U.S. country wide helmet laws coming?

[dshealey]

The NTSB just issued recommendations to all states to enact uniform helmet requirements.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/091107b.htm

I think this is a good thing, but it certainly will incite a firestorm from some.

[JATownsend]

Yup, just saw that posted on the LDRider's List! Wow, there are going to be a lot of very angry bikers out there. I can only wonder how long it will take to implement such a sweeping policy and what legal battles will ensue and cost non-compliant states. Or, is this a fait du complet!?

Firestorm indeed!

[KMC1]

There was an accompanying article in USA today regarding the accident statistics among motorcyclists. The Highway Institute is arguing that the high performance motorcycles are making up the majority of the accidents, and that lack of experience is a factor as well. It sounded like the precursor to displacement limits & a graduated licensing structure al la Europe from the article.

[jrlakin]

What they will probably do is the same thing the Feds did when they "forced" the state to all pass DWI laws with the .08 standard, mandatory seat belt laws, and requirements that drivers with CDL licenses can't receive "diversion" treatment on traffic offenses---they will threaten to take away Highway funds unless the States comply and pass laws mandating helmets. I always wear a helmet anyway, so it won't effect me one way or the other, but I do resent the regulations.

[UncleRock]

What they will probably do is the same thing the Feds did when they "forced" the state to all pass DWI laws with the .08 standard they will threaten to take away Highway funds unless the States comply and pass laws mandating helmets.
Which is one of the stupidest blackmail ploys ever used.
What state legislators don't tell the people is the money they say they will hold out, WE GIVE TO THEM. Each state pays a percentage of the tax on ea gallon of road fuel sold.
Keep the money tell them to go pound salt and fix your own roads. Plus the total they threaten to with hold comes to about 2%.
Rock
Hey Dufess could not get a win with Iraq, Al Quida, Afganastan or Bin Laden, maybe he has a chance with this :D

[K1200LTryder]

Seatbelts save lives, so do helmets. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, it is because of laziness and stupidity and lack of respect for my own safety. If I choose not to wear my helmet, I may as well call myself suicidal.

Working in the medical field, I've seen to many squashed pumpkins to the point where I no longer have respect for the dead body it is attached to.

I hope this law can pass.

[kdog]

Seatbelts save lives, so do helmets. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, it is because of laziness and stupidity and lack of respect for my own safety. If I choose not to wear my helmet, I may as well call myself suicidal.

Working in the medical field, I've seen to many squashed pumpkins to the point where I no longer have respect for the dead body it is attached to.

I hope this law can pass.

I agree. I used to be a "choice" person, and now I'm not so sure. Nobody wears a helmet out here in AZ, and it really drives me nuts. It's not so much the rider, but the passengers I feel bad for. They take their queues from the rider and don't know any better. All the doctors in town call motorcycles death-machines. No wonder. :rolleyes:

[tmgs]

Seatbelts save lives, so do helmets. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, it is because of laziness and stupidity and lack of respect for my own safety. If I choose not to wear my helmet, I may as well call myself suicidal.

Working in the medical field, I've seen to many squashed pumpkins to the point where I no longer have respect for the dead body it is attached to.

I hope this law can pass.



really, i have a friend in trauma unit that has said just the opposite, he swears there is no connection between helmet use or not and MC deaths,

I think he is nuts but still I do not like the US mandating such laws, when a DL is purely state specific, also the other thing that ticks me off is ccw's

maybe it is time just to have a nation wide law on DL's and CCW's

who knows........

[Duane_in_Florida]

[QUOTE=jrlakin]What they will probably do is the same thing the Feds did when they "forced" the state to all pass DWI laws with the .08 standard, mandatory seat belt laws, and requirements that drivers with CDL licenses can't receive "diversion" treatment on traffic offenses---they will threaten to take away Highway funds unless the States comply and pass laws mandating helmets. [QUOTE]

Don't forget the federally mandated drinking age of 21...and that's not even directly related to driving. It did put us in a select group however...only Arab countries have the same minimum drinking age. A few years ago in Australia, I had someone explain to be me that they look at the US as a theocracy ...just like Iran or Saudi...our laws are determined by a select few based on their interpretation of a national religion. Kind of scary.

On a more direct note a helmet law would greatly reduce the number of bikes on the road here in Flatland, especially in the summer. There is no way most of the H-D crowd is wearing a helmet at 95 degrees F.

[K1200LTryder]

"really, i have a friend in trauma unit that has said just the opposite, he swears there is no connection between helmet use or not and MC deaths"

Well, I cant really answer to that one, as I have nothing to do with the trauma unit or ER. ( bed space in the Kawasaki ward is at a premuim though)

I see the results in the morgue ( yes it is part of my job, somebody has to do it).

[BillyOmaha]

The unfortunate part of the governmental debate on the issue of universal mandatory helmet law is that the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) has a stated position of being opposed.

As a member of the AMA that strongly disagrees with the official position, I find it misleading that such a large organization should take a simplistic stand on such an important issue based on a simple majority view.

The issue is helmets, not engine displacement or any other red herring. Broken bones, even lost limbs are nothing compared with the consequences of brain damage. I've met many riders that have gone down and seen a few go down personally and after their wounds healed they all were back to normal. All were wearing helmets.

Why is it that I haven't met any riders that have gone down without a helmet. It could be that they are simply much better riders than the rest of us and don't go down. Perhaps it is because the vast majority of them are dead, or worse, so badly damaged that they cannot function normally, including riding a motorcycle. Speculation on my part, but logical.

While I believe in States rights, I also believe that some subjects should come under a more comprehensive approach. Clearly highway use and the rules applied should be consistent from State to State.

.

[hagar]

I would wear a helmet if it was against the law, but I resent being told what to do by "big brother" myself. I do think you are stupid to ride without a helmet, but I guess in the US you have the right to be stupid.

[grifscoots]

Why is it that I haven't met any riders that have gone down without a helmet.
.Well, you've met me. I've bit asphalt many times and been hit by cars without a helmet. I am a true case study for the advocation of universal helmet wear.

I didn't wear a helmet till I started hanging with the BMW crowd, or if forced by the state I was travelling thru. I have to state that helmet wearing is a comfort factor for me. I can ride longer and with more comfort and less fatigue than I ever did without a helmet. Or is it the bike?

[BillyOmaha]

Well, you've met me. I've bit asphalt many times and been hit by cars without a helmet. I am a true case study for the advocation of universal helmet wear......
Howdy Grif,

I stand corrected AND vindicated. I never met you before the CCR's so I can only imagine how normal you used to be ;) :histerica

.

[jrlakin]

[QUOTE=hagar]I would wear a helmet if it was against the law, but I resent being told what to do by "big brother" myself. I do think you are stupid to ride without a helmet, but I guess in the US you have the right to be stupid.[/QUOTE

I agree 100% with you. Plus I would like to make the observation that Darwin was correct, Natural Selection does work!

[ahpd1992]

This is an emotional issue for me as well. I wear a helmet 99% of the time so a helmet law wont really affect me. Il give you an example of the thought processes out there.

I just got back from a ride to Memphis, TN with 4 other guys. 3 were on harleys and were the stereo typical RUB's. I was on the best bike, my 99LT and another was on his ancient but well running yamaha. As you can probably figure me and the Yamaha rider were the only ones wearing a helmet all the time. We left from northern IL (no helmet laws here) and as soon as we crossed into Missouri, the bitching started from the other 3 (RUB's). We had to wear helmets the rest of the trip and the other 3 actually argued that the helmet laws in these states were bad for tourism.

Seeing as how most, not all, of the HD riders I know are more concerned with the look of their ride rather than riding skills, I see a lot of these guys leaving the sport (hobby if you will).

I dont like the Big Brother aspect of a national helmet law, I see it as a slippery slope, but others disagree and that is their right

Tom

[Lonewuff]

I am and always have been pro helmet for myself, but I am not about to get up on a soap box and tell anyone else they have to wear one. However; if it would help insurance rates, and county taxes (supporting the hospitals that have to treat under insured or non insured helmet-less riders with head injuries), and other dents in my checkbook, than I have no problem with the Feds enacting laws to protect everyone's financial interests on the issue.

Now if a rider wants to go without a helmet, by "Choice," a waiver should be signed by that rider saying his/her insurance will cover "$X" amount of medical care for a head injury and that ends it. Treatment ends when the riders money or "Limited" insurance runs out, so no one else (especially me) has to pay to support his/her "Choice", than I have no problem. Keeping in mind that the $10K Texas requires for you to ride helmet-less will only last about 3 hours from the moment you hit the hospital with a serious head injury. Of course we all know that a doctor can't and shouldn't stop treating someone, so that idea will never fly, but who should be held responsible for paying for the extended treatment that the rider who made the choice to ride helmet-less needs? Me? Why?

The reason I wear a helmet is to protect myself, but if someone else chooses to ride without a helmet than I shouldn't be held accountable to have to pay for their head injuries.

