Should motorcyclists be required to wear helmets??

[jeffmeden]

This shit is simple: One license for helmet wearers and one license for non-helmet wearers. Insurance companies base your premium on this. Every time a squid without a helmet on goes down, the cost is shared only by the non-helmet group. How is that for 'fair'? When your choice to not wear a helmet causes me and every other safety-minded person out there to have to shell out for your ass-wiping in the rehab clinic, it's then officially MY PROBLEM. If we lived in a country where it was socially acceptable to leave a smeared rider on the side of the road for 'nature to take it's course', THEN you can decide when and how to be safe.

 

And if anyone doesn't understand Freedom, it's the whiny babies who cry 'nanny state' every time the government moves toward a law that is designed to increase safety. Guess how those laws get in there? VOTING. You don't like it, vote the other way, or GTFO. The public decides what happens to the public. Simple as that, it's not the government and its not the nanny state, its the majority of people saying 'we agree this is a good idea and we are ALL going to do it, so we can ALL benefit from it'.

 

Repeat for the smoking ban in public places argument.

[lemosley01]

you've been drinking haven't you

 

you not wearing a helmet most certainly does endanger me. if you get hit by a bug or road debris, your situation becomes unsafe and that puts everyone around you in a dangerous situation and that most certainly can physically harm someone beside yourself.

 

That is why eye-protection is required. Show me statistics where where there is trend of riders being hit by road debris, losing control of their bike, and hurting other drivers on the road. A motorcycle does very little damage (in comparison to a car) to whatever it hits. Drivers in cars are at very little risk in a crash with a motorcycle.

 

Your scenario is an 'if' scenario, which is not the same thing as 'it happens this many times and is a problem'.

 

financially, you put me and everyone at risk too. I won't get into the big picture costs of all this, but back to my point, if we are involved in an accident, regardless of who is at fault, your not wearing a helmet endangers and impacts the financial well being of the insurance co. , my family, your family, etc....not cool.

 

This is an insurance issue, not a safety issue - it can be handled by the insurance companies. It is not a regulatory issue.

 

Further, you are aware that even helmeted, an improperly geared rider involved in a motorcycle crash is likely to be injured and wrack up many thousands of dollars of medical bills compared to a car driver. Even a properly geared rider can get messed up pretty good.

 

Using the financial argument, motorcycles should be outlawed altogether, and if not, the full 1 piece leathers with CE armor should be required gear.

 

No one is outlawing anything...but let's stick to motorcycles....yes, you are required to take a safety course and get a special bike license to handle a vehicle that is nothing like a car. I don't hear anyone complaining about that? I mean, shit, if I can drive a car, why the hell should I be required to get a special license? The answer is pretty clear.

 

You are not required to take a safety course to ride a motorcycle unless you are under 18. You can get your permit and on the same day, take the riding portion of the test.

 

Mandatory rider training and a tiered licensing system will do much more to save riders than mandatory helmet laws. Making helmets compulsory is a band-aid to a much larger issue - rider training and licensing.

 

Further, better driver training will help us out more than helmet laws. Too many motorcyclists get whacked by left-turners who didn't 'see' them.

 

Basically you watch the statistics and see which way the safety of the public at large goes and you error on keep the the citizens safe.

 

The statistics say that our licensing system is too easy and that rider training is needed.

 

They do not indicate that helmetless motorcyclists are doing anything other than killing or injuring themselves.

 

You are letting the government decide what is best for you. Frankly, you are a fool to depend on the government to 'protect' you. I can cite numerous examples where the government did not act in the best interests of it's citizens.

 

This issue is about my right to do as I please as long as I don't endanger anyone.

 

IMO, you're a fool if you don't wear a helmet, but that's your right - you aren't injuring me. I wear my helmet - I'm not fool.

[lemosley01]

And if anyone doesn't understand Freedom, it's the whiny babies who cry 'nanny state' every time the government moves toward a law that is designed to increase safety. Guess how those laws get in there? VOTING. You don't like it, vote the other way, or GTFO. The public decides what happens to the public. Simple as that, it's not the government and its not the nanny state, its the majority of people saying 'we agree this is a good idea and we are ALL going to do it, so we can ALL benefit from it'.

 

Repeat for the smoking ban in public places argument.

 

With vehicles that is not what happens. The DOT has regulatory authority - they can create any law (though they call them regulations, since them making laws would violate the Constitution).

 

Further, there are many more non-riders than riders (something like 10% of us ride motorcycles). Assume that all of us riders turn out to vote against a helmet law, while only 30% of the non-riders turn out - guess what, we get outvoted and the people it affects really have no say in it.

[TTQ B4U]

That is why eye-protection is required. Show me statistics where where there is trend of riders being hit by road debris, losing control of their bike, and hurting other drivers on the road. A motorcycle does very little damage (in comparison to a car) to whatever it hits. Drivers in cars are at very little risk in a crash with a motorcycle.

 

Your scenario is an 'if' scenario, which is not the same thing as 'it happens this many times and is a problem'.

