that has any brains really believes they are better off hitting the ground without a helmet.

Tom

[meese]

Luck of the draw, when it is your time you go thats all.If that were true, we'd all drive like we were in India. Point the car (or bike, truck, or bus) and punch it; if you make it then you make it, if you die then it's Shiva's will. So no sense in wearing any special gear, or getting a bike with ABS, or ever taking any training, etc. Sure there are many things you can't control (or even forsee), but that's no more excuse for not doing everything you can to take care of yourself than saying it's God's choice, so why bother?

It's called Respect!That's not respect, it's fear. Maybe it works for you, but intimidation isn't the only means that works, and even that only works on some people.

[meese]

no one that has any brains really believes they are better off hitting the ground without a helmet.If they truly have no brains, then do they really need a helmet? :)

[UncleRock]

Not to worry David, there are many that think a helmet is completely useless at any speed, trust me when I say that, and when i do I am dead serious that many REALLY belive the helmet will kill you or break your neck long before it will save your noggin, Like you I have had serious accidents TWO of them, one at 70+ MPH a direct hit to the head when I landed on it, the other was from a flatbed truck that had a direct hit to my helmet. both times the helmet saved my noggin and way more than likely my Life.

IT IS HOGWASH to believe a helmet is USELESS above any 20 mph impact speed, and NO I'm not talking about the speed you are going when you wreck, I am talking about a DIRECT to the HELMET impact speed. I think Mr Rock might have been talking direct to the helmet impact speed. but that is giving him the benefit of doubt since he did not directly state that fact.

one thing I cannot stand, is for someone to go out and say a completely useless statement like a helmet is no good over 20mph. it is irresponsible to do so IMNSFHO. it really gives the newbie very bad incorrect information.

Dealing with many through some interestingly poor facts aout helmets helmet laws the impacts on INS , i grew tired of trying to get folks to wake up and smell the roses before they are on thier own grave.

I am a firm believer in Choice for sure, but I am a firm beliver in properly educating folks about thier choice.
If they are well aware of the pros and cons and don't have this kind of bullshit fed to them let them make thier choice.

just stop feeding the folks BS like this!

Tom
Why don't you stop feeding them BS from your side of the Table.
If you can't stand something I do, maybe you should consider suicide.
Oh yeah learn to ride instead of spending your time on safer crashing.
Rock

[hawg]

Why don't you stop feeding them BS from your side of the Table.
If you can't stand something I do, maybe you should consider suicide.
Oh yeah learn to ride instead of spending your time on safer crashing.
Rock

Rock,
Maybe you should tone this kind of comment down. Tom (tmgs) is a very good friend of mine and believe me, knowing him, this is simply unnecessary.

JMTCW...

Take care,

[UncleRock]

Rock,
Maybe you should tone this kind of comment down. Tom (tmgs) is a very good friend of mine and believe me, knowing him, this is simply unnecessary.

JMTCW...

Take care,
While I know that things aren't always straight forward in PC group, you will find that I am.
I was answering his post.
He said he couldn't stand something I said/did, SO WHAT!

Helmets do kill people by breaking their C1/2 vertabrae, happens all the time. When your number is up you die, period.
I don't know you, so him being your friend means what to me?? Lost me there.
Rock

[bruce2000ltc]

I think we've all made up our minds on the helmet law issue. And I doubt anyone will change their position based on anything posted here.

What I do find troubling is the misinformation posted here and on the internet that wearing a helmet is useless or dangerous to support their position to not wear a helmet. While overwhelming evidence from two credible research studies shows that helmets do save lives.

Take the "over 20mph a helmet is useless" statement. Research (Hurt Report) has shown that most fatal head injuries occur from the riders head falling from the height of the riders head sitting on a motorcycle to the impact on the pavement. It doesn't make any difference if you fall off going 5mph or 60mph, the force of the impact is still determined by distance your head fell. Simple physics. Helmets do a good job of helping you survive this type of accident, period.

I could go on but I know it's useless. I just wish the anti helmet law proponents would stick to the "personal freedom" aspect of their argument - It's the only part that is truthful and has merit.

Oh, and Uncle Rock, close your mouth and save a breath. Your side has no credible research studies.

Bruce Hodges

[hawg]

While I know that things aren't always straight forward in PC group, you will find that I am.
I was answering his post.
He said he couldn't stand something I said/did, SO WHAT!

Helmets do kill people by breaking their C1/2 vertabrae, happens all the time. When your number is up you die, period.
I don't know you, so him being your friend means what to me?? Lost me there.
Rock


PC my ass! That is not what I said...I was simply referring to your comment about why doesn't he just commit suicide? Maybe that is just the way your post comes across since it is difficult to express in words on a post what is on one's mind. I dunno. Maybe emoticons would help... :confused:

Only thing I expect from anyone if this world is respect....not friggin PC this or PC that!

If you were trying to make a point about helmets being dangerous...okay, although I disagree totally. But that is your viewpoint...so be it. I mentioned that Tom is a very good friend only to point out that I know that kind of argument is not going to sway his viewpoint.

