New Riders, Beware!

[BillyOmaha]

I'm posting this in order to get others to encourage less experienced riders to apply common sense to riding, ATGATT, wear a helmet, etc..

I am an AMA member and when I tried to persuade them to alter their stance on Helmet Laws (they spend money to oppose them) they said it was an "individual choice". Basically, my money and many others, is going to support "Motorcyclist Russian Roulette".


Motorcyclists Deaths’ Rise by More Than 6 Percent

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON — The number of motorcyclist deaths jumped in 2007, accounting for nearly one in eight motor vehicle deaths, government safety officials said on Thursday.
Multimedia
Graphic

Deaths of people in cars and trucks, on bicycles or on foot dropped by nearly 2,000 last year, pushing the overall death rate to a historic low. But deaths of motorcyclists surged 6.6 percent, to 5,154; 2007 was the 10th straight year of increase.
Experts say the trend is most likely to continue, as high gasoline prices will encourage some travelers to use their bikes more often, getting 50 miles for the $4 gallon of gasoline instead of 20 in their cars.
“We have seen the total motorcycle participation in vehicle miles traveled go up,” said Mary E. Peters, the secretary of transportation and a longtime Harley-Davidson rider.
“We might see more people moving to that mode of transportation,” Ms. Peters said. “We might see that data skew.”
Motorcycle ridership appears to be rising even as the total miles for all vehicles drops.
Total deaths in motor vehicle crashes in 2007 declined to 41,059, a drop of 3.9 percent compared with 2006. Deaths in cars fell 7.8 percent, and in light trucks 2.7 percent. Even alcohol-related deaths fell.
In recent years, the development of safer cars and improved highways has been racing against growing levels of traffic to keep the death rate steady. Last year the total miles traveled declined by about 0.6 percent, and total deaths dropped much more sharply. The number of deaths per 100 million miles of vehicle travel, dropped to 1.37, a historic low.
In 1966, the rate was above 5 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, and the number of dead was above 50,000.
Deaths on motorcycles hit a low of 2,116 in 1997. Since, they have risen 128 percent. Their share of crash fatalities has jumped to almost 13 percent from 5 percent.
The highway safety authorities say that about 75 percent more motorcycles are registered today than 10 years ago. They suspect each motorcycle is ridden more miles, but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it does not have a reliable measurement of use.
And, safety officials say, many of the riders are middle-age or older men who rode when they were young, gave it up as they raised children and have recently gone back to the bike. “They think they still have the same reflexes,” said James Port, the safety agency’s deputy administrator.
Yet ridership has probably become more dangerous mile for mile. One reason is a decline in the number of states requiring the use of helmets. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, in 1975, 47 states required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, but now only 20 do.
At the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the organization that conducts independent vehicle crash tests, Russ Rader, a spokesman, said motor vehicle deaths would probably continue their decline into this year. “A drop in highway deaths is always the silver lining in a down economy,” Mr. Rader said, with fewer trips to work and discretionary trips.
“We are the only industrialized country in the world where there is an organized effort to weaken or repeal motorcycle helmet laws,” Mr. Rader said. “That definitely is a factor in the increasing deaths.”
At the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, which is financed by the manufacturers, Tim Buche, the president, said a person killed on a motorcycle was 2.5 times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol than a person killed in a car and three times more likely not to have a proper license.
“There’s risks in everything in life, but the risks can be addressed,” Mr. Buche said, by training, licensing, riding sober and wearing protective gear.

[jayjacobson]

....I am an AMA member and when I tried to persuade them to alter their stance on Helmet Laws (they spend money to oppose them) they said it was an "individual choice"....
I agree with them. I think it's WONDERFUL to live in a FREE society. Part of that wonder is stepping back and allowing people to be as foolish as they wanna be. It's a shame that big-government nanny-staters are succeeding in taking more and more of those freedoms away.

I will NEVER enforce any helmet law.

[grifscoots]

I wish the AMA would throw money at universal lane splitting. They've been real unresponsive, as the Tejas legislators, to my letters.

[tmgs]

I wish the AMA would throw money at universal lane splitting. They've been real unresponsive, as the Tejas legislators, to my letters.

you are not kidding there,

I can't find the link now, but there was a poll going around asking what we thought of our highways for motorcyclists and you were allowed to add a comment besides the yes now or multiple choice answers already provided,
my biggest thing is lane sharing! we need it, particularly in the south where it gets so darn hot when traffic is stopped!


BTW Howdy Griff

[tmgs]

I'm posting this in order to get others to encourage less experienced riders to apply common sense to riding, ATGATT, wear a helmet, etc..

I am an AMA member and when I tried to persuade them to alter their stance on Helmet Laws (they spend money to oppose them) they said it was an "individual choice". Basically, my money and many others, is going to support "Motorcyclist Russian Roulette".


I have a couple comments here

1st, I bet money the only reason they financially support the freedom of choice is because they want the support (financial support) from the tons of motorcyclists that want that choice (which far exceeds motorcylists that dont support that choice)

2nd, they are fighting for the right to decide, isn't what this country is about freedom?

3rd your spending money in every aspect of life that provides funding for those to play Russian Roulette, every tax dollar has some of going to some organization, particualarly gas dollars heck man how many are killed each year in Volvo's wearing thier seat belts?