A.T.G.A.T.T.

Flame suit on, flame retardant applied, and stepping off the soap box.

[meese]

Is it time for the helmet law debate already? My Calendar of Useless Recurring Threads™ shows it as scheduled for early winter rather than late fall. :)

Makes no difference to me as I wear one at all times, in all states. In fact, it actually throws me off to see riders without a helmet when I happen to be in one of those states. Anyone who rides without one is just fooling themselves, or thinking "It will never happen to me."

"The most important step riders can take in terms of protecting themselves and staying alive is to wear a DOT- compliant helmet every time they ride."I disagree. The most important step is to learn to ride the bike properly, which includes learning to recognize and avoid collisions in the first place. It's like arguing for or against abortion, when the focus should be on not getting pregnant in the first place.

[Bobnoxous]

+1 for natural selection.
-1 for laws that force you to do what's good for you, or else!!

All the arguments you can make for helmet laws you can make to ban motorcycling entirely. You no longer have to debate whether a helmet helped save a rider or not; riding is illegal. For your own good, you know. Oh, and money too. Medical care is expensive.

People think they can start down a road just a little bit, but that's not what happens. The next generation, not being aware of the previous step, don't have a perspective on what's been given up. They take another step. It's for your own good, you know. Then another.

We won't ban motorcycles overnight. We'll require safety mechanisms, then say how they don't work effectively on high-speed bikes, so ban high-speed bikes. It's illegal to go over 75 mph anyway. Then we'll say how all bikes are more dangerous than cars.

If the only argument you can make against such draconian tactics is that "well that's too far", we're going to lose. We can articulate solid reasons for enacting laws, but "it's too far" is just an emotional response. It's hard to quantify freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. Hence, it can be ignored.

Of course, this never happens (sarcasm).

[NCoe]

I am not sure that mandating helmets is the right way to go. I do know that I consider anyone who rides without a helmet and other protective gear to be a fool. I don't ride with fools.

[CalLT]

You'd be a lot safer wearing a helmet driving your car, too. I guess that means we need a new law.

Uggghhh ....

[Gizmo1137]

[QUOTE=kdog] Nobody wears a helmet out here in AZ, and it really drives me nuts.

This is a bit over stated. True in Arizona helmets are not required and there are many who choose not to, but there are thankfully many who do.

[meese]

What they will probably do is the same thing the Feds did when they "forced" the state to all pass DWI laws with the .08 standard, mandatory seat belt laws, and requirements that drivers with CDL licenses can't receive "diversion" treatment on traffic offenses---they will threaten to take away Highway funds unless the States comply and pass laws mandating helmets. I always wear a helmet anyway, so it won't effect me one way or the other, but I do resent the regulations.I understand the argument against forcing the states to comply with federal regulations, and I agree in principle. But you have to consider what those regulations are on a case-by-case basis. For example, I think the DWI limit should be 0.00, that is zero-tolerance. Why should any amount of alcohol be allowed when operating a motor vehicle?

And on the way back from CCR I visited Central High School National Historic Site in Little Rock, AR. 50 years ago this month, the Feds took over the National Guard whom the Governor was using to keep blacks out of the school, and used them to protect those students and enforce desegregation as ordered by the Supreme Court. I'm sure there are still folks who disagree with that decision, but it does point out a case where small-minded locals needed to be forced to comply with a Federal ruling.

But to bring it back to bikes, I can also see gradated licensing coming, which I think is a good thing. And certain states are already imposing severe penalties for excessive speed (in some cases, 25 mph over the posted limit is specifically targeted as "street-racing", even if it is a single-vehicle transgression). Sure, I like to exceed the posted limits when it is clearly safe to do so, but do I really need to, or have the right to? Or does my wish to play with my bike on public roads put others at risk simply by them being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

They may force mandatory helmet laws in all states, or the states may fight back and maintain the current status. But either way, many folks are going to be very unhappy about all this.

[jrlakin]

+1 for natural selection.
-1 for laws that force you to do what's good for you, or else!!

All the arguments you can make for helmet laws you can make to ban motorcycling entirely. You no longer have to debate whether a helmet helped save a rider or not; riding is illegal. For your own good, you know. Oh, and money too. Medical care is expensive.

People think they can start down a road just a little bit, but that's not what happens. The next generation, not being aware of the previous step, don't have a perspective on what's been given up. They take another step. It's for your own good, you know. Then another.

We won't ban motorcycles overnight. We'll require safety mechanisms, then say how they don't work effectively on high-speed bikes, so ban high-speed bikes. It's illegal to go over 75 mph anyway. Then we'll say how all bikes are more dangerous than cars.

If the only argument you can make against such draconian tactics is that "well that's too far", we're going to lose. We can articulate solid reasons for enacting laws, but "it's too far" is just an emotional response. It's hard to quantify freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. Hence, it can be ignored.

Of course, this never happens (sarcasm).

Again, I agree 100%!!! Once you start down that slippery slope, where do you draw the line? Frankly, I don't believe in mandatory seat belt laws (except of underage passengers) for the same reasons--what is next? Helmets in cars? Again, I wear a helmet. and think anyone who doesn't is stupid. As a good friend once told me, "the major difference between brillance and stupidity, is that brillance has its limitations!"

[danbrown]

I agree with lone wuff 100% (reply #17 ) why should I/we half to pay for irresponsible riders???

[Bobnoxous]

I agree with lone wuff 100% (reply #17 ) why should I/we half to pay for irresponsible riders???You shouldn't, which is why you should be against the welfare state and forced coverage. Welfare creates many more problems than it solves. Those darn illegal aliens taking advantage of our welfare, those crazy motorcycle drivers costing all of us taxpayers because of our medical welfare, etc.

A welfare state almost requires a socialist state. No one has a right to make their own choices, because everyone else has to pay for those choices. Welfare may be started with the best of intentions, but the result is the state dictating how you live your life.

[Briantime]

+1 for natural selection.
-1 for laws that force you to do what's good for you, or else!!

All the arguments you can make for helmet laws you can make to ban motorcycling entirely. You no longer have to debate whether a helmet helped save a rider or not; riding is illegal. For your own good, you know. Oh, and money too. Medical care is expensive.

People think they can start down a road just a little bit, but that's not what happens. The next generation, not being aware of the previous step, don't have a perspective on what's been given up. They take another step. It's for your own good, you know. Then another.

We won't ban motorcycles overnight. We'll require safety mechanisms, then say how they don't work effectively on high-speed bikes, so ban high-speed bikes. It's illegal to go over 75 mph anyway. Then we'll say how all bikes are more dangerous than cars.

If the only argument you can make against such draconian tactics is that "well that's too far", we're going to lose. We can articulate solid reasons for enacting laws, but "it's too far" is just an emotional response. It's hard to quantify freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. Hence, it can be ignored.

Of course, this never happens (sarcasm).

Amen Brother!

The one thing that keeps popping into my head when I read responses from those here who agree with mandatory helemt wear because it is safer is that not riding a motorcycle at all is safer than riding one. Seems awfully hypocritical to me. God, I am so sick of the government with their hands all over me.

[kola1]

I live in Fl. ( no helmet law for 21 and over ) Back when we did have a helmet law some of the helmets that were used offered little or no protection. I wear a helmet and other gear when I ride ( never have understood fingerless gloves ) If there is a new helmet law for everyone I only ask that they wear a helmet that will offer good protection and not a crap skid lid. Make the law protect the person as it should and not something you can get around by putting some crap on your head. kola1

[NOGILLS2]

I agree with George Carlin, Let the stupid people do as they please and soon there wont be any more stupid people.

After my first realy bad motorcycle accident in 1979, it does not take a law to get me to wear a helmet, and after MSF classes I wear ATTGATT, 99.9% of the time.

But I do not appreciate the FEDS telling me what to do and when to do it. I dont like seat belt laws either.

I am not sure when it happened but the Gov'T switched from being our Father to being our Mother. Dad stands by and says "Now son thats gonna hurt!" but Mom wont let you get on top of the monkey bars to even see what its like. Mom doesn't want you to play with toy guns. It was facinating watching my boys grow up, picking up sticks and pointing them at each other saying POW POW POW Your dead. What ya gonna do?

[BillyOmaha]

+1 for natural selection.
-1 for laws that force you to do what's good for you, or else!!

All the arguments you can make for helmet laws you can make to ban motorcycling entirely. You no longer have to debate whether a helmet helped save a rider or not; riding is illegal. For your own good, you know. Oh, and money too. Medical care is expensive.

People think they can start down a road just a little bit, but that's not what happens. The next generation, not being aware of the previous step, don't have a perspective on what's been given up. They take another step. It's for your own good, you know. Then another.

We won't ban motorcycles overnight. We'll require safety mechanisms, then say how they don't work effectively on high-speed bikes, so ban high-speed bikes. It's illegal to go over 75 mph anyway. Then we'll say how all bikes are more dangerous than cars.

