helmet law?

[wolfman]

Good posts Jarvis...I agree with you. People tend to look at themselves as being the only one affected when not wearing a helmet, but thats not the case at all.

Now, if only helmets came with brains already in them....

[redbarron77]

Rant away! Don't be sorry.

While I understand we end up paying for other people's stupidity, I think the underlying issue isn't just the direct laws on our ability to choose whether or not to be safe.

The real issue with the additional laws seems to be the peripheral impact that the gov't applies. Back in the old days someone dies in car accident because they were doing something stupid, they'd hose off the street, squeegie up the remains, drop 'em in a hole, and people would say "Dumb phucker shouldna' dun that!"

Nowa days, there are insurance attorneys, wrongful death attorneys, malpractice attorneys, etc. Are the attorneys at fault? No, the legal system seems to propagate this industry. (note - I call if a legal system, not a Justice System) These people saw a market for their skills, and have applied them. Yes, there are some screwups that people knew about (say in a manufacturing defect) and they should pay. But there are so many frivolous lawsuits that it makes the application of common sense impossible via legislation.

I think I have added more than $.02....

[magley64]

Yes, there are some screwups that people knew about (say in a manufacturing defect) and they should pay. But there are so many frivolous lawsuits that it makes the application of common sense impossible via legislation.

I think I have added more than $.02....

:plus1:

One of the biggest problems with engineering right now is "forseeable use"

you literally have to think of every stupid thing that someone could possibly use your product for, and write on the documentation NOT to use it for that...

a new extention ladder for example, included in the documentation:

"do not use as a bridge or scaffold, do not use near power lines, do not insert into anus or other orafaces, do not ingest, do not use in a moving vehicle"

it's rediculous...

companies get sued for people misusing their product all the time...

true story: one of my professors used to work for a firearms manufacturer (well known)...

they designed this new nightstick, where if beating your perp into submission wasn't working, you could pull a trigger and pop off a teargas capsule in the end of the nightstick...

worked great, many of the local PD's loved it...

couple of officers were messing around with one, pulled out the teargas capsule, and inserted a shotgun shell...

product exploded, cut the officer's arm pretty badly, and he attempted to sue the company over the incident, LUCKILY the judge felt that that was NOT in the jusidiction of forseeable use, and tossed the case out...

[jarvismb]

...do not insert into anus or other orafaces, ...

That's it, I'm out.....

And I'm officially writing that on every single tool I own for the rest of my life.

[DangBruhY]

People fail to realize that you can be the best rider in the world, but if you cross paths with the worst....

[John]

I believe that we have seatbelt laws for the sole purpose that the government can make money off of giving tickets out for the infractions.

EXACTLY.

there is one and only one reason for seatbelt and helmet laws (and about 95% of other traffic laws too) and its NOT "public safety" or anything like that.

[natedogg624]

^ok but to counter that statement, what about when our insurance rates go up because of an increase in motorcycle fatalities.

if we don't have a helmet law, ALL of us will be affected by increasing rates, whereas if we do have a helmet law, the people who don't wear their helmet will feel the hit to the pocket. not the entire riding community.

[RVTPilot]

Seat belt and helmet laws are hardly the money making venture that most people assume them to be for the gov't. By the time you boil off the operating expenses involved in a moving violation with the size of a standard fine for something like that, it's hardly a cash cow.

It's a lot closer to what natedogg just said. The real economic impact is where the premiums for insurance policies comes into play, and this takes me back to the idea of, as a motorcyclist, to whom you are responsible. Like it or not, you as a rider reflect an entre culture. Think you dont? Think about how pissed you get when you see someone doing something stupid on a bike, and see a non-rider's reaction to them, then you. Unless they know you, you are immediately grouped together, regardless of how much you may be the anthesis of that squid. Well, the insurance underwriting body of this nation looks the same way at you, especially in a non-helmet law state when it comes to premiums becuase they not only have to consider your protection, but the best interest of their stockholders.

[xtremef4i]

Im torn here...I think people should have the choice to wear or not wear a helmet. There is a rush with the feeling of the wind blowing thru your hair on the open road. But on the other hand, I would not be opposed to a helmet law either, in fact, I am actually suprised Ohio hasn't created any helmet laws yet. My first few years of riding, I didnt wear my helmet a lot but I have grown up and realized it is dumb to not wear a helmet. I wear my helmet, jacket, and gloves everywhere I go now because you never know what is going to happen and when you will need the protection.

I don't think a helmet law would decrease insurance rates at all...The insurance companies would probably claim they are giving you a discount for helmets when really thet arent since they just marked the rates up so they can discount them back down.

In summary, I still believe people have the right to choose, but they also have the right to chose to ride a bike and I think that desicion to ride should come with the obligation to wear a helmet. Respect the road, the bike, fellow riders, and yourself. I would support a helmet law. Plus, a helmet keeps bugs out of your hair and face and your eyes dont water, and you dont get smacked in the throat by huge bugs or rocks either. See, wearing a helmet has its advantages.

[shittygsxr]

Ohio does not have a helmet law because the AMA is based in pickerington, and they are a motoryclclists rights advocate, so we should be the last to have a helmet law.

Second I like the helmet law, it makes it easier for me to identify the goofballs.

Third it makes it easier for cops to identify the goofballs, therefore I can speed by cops and they usually dont even bother with me. I think my rates would get more f-ed up by me getting tickets than some other guy killing themselves

[fusion]

Ohio does have helmet laws and I think they are a good minimum. Riders under the age of 18 and novice riders (first year) have to wear a helmet. I think that's at least a good start.