It is that same attitude your about helmets and the "Motorcyclist Russian Roulette".
that causes many to want all motorcycles banned, you see those people feel the same way of anyone riding a motorcycle helmet or not, hell many doctors feel that way and its been shown many times that motorcyclists get sub par treatment when addmitted for injuries (I'm one so don't give me any bullshit that it is not true)

this is also the same mindset that set off the no helmet and you must have I'm a organ donor on you MC license which is another big piece of Bullshit

so although you may not like spending your money at a place that will fight for freedom of choice, and you may completely dissagree with those that will not wear a helmet, the AMA like others is doing a good thing even fighting against something as silly as helmet laws.

[hallzee]

I have a couple comments here

1st, I bet money the only reason they financially support the freedom of choice is because they want the support (financial support) from the tons of motorcyclists that want that choice (which far exceeds motorcylists that dont support that choice)

2nd, they are fighting for the right to decide, isn't what this country is about freedom?

3rd your spending money in every aspect of life that provides funding for those to play Russian Roulette, every tax dollar has some of going to some organization, particualarly gas dollars heck man how many are killed each year in Volvo's wearing thier seat belts?


It is that same attitude your about helmets and the "Motorcyclist Russian Roulette".
that causes many to want all motorcycles banned, you see those people feel the same way of anyone riding a motorcycle helmet or not, hell many doctors feel that way and its been shown many times that motorcyclists get sub par treatment when addmitted for injuries (I'm one so don't give me any bullshit that it is not true)

this is also the same mindset that set off the no helmet and you must have I'm a organ donor on you MC license which is another big piece of Bullshit

so although you may not like spending your money at a place that will fight for freedom of choice, and you may completely dissagree with those that will not wear a helmet, the AMA like others is doing a good thing even fighting against something as silly as helmet laws.
Personal freedoms, and their erosions are an issue; however, not in this case. A "riders choice" to not wear a helmet can and does affect the rest of us. In CA, we have had a helmet law for years.

Not because a bunch of "nannies" voted it in - but because the state was tired of supporting thousands of people in various states of vegetation in long-term care homes. Millions and millions of dollars wasted each year, because some moron is nearly brain dead, and their family can't afford to take care of them.

[zippy_gg]

because some moron is nearly brain dead, and their family can't afford to take care of them.You can't call someone a moron because he is not wearing a helmet while riding... and some cell phone yaking idiot in an SUV t-bones said rider. I think the title of moron then belongs to the SUV driver.
The issue of wether our freedom is eroding if a state declares a helmet law is not a simple one, and some laws don't make sense. For instance in most states you cannot split lanes because it is dangerous, but you are allowed to ride a bare head. In California it is the other way around, and personally I like it better since I split lanes every chance I get and have been in the habit of wearing a helmet since I first got on a motorized 2-wheeler.
Other folks will prefer to no helmet, no lane splitting rule.
That shouldn't make any rider a moron... other than their behavior while riding.

[rkimmel2]

We all pay more for bike insurance, medicaid and nearly everything else because some members of society refused to conform to the most common sense rules. They call themselves "freedom lovers" or "free spirits." I think a more accurate term would be asocial or irresponsible. It amazes me that so many of the folks I meet who believe in the "freedom" to self-destruct devote so much time to supporting the destruction of women's rights, civil rights and immigrant rights. Stand up for peace and real, meaningful freedom and they call you a liberal or Pinko as if there is something unamerican about that.


Just my one opinion among many others'.

[XMagnaRider]

First things first: Could we please stop initiating the same new thread on multiple websites at the same time? Threads would be much easier to follow if people start a new thread on one forum at a time. If there is no response after a few days, then go ahead and start the thread on another website.

This same thread is running on k-bikes.com. If you want to see my relevant comments to this thread, see my post #8 at:

http://www.k-bikes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15293

Summary:
The AMA is choosing the wrong fights. They aren't thinking or acting strategically.

[Morley]

You can't call someone a moron because he is not wearing a helmet while riding... and some cell phone yaking idiot in an SUV t-bones said rider. I think the title of moron then belongs to the SUV driver.

Sure you can. Because said Moron KNOWS that there are jackasses out there on their cell phones totally oblivious to what is happening around them. Since the govt won't do anyhting about the cell phone zombies you are a moron if you don't take the initiative to ensure your own safety.

[Steve_R]

Actually I don't visit any other bike sites, so if it gets started on several sites and someone post here so be it.

[hallzee]

You can't call someone a moron because he is not wearing a helmet while riding.
Gilles, I respectfully disagree. Anyone that has to spend the rest of his life in a nursing home, while 24/7 wearing a bib with a custom-made drool catch basin - just because he was excercising "freedom" of not wearing a helmet - is a moron in my book.

[grifscoots]

Actually I don't visit any other bike sites, so if it gets started on several sites and someone post here so be it.
That's because no one else will have you.

[Moot]

The thing that makes these debates so fascinating (and in fact makes them debates at all) is that there are indeed valid points on both sides of the issue. Given that simple truth, most of us tend to line up on the side that most nearly represents our fundamental views with respect to the role of government vs. personal freedoms.

I religiously wore my seatbelt before there was a seat belt law. In fact I had 5 point racing harness installed in my Porsche for extra safety. I religiously follow the principles of ATGATT in state where there is no helmet law. I choose not to smoke in a country where it is legal to do so. I chose to carry a concealed weapon and while I comply with the permit requirement, I don't have to like it. In each of these instances I have made a choice and the law has had little or nothing to do with my choice. I'd like to keep it that way. (BTW, each of you who favors helmet laws on the premise that not wearing one causes the rest of us to pick up the tab for injuries must certainly support outlawing cigarettes, right?)