If the only argument you can make against such draconian tactics is that "well that's too far", we're going to lose. We can articulate solid reasons for enacting laws, but "it's too far" is just an emotional response. It's hard to quantify freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. Hence, it can be ignored.

Of course, this never happens (sarcasm).Howdy Bob,

By that logic, there should zero laws regarding safety. Everyone should be on there own to determine safety concerns. Seatbelts on cars optional, FAA abolished to let consumers decide, no auto cut off switches on lawn mowers, etc..

I agree that there is a pendulum and it can swing too far on occasion, but this isn't one of those times.

.

[tmgs]

[QUOTE=grifscoots]Well, you've met me. I've bit asphalt many times and been hit by cars without a helmet. -


I am a true case study for the advocation of universal helmet wear.
[QUOTE]

Man you are not kidding there!!!

runnin n duckin

Tom :rotf:

[Zotter]

NOT being a real student of history, it seems to me that governments seem to follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) quite well. In that the longer the system operates, the more entropy comes to play, the closer to a homogeneous, non-dynamic, "vanila" commonality it becomes.

The framers of the US constitution designed the system to prevent that - allow for the existence, valuation and expression of the individual. To allow us to be us and not just "cookie cutter" minions.

This is just another example of the consistent, nibbling bites taken by our governments every day. Their attempt at improvement moves the whole system closer to an entropic state.

So, for some - the battle has nothing to do with helmets, safety or even transportation. It has to do with keeping Big-Brother in his box doing what we want him to do, not what he wants to do to us. By fighting against these nibbly bites - the intent is to preserve the original intent of the founding fathers. Keep America American.

That has a bit more to do with the HD culture than tassels, chrome and leather.

Amazing and ironic how patriotism can be an effective population control - in so many arenas....

[tmgs]

Howdy Bob,

By that logic, there should zero laws regarding safety. Everyone should be on there own to determine safety concerns. Seatbelts on cars optional, FAA abolished to let consumers decide, no auto cut off switches on lawn mowers, etc..

I agree that there is a pendulum and it can swing too far on occasion, but this isn't one of those times.

.


I sit here and read this helmet issue over and over,

I must say I do underrstand your assesment, but the way the gov will go about mandating each state to comply is IMHO wrong.

IMO, seeing how each state has it's own rights, this is something that shoud be left up to the state period.

Until that changes and each state becomes completly goverend by the fed gov. (which will be a cold day in h*** I bet) the feds should not be able to pull this off, then again there are many other lawas they should not have been able to pull of either

and for the record , I am for wearing helmets.

Tom

[Bobnoxous]

Howdy Bob,

By that logic, there should zero laws regarding safety. Everyone should be on there own to determine safety concerns. Seatbelts on cars optional, FAA abolished to let consumers decide, no auto cut off switches on lawn mowers, etc..

I agree that there is a pendulum and it can swing too far on occasion, but this isn't one of those times.Hi Billy.

I agree with all of those changes. If you make decisions based on principle, rather than a case-by-case basis, the natural result of not believing in a nanny state is that people are in charge of their safety, not the government. Seatbelts should not be mandated. I will demand them, but that's my choice. It's hypocritical to argue for seatbelt laws and against helmet laws (how about an ATGATT law?).

If I'm a lawnmower manufacturer and one of my customers was hurt, and I could prevent that injury by adding a cutoff switch, why wouldn't I do that? It's bad PR to have your mower chop off someone's fingers. I'd probably add the switch myself, but if not, customers that care about safety will buy my competitors lawnmower. As for the FAA, do you think if an airline had a bad safety record I'd fly it?

The FDA is another example. FDA regulations do protect us from some bad drugs, but many people die because the FDA will not let them have the drugs that might save them. I don't think that's a good solution.

Knowledge is the key. In today's world, it's easy to get good information and advocating safety is just information. The state's power is a 2-edged sword. Some companies will be short-sighted and not do "the right thing", but as long as there's competition, I don't have to do business with those companies. When it comes to the state, I don't have that choice.

[BillyOmaha]

Hi Billy.

I agree with all of those changes. If you make decisions based on principle, rather than a case-by-case basis, the natural result of not believing in a nanny state is that people are in charge of their safety, not the government. Seatbelts should not be mandated. I will demand them, but that's my choice. It's hypocritical to argue for seatbelt laws and against helmet laws (how about an ATGATT law?).

If I'm a lawnmower manufacturer and one of my customers was hurt, and I could prevent that injury by adding a cutoff switch, why wouldn't I do that? It's bad PR to have your mower chop off someone's fingers. I'd probably add the switch myself, but if not, customers that care about safety will buy my competitors lawnmower. As for the FAA, do you think if an airline had a bad safety record I'd fly it?

The FDA is another example. FDA regulations do protect us from some bad drugs, but many people die because the FDA will not let them have the drugs that might save them. I don't think that's a good solution.

Knowledge is the key. In today's world, it's easy to get good information and advocating safety is just information. The state's power is a 2-edged sword. Some companies will be short-sighted and not do "the right thing", but as long as there's competition, I don't have to do business with those companies. When it comes to the state, I don't have that choice.Agreed in part and I believe that we,the majority, agree that we should exercise good judjement as consumers. But I also believe that we as a society can, through our government, make laws that protect the population as a whole.

While I could spend hours and hours, virtually every day, researching products and service providers in order to provide for the safely of those I love, I prefer to elect responsible representatives to do so in my stead.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

.

[kdog]

Nobody wears a helmet out here in AZ, and it really drives me nuts.
This is a bit over stated. True in Arizona helmets are not required and there are many who choose not to, but there are thankfully many who do.

Of course saying "nobody" is overstated. I wear a helmet, so there's at least just one. However, my perception is that in Kingman, the vast majority of riders do not wear one. Perhaps Phoenix is different. I'll have to spend 10 minutes on the side of the road and do an informal survey. It might be interesting to compare the numbers.

-joel

[Briantime]

I prefer to elect responsible representatives to do so in my stead.

.


Where do you find those? :)

[Bobnoxous]

Agreed in part and I believe that we,the majority, agree that we should exercise good judjement as consumers. But I also believe that we as a society can, through our government, make laws that protect the population as a whole.

While I could spend hours and hours, virtually every day, researching products and service providers in order to provide for the safely of those I love, I prefer to elect responsible representatives to do so in my stead.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

.That's one way to achieve safety, but there are others. Underwriters Laboratories is a private organization, paid for by manufacturers (and consumers, of course), that puts a seal on equipment that's passed their testing. I wouldn't buy electronics without the UL seal. It didn't require a new government bureaucracy and the increased spending that goes with it. Other private organizations could do the same for drugs, transportation, whatever.

When the government takes such a role, consumers still have to pay, but it's a lot more. It's much more efficient if the private market does this instead. If a private entity stops caring about safety or takes payoffs, their seal will become worthless and they cannot make any more money. Other organizations will step in and provide what the consumer wants. If the government becomes beholden to the companies, or special interests, what are you going to do? They still make money, because it's not given voluntarily.

Maybe there are some cases where a government organization is needed because, for some reason, the market just won't do it. But that should be a last resort. The market is always more efficient. Only a profit motive and competition can drive efficiency.

To get just a little further off-topic, the US is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. This is much better than a democracy in principle, but we've ignored the constitution, so now it's pretty much just a republic.

My favorite democracy quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. In a Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed."

[Lonewuff]

http://www.roadkillhelmets.com/index.html

:rotf:

[OneShot]

Scroll back up to Zotter in case you missed the real reason why we do not need another law.

We need more personal responsibility not more laws. Yet at the same time, I would like to see something in place that requires all riders to have health insurance that covers their costs for life support and vegetable care.

Let's keep government small!

[grifscoots]

Let's keep government small!Too late. The professional politician is firmly entrenched.

[hig4s]

Howdy Bob,

By that logic, there should zero laws regarding safety. Everyone should be on there own to determine safety concerns. Seatbelts on cars optional, FAA abolished to let consumers decide, no auto cut off switches on lawn mowers, etc..

I agree that there is a pendulum and it can swing too far on occasion, but this isn't one of those times.

.


Two totally different things.. My choice to wear a helmet or not while operating a motorcycle affects my personaly safety only. The FAA rules for safety are to protect people from other people. Just like the laws forcing motorcyclists to wear eye protection, not for their safety, but because if you lose your vision while riding, you become a hazard to the safety of others.

[Lonewuff]

My choice to wear a helmet or not while operating a motorcycle affects my personaly safety only.

Maybe as far as physical injuries are concerned, but we all have to pay higher insurance prems and taxes, to pay medical bills, due to the high cost of running a vegetable garden at the hospitals and nursing homes. You may well be the only injured victim but everyone else pays in the end. If helmets cut down on traumatic head injuries, and I don't hear anyone arguing otherwise, than the cost for medical goes down and we all win.