 

it's not a "what if" situation...when a bike goes down and the rider isn't wearing a helmet costs are incurred by more than just the rider. I don't need pull stats to show that helmets reduce injury, resulting in lower costs...costs of life, money, emotion, time, etc....bottom line, they helmets protect the individual and others around them from ALL implications. It's not about an individuals right to choose when there are implications that go beyond that individual, it's about society. Put them on their own island with no one around or will EVER go or be impacted in any way, then it's all about them.

 

This is an insurance issue, not a safety issue - it can be handled by the insurance companies. It is not a regulatory issue.

 

it's not simply and insurance issue when the impact of an action affects others. When rogue son who hates his parents wrecks his bike on a lonely stretch of road killing only himself, there are costs associated with that accident that go far beyond his dumb individual free to choose or not choose ass. Investigations are involved, funeral costs are involved, family emotions rise, his financial responsibility need to be handled, his employer is affected...etc....there are hundreds of aspects of life and the lives of others that are impacted due to his stupidity.

 

Further, you are aware that even helmeted, an improperly geared rider involved in a motorcycle crash is likely to be injured and wrack up many thousands of dollars of medical bills compared to a car driver. Even a properly geared rider can get messed up pretty good.

 

no helmet usually equals much higher costs, including but not limited to financially in the form of medical bills.

 

Using the financial argument, motorcycles should be outlawed altogether, and if not, the full 1 piece leathers with CE armor should be required gear.

 

sure, they could just eliminate the legal use of bikes all together, but that's not what the legal system nor state regulations are about. They create laws for Society to function within, not black and white rules to harm society.

 

Just as I've noted many times previously, regulations like helmet laws are a step in protection not towards elimination.

 

You are letting the government decide what is best for you. Frankly, you are a fool to depend on the government to 'protect' you. I can cite numerous examples where the government did not act in the best interests of it's citizens.

 

actually, this is a free system where I can vote and lobby and form groups to help work with the lawmakers to institute laws that protect everyone. I am in no way am I depending on the government to protect me. I'm embracing a law that will protect everyone.

 

I hear your point about rider training and driver awareness, but I have yet to see a lobbiest group representing the riders push for laws on rider licensing and training, etc....do they care enough to make this happen? Perhaps they are and I'm just not hearing about it, that's possible, but if so, then the riders of the world, serious about it all need to regroup and get that fucking job done. Trying isn't shit.....get the job done already.

[TTQ B4U]

Further, there are many more non-riders than riders (something like 10% of us ride motorcycles). Assume that all of us riders turn out to vote against a helmet law, while only 30% of the non-riders turn out - guess what, we get outvoted and the people it affects really have no say in it.

 

then it's up to the riders of the world to convince others, including citizens and law makers and all those 'in power' to see the light.

 

there are plenty of minority groups that have laws protecting them because society isn't just about those that are in question....it's about the impact on everyone.

 

how many folks in this country are gay vs straight? they are a vast minority yet the public as a whole is working to get gay couples the same insurance coverage as married folks....they are also lobbying for equal rights to marry.

 

again, society as a whole is being impacted and in the case of gays the minority is making progress because society as a whole agrees or is gaining in agreement, that what they are asking for is good for the public as a whole.

Just for the record, I in no way am taking a stand either way on the above example, I'm simply using it as an example.

[lemosley01]

it's not a "what if" situation...when a bike goes down and the rider isn't wearing a helmet costs are incurred by more than just the rider. I don't need pull stats to show that helmets reduce injury, resulting in lower costs...costs of life, money, emotion, time, etc....bottom line, they helmets protect the individual and others around them from ALL implications. It's not about an individuals right to choose when there are implications that go beyond that individual, it's about society. Put them on their own island with no one around or will EVER go or be impacted in any way, then it's all about them.

 

The government shouldn't be passing laws because of 'emotion'. I know they DO but that is not how the system is supposed to work.

 

Many of the things we do result in 'costs'. Financial arguments should not be used because anything can be outlawed based on financial arguments. I don't like paying for mountain climbers being rescued when they get lost or stuck in a winter storm. No mountain-climbing. People injure themselves doing home improvements. The cost is tremendous in lost time in work, medical bills, etc. Home improvement projects should be outlawed for the DIYer - only professionals are allowed to do them. The cost of teenagers getting pregnant causes financial and emotional damage to them and those around them, as well as direct impact on the taxpayers who now have to potential support and unwed teen mother. All teens should be required to take birth control until they are old enough to decide, as should anyone who is not married.

 

Do you understand what I am getting at?

 

Does a helmet do ANYTHING other than protect a rider in a crash? How does it make the remainder of motoring public safer and what statistics do we have to indicate this? That is the only question that shoud be of concern to the government.

 

Seatbelts != Helmets. Seatbelts at least work to keep the occupants in place, preventing them from losing control in some situations.

 

 

it's not simply and insurance issue when the impact of an action affects others. When rogue son who hates his parents wrecks his bike on a lonely stretch of road killing only himself, there are costs associated with that accident that go far beyond his dumb individual free to choose or not choose ass. Investigations are involved, funeral costs are involved, family emotions rise, his financial responsibility need to be handled, his employer is affected...etc....there are hundreds of aspects of life and the lives of others that are impacted due to his stupidity.