The President of the United States is not our father and we are not his children. Yet that is not only the attitude of many of our leaders, it is the attitude we ask for when we expect our government to deliver every thing to us -- from protection against our own foolishness to "free" health care, a guaranteed "livable" wage, cheap or even "free" college and guaranteed sick days at work. And if you think I'm getting too political here and attacking the Dems, let's not ignore Senator McCain's goofy call for a summer gas tax "holiday" and federal mortgage swaps for those who are upside in an adjustable rate loan.

Our founding fathers after shedding the yoke of one oppressive government founded a new form of government that was intended to be limited. It was Jefferson that said "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves" The first phrase of Jefferson's statement is often recited but the last phrase is commonly ignored or omitted. The form of government our founding fathers envisioned worked and continues to work only when the people discipline themselves. Or at least when if they fail to do so, the government is not obligated to make it all ok again. This applies equally to seatbelts, tobacco, helmets and a host of other social issues.

Our government is not a Santa Clause like phantom to which we post our Christmas wish list and expect the dreams and wishes on that list to be fulfilled for free. The next time a politician or a candidate promises you the government's help, remember: The correct question is not "How can we afford that?" The correct question is "Where in the Constitution have we given the Government the power to do that?"

The same questions apply to helmet laws. Where have we the people given the government the power to control that aspect of our lives?

"Never forget that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Gerald R. Ford.

Sorry, I guess I did get carried away, but at the heart of the matter every word of this rant is directly on point. Those who favor seatbelt and helmet and no smoking laws are willing to give the government that control. I am not. :rant:

[LAF]

Amen!

Very well said and I could not agree more.

The cigarette issue is just becoming State Law here. No smoking in a public area. Bar, Club, Restaurant, etc.

I find it ironic that something the government condones such as cigarettes, they now allow a law against it.

And if everyone who smoked quit tomorrow, this Country would see the biggest loss of tax revenue ever, and your taxes would go strait through the roof.

The Government is so far up our a$$ now, they can tell what brand of TP we are using.

All of these things are forms of choice, including helmets. Your risk and your choice.

How did all our Dads and Grandfathers make it through their bike days without a law to "guide" them?

Since we cant hunt stupid people, this ATGATT must be a way to cull the heard.

I for one am sick of seeing my Rights erode at an alarming rate.

All the statistics in the world will never tell the story.

Years riding, training, age, all are important factors in these statistics. And what was the rise from? More bikes being sold and more people who don't have the experience?





The thing that makes these debates so fascinating (and in fact makes them debates at all) is that there are indeed valid points on both sides of the issue. Given that simple truth, most of us tend to line up on the side that most nearly represents our fundamental views with respect to the role of government vs. personal freedoms.

I religiously wore my seatbelt before there was a seat belt law. In fact I had 5 point racing harness installed in my Porsche for extra safety. I religiously follow the principles of ATGATT in state where there is no helmet law. I choose not to smoke in a country where it is legal to do so. I chose to carry a concealed weapon and while I comply with the permit requirement, I don't have to like it. In each of these instances I have made a choice and the law has had little or nothing to do with my choice. I'd like to keep it that way. (BTW, each of you who favors helmet laws on the premise that not wearing one causes the rest of us to pick up the tab for injuries must certainly support outlawing cigarettes, right?)

The President of the United States is not our father and we are not his children. Yet that is not only the attitude of many of our leaders, it is the attitude we ask for when we expect our government to deliver every thing to us -- from protection against our own foolishness to "free" health care, a guaranteed "livable" wage, cheap or even "free" college and guaranteed sick days at work. And if you think I'm getting too political here and attacking the Dems, let's not ignore Senator McCain's goofy call for a summer gas tax "holiday" and federal mortgage swaps for those who are upside in an adjustable rate loan.

Our founding fathers after shedding the yoke of one oppressive government founded a new form of government that was intended to be limited. It was Jefferson that said "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves" The first phrase of Jefferson's statement is often recited but the last phrase is commonly ignored or omitted. The form of government our founding fathers envisioned worked and continues to work only when the people discipline themselves. Or at least when if they fail to do so, the government is not obligated to make it all ok again. This applies equally to seatbelts, tobacco, helmets and a host of other social issues.

Our government is not a Santa Clause like phantom to which we post our Christmas wish list and expect the dreams and wishes on that list to be fulfilled for free. The next time a politician or a candidate promises you the government's help, remember: The correct question is not "How can we afford that?" The correct question is "Where in the Constitution have we given the Government the power to do that?"

The same questions apply to helmet laws. Where have we the people given the government the power to control that aspect of our lives?

"Never forget that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Gerald R. Ford.

Sorry, I guess I did get carried away, but at the heart of the matter every word of this rant is directly on point. Those who favor seatbelt and helmet and no smoking laws are willing to give the government that control. I am not. :rant:

[MikeERideWNC]

I wish all states would loose their helmet laws.

I call it thinning the heard.
If you are dumb enough to get on a bike without a helmet...
Then you are just wasting our oxygen.

[rkimmel2]

I support helmet laws and have no problem with the idea of outlawing cigarettes and other forms of self destruction that ultimately force those who accept responsibility to pick up the tab for others' excessively expensive social diseases. Want to smoke, then no medical coverage including medicaid and medicare. Want to ride with no helmet, ditto. Social Darwinism at its best.

[Bob1200rtc1]

I like to ride without a helmet and gear when its warm. I wear it when its cool to keep me warm. Its my choice and I like it that way. Bye the way, when the PA smoking ban goes into effect, this life long non smoker will buy a pack. I'm tired of having other people decide what I can and can't do.