[Briantime]

Maybe as far as physical injuries are concerned, but we all have to pay higher insurance prems and taxes, to pay medical bills, due to the high cost of running a vegetable garden at the hospitals and nursing homes. You may well be the only injured victim but everyone else pays in the end. If helmets cut down on traumatic head injuries, and I don't hear anyone arguing otherwise, than the cost for medical goes down and we all win.


Banning motorcycles entirely would also cut down on traumatic injuries. So I would assume by your argument that you are in favor of that? Banning sky diving, pre-marital sex, skateboarding and skiing would also cut down on public medical bills. Where do you draw the line?

Living in a free society that places emphasis on personal autonomy costs money. I'm fine with that cost.

[K1200LTryder]

"Living in a free society that places emphasis on personal autonomy costs money. I'm fine with that cost."



Interesting view.

What about the states with mandadory helmet laws, are they no longer free societies ?

Are insurance rates cheaper ?

Are fatality rates higher when it comes to head trauma suffered from wearing a helmet, or lower ?


Go visit a morgue, then measure the cost yourself.


Ask any LEO, EMT, Doctor, Nurse, Pathologist, Radiologist, and Mortician if there should be a blanket helmet law across the country....1 out of 7 will say there should be.

[grifscoots]

Ask any LEO, EMT, Doctor, Nurse, Pathologist, Radiologist, and Mortician if there should be a blanket helmet law across the country....1 out of 7 will say there should be.There should also be Federally approved and imposed riding gear. Suits, boots, gloves, eye and ear protection with subsequent testing and warning labels.

[CalLT]

Banning motorcycles entirely would also cut down on traumatic injuries. So I would assume by your argument that you are in favor of that? Banning sky diving, pre-marital sex, skateboarding and skiing would also cut down on public medical bills. Where do you draw the line?

Living in a free society that places emphasis on personal autonomy costs money. I'm fine with that cost.

Don't forget about banning:

1) white refined sugar
2) fatty foods
3) alcohol
4) cigarettes

Each of which exact a HUGE toll in terms of health related cost.

Exactly how much protection do we need from ourselves?

[Bobnoxous]

NOT being a real student of history, it seems to me that governments seem to follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) quite well. In that the longer the system operates, the more entropy comes to play, the closer to a homogeneous, non-dynamic, "vanila" commonality it becomes.

The framers of the US constitution designed the system to prevent that - allow for the existence, valuation and expression of the individual. To allow us to be us and not just "cookie cutter" minions.

This is just another example of the consistent, nibbling bites taken by our governments every day. Their attempt at improvement moves the whole system closer to an entropic state.

So, for some - the battle has nothing to do with helmets, safety or even transportation. It has to do with keeping Big-Brother in his box doing what we want him to do, not what he wants to do to us. By fighting against these nibbly bites - the intent is to preserve the original intent of the founding fathers. Keep America American.

That has a bit more to do with the HD culture than tassels, chrome and leather.

Amazing and ironic how patriotism can be an effective population control - in so many arenas....I just reread your post Zotter. Dead on. Divide and conquer. A little forced personal safety here, a "for the benefit of society" law there, and we'll all be good little minions of the state. Long live the King!

[cfell]

Hey, guys....

Look at the bright side... the guvamint is also going to increase penalties for cagers who "left turn" and otherwise generally ignore and/or despise Motorocycles. (Ok, I admit, that was mean to say..... obviously they don't DO anything)

The fact the motorcycle generally carries a human being is not important in their eyes... they are doing 2 things..

1- protecting the "insurance lobby" in all it's forms and fornication... (I'm not negative about the good purposes and needs in society)
2- helping to increase the instances of "open casket" funerals in Motorcycle involved fatalities

[Briantime]

"Living in a free society that places emphasis on personal autonomy costs money. I'm fine with that cost."



Interesting view.

What about the states with mandadory helmet laws, are they no longer free societies ?

Are insurance rates cheaper ?

Are fatality rates higher when it comes to head trauma suffered from wearing a helmet, or lower ?


Go visit a morgue, then measure the cost yourself.


Ask any LEO, EMT, Doctor, Nurse, Pathologist, Radiologist, and Mortician if there should be a blanket helmet law across the country....1 out of 7 will say there should be.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I think everyone should wear a helmet, like I do. I think no one should be forced to. I have measured the cost and decided to wear a helmet.

[K1200LTryder]

"I think you are misunderstanding my point. I think everyone should wear a helmet, like I do. I think no one should be forced to. I have measured the cost and decided to wear a helmet."


Not a problem.

If a law helps to lessen the burden of those who deal with the aftermath of those who have not chosen wisely ( including families and loved ones), I'm all for it.

IMHO, it is time for common sense to trounce vanity.

I will not drive a car without wearing a seatbelt, or fly an airplane. Being thrown from the seat can have severe consequences, be it a crash or turbulence.

Over 1/2 of the fatalities on I-95 in Brevard County are from occupants not wearing seatbelts and being ejected from their vehicles. Not all those ejected were the initial cause of the accident.

There are several ways to get hurt on a motorcycle, but the odds of surviving a crash are greatly improved if the rider is at least wearing a helmet.

[Bobnoxous]

If a law helps to lessen the burden of those who deal with the aftermath of those who have not chosen wisely ( including families and loved ones), I'm all for it.So we protect people so that their families don't "feel the pain"? I can do nothing that might hurt my friends and families well-being? I owe them something, by law?

This is Orwellian. My life is my own. I don't owe my family anything. I may choose to support them in many different ways, but that's a choice.

If the issue is only money, get rid of the welfare and socialized medicine, and the money issue goes away. But people will still want this because they want to force people to live by their values. This is simply violence. Individuality is considered dangerous. While I try to be tolerant of other's opinions, I think this is sick. I only wish you were alone in this view. :(

[dshealey]

------------------.. My choice to wear a helmet or not while operating a motorcycle affects my personaly safety only. --------------------------

Maybe your personal safety only, but can have huge other affects on others, such as your family members. Anyone who thinks severe head injuries, or death from same only affects them, they either have NO family or loved ones, are they are pretty heartless. There are few with no family/loved ones, but seemingly many egotistical or heartless.

[CalLT]

David ... let me repost this:

1) white refined sugar
2) fatty foods
3) alcohol
4) cigarettes

Don't you think families suffer when those they love contract diabetes, coronary disease and lung cancer? Of course they do. And society bears an enormous financial burden ... much greater than that for helmetless riders.

Is the answer legislation that bans the above?

[Briantime]

A big part of this debate eludes me....why is every argument against forced helmet wear perceived to be an argument against helmets? Two different issues in my opinion.

[fas]

I have many biker friends in Europe and Asia. Most wear helmets. My USA HD pals don't, except for one guy.

Too bad humans are so sucked in to fashion trends and feeling like they gotta look like their pals....fashion fools.

I have always been wearing a helmet on 2 wheels, since 1971.

[Bobnoxous]

A big part of this debate eludes me....why is every argument against forced helmet wear perceived to be an argument against helmets? Two different issues in my opinion.In my experience, many people simply cannot differentiate between what you should do, and what the government should do to you. They believe the role of government is to make people do "the right thing" whatever that means to them.

[hig4s]

Maybe your personal safety only, but can have huge other affects on others, such as your family members. Anyone who thinks severe head injuries, or death from same only affects them, they either have NO family or loved ones, are they are pretty heartless. There are few with no family/loved ones, but seemingly many egotistical or heartless.

So does just riding a motorcycle, or skiiing, or sky diving, or bungee jumping, or a thousand other things.

How about high school football, the injury rate and medical costs there are staggering. Lets ban, for the good of everyone, all contact sports!

As far as motorcycles go, near 50% of the fatalities are alchohol related. 1/3 do not have cycle endosements. there were 1,158,000 motorcycle sold in 2006 and 4,798 fatalities. While there were 162,460 fatalities from lung cancer, but we don't ban cigarettes because it is a personal choice.

[Bobnoxous]

As far as motorcycles go, near 50% of the fatalities are alchohol related. 1/3 do not have cycle endosements. there were 1,158,000 motorcycle sold in 2006 and 4,798 fatalities. While there were 162,460 fatalities from lung cancer, but we don't ban cigarettes because it is a personal choice.Just 2 comments: "alcohol related" is a suspect term. The LEOs can be more clear, but I believe even if a driver is not intoxicated (which will be 0.06% sometime soon), the investigating offer gets to make a judgment call, and generally, if you have any alcohol in you, it's alcohol related.

This is a useless stat. People have accidents all the time without any alcohol. Can we say that if no one ever drank alcohol, all of those alcohol related accidents wouldn't have happened? Of course not. They would be reduced because alcohol did play a factor in some of them, but people have accidents with and without alcohol. It's hard to determine if alcohol contributed, so the general rule is it must have. It's good for pumping up the stats.

As for the cigarette ban, it's coming. First in the work place (the government thinks workplace property isn't private), then in cars (think of the children), then in your home (think of the children, and your friends, and ...), and then all together (think of the environment).