 

Once again, these are financial or emotional arguments and are indirect results. They are also limited in scope. Where is the safety to the public issue, and what DIRECT damage is done by my not wearing a helmet and crashing.

 

no helmet usually equals much higher costs, including but not limited to financially in the form of medical bills.

 

sure, they could just eliminate the legal use of bikes all together, but that's not what the legal system nor state regulations are about. They create laws for Society to function within, not black and white rules to harm society.

 

Motorcycles are not needed in the US. We can't ban cars because we need them. Motorcycles are an alternate to a car, but not a better alternate. Since riders being injured cause such emotional and financial distress, they are not good for society and should be eliminated.

 

Just as I've noted many times previously, regulations like helmet laws are a step in protection not towards elimination.

 

How is YOUR safety impacted by MY not wearing a helmet?

 

actually, this is a free system where I can vote and lobby and form groups to help work with the lawmakers to institute laws that protect everyone. I am in no way am I depending on the government to protect me. I'm embracing a law that will protect everyone.

 

See above question.

 

Your argument for helmets reveals a problem with socialism, and also reveals the fundamental conflict that socialism has with liberty and democracy.

 

To lower the risk to other drivers, the government CAN tighten up licensing and training requirements. Having someone behind the controls who is barely competent is a direct risk to the public, and this is demonstrable. Having someone behind the controls who is competent and is not wearing a helmet presents no demonstrable risk to the public.

 

I 'own' myself. I have certain rights, including the right to put myself at risk - what you see as risky I see as acceptable. My right ends when my actions can injure you, but to that point, you have no right to tell me what to do - it is one of the guiding principals of the Constitution.

[lemosley01]

then it's up to the riders of the world to convince others, including citizens and law makers and all those 'in power' to see the light.

 

Minority groups have direct protection (14th amendment) under the Constitution. Riders do not because we are not an ethnicity, religion, etc.

 

We have the AMA and groups like ABATE to fight helmet laws.

 

We also have the Supreme Court to go to fight laws that violate our rights - in the meantime, however, we are forced to live under those laws.

 

To some extent it works because some states have repealed helmet laws. They have determined it isn't a safety issue, it is a personal rights issue.

[jeffmeden]

Further, there are many more non-riders than riders (something like 10% of us ride motorcycles). Assume that all of us riders turn out to vote against a helmet law, while only 30% of the non-riders turn out - guess what, we get outvoted and the people it affects really have no say in it.

 

Not true. The point is that wearing a helmet is an issue that affects EVERYONE, since as a civilized society we ALL bear the responsibility of health care and safety in public places. Just because it's our (motorcyclists') activity that is getting legislated, does NOT mean we are the only ones affected. How selfish is it thinking that no matter what you do and where you do it, it's only your business and no one else is impacted?

[TTQ B4U]

Lemosley, your examples are all valid but weather the helmet law should be in place or not isn't going to be nor should it be based on the thousands of other possible "what if" fear based comparisons. I also don't believe it's based on an emotional impact although I do believe and support that emotion is involved. As you can see I'm a little attached to the whole issue.

 

I've already pointed out how helmets do more than just simply protect he head of a rider. I disagree that the safety impact on others around is the only impact that should be considered when creating laws.

 

Financial impacts are always and should be a part of what makes a law proper. Downloading music and theft are key examples. Those acts are financially impacting others and thus that impact goes to supporting the need for related laws. Safety is NOT the only question that needs to be looked at nor is the Direct Damage the only factor that should be considered.

 

The comments on necessity aren't valid grounds to rule out the law either. There are plenty of things in this world that aren't necessary to have. Laws aren't based on necessity or implications of actions or property or how necessary they are to life/society.

 

Laws are however necessary to regulate the impact of those things on society as whole though. It's not just my safety that is impacted by a bike rider not wearing a helmet.

 

Having someone behind the controls who is competent and is not wearing a helmet presents no demonstrable risk to the public.

 

Not true at all, weather you wear a helmet or not or have training or not, once you pull that bike out onto public roads, competent and not wearing a helmet is a greater risk than being competent and actually wearing one. period. laws don't have to uniformly go in place against all the other examples folks tend to post here.....again, each issue, each law, each instance can be looked at on it's own. Right now, the issue at hand is the impact of not wearing helmets and how requiring helmets will reduce impacts across the board for everyone.

 

I 'own' myself. I have certain rights, including the right to put myself at risk - what you see as risky I see as acceptable. My right ends when my actions can injure you, but to that point, you have no right to tell me what to do - it is one of the guiding principals of the Constitution.

 

you can put yourself at physical, emotional, financial, etc....risk all you want. but you can't secure a 100% impact-less form of riding without a helmet on those around you.