[BillyOmaha]

The thing that makes these debates so fascinating (and in fact makes them debates at all) is that there are indeed valid points on both sides of the issue. Given that simple truth, most of us tend to line up on the side that most nearly represents our fundamental views with respect to the role of government vs. personal freedoms.

I religiously wore my seatbelt before there was a seat belt law. In fact I had 5 point racing harness installed in my Porsche for extra safety. I religiously follow the principles of ATGATT in state where there is no helmet law. I choose not to smoke in a country where it is legal to do so. I chose to carry a concealed weapon and while I comply with the permit requirement, I don't have to like it. In each of these instances I have made a choice and the law has had little or nothing to do with my choice. I'd like to keep it that way. (BTW, each of you who favors helmet laws on the premise that not wearing one causes the rest of us to pick up the tab for injuries must certainly support outlawing cigarettes, right?)

The President of the United States is not our father and we are not his children. Yet that is not only the attitude of many of our leaders, it is the attitude we ask for when we expect our government to deliver every thing to us -- from protection against our own foolishness to "free" health care, a guaranteed "livable" wage, cheap or even "free" college and guaranteed sick days at work. And if you think I'm getting too political here and attacking the Dems, let's not ignore Senator McCain's goofy call for a summer gas tax "holiday" and federal mortgage swaps for those who are upside in an adjustable rate loan.

Our founding fathers after shedding the yoke of one oppressive government founded a new form of government that was intended to be limited. It was Jefferson that said "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves" The first phrase of Jefferson's statement is often recited but the last phrase is commonly ignored or omitted. The form of government our founding fathers envisioned worked and continues to work only when the people discipline themselves. Or at least when if they fail to do so, the government is not obligated to make it all ok again. This applies equally to seatbelts, tobacco, helmets and a host of other social issues.

Our government is not a Santa Clause like phantom to which we post our Christmas wish list and expect the dreams and wishes on that list to be fulfilled for free. The next time a politician or a candidate promises you the government's help, remember: The correct question is not "How can we afford that?" The correct question is "Where in the Constitution have we given the Government the power to do that?"

The same questions apply to helmet laws. Where have we the people given the government the power to control that aspect of our lives?

"Never forget that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Gerald R. Ford.

Sorry, I guess I did get carried away, but at the heart of the matter every word of this rant is directly on point. Those who favor seatbelt and helmet and no smoking laws are willing to give the government that control. I am not. :rant:Howdy Byrum,

I totally agree with your sentiment and the am impressed with the thoughtfulness of your comments.... truly.

My reply is personal and sincere. I was driving a car during CCR in Braselton, GA and found myself encountering motorcyclists without helmets at 75 mph on the freeway. To put it mildly, I was "freaking out" that someone was being so, literally, stupid as to trust that no one around him would make the most unintentional mistake and end up taking his life. Me....a motorcyclist fearing that I might "KILL" a fellow motorcyclist because he insists on his right to not wear a helmet on an Interstate that I pay for via my taxes has left an indelible impression on me and the insanity of riding without a helmet.

Consider a horse and buggy during the founding of our nation, if two horses or a buggy bumped, no big deal. You shouted at each other to watch what they were doing and went on your merry way. Two cars on the freeway pretty much the same thing. You bump, pleasantries expressed and each go about their lives. However, an innocent error with a car and a motorcycle at 70 mph can cause death or, worse, brain damage of a fellow motorcyclists. The helmet simply reduces the potential extent of the damage.

I understand your position on not letting the government be our "nannies" and to a large extent agree with it but, helmets on the public roadways are just too obvious a piece of safety equipment to argue against...period.

[Moot]

Billy: You and I agree one the absolute wisdom of helmets. My concern is that I lack the wisdom to make the decisions as to those areas of governmental interference that are justified and those where such meddling should not occur. Lacking the wisdom to make such decisions, I tend to remain steadfast against having the government decide for me--or for you. I take comfort in my consistency. At the same time I am reminded of the statement of Ralph Waldo Emerson in his Essays on Self Reliance: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Unfortunately, Emerson did not tell us the difference between a wise consistency and a foolish consistency.

Wait a frigin' minute is this a motorcycle forum or what?

[jayjacobson]

....A "riders choice" to not wear a helmet can and does affect the rest of us. In CA, we have had a helmet law for years....
:rotf: Yeah, those salad bowls with the gay straps are REALLY gonna protect the old melon! Another feel good, meaningless, symbolism over substance, worthless law. :histerica

Fast food driven obesity effects the rest of also. So let's outlaw that!
....It amazes me that so many of the folks I meet who believe in the "freedom" to self-destruct devote so much time to supporting the destruction of women's rights, civil rights and immigrant rights....
:rotf: Oh God, sweet Jesus and Satan! So we're supposed to support "SPECIAL" rights to certain selected "class" members?! :confused:

The entertainment is endless! :histerica
....The AMA is choosing the wrong fights. They aren't thinking or acting strategically.
Or logically, probably. Aw, WTF, logic died along with common sense years ago. :D
....just because he was excercising "freedom" of not wearing a helmet - is a moron in my book.
Yes I agree. AND that's why freedom has no price. ONLY paid for in blood.
....Want to smoke, then no medical coverage including medicaid and medicare. Want to ride with no helmet, ditto. Social Darwinism at its best.
Let's take this one better: how about no medicare/medicaid for anyone?! AND while we're letting freedom ring, lets toss socialist security also!
....but, helmets on the public roadways are just too obvious a piece of safety equipment to argue against...period....
I CAN and WILL argue VIGOROUSLY against it! Even the big government nanny staters don't really believe in it! If they were really serious, "salad bowl" helmets would be illegal, also.
....when the PA smoking ban goes into effect, this life long non smoker will buy a pack. I'm tired of having other people decide what I can and can't do.
Thank you, sir, for letting freedom ring!