[motorman587]

What is the total cost?? Out of the 4700 traffic fatality does it include, emergency personal to respond to the scene, police to block the street, and the investigator to complete his/her report. Vs you go to the doctor your insurance pays for your lung cancer visit or stay. The taxpayers pay for your choice for not wearing a helmet or no gear. Please do not beat me up to bad, I was just thinking out loud. :)

[motorman587]

Just 2 comments: "alcohol related" is a suspect term. The LEOs can be more clear, but I believe even if a driver is not intoxicated (which will be 0.06% sometime soon), the investigating offer gets to make a judgment call, and generally, if you have any alcohol in you, it's alcohol related.

This is a useless stat. People have accidents all the time without any alcohol. Can we say that if no one ever drank alcohol, all of those alcohol related accidents wouldn't have happened? Of course not. They would be reduced because alcohol did play a factor in some of them, but people have accidents with and without alcohol. It's hard to determine if alcohol contributed, so the general rule is it must have. It's good for pumping up the stats.

As for the cigarette ban, it's coming. First in the work place (the government thinks workplace property isn't private), then in cars (think of the children), then in your home (think of the children, and your friends, and ...), and then all together (think of the environment).

Here in my department and I can only speak for my department and what I do. When we investigate a fatality with alcohol related, I can asure you it is alcohol related. Now when there is a minor finder bender and the officer "smells" alcohol and checks that box "has been drinking", I would say, yes, but not fatalities.

[wkclark]

Helmet laws are nationwide here. Just seems normal. :confused:

I ride in the States frequently and on one recent trip saw a notice in a washroom in Maine that said, According to Maine State Law (statute quoted here) Before returning to work employees must wash their hands. Must say, struck my Canadian riding companions and I as odd that lawmakers enacted a law about washing one's hands after using the washroom - but allowed helmetless motorcylce riding :eek:

Tell me that's not just a little out of whack? :confused:

It's clear however that this (freedom of choice) is an incredibly emotional issue in the Home of the Brave & the Land of the Free.

[grifscoots]

How about high school football, the injury rate and medical costs there are staggering. Lets ban, for the good of everyone, all contact sports!

Tag has already been banned from many schools. The last guy "it" will have some deep psychosis. I loved dodge ball and kill the man with the ball, sigh.

[ronk1200lt]

It's funny listening to you guys agonize over the loss of your person freedom because someone is making you wear a helmut. In most of the civilized world including Europe, Canada, Australia etc. helmuts are mandatory. Riders in these parts of the world enjoy their rides just as much as you do. Suck it up princess. This ain't the end of the world. As you would say, Just ride it".

[Briantime]

It's funny listening to you guys agonize over the loss of your person freedom because someone is making you wear a helmut. In most of the civilized world including Europe, Canada, Australia etc. helmuts are mandatory. Riders in these parts of the world enjoy their rides just as much as you do. Suck it up princess. This ain't the end of the world. As you would say, Just ride it".


I wouldn't expect someone from Canada to understand...

[hig4s]

It's funny listening to you guys agonize over the loss of your person freedom because someone is making you wear a helmut. In most of the civilized world including Europe, Canada, Australia etc. helmuts are mandatory. Riders in these parts of the world enjoy their rides just as much as you do. Suck it up princess. This ain't the end of the world. As you would say, Just ride it".

How is it civilized to take away personal freedoms from a society that has fought and died by the droves over centuries for the right to be free?

And in other countries that don't understand it, I suppose it is because your ancestors decided to give up some of their freedoms to form their government and that is just how it has been for a very long time.

Personally some of my ancestors have had a participatory democracy since the 1200s, and most of them fought and died (in futility) to remain free. But those that survived learned to embrace this country and the rest of my ancestors chose to come here to be free from oppression in the countries they were born in, and then fought in this countries revolutionary war once again to be free.

The US government has in the past done a decent job of trying to be free and civilized. It failed at times in giving freedoms to everyone, but has tried to come around on that. But now the US, which in the past was one of the most free countries in the world, no longer even makes the top 10 for personal freedoms. When do we say enough is a enough, it better be before we lose the freedom to say enough is enough.

While I am on the fence about state helmet laws, because I always wear a helmet anyway, I am adamantly against federal helmet laws.

[BillyOmaha]

How is it civilized to take away personal freedoms from a society that has fought and died by the droves over centuries for the right to be free?You are absolutely free to build a road on your land and ride your motorcycle without a helmet as fast and as long as you'd like. How's that for personal freedom?

However, when we ALL pay for the road you use and ALL pay for the land it is built upon, then we ALL have a say in the rules that will be applied to its use, i.e. signal controls, truck inspections, DOT rules about vehicle safely etc..

And in other countries that don't understand it, I suppose it is because your ancestors decided to give up some of their freedoms to form their government and that is just how it has been for a very long time.

Personally some of my ancestors have had a participatory democracy since the 1200s, and most of them fought and died (in futility) to remain free. But those that survived learned to embrace this country and the rest of my ancestors chose to come here to be free from oppression in the countries they were born in, and then fought in this countries revolutionary war once again to be free.Since the 1200's? Pray, tell what participatory democracy that was? The only one I can think of would be the Roman version. Of course that version was fairly limited as to who voted, was based on eploiting of conquered foreign people and including, of course, slavery which is not really very democratic.

The US government has in the past done a decent job of trying to be free and civilized. It failed at times in giving freedoms to everyone, but has tried to come around on that. But now the US, which in the past was one of the most free countries in the world, no longer even makes the top 10 for personal freedoms. When do we say enough is a enough, it better be before we lose the freedom to say enough is enough.I suppose that wether the U.S. is in the top 10 is subjective based on the criteria used. True, on the whole we don't allow "victimless crimes", however that is base on the theory that they really aren't victimless. I don't see having to wear a seatbelt or a helmet on the PUBLIC roads a impingement on my personal liberty.

While I am on the fence about state helmet laws, because I always wear a helmet anyway, I am adamantly against federal helmet laws.I understand the States right issue, however certain things should be decided nationally. Things that common across State lines such as transportation, which would include motorcycles, should logically be consistent.



I can sum up my take on it like this; If my kid, now 18, gets on a motorcycle and has a moment of youthful stupidity (a la Rothesberger) he will know that it is the law to wear a helmet. If he doesn't like, then too F'n bad.

If that takes away the freedom to be stupid from the rest of us, then so be it.

.

[Bobnoxous]

What is the total cost?? Out of the 4700 traffic fatality does it include, emergency personal to respond to the scene, police to block the street, and the investigator to complete his/her report. Vs you go to the doctor your insurance pays for your lung cancer visit or stay. The taxpayers pay for your choice for not wearing a helmet or no gear. Please do not beat me up to bad, I was just thinking out loud. :)No beatings John. But I really don't see helmet laws saving the police a lot of money. I'm sure there's more work for a fatality than for an injury, but you still need to respond. And how often does this come up? I'm not saying there isn't a cost, but as a % of what police spend money on, I doubt this is significant.

If law enforcement was really interested in saving money, they are a lot of things that would come way before helmet laws. Legalizing marijuana, which is less dangerous and harmful to society than alcohol, would save tons. Put a lot of LEOs on the street though. No more raiding houses to grab a few ounces of pot.

A little common sense would save a lot too. In Boston they shutdown a city to blow up light bright boards. I think the swat team was just getting antsy to do something. I cannot believe that the mayor and police chief in Boston are really that stupid, but you never know. Then, they did the same thing a few weeks later, blowing up traffic counters. It'd be funny if we weren't paying for it and innocent people weren't being extorted.

If more time was freed up due to helmet laws, I don't think we'd reduce the LEO staff to compensate. That's not politically prudent. They'd just be doing something else. More random checkpoints (a lot of overtime pay on sobriety checkpoints), more seat belt violations, license checks, going through people's cars (I see this all the time in OC. It's amazing).

Okay, we are getting off topic, but my point is, there's been no tendency, from what I can see as joe citizen, for police forces to worry about reducing their spending. It only gets higher. But, you're on the inside, and I'm sure you see aspects that I don't. I just cannot see how helmet laws can reasonably be argued for on this basis.

[OneShot]

Would you go into combat w/o a helmet?
How about as a major league baseball player?
NFL player?
Construction worker?

If you think wearing a helmet is necessary doing these activities, and still oppose wearing a MC helmet, you then must think slamming your head on pavement to be less hazardous?

Come on helmet opposers, let's hear what you think.

[UncleRock]

I can sum up my take on it like this; If my kid, now 18, gets on a motorcycle and has a moment of youthful stupidity (a la Rothesberger) he will know that it is the law to wear a helmet. If he doesn't like, then too F'n bad.