 

again, society members may not be physically hurt, we not be emotionally hurt but in some way, every time a rider goes down without a helmet, the impact incurred by society goes up greater than it would if he was wearing a helmet (overall)...check with the authorities if you need stats....I don't need to check....and that cost / impact isn't something I'm willing to continue taking in the ass because folks want "freedom" to risk their physical wellbeing when riding on public roads. it's not all about you unless you can assure society a 100% cost free impact of you riding without a helmet.

 

until that guarantee is in place, laws like this will get my support as they will serve to help protect the rest of us.

[lemosley01]

Not true. The point is that wearing a helmet is an issue that affects EVERYONE, since as a civilized society we ALL bear the responsibility of health care and safety in public places. Just because it's our (motorcyclists') activity that is getting legislated, does NOT mean we are the only ones affected. How selfish is it thinking that no matter what you do and where you do it, it's only your business and no one else is impacted?

 

Once again, you reveal the fundamental problem with socialism vs. liberty.

 

The question, once again, is does not wearing a helmet impact anyone's safety, other than your own?

 

That is it. It is an issue of personal liberty and one's freedom to do as they choose provided they do not injure anyone else. When you say 'but medical bills and cost to the health care system' you reveal a problem with the system.

 

I can give you a hundred examples of people doing far more damage to society - should all of those be regulated, or should they not because they involve people just making bad choices? Unwed mothers is one example that has an ENORMOUS cost to society, yet no one would ever THINK of mandating birth control or requiring abortions for unwed mothers.

 

If you are REALLY concerned about rider safety then you would be pushing the issue of tiered licensing, mandatory rider training, and more strict licensing tests since those have a demontrated far larger impact on rider fatalities.

 

You can't outlaw stupidity.

[TTQ B4U]

Once again, you reveal the fundamental problem with socialism vs. liberty.

 

The question, once again, is does not wearing a helmet impact anyone's safety, other than your own?

 

That is it. It is an issue of personal liberty and one's freedom to do as they choose provided they do not injure anyone else. When you say 'but medical bills and cost to the health care system' you reveal a problem with the system.

 

sounds to me like you have a problem with our system overall and perhaps would rather live in the middle of no-where doing whatever you damn well please vs in a society where folks work together and look out for the greater good. I think the folks in Waco, TX wanted to be left alone to do as they wish too...... I mean no ill will towards you on that comment, I'm only using those comments to make a point.

 

IMO, adding a helmet law is a much easier and less costly fix to the situation at hand than trying to revamp the health care and related systems. You may call that a band-aid as has been noted here at some point, but I see that as a very cost effective band aid overall.

 

I can give you a hundred examples of people doing far more damage to society - should all of those be regulated, or should they not because they involve people just making bad choices? Unwed mothers is one example that has an ENORMOUS cost to society, yet no one would ever THINK of mandating birth control or requiring abortions for unwed mothers.

 

I agree, there are likely countless other issues that society and lawmakers should address, but right now, it's the helmet law, seat belts, smoking rights, etc....push your arguments to the top and more power to you. those other issues that Could be looked at don't affect the helmet law at all.

 

If you are REALLY concerned about rider safety then you would be pushing the issue of tiered licensing, mandatory rider training, and more strict licensing tests since those have a demontrated far larger impact on rider fatalities. You can't outlaw stupidity.

 

I prolly could make a push for those things if I had more time, but right now, my decision is to support the helmet law. I wear one, it's my choice and I do it for both me and those around me.

 

Side Note: Three pages and we're still not in the kitchen

[lemosley01]

Lemosley, your examples are all valid but weather the helmet law should be in place or not isn't going to be nor should it be based on the thousands of other possible "what if" fear based comparisons. I also don't believe it's based on an emotional impact although I do believe and support that emotion is involved. As you can see I'm a little attached to the whole issue.

 

If it is not based on emotional impact, then why do you keep bringing up the issue of emotional damage. It isn't relevant to the issue. You can't quantify 'emotional damage', and people have to face emotional damage just by living. It's part of being human and we have to deal with it. We can't simply outlaw something based on emotional impact.

 

I've already pointed out how helmets do more than just simply protect he head of a rider. I disagree that the safety impact on others around is the only impact that should be considered when creating laws.

 

Financial impacts are always and should be a part of what makes a law proper. Downloading music and theft are key examples. Those acts are financially impacting others and thus that impact goes to supporting the need for related laws. Safety is NOT the only question that needs to be looked at nor is the Direct Damage the only factor that should be considered.

 

What you described is considered 'theft' - a DIRECT financial impact to the rights of ownership of artist and record company. There is no safety issue there, but theft violates one's right of ownership, hence it is illegal.

 

What part of the Constitution does me not wearing a helmet violate? That is the crux of my position. EVERY law is *supposed* to be based on something in the Constitution. I know it isn't working that way anymore, but the whole point of that and the Bill of Rights was to protect me from you and from the Government. If you just discard the Constitution and Bill of Rights and pass laws based on what 'feels right', then you end up with the mess we have.

 

The comments on necessity aren't valid grounds to rule out the law either. There are plenty of things in this world that aren't necessary to have. Laws aren't based on necessity or implications of actions or property or how necessary they are to life/society.