[Axiom2000]

Seems to me, arguments about helmet laws are akin to arguing about politics or religion, strong opinions will be expressed minds will not be changed.

[kk610lt]

Seems to me, arguments about helmet laws are akin to arguing about politics or religion, strong opinions will be expressed minds will not be changed.

You've got that right...........

I read somewhere that un-helmeted riders laying in hospitals on life support with brain damage sucking our money to pay for it is a myth.

I wear my helmet and gear because it makes sense to me, not because some law tells me I have to. (even though there is no law here in IL.)

It's funny how people think a helmet is the fix-not good riding skills.

Keith

[simoncharles]

I like to ride without a helmet and gear when its warm. I wear it when its cool to keep me warm. Its my choice and I like it that way. Bye the way, when the PA smoking ban goes into effect, this life long non smoker will buy a pack. I'm tired of having other people decide what I can and can't do.

Bob, do you children ?.

[NCrider]

Aw, what the heck... I've got nothin to do for a few minutes.

Thousands lying in CA hospitals from motorcycle accidents sucking up govt funds??? What is that stat from? Over what period of time?

I say the govt should be in the business of national defense and foreign relations, period. States should determine their own course of action, using their own funding. If we can't do that, give me ala carte taxes. I do not like my money being used to pay for bridges to nowhere or the myriad of things Obama has procured Federal Funds for, or failed tunnels in Boston, or rubbers in schools, etc, etc, etc. I believe this nation is soon coming to a tipping point. Many of us are getting extremely fed up.

So, what are you going to do about it?

Oh, and back to the original post. Do you think these folks are so retarded that you need to tell them to please wear a helmet. They made a choice, they know the inherent dangers, even if they choose to disregard them. So what do you gain by buggin the crap out of them- you make yourself out to look like a zealot and you piss them off and isolate yourself. Talk about antisocial behavior. "Freaking out" riding down the road seeing bikers without helmets??? That's a little extreme- when I see them, I shake my head and say a prayer for their safety. And your sigtag seems to indicate you like to exceed safe speeds (100 is where life begins???)- helmet or not, hit a tree, guardrail or car at that speed and you'll be sucking up govt funds while on life support. Come on, bro, check your self before youstart pointing your finger at others.

That was fun. :D ;)

[Deek]

I agree with them. I think it's WONDERFUL to live in a FREE society. Part of that wonder is stepping back and allowing people to be as foolish as they wanna be. It's a shame that big-government nanny-staters are succeeding in taking more and more of those freedoms away.

I will NEVER enforce any helmet law.

As long as I don't have to subsidize their choice by having my motorcycle or health insurance increased over what it would be if all riders wore helmets. I'm all for individual choices, and I have zero problems paying more for insurance, etc based on my choices. But I get irritated when folks tell me it's their right to not wear (helmets, boots, leather, etc) and expect me to subsidize that choice through insurance.

I heard that in Florida, where helmets are not mandatory for all riders, riders pay a different rate based on their helmet use. If so I think that's a great idea and wonder if other states do that. Anyone know?

[zippy_gg]

All that talk about subsidizing veggies in hospital totally ignores the biggest issues. We subsidize a war in a country where they don't want us anymore, we subsidize medical care for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile we no longer provide for our veterans, and we have a large homeless population (many veterans there too).
A helmet law would not change our economy. I choose to wear a helmet and wear a seatbelt because it makes sense to me, but I see a motorcop in Burbank pulling over a 12 yo kid on a bicycle near his middle school for not wearing a helmet I see red! I mean... where does it stop?:confused:

[Bob1200rtc1]

2 kids.

[jayjacobson]

....But I get irritated when folks tell me it's their right to not wear (helmets, boots, leather, etc) and expect me to subsidize that choice through insurance....
You are also subsidizing obese people eating way too much fast food. Shall we outlaw that, also?

[lanugo]

I would think you are more likely to end up in a vegetative state if you have a helmet on. If you hit your head from 6 feet off he ground on a motorcycle going more than 10mph you're likely going to be dead. So I think its great when people don't ATGATT. We won't have to support them later in life.

[brick_haus]

I simply cant get over the fact that the OP pays his dues to AMA and then complains about how they spend it.

[Chuck Presnail]

All that talk about subsidizing veggies in hospital totally ignores the biggest issues. We subsidize a war in a country where they don't want us anymore, we subsidize medical care for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile we no longer provide for our veterans, and we have a large homeless population (many veterans there too).
A helmet law would not change our economy. I choose to wear a helmet and wear a seatbelt because it makes sense to me, but I see a motorcop in Burbank pulling over a 12 yo kid on a bicycle near his middle school for not wearing a helmet I see red! I mean... where does it stop?:confused:


Gilles

Im am a little confused here you are worried about an American war worried about American borders and Homeless Americans be they Veteran or Not Worried that American Vets are being given short shrift .

But you are not worried about the life of a single 12 year old American who is in no way capable of making a rational decision. Maybe we should let him play with explosives I'm sure he will make the right choices.

and all this worry about America and Americans and you dont seem to own anything made IN america. HMM?????

But Hey I believe in YOUR free choice to buy what ever you want - I do.