Well lets say just for the sake of the topic, your son has a full sack, and is going to do what he wants. That he is 18 and could give a shit less about some helmet Gestapo. This is exactly what I did/still do
When there was a helmet law in PA I rode without :eek: , when they passed the modification to the bill, I wore a helmet to the capital. MY Choice not some selfserving politicians, that is a member of the high end welfare system telling me how to live my life. Now like then I do what I want :cool: I'll never tell someone to wear a helmet or not.
There are more total head injuries in cars than on bike (of course there are way more cars) you don't see them pushing for a helmet in a car. To hard of a fight, can't have Stella getting her Bufont mussed on the way to church.
Rock

[hoog62]

You are absolutely free to build a road on your land and ride your motorcycle without a helmet as fast and as long as you'd like. How's that for personal freedom?

Would he then have to go to his own personal hospital, get treated by a team of specialist he retains "on staff"? No, he hits the same ER as ALL of us. So I guess that gives us the right to regulate his behaviour on his property, or maybe even in his home. Hmmm...

[hig4s]

You are absolutely free to build a road on your land and ride your motorcycle without a helmet as fast and as long as you'd like. How's that for personal freedom?

However, when we ALL pay for the road you use and ALL pay for the land it is built upon, then we ALL have a say in the rules that will be applied to its use, i.e. signal controls, truck inspections, DOT rules about vehicle safely etc..

Since the 1200's? Pray, tell what participatory democracy that was? The only one I can think of would be the Roman 6. version. Of course that version was fairly limited as to who voted, was based on eploiting of conquered foreign people and including, of course, slavery which is not really very democratic.

I suppose that wether the U.S. is in the top 10 is subjective based on the criteria used. True, on the whole we don't allow "victimless crimes", however that is base on the theory that they really aren't victimless. I don't see having to wear a seatbelt or a helmet on the PUBLIC roads a impingement on my personal liberty.

I understand the States right issue, however certain things should be decided nationally. Things that common across State lines such as transportation, which would include motorcycles, should logically be consistent.



I can sum up my take on it like this; If my kid, now 18, gets on a motorcycle and has a moment of youthful stupidity (a la Rothesberger) he will know that it is the law to wear a helmet. If he doesn't like, then too F'n bad.

If that takes away the freedom to be stupid from the rest of us, then so be it.

.





1. you better check around your California laws again, in many counties since 05, no you are not free to build and ride on your own land.

2. vehicle safety yes, personally safety no, it still comes back down to if they can federally force helmet laws because it is too dangerous to ride without, they can ban motorcycles from public road because it is too dangerous to ride period.

3. The democracy of the five tribes of the Haudenosaunee nation. The same democarcy that Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin studied and based the constitution of the United States on.

4. I have no problem with the most of the victim less laws, but the fact remains many of them have less victims than do the results of smoking or drinking. Both those are legal, and that is hypocritical. If you don't see it as an infringement on your personal liberty, well that is your opinion. If enough people feel the same way it will happen whether it is right or not. That is how our government works.

5. The things that should be decided nationally are stated in the constitution. And traffic laws are not there, that is why the Feds have to black mail states by holding federal funds to get national traffic recommendations enacted at a state level.

Here in Florida there is a helmet law for anyone under 21, and those 21 and over must have $10,000 in personal medical insurance. The young and stupid are not allowed to ride without, and the rest are required to have enough insurance as to not unduly burden others with their medical bills.

But my son, who is 19, looks old enough to not be noticed, still he has never ridden without a helmet. I taught him better. Maybe we should try education, not legislation.

[BUGKILLER]

1. you better check around your California laws again, in many counties since 05, no you are not free to build and ride on your own land.

.

You are right.Even the counties are weighing in on restrictions. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are in a flap with the off road riders. Many of the X Game moto cross and jump stars had purchased huge lots of land to practice their craft. The counties have new ordinances to restrict riding on their own land citing noise and dust pollution. I'm sure they will add helmets when ever they feel like it. California sucks when it comes to these type of things but the weather is good. :D

[BillyOmaha]

1. you better check around your California laws again, in many counties since 05, no you are not free to build and ride on your own land.Sure you are, but there are rules relating to noise and environmental impact. The CCR in Braselton at Chateau Elan had an example of this proposition. Road Atlanta race track is privately owned and one would assume that the owner can ride his motorcycle around it without his helmet....should he so desire.

2. vehicle safety yes, personally safety no, it still comes back down to if they can federally force helmet laws because it is too dangerous to ride without, they can ban motorcycles from public road because it is too dangerous to ride period.I understand your argument, but disagree with it as too broad. Virtually any premise taken to the extreme can arrive at ridiculous results. I can absolutely guarantee that the "personal freedom" and even the "strict constructionist States rights" applications would result in a nation that would be radically different from the one we have today......and not for the better. Think slavery, segregation, environmental pollution, transportation,etc..

3. The democracy of the five tribes of the Haudenosaunee nation. The same democarcy that Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin studied and based the constitution of the United States on.Interesting. Thank you for that. I've taken a moment to look at it and I stand corrected. I'll be spending some time researching this topic.

I have, for a long time time now, had a tremendous respect for American Indian culture.

As an aside, had the "Six Nations" not sided with the French in the French and Indian war the American Indian nation may have looks substantially different today.

4. I have no problem with the most of the victim less laws, but the fact remains many of them have less victims than do the results of smoking or drinking. Both those are legal, and that is hypocritical. If you don't see it as an infringement on your personal liberty, well that is your opinion. If enough people feel the same way it will happen whether it is right or not. That is how our government works.Hyprocrisy about one wrong is not a good reason to let another wrong go unaddressed. Also the victim in a victimless activity may be very far removed from the end user activity.

Example, Heroin use is "victimless". 95% of Heroin come from Afghanistan. Much of the opium poppy crop is taxed by the Taliban fighters in order to fight the Afghan government, Americans, multi-national forces, NGO charities, etc..


5. The things that should be decided nationally are stated in the constitution. And traffic laws are not there, that is why the Feds have to black mail states by holding federal funds to get national traffic recommendations enacted at a state level.From the first days of this country, the Constitution was an organic document subject to interpreation and application in the context of the current time.

Here in Florida there is a helmet law for anyone under 21, and those 21 and over must have $10,000 in personal medical insurance. The young and stupid are not allowed to ride without, and the rest are required to have enough insurance as to not unduly burden others with their medical bills.Fair enough. Although age 21 is not the segregation line for moments of stupidity. I still have them at age 47.

But my son, who is 19, looks old enough to not be noticed, still he has never ridden without a helmet. I taught him better. Maybe we should try education, not legislation.That's the AMA argument. I don't buy it. Some things are too obvious to allow 300,000,000 people having to exercise decisions over obvious, to all but some, conclusions. Wear your seatbelt, belt your kids into their seats, don't drink to excess and drive, don't discriminate in hiring, be color blind in commerce and employment, etc., etc. etc..

A parent doesn't get to argue parental rights by not belting in their kids...they don't get to be stupid...about their kids...nor do they get to stupid (in certain States) about not wearing seatbelts themselves.

.

[XMagnaRider]

This doesn't really fit the thread, but I want to share an experience that made a deep impression on me:

Many years ago, I witnessed an accident where a motorcyclist was struck and thrown from his bike by a left-turning car, whose driver was completely at fault. I was in the front passenger seat of a car, and it happened directly in front of me.

The motorcyclist rolled lengthwise (as in bed) on the pavement five or six times. His helmet banged very hard on the pavement during each roll. The rolling stopped when his helmet smashed with great force into the concrete curb on the side of the road. I saw and heard it all. We stopped immediately and ran to his aid.

At that point, the motorcyclist sat up on his own, removed the helmet, and then lay back down. I don't know what other injuries he may have sustained, but I know with certainty that the helmet saved his life.

I have always worn a full-face helmet, before and after that incident. Whether a mandatory helmet law passes or not, I will continue to do so.

[fas]

This doesn't really fit the thread, but I want to share an experience that made a deep impression on me:

Many years ago, I witnessed an accident where a motorcyclist was struck and thrown from his bike by a left-turning car, whose driver was completely at fault. I was in the front passenger seat of a car, and it happened directly in front of me.

The motorcyclist rolled lengthwise (as in bed) on the pavement five or six times. His helmet banged very hard on the pavement during each roll. The rolling stopped when his helmet smashed with great force into the concrete curb on the side of the road. I saw and heard it all. We stopped immediately and ran to his aid.

At that point, the motorcyclist sat up on his own, removed the helmet, and then lay back down. I don't know what other injuries he may have sustained, but I know with certainty that the helmet saved his life.

I have always worn a full-face helmet, before and after that incident. Whether a mandatory helmet law passes or not, I will continue to do so.

+1

Great first post. Welcome to our gang of crazy riders!

[dshealey]

David ... let me repost this:

1) white refined sugar
2) fatty foods
3) alcohol
4) cigarettes

Don't you think families suffer when those they love contract diabetes, coronary disease and lung cancer? Of course they do. And society bears an enormous financial burden ... much greater than that for helmetless riders.

Is the answer legislation that bans the above?

This is a rather silly comparison. All the above listed can certainly destroy someone's life, and greatly affect their loved ones, BUT these all do it slowly, giving many warning signs for years first. If one is really concerned about the affects, they can take steps to rectify their behavior. Not wearing a helmet may cause a drastic affect instantly with no warning!