 

Laws are however necessary to regulate the impact of those things on society as whole though. It's not just my safety that is impacted by a bike rider not wearing a helmet.

 

It is not your safety at all that is impacted by an unhelmeted rider. Show me statistics that indicate not wearing a helmet are the cause of crashes, especially in crashes where someone other than the rider was injured.

 

You indicated that the government bases it's laws on what they see as a safety issue to society. A helmet is a safety issue to the individual, not society.

 

Basically you watch the statistics and see which way the safety of the public at large goes and you error on keep the the citizens safe.

 

Where are the statistics that say helmeted riders keep the citizens more safe than unhelmeted riders?

 

competent and not wearing a helmet is a greater risk than being competent and actually wearing one. period. laws don't have to uniformly go in place against all the other examples folks tend to post here.....again, each issue, each law, each instance can be looked at on it's own. Right now, the issue at hand is the impact of not wearing helmets and how requiring helmets will reduce impacts across the board for everyone.

 

Again, I ask where are your stats that the act of not wearing a helmet makes you more unsfe to those around you than when wearing one.

 

you can put yourself at physical, emotional, financial, etc....risk all you want. but you can't secure a 100% impact-less form of riding without a helmet on those around you.

 

again, society members may not be physically hurt, we not be emotionally hurt but in some way, every time a rider goes down without a helmet, the impact incurred by society goes up greater than it would if he was wearing a helmet (overall)...check with the authorities if you need stats....I don't need to check....and that cost / impact isn't something I'm willing to continue taking in the ass because folks want "freedom" to risk their physical wellbeing when riding on public roads. it's not all about you unless you can assure society a 100% cost free impact of you riding without a helmet.

 

until that guarantee is in place, laws like this will get my support as they will serve to help protect the rest of us.

 

Nothing can be assured as 100% cost-free to society. That is the reason that 'cost-to-society is NOT in the Constitution.

 

Your reasoning can, will, and IS applied to anything that people don't agree with.

 

The first question you should ask is:

'Does the action infringe upon MY rights?'

 

Does me not wearing a helmet infringe upon YOUR rights, and if so, how?

[lemosley01]

sounds to me like you have a problem with our system overall and perhaps would rather live in the middle of no-where doing whatever you damn well please vs in a society where folks work together and look out for the greater good. I think the folks in Waco, TX wanted to be left alone to do as they wish too...... I mean no ill will towards you on that comment, I'm only using those comments to make a point.

 

You are EXACTLY right. I want what was intended. A country where people are free to do as they choose provided they don't hurt others in the process. That doesn't mean I don't want to be a part of society, but I DO want liberty and I DO want people to take responsibility for their own actions instead of asking the government to fix all of their ills.

 

Asking the government to 'fix' society doesn't work. It's been tried over and over, and it always ends up with the government controlling the citizens.

 

IMO, adding a helmet law is a much easier and less costly fix to the situation at hand than trying to revamp the health care and related systems. You may call that a band-aid as has been noted here at some point, but I see that as a very cost effective band aid overall.

 

As opposed to mandating rider training and a tiered licensing structure? Sure, that is more expensive, but the paybacks are enormous. Untrained riders on too powerful bikes are a threat to those around them.

 

I prolly could make a push for those things if I had more time, but right now, my decision is to support the helmet law. I wear one, it's my choice and I do it for both me and those around me.

 

Side Note: Three pages and we're still not in the kitchen

 

I wear my helmet, too - not because it makes other drivers around me safer (it doesn't) but because I have a family to look out for, and, frankly, riding without a helmet is uncomfortable to me.

[V8 Beast]

Both sides make great points. The right to make dumb desicions is called a freedom. The problem is that since 1997 the number of bike related deaths has more than doubled. The statistics show that the number could have been greatly reduced if helmets were worn. This same exact thing happened with seatbelts, and the same exact argument took place. In the end wearing seatbelts became a law.

[TTQ B4U]

If it is not based on emotional impact, then why do you keep bringing up the issue of emotional damage. It isn't relevant to the issue. You can't quantify 'emotional damage', and people have to face emotional damage just by living. It's part of being human and we have to deal with it. We can't simply outlaw something based on emotional impact.

 

I bring up the impact / emotional issue when I place myself or my wife in a situation to make a point....see page one of my posts....

 

However, emotional impact is a part of the whole matter. It's not strictly what the law is based on....I've said that before. Just as it's a part of other laws such as rape and murder and what not.....it's relevant. Murder vs manslaughter is an example.

 

What you described is considered 'theft' - a DIRECT financial impact to the rights of ownership of artist and record company. There is no safety issue there, but theft violates one's right of ownership, hence it is illegal.

 

Laws are not in place strictly to protect the physical safety of others...move on already.....want another example? Child support, Alimony.....especially alimony...it's not a safety issue at all...it's in place to protect the financial well being and lifestyle of a person. Even a wealthy person who'd kids are in perfect safe homes, is entitled to either one or both depending the situation. It's the law.