Reckon ya could just be straight without sounding like that post did? Screw any PC rhetoric...

[tmgs]

Why don't you stop feeding them BS from your side of the Table.
If you can't stand something I do, maybe you should consider suicide.
Oh yeah learn to ride instead of spending your time on safer crashing.
Rock


Are you insane? I spent some time teaching safer riding not crashing, you have most definilty lost it bud.

No one said anything about not standing something, but the thread has turned from a freedom of choice issue to a complete nonsense full of BS facts thread.


Do what you will Rock, i think you have lost the issue about choice. It is about freedom of choice not what is safer or better for you. if you think for one second it is safer not to wear a helmet and promote that train of thought then you have definitly lost sight of the freedom of choice issue.

What's the matter you do not like for someone to have a different opinion than yours?

I said it before, I support freedom of choice, but will not spread improper information and will not support those who do.
This is one reason I gave up on ABATE long ago, spread the truth not lies to accomplish your agenda period.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with safety!~!


Tom

[tmgs]

If they truly have no brains, then do they really need a helmet? :)


Damn Meese, you owe me a keyboard! LMAO

Tom

[tmgs]

While I know that things aren't always straight forward in PC group, you will find that I am.
I was answering his post.
He said he couldn't stand something I said/did, SO WHAT!


What I can't stand is someone to blurt out words like
a helmet is useless above 20mph, it simply is not true, I have no problem with the freedom to decide if you want to ride helmetless, it's your head and family that will take the loss.


Helmets do kill people by breaking their C1/2 vertabrae, happens all the time.


That has been said a ton of times, please cite the cases Rock, all of them that the helmet ACTUALY caused the neck to break!

When your number is up you die, period.
I don't know you, so him being your friend means what to me?? Lost me there.
Rock

You don't know me nor do I know you or you would know what he means. PC is not the bag I'm used to anyhow so IMHO there has been no foul here.

Tom

[UncleRock]

PC my ass! That is not what I said...I was simply referring to your comment about why doesn't he just commit suicide? Maybe that is just the way your post comes across since it is difficult to express in words on a post what is on one's mind. I dunno. Maybe emoticons would help... :confused:

Only thing I expect from anyone if this world is respect....not friggin PC this or PC that!

If you were trying to make a point about helmets being dangerous...okay, although I disagree totally. But that is your viewpoint...so be it. I mentioned that Tom is a very good friend only to point out that I know that kind of argument is not going to sway his viewpoint.

Reckon ya could just be straight without sounding like that post did? Screw any PC rhetoric...
Not my choice, I had a blistering reply laid out, lost power here 2 times before I could post it? (so I decided not to post it)
Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs,.
"People that don't wear helmets have no brains"
"People that wear helmets have no balls"
I have heard both sides a million times, I say do what you want before you die, screw what anyone else thinks.
Rock

[tmgs]

Not my choice, I had a blistering reply laid out, lost power here 2 times before I could post it? (so I decided not to post it)
Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs,.
"People that don't wear helmets have no brains"
"People that wear helmets have no balls"
I have heard both sides a million times,


---------------

I say do what you want before you die, screw what anyone else thinks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Rock


And that is the best point you made in this thread.

[havnablast]

I just got back from a weekend in In., Ill. and OH. I'm from Mi and my girl and I wanted to ride with the choice of wearing a helmet or not. I lost part of my right ear in a bike accident when I was younger. Call it dumb, call it arrogant but I want freedom of choice. Nothing like the wind in your hair flying down the road. We are all aware of the additional hazards in riding a bike. I'm an adult and choose to deal with those hazards. I don't need anyone dictating to me how. What's next, out law motorcycle riding because of the additional hazards. Live free, ride free. Freedom baby.

[hawg]

---------------



And that is the best point you made in this thread.


Hmmm...his point is screw what his loved ones think? Just wondering...:confused:

[UncleRock]

Hmmm...his point is screw what his loved ones think? Just wondering...:confused:
Well no shit, little slow on the uptake there?
If they love me they don't want to keep me in a cage. Why don't you keep your loved ones and you in a glass box with filtered air and water, that way you'll be safe from harm.
I would rather have my loved ones die, then live their lives in subjection.
Rock

[tmgs]

Hmmm...his point is screw what his loved ones think? Just wondering...:confused:

Not really, at elast not imo, but I have been wrong before, the point is clear that he wants freedom of "his" choice, which I can't argue with nor would i ieever argue that. since he is willing to take the risks, as long as it doesn;t bruden the rest of us.

My problems with the whole helmet law vs no helmet law BS, is the other problems it brings, such as insurance changes or better worded lack of insurances, making my ins premiums unobtainable or out of site priceing.
The lies spread to people on how dangerous helmets are and they are useless anyhow.

try to get a MRO involved in getting better insurance laws for motorcyclist, or better yet rights like lemon laws same as 4 wheel vehicles. and I'm mostly speaking for FL since that was my home state. it seems they have only one agenda and don;t care about any negative impacts it may have on fellow motorcyclists

Tom