I'm sure that you know who your representatives are their address and Email and they know your thoughts Right?

Chuck

PS; ( as an aside I am a Vet that does not feel abandoned and the VA hospitals have a higher score than most Hospitals in the US lately < within last 6 years> )

[grifscoots]

and all this worry about America and Americans and you dont seem to own anything made IN america. HMM?????I'm trying real hard to think of something made in America, I'm talking 100% American made.

You can blame our government for that, not to mention the GNP because of the way they've screwed trade.

[BillyOmaha]

I simply cant get over the fact that the OP pays his dues to AMA and then complains about how they spend it.Howdy John,
In short, I can't get over the fact that you can't get over the fact :think: that I contribute to the AMA and then complain (to them directly, by the way) about a position they have taken. Unless you're one of those type of people, which I doubt, that believe that everyone of the 260,000 of the members believe every position the AMA has taken on their behalf is the correct one.

I also think that loud piped bike riders should be ticketed, bike towed and hauled to the impound lot at the owners expense. Second offense and the bike is forfeited. Not sure what the AMA position on that subject is, but since the vast majority of the membership are cruiser riders, my guess is that they would fight a law like that. :brick:

[Chuck Presnail]

I'm trying real hard to think of something made in America, I'm talking 100% American made.

You can blame our government for that, not to mention the GNP because of the way they've screwed trade.


OK I did not want to create the impression thaqt Iam a buy only American

But if you want to Buy American here is a site to; Made in USA stuff
SEE: http://www.americansworking.com/

No need to scratch your head . just tap the keyboard.

I have no idea of your feelings on this but there is a SMALL!!!! number of people who dictate what happens in the US care to guess????

545 who determin the lives of the 300+ million people who live and work here.

545- One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Ever wonder why if both Parties are against deficits WHY DO WE HAVE DEFICITS!!

Politicians are the only people who create problems and the campaine against them

ELECT NOBODY.

Chuck

Parts of this came from an essay by Charlie Reese

[rattler50]

How could one pass up such an opportunity to rant??......... :histerica

The state thinks it has to idiot proof everything. But, in the name of freedom you have to allow the idiot to do as he will. He's free to do that. But it is a pain when his idiocy starts pulling $ out of my pocket. We should all be responsible for our own choices. Man shall eat by the fruit of HIS labour, not mine. If I want to give to him, that's one thing. But if you take it from me and give it to him, that's just wrong.
America is held hostage by a few in power. Most Americans don't vote and we are split down the middle when we do. Common sense and responsibilty are a thing of the past. If all of us handled our affairs like our leaders do, we'd all be in jail or dead. We seem to get less for our $ while they seem to be feathering their own nests at our expense. They don't serve us, we serve them.
Very little is made in America today except debt. We are excellent at making that. Capitol One would love to give your child a credit card when he/she turns 18. Countrywide will help you out as well. Just sign over your home.
Tickets are a form of tax. I they can get your kid on a bicycle and you on a motorcycle in the same day, that's a windfall. They need that money to install a plastic park bench that resembles a Crepe Mertle tree. The mayor's brother in law in NYC is an abstract artist and we all know how these farmers and ranchers here in Wichita Falls, Texas are into abstract art!! :rotf:
And all those fat people you see walking out of McDonald's? If we could squeeze the oil out of them we could tell the Saudis to buzz off. If not wearing a helmet makes you an idiot, then riding without a helmet while smoking after having a few beers puts you in line for a seat in the Senate!!
Hey, works for Teddy.
The less government I have in my life, the better off I am. Let them ruin the rest of the world. Chances are I can't stop that. But keep them out of my life. I don't need or want them. I allow them to be on my TV but I wouldn't let them cast their filthy shadows over my threshold.
Here's a good video about common senes. Watch it and see if you agree with what he says............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&eurl=http
It makes sense to me. When you look at us today, can you really believe in evolution?.............. :histerica

[brick_haus]

I also think that loud piped bike riders should be ticketed, bike towed and hauled to the impound lot at the owners expense. Second offense and the bike is forfeited. Not sure what the AMA position on that subject is, but since the vast majority of the membership are cruiser riders, my guess is that they would fight a law like that. :brick:

Well, maybe you should move to an island where there's nobody there to bother you.

Why would you contribute to a consevrative organization and then complain about their political agenda. YOUR money would be better spent with the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation or Greenpeace.

[jayjacobson]

....I also think that loud piped bike riders should be ticketed, bike towed and hauled to the impound lot at the owners expense. Second offense and the bike is forfeited....
Would it be ok if the officer goose steps as he impounding said bike? :confused: Why stop with the bike? It sure the the rider of said offending bike does not have his paperwork in order. Let's impound his ass as well!

Now, if said offending loud pipes where facing FORWARD, then they would be a safety device (much like one of those salad bowl helmets). So, then, we wouldn't want to impound the bike or the owner. WTF?! :confused: :eek:

[grifscoots]

Instead of impounding, ticketing, or other forms of hair-ass-ment, may I respectfully submit that the offender just have the ever loving shit knocked out of him. Atitude adjustment, as it may be.

[zippy_gg]

Gilles

Im am a little confused here you are worried about an American war worried about American borders and Homeless Americans be they Veteran or Not Worried that American Vets are being given short shrift .