 

What part of the Constitution does me not wearing a helmet violate? That is the crux of my position. EVERY law is *supposed* to be based on something in the Constitution. I know it isn't working that way anymore, but the whole point of that and the Bill of Rights was to protect me from you and from the Government. If you just discard the Constitution and Bill of Rights and pass laws based on what 'feels right', then you end up with the mess we have.

 

Now we're digressing to discuss a document that's centuries old and is a topic that litterally has forums of it's own debating the matter. Bottom line is laws aren't made by just one person, there are literally hundreds of folks involved.

 

Original intent of the documents you mention presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text itself. After hundreds of years and countless debate, it's still far from clear if the 50+ folks involved in writing it actually agreed upon a single intent of the text.

 

The world is changing with the times and those that don't change with it will get left behind. That's a fact. The folks in middle east don't like it either...but hey, I hear their doing just fine living 500+ years in the past and doing whatever the hell they want. Great freedom they have.

 

It is not your safety at all that is impacted by an unhelmeted rider. Show me statistics that indicate not wearing a helmet are the cause of crashes, especially in crashes where someone other than the rider was injured.

 

okay, for the last time, it's not simply a matter of weather you ride a bike with no helmet on and injury me physically. there's more to the law and it's basis than that....as there should be.

 

You indicated that the government bases it's laws on what they see as a safety issue to society. A helmet is a safety issue to the individual, not society.

 

I've never said laws were based strictly on the safety issue to society. I believe I've used terms such as the costs / impact on society or those around them. The total cost isn't just measured in blood and guts.

 

Basically you watch the statistics and see which way the safety of the public at large goes and you error on keep the the citizens safe.

 

Where are the statistics that say helmeted riders keep the citizens more safe than unhelmeted riders? Again, I ask where are your stats that the act of not wearing a helmet makes you more unsfe to those around you than when wearing one.

 

I don't need to pull the stats to show that helmeted riders have less of an overall negative / costly impact on society vs ones who don't wear helmets. That's going to be an obvious fact just as are the facts with seat belts. If you want the details you can get them from the highway patrol. I don't need them as the answers are obvious. Besides, those stats aren't the sole basis of the argument....but I think I've beat that horse to death already.

 

Nothing can be assured as 100% cost-free to society. That is the reason that 'cost-to-society is NOT in the Constitution. Your reasoning can, will, and IS applied to anything that people don't agree with.

 

you're likely right, I don't think that phrase is in the constitution....but then that's why we don't have to refer back word for word to the constitution to make a law that protects the public. again, the worlds changing and those that don't change with it or continue to stand there with the constitution in hand like it's the word of God will get left behind.

 

The right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to carry it in Sam's Club or fire it in your back yard either but if you want to go fight that battle, I'll map quest you directions to D.C.

 

The first question you should ask is:

'Does the action infringe upon MY rights?'

Does me not wearing a helmet infringe upon YOUR rights, and if so, how?

 

No, the first question I usually ask is how does that action impact me? Then how does it impact those around me? Then evaluate the various factors including my rights, both God Given and Social Rights and ask myself which side do I fall on....the side that wants to work and live together in a society or does it make me want to buy an island all to myself where I can shoot my gun where ever I want, drink and drive if I want, ride with a helmet or not and even dump oil in my own water well.......I've tended to make compromises and say here in Columbus.

 

In the end....and we're about there.....not wearing a helmet is a dumbs ass decision for me personally to make and I have more sense than to ride without one.

 

Also, since I'm not die hard liberal worried about who makes the decisions for me, I'll take my ass like I do every single and go make things happen along with the rest of the non-whiners of the world and take control and be accountable as well, so I'm not exposed to the rest of the folks who obliviously don't give a shit about the impact and implications of their actions beyond what it does to they themselves.

[TTQ B4U]

You are EXACTLY right. I want what was intended. A country where people are free to do as they choose provided they don't hurt others in the process. That doesn't mean I don't want to be a part of society, but I DO want liberty and I DO want people to take responsibility for their own actions instead of asking the government to fix all of their ills. Asking the government to 'fix' society doesn't work. It's been tried over and over, and it always ends up with the government controlling the citizens.

 

you can't do whatever you choose and not have implications that affect others. in the case of helmets, it has negative implications that affect more than just the rider/you.

 

the government isn't fixing society by implementing a helmet law. the citizens of Ohio are doing that. the gov't is just an entity that represents we the people. control isn't a bad thing either.....again, I don't need my nieghbor dumping oil in his sewer or blasting off fireworks in yard or carrying a gun into Sam's Club. I'm all for controlled enjoyment.

 

As opposed to mandating rider training and a tiered licensing structure? Sure, that is more expensive, but the paybacks are enormous. Untrained riders on too powerful bikes are a threat to those around them.

 

you can train folks all day long. I have no doubt the military folks in Iraq are extremely well trained. but I would venture a guess that the number of lives saved by wearing a protective device weather it's body armor or a helmet is saving lives day in and day out. You're prolly thinking WTF? but what I'm trying to say is that all the training in the world, isn't going to save you from something you have no control over. A bullet or a vehicular accident kills you just as dead if you're not protecting yourself.