I have had TWO accidents where not wearing a helmet would have likely caused me serious consequences on the first, almost guaranteed death in the second. No warning for either, just BAM, and it was over.

[CalLT]

This is a rather silly comparison. All the above listed can certainly destroy someone's life, and greatly affect their loved ones, BUT these all do it slowly, giving many warning signs for years first. If one is really concerned about the affects, they can take steps to rectify their behavior. Not wearing a helmet may cause a drastic affect instantly with no warning!

I have had TWO accidents where not wearing a helmet would have likely caused me serious consequences on the first, almost guaranteed death in the second. No warning for either, just BAM, and it was over.

C'mon, David ... brain damage can linger for months or years and you fully know it. Let's be fair. The time lapse has nothing to do with my point, which is that government has no business dictating how much risk is acceptable, be it helmetless riding or poor dietary habits.

And by the way, I can show you marks in some of my old racing helmets that mark hits that would have ended me. I nearly always wear a helmet. I just don't think it's the government's business.

I'm pretty sure you realize this already.

[Montycs]

It maybe personal freedom to ride without a helmet. but is it your families personal freedom if you don't?

[dshealey]

C'mon, David ... brain damage can linger for months or years and you fully know it. Let's be fair. The time lapse has nothing to do with my point, -------------------

Well, you completely missed my point. The "time lapse" I was speaking of is the time from the beginning of "damage" from a bad behavior to the end result. In the case of your examples, smoking, fatty foods, etc, this can be decades. In my case, not wearing a helmet, the time from damage initiation to result is almost instant. Lingering for months in this case is just an after affect.

[jayjacobson]

....While I could spend hours and hours, virtually every day, researching products and service providers in order to provide for the safely of those I love, I prefer to elect responsible representatives to do so in my stead....
I have yet to find even ONE of those "responsible representatives." BUT, I'll keep looking!
....I think the DWI limit should be 0.00, that is zero-tolerance. Why should any amount of alcohol be allowed when operating a motor vehicle?....
In Kalifornia, there is limited zero tolerance for those under 21, allowing the impounding of the vehicle only. I would not mind a .002 limit with DUI being a felony.
....FAA abolished to let consumers decide....
Speaking of the FAA, it still irks me to this day that almost 3000 people had to die before hardened cockpit doors were mandatory.
....We need more personal responsibility not more laws....
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? WTF?!
....The FAA rules for safety are to protect people from other people....
OK, that's it, you convinced me! With a tract record like that, they should be abolished!
....1) white refined sugar 2) fatty foods 3) alcohol 4) cigarettes....
Is the answer legislation that bans the above?
Yes, of course! McDonald's: the most EVIL corporation save Exxon and WalMart.
....It's clear however that this (freedom of choice) is an incredibly emotional issue in the Home of the Brave & the Land of the Free.
Yeah, you know, that whole little freedom thing....not really a big deal. All those men that have died to ensure that another can "choose" to act ALMOST as stupidly as he wishes....Before they sacrificed themselves, didn't they understand that your rights are void where prohibited by law, ANYWAY?!
....If my kid, now 18, gets on a motorcycle and has a moment of youthful stupidity (a la Rothesberger) he will know that it is the law to wear a helmet. If he doesn't like it, then too F'n bad....
Well lets say just for the sake of the topic, your son has a full sack, and is going to do what he wants. That he is 18 and could give a shit less about some helmet Gestapo....
In addition to having a full sack, I hope he has a FULL BRAIN, and can think FOR HIMSELF!

[hig4s]

[font=Comic Sans MS]I understand your argument, but disagree with it as too broad. Virtually any premise taken to the extreme can arrive at ridiculous results. I can absolutely guarantee that the "personal freedom" and even the "strict constructionist States rights" applications would result in a nation that would be radically different from the one we have today......and not for the better. Think slavery, segregation, environmental pollution, transportation,etc..

Interesting. Thank you for that. I've taken a moment to look at it and I stand corrected. I'll be spending some time researching this topic.

I have, for a long time time now, had a tremendous respect for American Indian culture.

As an aside, had the "Six Nations" not sided with the French in the French and Indian war the American Indian nation may have looks substantially different today.


From the first days of this country, the Constitution was an organic document subject to interpreation and application in the context of the current time.

Fair enough. Although age 21 is not the segregation line for moments of stupidity. I still have them at age 47.



It may be broad, but a few states have already tested the possibility by banning motorcycles from specific public rode ways for a variety of reasons in the interest of the public good. It took AMA lawsuits to correct it.

here is a link you might like. www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/
the Tuscarora
"shirt wearing people." Not an original member of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois/ the French name that stuck) League, the Tuscarora joined as a non-voting member in 1722 after they had been forced to leave North Carolina in 1714 after a war with the English colonists.

It is not against the law to be stupid. So as long as it does not hurt anyone else there should be no law against it. And I refuse to accept the monetary cost as hurting anyone. The government taxes people to protect us and keep us free. A little extra to keep the freedom of choice in things like this is little enough to ask.

You do make some good points, and some I agree with, but not all. And it just scares me to see our personal freedoms eroding.

[tmgs]

"really, i have a friend in trauma unit that has said just the opposite, he swears there is no connection between helmet use or not and MC deaths"

Well, I cant really answer to that one, as I have nothing to do with the trauma unit or ER. ( bed space in the Kawasaki ward is at a premuim though)

I see the results in the morgue ( yes it is part of my job, somebody has to do it).

BTW I tend to agree more with you on this one.

[ADulay]

All the arguments you can make for helmet laws you can make to ban motorcycling entirely. You no longer have to debate whether a helmet helped save a rider or not; riding is illegal. For your own good, you know. Oh, and money too. Medical care is expensive.

People think they can start down a road just a little bit, but that's not what happens. The next generation, not being aware of the previous step, don't have a perspective on what's been given up. They take another step. It's for your own good, you know. Then another.

We won't ban motorcycles overnight. We'll require safety mechanisms, then say how they don't work effectively on high-speed bikes, so ban high-speed bikes. It's illegal to go over 75 mph anyway. Then we'll say how all bikes are more dangerous than cars.

If the only argument you can make against such draconian tactics is that "well that's too far", we're going to lose. We can articulate solid reasons for enacting laws, but "it's too far" is just an emotional response. It's hard to quantify freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. Hence, it can be ignored.


Bob,

What a perfect description of what may well happen in the future!!

I'll print that one out for future reference for sure.

AD

[DakotaDude]

[/Quote] It is not against the law to be stupid. So as long as it does not hurt anyone else there should be no law against it. And I refuse to accept the monetary cost as hurting anyone. The government taxes people to protect us and keep us free. A little extra to keep the freedom of choice in things like this is little enough to ask. [/Quote]

I agree with the above poster's comments, with exceptions.

Contrary to many of the informed opinions I've read regarding this subject, the federal government doesn't give a damn about your (the populus') health and welfare. Politicians are all about playing the "public good" card for the sole purpose of garnering re-election votes and the government is all about generation of revenue. Institute an annual $50 tax, payable by all the "stupid" individuals who choose, for whatever reason, to not wear a helmet, and the DOT helmet issue disappears. Provide these "stupid" individuals with an endorsement appearing on their driver's licenses identifying them as a "stupid individual" who is now not legally required to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle because he/she greased the government's palm. The government is happy because they are now receiving a revenue stream from a previously untaxed source ("stupid" individuals). Forget the fact the revenue received is far short of the cost to institute and enforce the law, but not to worry, this is how government operates. Have any of y'all ever figured out why we do not have a nationwide smoking ban? Yup, that's right folks, because the tobacco industry generates massive tax revenue and, that is far more important than the public welfare. Don't give me this BS about Joe Taxpayer bearing the burden of medical care of the bike crashers; the cost of the crasher's care is akin to a fart in a hurricane compared to the money spent on tobacco related illnesses. Non-helmet wearing cyclists don't make a conscious effort to change lanes and purposefully hit a semi truck head-on in an attempt to harm another individual. Smokers make a conscious decision every time they light-up to endanger the health of everyone around them, and they don't care.

Choosing to not wear a helmet is conscious assumption of risk for an individual; it presents no potential for injury for anyone other than that individual. It is a choice involving personal responsibility that one should be allowed to make for themself. If the government sees fit to charge a misdemeanor against a rider for not wearing a helmet, I want to see a felony charge for anyone who lights a cigarette/cigar. Chewing tobacco would be exempt because it harms only the individual using the product, just like the helmet-less rider who has assumed the risk of injury for himself, and only himself.

[fas]

It is not against the law to be stupid. So as long as it does not hurt anyone else there should be no law against it. And I refuse to accept the monetary cost as hurting anyone. The government taxes people to protect us and keep us free. A little extra to keep the freedom of choice in things like this is little enough to ask. [/Quote]

I agree with the above poster's comments, with exceptions.