But you are not worried about the life of a single 12 year old American who is in no way capable of making a rational decision. Maybe we should let him play with explosives I'm sure he will make the right choices.
Like most kids I grew up riding bicycles and I did not wear a helmet. I would have if my parents had asked me to. Parents should be making that decision, not the government! My original question still stands: where does it stop?

and all this worry about America and Americans and you dont seem to own anything made IN america. HMM?????
I may not own anything made is America, but everything I buy... I buy in America. This means that I support the American commerce and I definitely pay the 8.25% sales tax on everything I buy. It also means that very little is made in America anymore. Not much I can do about that!
But Hey I believe in YOUR free choice to buy what ever you want - I do.

I'm sure that you know who your representatives are their address and Email and they know your thoughts Right?

Chuck

PS; ( as an aside I am a Vet that does not feel abandoned and the VA hospitals have a higher score than most Hospitals in the US lately < within last 6 years> )One of my staff is a retired Marine who nearly lost his right arm to an RPG while in Iraq. While he received great care at the hospital he definitely has issues with his veterans benefits.

[BillyOmaha]

Well, maybe you should move to an island where there's nobody there to bother you. OR..., you could give me your address and the local Hell's Angels could ride by your home in the dead of night for a few months and we'll describe it as exercising their right to make noise :bike: ... on your "island" :cussing:

Why would you contribute to a consevrative organization and then complain about their political agenda. YOUR money would be better spent with the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation or Greenpeace.As I said previously, any large advocacy organization will have positions that I will disagree with, but as long as I agree with them on a majority of positions it's a worthwhile way to advance my agenda. Plus with an AMA membership I got to run time trials on the Salt Flats :yeah:

[zippy_gg]

Plus with an AMA membership I got to run time trials on the Salt Flats :yeah: And I believe some dealers will also give you a discount...

[brick_haus]

Yes, I do love the sound of a healthy engine...although I too am a bit envious that my RT cant sound that good. It's a fair trade off though...

[Bob1200rtc1]

I bet I would make the national news if they tried to take my bike from me for loud pipes. I personally wouldn't have them. I don't really care for them. I can see a fine if the noise is excessive. But take a persons bike? Thats definately jack-boot tactics. Yeah I would make the news.

[tmgs]

The thing that makes these debates so fascinating (and in fact makes them debates at all) is that there are indeed valid points on both sides of the issue. Given that simple truth, most of us tend to line up on the side that most nearly represents our fundamental views with respect to the role of government vs. personal freedoms.


as long as they tell the truth I have no problem with someone passionately being active in what they believe,

when they start the BS that helmets are dangerous, they kill, they block view, and hearing, and spread to kids and other newbies to riding then I get PO'd,

fight the law for what it is, your choice (or the right) to decide whether or not to wear a lid. Period. this is the sole reason I do not support the forces that fight to get helmet laws dropped, because they do it (many times) with a pack of BullS**T.

and DO NOT attach BS laws to the bills, like they did in FL (being able to ride helmet less with 10k med payment ins, particularly in a state where you can not cover yourself through your insurance agency worth a crap (aka NO PIP) and very very limited med payment from only a couple of companies. SF does not offer med payment on mc's

[tmgs]

Personal freedoms, and their erosions are an issue; however, not in this case. A "riders choice" to not wear a helmet can and does affect the rest of us. In CA, we have had a helmet law for years.

Not because a bunch of "nannies" voted it in - but because the state was tired of supporting thousands of people in various states of vegetation in long-term care homes. Millions and millions of dollars wasted each year, because some moron is nearly brain dead, and their family can't afford to take care of them.

see here is where YOU are so far misinformed that I can sit back and laugh my arse off.......

do you really think for one moment the helmet law changes any of this?

it DOES NOT

you see you are affected regardless, everytime time one person gets hit or injured in any way helmet or not, your paying for it!

you really need to take a look into the states laws and how insurances really work, and what coverages you have and what they actually pay and when they actually pay

take a look at this read www.bikershut.net/mc_ins.htm once just on laws in fl, then my statement will make sense

and FOR the record, I hate the bs associated with riding and no Helmet, but rest assured I know what what it costs us. and I do not agree with it at all.

not when they attach BS insurance requirements to ride without one and you can;t get coverage for crap anyhow!

[rkimmel2]

I'm so confused by the above that I think I will take a short nap. This post has run its course so I won't miss anything.

[tmgs]

I'm so confused by the above that I think I will take a short nap. This post has run its course so I won't miss anything.

and that is alol the helmet debate ever does, but no one will admit it

<g>

[kmdovie]

we all know the risks...people are always screwing up...doesn't matter if they are in cars, trucks, busses or on bikes... it is your job to minimize the risk and take whatever precautions you can to be able to ride again tomorrow...

[jayjacobson]

....you could give me your address and the local Hell's Angels could ride by your home in the dead of night for a few months and we'll describe it as exercising their right to make noise :bike: ... on your "island" :cussing....
OR you could thank them for properly equipping their bikes with safety equipment....much like those helmets you so eagerly advocate! WTF?! :confused:

[grifscoots]

OR you could thank them for properly equipping their bikes with safety equipment....much like those helmets you so eagerly advocate! WTF?! :confused:A whole new segment of outlaw biker! If they sported ATGATT and quiet bikes, the average BMW rider would then strike fear in the hearts of citizens all over the US as they entered BBQ joints on RTE's. The horror of it all!!!!!

[UncleMark]

A whole new segment of outlaw biker! If they sported ATGATT and quiet bikes, the average BMW rider would then strike fear in the hearts of citizens all over the US as they entered BBQ joints on RTE's. The horror of it all!!!!!
You are just cracking me up!!!! :histerica

[ldbikin]

I wish the AMA would throw money at universal lane splitting. They've been real unresponsive, as the Tejas legislators, to my letters.