 

I wear my helmet, too - not because it makes other drivers around me safer (it doesn't) but because I have a family to look out for, and, frankly, riding without a helmet is uncomfortable to me.

 

good for you...I'm glad you're looking out for the family.....'cause if you crack your head and die in a wreck, it is going to cost others outside just you and even your family.

 

If you wreck, crack your head and die and that wreck involves someone else, the impact of your death is going to cost them more than if you are better in 6-8 weeks and back to your life....and yes, it would cost them more emotionally and quite possibly financially. Wost yet, it cost them prison time.

 

See, I've been involved in an accident with a bicycle rider, he hit me and regardless of who is at fault, that fucker didn't have a helmet on and the shear fear I had, that he was possibly dead, when I went over to him was greater than anything I've faced to date.

 

He ended up fine, it was his fault and life is moving on both of us as it was a long time ago in another state. But had he died due to his head injuries....I'd still be going back and forth with emotions over the matter. Not to mention I'm sure the court costs would have been huge.

 

His actions were stupid and I sure as hell hope he learned his lesson at the school of hard knocks.

[thorne]

Your 100% right there are restrictions in place. what I'm stating is we don't need yet another restriction or removal of a freemdom. I don't need the goverment telling me how to whipe my ass. If you let the bush administrator have there way we would.

 

 

Your speak of freedom is technically accurate, but it's not being applied to the world in which we live....a civilization or society

 

Living freely without any undue restraints? Come on....yeah, sure I want to live in a society where everyone is allowed to have undue restraints. Fuck that.....that's why we live in a society where folks are civilized and there are laws that protect the freedom and safety of others.

 

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you're entitled to do it when living among others. It's not all about you.

 

Everyone thinks that the decision to wear a helmet should be there decision alone....well, sorry, but that decision has impact on more than just the rider and anytime one's actions impact others, there needs to be a rule regarding that action in a civilized society.

 

I can own a gun, but I'm not allowed to fire it in my back yard. I can carry a gun, but I have to get a permit and even then, I can't carry it into a mall that's open to the public. These check points and restrictions to ones freedom to own a firearm are there to protect others. Don't like them, move to the middle east.....I hear they have wonderful civil order and safety in the streets thanks to their freedoms around guns

 

The rights of the individual take back seat to those of the ones around them, when that individual chooses to interact with society. Especially when it comes to the safety and financial well being of others. If they don't like the laws, this is a free country and they are free to work the system to change them, or they can go live somewhere else that doesn't have these laws. Sounds like they are pretty free to choose if you ask me.

[TTQ B4U]

:doh: I"m too tired to go on.......Thanks for the conversation though. Three pages of clean dialog that stayed on track for the most part. :thumbup:

 

Your 100% right there are restrictions in place. what I'm stating is we don't need yet another restriction or removal of a freemdom. I don't need the goverment telling me how to whipe my ass. If you let the bush administrator have there way we would.

[grease monkey]

pdqgp, you are a communist. Plain and simple. You are more than willing to sacrafice the rights, beliefs, views, opinions, or whatever of one, or approx 10% of the populus to "the good of the community". Maybe you should move to Moscow, I think you would fit in better there. The helmet law, as stated before is just a bandaid to a much more serious problem. DRIVERS IN GENERAL. Check the stats and see that MOST motorcycle involved accidents are in fact caused be a moron car driver.

 

Now there are A LOT of people on the roads these days, from the US, and OTHER countries. Not all countries have our "standards". What is auctually needed is not another bullshit law, but a revamp of the training and testing of both motorcyclists and car/truck drivers alike. I usually will wear my helmet. But if I'm just going somewhere close, a cheap pair of sunglasses is just fine.

 

Oh, and fuck the isurance companies. They have the market cornered and can literally charge what ever the fuck they want to because "by law" you have to have insurance on your car/truck/bike. Medical insurance however is not "required by law", is there something wrong with that picture, the answer is yes. I have insurance on all of my shit, and its fucking ridiculious the amount of money i'm paying just so I can enjoy my commute to work.

 

If a driver of a car is involved in a fatal accident where the biker dies, a helmet should have no bering, just whose fault it was. If it was the cars, the driver should feel terriable for killing an innocent because of their idiocracy. If it was the bikers fault, then the car should feel no remorse. It was not their fault, there fore it is not their problem.

 

Helmets are a choice, and should remain so. Seat belts are a law, and that should be changed. I don't want anyone regulating what i do or do not do. Regaurdless of weather its in my best intrest, or "for that of the community". Time to go back to whatever communist nation you were bred in.

[TTQ B4U]

pdqgp, you are a communist. Plain and simple. You are more than willing to sacrafice the rights, beliefs, views, opinions, or whatever of one, or approx 10% of the populus to "the good of the community". Maybe you should move to Moscow, I think you would fit in better there. The helmet law, as stated before is just a bandaid to a much more serious problem. DRIVERS IN GENERAL. Check the stats and see that MOST motorcycle involved accidents are in fact caused be a moron car driver.