Contrary to many of the informed opinions I've read regarding this subject, the federal government doesn't give a damn about your (the populus') health and welfare. Politicians are all about playing the "public good" card for the sole purpose of garnering re-election votes and the government is all about generation of revenue. Institute an annual $50 tax, payable by all the "stupid" individuals who choose, for whatever reason, to not wear a helmet, and the DOT helmet issue disappears. Provide these "stupid" individuals with an endorsement appearing on their driver's licenses identifying them as a "stupid individual" who is now not legally required to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle because he/she greased the government's palm. The government is happy because they are now receiving a revenue stream from a previously untaxed source ("stupid" individuals). Forget the fact the revenue received is far short of the cost to institute and enforce the law, but not to worry, this is how government operates. Have any of y'all ever figured out why we do not have a nationwide smoking ban? Yup, that's right folks, because the tobacco industry generates massive tax revenue and, that is far more important than the public welfare. Don't give me this BS about Joe Taxpayer bearing the burden of medical care of the bike crashers; the cost of the crasher's care is akin to a fart in a hurricane compared to the money spent on tobacco related illnesses. Non-helmet wearing cyclists don't make a conscious effort to change lanes and purposefully hit a semi truck head-on in an attempt to harm another individual. Smokers make a conscious decision every time they light-up to endanger the health of everyone around them, and they don't care.

Choosing to not wear a helmet is conscious assumption of risk for an individual; it presents no potential for injury for anyone other than that individual. It is a choice involving personal responsibility that one should be allowed to make for themself. If the government sees fit to charge a misdemeanor against a rider for not wearing a helmet, I want to see a felony charge for anyone who lights a cigarette/cigar. Chewing tobacco would be exempt because it harms only the individual using the product, just like the helmet-less rider who has assumed the risk of injury for himself, and only himself.[/QUOTE]


Light another joint and write about lead paint on toys from China. How 'bout the tires from China that have now killed people?

[Parathetic_Tom]

My knee jerk reaction is to say I support this. I always wear one so I don't really care about the effect on me. I've never had a crash but my full face helmet has saved me from some UFOs that hit it like a gunshot. I mean hit hard too. Scared the crap outta me.

When they make all the driving laws I will comply. I usually do.

I would like stricter DUI laws which are actually enforced. BAC of .02 across the board would be good with no diversion (a joke program) and mandatory 10 days jail for strike #1. Forget the felony for strike #2 but they really need their wings clipped for about a decade and 30 days in the hard-bar hotel. #3 and you are out. Felony/year in prison/grounded for life. This is a serious problem and people get hurt. If you collect 3 DUIs, you need help, not a motorcycle. Keep going to meetings, you'll get better. I believe the vast majority of DUIs are motorcycle killing cagers anyhow.

Just my opinions

More motorcycle laws?? Ok, whatever. I must insist, however, on the key switch to turn off the passenger airbag. My wife just aint stacked right for ultralight flying.

[DakotaDude]

[/Quote]
Light another joint and write about lead paint on toys from China. How 'bout the tires from China that have now killed people?[/QUOTE]

Sorry FAS, I've never had a joint, so if that is what is required, I don't think I could place myself in an environment conducive to writing about lead paint and bad tires. What's your point....?

[fas]

Light another joint and write about lead paint on toys from China. How 'bout the tires from China that have now killed people?[/QUOTE]

Sorry FAS, I've never had a joint, so if that is what is required, I don't think I could place myself in an environment conducive to writing about lead paint and bad tires. What's your point....?[/QUOTE]


DD,

Fill out your profile. Or not. Your choice.

[motorman587]

My knee jerk reaction is to say I support this. I always wear one so I don't really care about the effect on me. I've never had a crash but my full face helmet has saved me from some UFOs that hit it like a gunshot. I mean hit hard too. Scared the crap outta me.

When they make all the driving laws I will comply. I usually do.

I would like stricter DUI laws which are actually enforced. BAC of .02 across the board would be good with no diversion (a joke program) and mandatory 10 days jail for strike #1. Forget the felony for strike #2 but they really need their wings clipped for about a decade and 30 days in the hard-bar hotel. #3 and you are out. Felony/year in prison/grounded for life. This is a serious problem and people get hurt. If you collect 3 DUIs, you need help, not a motorcycle. Keep going to meetings, you'll get better. I believe the vast majority of DUIs are motorcycle killing cagers anyhow.

Just my opinions

More motorcycle laws?? Ok, whatever. I must insist, however, on the key switch to turn off the passenger airbag. My wife just aint stacked right for ultralight flying.

We here on the forum want stricter laws, but what I see, BTW I am for the helmet law, is that most people do not care about traffic related issues.

My point:
When someone gets a ticket in my county, they elect to go to court. 99% will plea no contest, points held, fine the same. If it is contested and they lose, points held, fine the same. Traffic court is a waste of tax payers money. Most officers there are on over time costing the city money. People know see how easy it is to go to court then driving school and court is packed.

When some one dies in my county, it makes the local section of the paper, usually on the last page. When someone is murdered, front paper of the paper. There are about 12-15 traffic deaths in the city vs about 3-5 murders. My office space is shared with 5 other traffic homicide investigator. Homicide investigators get a nice huge office, their own computer etc.......... Again traffic is not number # 1 issue within the department.

Our traffic unit for a city of about 200,000 is 7 motor officers. With only 2 that just write tickets. The others are also THI and subject to get a case when on call. Taking them from ticket writing duties. We only have 1 DUI officer on nights.

We do not need any more laws. We need the ones enforced. Peoples attitude in general need to change, or this reckless driver pattern will continue.

Also found that in larger city, where the traffic is the worst, less cops to enforce traffic because of the work load. Out in the middle of no where, wide open county, where it is safe to go faster then normal because of no traffic, cops enforcing laws because there is nothing to do. I found that out the hard way.

Just my .02$ worth, the way I see it.

[jayjacobson]

We here on the forum want stricter laws, but what I see, BTW I am for the helmet law, is that most people do not care about traffic related issues....
I want stricter laws for DUI/reckless, suspended and unlicensed drivers--because they KILL so many people. I DO NOT support or enforce helmet or seatbelt laws.

My point: when someone gets a ticket in my county, they elect to go to court. 99% will plea no contest, points held, fine the same. If it is contested and they lose, points held, fine the same. Traffic court is a waste of tax payers money. Most officers there are on over time costing the city money. People know see how easy it is to go to court then driving school and court is packed.
In Southern Kalifornia, the reason that so many people go to court is that they know that 50% of the time, the officer WILL NOT show! I don't understand this behavior. If the violation is good enough to write, isn't it good enough to defend in court?

When some one dies in my county, it makes the local section of the paper, usually on the last page. When someone is murdered, front paper of the paper. There are about 12-15 traffic deaths in the city vs about 3-5 murders. My office space is shared with 5 other traffic homicide investigator. Homicide investigators get a nice huge office, their own computer etc..........Again traffic is not number # 1 issue within the department.
Yes, you're right! Everyday, the breathless news media reports that several soldiers were killed in Iraq. Yet, you never hear about the hundreds (even thousands) of people that were killed on the highways (and not on the highways) accross amerika.

....Peoples attitude in general need to change, or this reckless driver pattern will continue.

Also found that in larger city, where the traffic is the worst, less cops to enforce traffic because of the work load. Out in the middle of no where, wide open county, where it is safe to go faster then normal because of no traffic, cops enforcing laws because there is nothing to do. I found that out the hard way....
So did I, John. Many, many years ago, my 1st ticket was from a lazy LAPD Motor that wrote me for 43/35. That's right--43/35! Instead of chicken shitting people for a few MPH over, why not do a little work and search for the guy driving reckless that will kill someone? I know it's a tuff job, but someone's got to do it!

[motorman587]

Seatbelts and helmets save lives too. Not only does it save lives it prevent painful injuries that require months of rehab.


I would not call him lazy, motor cop, maybe bored. Also on my Alaska trip I was stopped for going 10 over in Idaho. Again it was wide open space, the Deputy was bored. Both times I was by myself and not with the group.

[jayjacobson]

Seatbelts and helmets save lives too. Not only does it save lives it prevent painful injuries that require months of rehab.
Yes, of course they do! BUT, the strong libertarian in me is ALWAYS eager to congratulate someone for acting stupid!
I would not call him lazy, motor cop, maybe bored. Also on my Alaska trip I was stopped for going 10 over in Idaho. Again it was wide open space, the Deputy was bored. Both times I was by myself and not with the group.
In Idaho, going 10 over, you were probably the fastest thing the deputy saw in months! The last time I was in Idaho, I was amazed at how SLOW people drive. Another strange phenomenon in IDAHO: my 3,600 pound veh became INVISIBLE! I had several drivers turn right in front of me. Then I realized what I was doing wrong: I was driving at or over the speed limit! The locals had never seen anyone driving that fast and had no frame of reference for how fast I was heading toward them.