Ya know Grif, when I moved to AZ I found they didn't have a helmet law and asked why....

Apparently, bikers were dropping in the heat in traffic with helmets on.

OOOookkkkk.......so, they drop the helmet law but don't allow that "awfully dangerous" lane splitting????

Really, I must be from another planet, thats about as stoopid as it gets.

I'm not advocating more gov't "advice" however, the logic of this escapes me.
The only thing I can figure is that cager's don't like bikers getting ahead and that culture is so engrained (especially in AZ w/all the a-hole drivers) that it doesn't even get a second thought. :cool:

I lane split weekly in socal on my commute home and I can say, it is very safe once cagers drop the 'tude and get with the program. Most cagers are very polite, I try to return the favor, minus the bozo's here and there of course.

and what a great way to shake the buttmucher's off your tail! :)

[bflemingor]

As I read through the comments, I see "right to choose" vs "Rights of the Group".

It is not the government's right to dictate our morality, or, as in our schools, the lack thereof.

Horses distroyed backs, guns (in the wrong hands) can kill, cars are a threat to everything, and, last but not least, the sky is falling.

We are adults. Most of us can think. Most of us know right from wrong, and respect other's rights. Ah, the point - loud pipes are offensive to others - doesn't matter why you have them, they are. Wearing a helmet is NOT offensive to others (unless you have purple & pink hair, with heavy dandruff).

I also believe that there should be personal savings, not social security, and that welfare should be there to help in a time of need, not to support a lifestyle.

Remember, those trying to legislate "safety" ultimately will try to ban bikes altogether.

My $0.02 :rant:

[BillyOmaha]

And I believe some dealers will also give you a discount...Howdy Gilles,

Actually it was BMWNA that picked up the entire BUB tab including lunch, runs and water..., plus some meals and part of the hotel tab off the Flats :dance:

[grifscoots]

As I read through the comments, I see "right to choose" vs "Rights of the Group".

It is not the government's right to dictate our morality, or, as in our schools, the lack thereof.

Horses distroyed backs, guns (in the wrong hands) can kill, cars are a threat to everything, and, last but not least, the sky is falling.

We are adults. Most of us can think. Most of us know right from wrong, and respect other's rights. Ah, the point - loud pipes are offensive to others - doesn't matter why you have them, they are. Wearing a helmet is NOT offensive to others (unless you have purple & pink hair, with heavy dandruff).

I also believe that there should be personal savings, not social security, and that welfare should be there to help in a time of need, not to support a lifestyle.

Remember, those trying to legislate "safety" ultimately will try to ban bikes altogether.

My $0.02 :rant:Bravo! Well said! But, you didn't say anthing about the perfect Country Western song....

[lesn]

In Wisconsin--where the Harley lobby is very strong, you can split lanes, you don't have to wear a helmet and if you have a windscreen--you don't even need eye protection.
So there, if you want complete freedom, come to Wisconsin.

[zippy_gg]

In Wisconsin--where the Harley lobby is very strong, you can split lanes, you don't have to wear a helmet and if you have a windscreen--you don't even need eye protection.
So there, if you want complete freedom, come to Wisconsin.and enjoy both months of riding season!!!:D
Are you serious about splittig lanes in Wisconsin? I thought only California allowed it. Cool! It is on my list of states to visit (see map in my sig).

[Tat_n_Telle]

I usually hate getting involved in debates about rights, because, as they say, opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one, and thinks theirs is the only one that doesn't stink.

What we should try to remember is that driving (motorcycle, car, whatever) is NOT a right guaranteed by the goverment. If it were, none of us would need a license. It is a PRIVILEGE granted us with limitations.

No one forces you to ride. No one forces you to drive. If you don't like helmet laws, loud pipe laws, seatbelt laws, speed limits, restrictions on lane splitting, having to stop for red lights, or the fact you can get in trouble for running over little old ladys in the crosswalk with their walkers, then don't get your license.

If you want to change the restrictions on that privilege, write or call your elected officials, run for office yourself, go through the channels legally afforded you and go for it. Standing up on a soapbox (or a forum) for the sole purpose of starting a heated debate (and one that has been beaten to death several times over) is, IMHO, pointless, other than the fact you are less likely to have someone who vehemently disagrees with you come up and kick you in the balls.

Oh, and for the record: mine doesn't stink. :-)

[tmgs]

I usually hate getting involved in debates about rights, because, as they say, opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one, and thinks theirs is the only one that doesn't stink.

What we should try to remember is that driving (motorcycle, car, whatever) is NOT a right guaranteed by the goverment. If it were, none of us would need a license. It is a PRIVILEGE granted us with limitations.

No one forces you to ride. No one forces you to drive. If you don't like helmet laws, loud pipe laws, seatbelt laws, speed limits, restrictions on lane splitting, having to stop for red lights, or the fact you can get in trouble for running over little old ladys in the crosswalk with their walkers, then don't get your license.

If you want to change the restrictions on that privilege, write or call your elected officials, run for office yourself, go through the channels legally afforded you and go for it. Standing up on a soapbox (or a forum) for the sole purpose of starting a heated debate (and one that has been beaten to death several times over) is, IMHO, pointless, other than the fact you are less likely to have someone who vehemently disagrees with you come up and kick you in the balls.

Oh, and for the record: mine doesn't stink. :-)

well said, you just forgot two things, 1st mine doesn;t stink either <g> and 2nd stop telliing lies , like helmets kill in class rooms!