[troyec001]

I don't think we should have a helmet law or seatbelt law. I like what we currently have. I do wear my helmet wherever I go but I don't think we should be forced to. It should be our choice whether or not we wear a helmet.

Same thing goes for the bicycle helmet law they are talking about.

[DangBruhY]

I don't think we should have a helmet law or seatbelt law. I like what we currently have. I do wear my helmet wherever I go but I don't think we should be forced to. It should be our choice whether or not we wear a helmet.

Same thing goes for the bicycle helmet law they are talking about.

Yeah, but you arent the one who has to scrape brains off the road all the time.

[troyec001]

I understand but I don't think that's a fair arguement. So are you not allowed to drive a car without air bags? What happens if your arm gets torn off? I do understand the idea of protecting each other but I don't think it should be the governments job to step in and tell us not to touch the stove because it's hot.

[12oclocker]

I always wear my helmet on the road, (sometimes in the yard on the dirtbikes I don't) I always wear my seatbelt. I hate the government.

[magley64]

I understand but I don't think that's a fair arguement. So are you not allowed to drive a car without air bags? What happens if your arm gets torn off? I do understand the idea of protecting each other but I don't think it should be the governments job to step in and tell us not to touch the stove because it's hot.

+1

and I think the sue-happy ambulance chasers need to lay off...

if someone gets injured due to their own stupidity, or if their injuries are exacerbated severely by their own stupidity, then they should not have any repercussions to sue anyone

[RVTPilot]

What about this approach for the insurance issue... If the government stops putting their big nose in everyone's business the problem might get better. Say you don't have to wear a helmet or seatbelt but your insurance company has a disclaimer that if you are involved in an accident without proper safety gear your claim will be denied and you won't be covered. I like that idea. People could ride/drive as they pleased and our rates shouldn't be affected by it. You have the choice to dress any way you want on a bike knowing you may not be covered if you are involved in a crash. Just a thought to add to the discussion.

This is something I have talked with friends about before. I am fine with an insurance company setting these kinds of standards. However, I would disagree with not making insurance mandatory. Because the knuckleheads that are making life expensive for us now would make it worse for a lot more people if they could get away with riding without insurance. Sure, some are already doing it, but that number would grow exponentially. And of course it would be the uninsured MFers that would go out, act stupid, kill more folks than themselves, tear up something, and have no money, even if court ordered, to repay the damages. Unfortuantely, we live in a society where common sense and responsiblity has to be legislated, to a point. However I think Uncle Sam is going way overboard.

[BDBGoalie]

I put a helmet on about 90% of the time, but I am guilty of giving it up to a passenger from time to time.

However, I strongly belive that we have plenty of laws already, and I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than they already do.

Let the morons who want to cruise without a bucket, countine to do so. Darwinism will sort them out.

[jeremygsxr]

population control. I don't like to hear about anyone dying, but if no one ever dies it's going to get really crowded.

[Mack]

keep ohio free.

[mhallam85]

population control!!!

[Uncle Punk]

ok so i don't know about any of you, but i am an avid wearer of helmets, yes there were the few times when i was newbie if it were a short trip that i didn't wear it and chose oakleys over safety im guilty of that. but i have since grown out of that phase and always wear my helmet now and encourage other riders to do the same.

ever since i've been in high school if i ever had to do a research paper it was always motorcycle related, and most of the time relating to helmet laws and why ohio doesn't have them.

i don't have enough time to write out a full essay and frankly i dont think anyone here wants to read it. but most of my research found that people don't want a law requiring the use of a helmet because of the freedom of choice and it basically centers around taken away a persons right to choose or something to that nature. i never really found a way to counter that argument until today, talking to my ol' wise grandma about the subject.

i told her that there are two states that border each other, one with the helmet law and the other without, and when the riders cross the border into the state that doesn't have the law, they pull over and take their helmets off. this completely baffled her and said "then why do they make us wear seatbelts."

if i dont wear a seatbelt im only putting myself at risk, same goes for a helmet. yet they make us wear seatbelts but don't require helmets to be worn. doesn't make any sense to me.

and there are the obvious factors about wearing a helmet such as decreasing the risk of serious head trauma, etc.

what are your thoughts on the matter? im seriously considering starting to meet with state officials to see what i/we can do about it.

people who don't wear helmets and refuse to do so i would also like to see your comments on here as well. and please respect everyone's opinion on the matter whether it be for or against.

I wasn't here when this thread started so here is my take on it now that it's been revived.

A motorcycle rider with a helmet on is no safer than a person in a car with or without a seatbelt on. If we can accept a seatbelt laws for safety reasons then I think we should ban and make all street motorcycles illegal. If safety is governments concern then I can't possibility understand how motorcycles are even allowed on our roads? Motorcycles don't provide and compelling reasons for being used as transportation so why give people the option of using them at all. Vehicles with crash ratings, seatbelts, third brake lights, air bags etc, etc ... should be the only available options on the road if safety is the obligation of the governments.

[obesityrules]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin

[Uncle Punk]

That's right all you daredevils I said

"BAN MOTORCYCLES"

I don't see how you can campaign to re-enact a helmet law and not just try to ban motorcycles altogether. The same reasoning applies to both changes in the laws.

[Likwid]

That's right all you daredevils I said

"BAN MOTORCYCLES"

I don't see how you can campaign to re-enact a helmet law and not just try to ban motorcycles altogether. The same reasoning applies to both changes in the laws.

We could ban anyone that fails a standardized test too