 

spoken with all the intelligence of a youth calling himself a parts monkey I've never said anything about sacrificing your beliefs, views or opinions.....and your right to choose to wear or not wear a helmet will always be yours. You don't have to buckle up in your truck either. It's still your choice man.

 

Now there are A LOT of people on the roads these days, from the US, and OTHER countries. Not all countries have our "standards". What is auctually needed is not another bullshit law, but a revamp of the training and testing of both motorcyclists and car/truck drivers alike. I usually will wear my helmet. But if I'm just going somewhere close, a cheap pair of sunglasses is just fine.

 

you can blame other drivers all you want, but as I've said before, you can't protect yourself enough from what others do. that much more serious problem isn't going anywhere fast so if you don't want to wear your lid, then good luck to ya. you're gonna need it. it's just a matter of when. Same with me....and I've yet to lay a bike down so it's just a matter of when I will.

 

Oh, and fuck the isurance companies. They have the market cornered and can literally charge what ever the fuck they want to because "by law" you have to have insurance on your car/truck/bike. Medical insurance however is not "required by law", is there something wrong with that picture, the answer is yes. I have insurance on all of my shit, and its fucking ridiculious the amount of money i'm paying just so I can enjoy my commute to work.

 

the rates you call rediculous are to insure the insurance companies stay profitable and in exsistance. they would be lower if there weren't so many claims. as someone already pointed out, check with the highway patrol and you'll see the number of motorcycle accidents is more than just up a few percentage points in the past few years. whatever the cause, they are up.

 

If a driver of a car is involved in a fatal accident where the biker dies, a helmet should have no bering, just whose fault it was. If it was the cars, the driver should feel terriable for killing an innocent because of their idiocracy. If it was the bikers fault, then the car should feel no remorse. It was not their fault, there fore it is not their problem.

 

I never said weather the biker had a helmet decided who is at fault . Given your statement on how you feel about another person who dies in a wreck, you're the one who should moved to a communist country where there's just as little remorse and concern as you're showing "not your fault, not your problem".....way to contribute to society dude. That's right up there way not wearing a helmet and caring less who all it affects but you. You're certainly the gentleman and scholar. You know in some countries you can litterally just leave the body on the road and drive away.

 

Helmets are a choice, and should remain so. Seat belts are a law, and that should be changed. I don't want anyone regulating what i do or do not do. Regaurdless of weather its in my best intrest, or "for that of the community". Time to go back to whatever communist nation you were bred in.

 

Seat belts and helmets are and always will be a choice. No one is forcing you to buckle up. They'll ping you for a few bucks if you're caught, but you will always have the choice. Do whatever you want man...it's pretty obvious by your comments that you don't care about things that don't affect anyone but you. I'll go back to Cleveland where I was raised.....and you join the other liberal extremests at their ranch in Waco, TX. where you can live "free" and continue to make comments like "fuck them" or "screw that" and do whatever you damn well please because you're an American!

[SpaceGhost]

Bottom line is if you don't wear one, you're a fuckin idiot. I'll gladly bring mine to a meet and show everyone that I would not have a face or a life if I didn't have one on when I went down. Best $50 I ever spent.

 

BTW Ben I have a Dark Tinted Visor for the ICON if you want it, it has been sitting in the closet. I thought you had one of the Icons on sale at Iron Pony.

[SpaceGhost]

BTW if you wreck on a bike and have no helmet, I have heard there is no coverage. My bills are approaching 100K. We will pay 1k of it.

[HAOLE]

So you think the government should force it? Really? How in the fuck is it the government's place???????

Because when you wreck, MY tax dollars will pay for YOUR nursing home stay and medical bills. That is why t is the government's business

[TTQ B4U]

I'll have to post pics of my old bike....Honda Nighthawk...sold it to my nieghbor when my first kid was born. He laid it down about 2 weeks ago this past Tuesday.

 

He's not one for rules and what not, but wore his helmet. Good thing as it is toast. He too would be without a face.

 

He didn't have any other gear, not even a jacket. His clothes look like he was torn up by a Tiger and he now has part of Bent Tree Blvd in his ass, both legs and arms from the road-rash.

 

Glad you're doing better. I didn't want to mention you in this thread, but I'm glad you joined in. I'm pretty much done as I've beaten my point to death.

 

Bottom line is if you don't wear one, you're a fuckin idiot. I'll gladly bring mine to a meet and show everyone that I would not have a face or a life if I didn't have one on when I went down. Best $50 I ever spent.

 

BTW Ben I have a Dark Tinted Visor for the ICON if you want it, it has been sitting in the closet. I thought you had one of the Icons on sale at Iron Pony.

[thorne]

YOU ARE STILL MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. WE ARE NOT SAYING ITS SMART TO RIDE WITHOUT A HELMENT. We are saying we don't need another fucking law. Your types wont be happy till we have no freedom every single phone call is recorded and you have random piss tests every day to test for aynthing they goverment deems not good. That could be caffine that could be fucking anyhting. the more rights you give away the harder it is the maintain the ones you have.