Cols. Dispatch Helmet Poll

[ProudPops]

I haven't looked yet, but as of last night, they still didn't post my opinion. Pretty sure, if it's on there, you won't have a problem of who the uneducated pissed off. I say let those who ride decide.

http://dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/25/hotissue_bikers.html?jrl=134677&rfr=nwsl&clk=141162

[robhawk]

dont think they will post my comment so here is my .02

Why do I hear all these people that think it should be mandatory saying "Seat belts are mandatory, so should helmets". So when was the last time you wrapped the seatbelt around your head? I thought seat belts were to keep you in the car and keep you from bouncing around. maybe we should put seat belts on our bikes? This country was founded on freedom, you like to be able to voice your opinion on here right? I like to ride without a helmet sometimes, most of the time I wear one, its my choice.

[Casper]

Absolutely not. Let the riders decide. Telling a motorcyclist he/she must wear a helmet is like telling an overweight person they can't eat McDonald's. It isn't the government's place to make the decision.

[Casper]

Poll added. Be sure to vote. We'll send this to the Dispatch.

[ProudPops]

Yeah I guess I didn't follow the the republican's rules of an opinion, so mine got banned. Pretty Pissed off about it so all I can say is that I'm proud to say that I do not subscribe!

[Casper]

Yeah I guess I didn't follow the the republican's rules of an opinion, so mine got banned. Pretty Pissed off about it so all I can say is that I'm proud to say that I do not subscribe!

Well that's what this site is for. This will be sent to the great folks at the Columbus Dispatch so they know how riders truly feel, not the general public. Hell, most of the general public has never even been on a motorcycle. You may feel that every rider should wear a helmet. And that's your God given right. But should the government require it? No. Hell no. I always wear a helmet, but the government has no right to force me to do so.

[fugatera]

Let riders decide

[ProudPops]

I'm pretty pissed about their one sided poll! I know I'll calm down, but right now I'm taking this one off the hook.

BITCH! You made it personal now by not accepting my vote without an opinion. The Columbus Dispatch is asking for a vote that will not be accepted without an opinion. I gave my opinion without foul language or names, but you all know how opiniated I can get, and mine got canned by some piss ant republican run propoganda newspaer!

I'm only getting started.

[Guest MotoGP Tix]

N/M corrected

[Cleaner]

Natural Selection I say. Let those idiots who don't wear helmets make up the statistics of the dead.

[thorne]

I see no reason why to goverment needs to impose another rule upon us. If I'm stupid enough to ride with out my helment thats my choice. If anything the helment is going to cause a greater chance in a wreck of me hurting someone else.

The arugment about seatbelts is the most uneducated argument ever. It's the Well we have to do it this way so it should be the same. Thats not a valid arugment . Saying that OJ got away with murder, So why can't you get away with murder. Is the same thing. Pretty stupid concept if you ask me.

[fireman_343]

I voted yes... But before you guys that voted no start to bash me, let me 1st say that I'm for our freedom and all that good stuff... I was in the military and fought for that very thing. I lived in NC where it is the law to have a helmet on, and I'm sure they saved a few friends that went down because they had one on. But, being a firefighter and seeing some of the things I've seen in my 9yrs doing this job, I will always strap on my helmet and wish it was the law so more people that fall while riding will have a chance to live. I can say I've seen a guy die from "just riding around the block" going no more then 20-30MPH and if he had a helmet on, he would be alive today and would of been able to live to watch his kids grow up.

Doesn't matter how fast or slow you go...

And since I started going to the track and doing track days and racing the NSR's around... I'm even more a gear nazi since I've had 1st hand experience on how well the gear (helmet included) works even at a slower speeds.

So, my vote is for yes... I just hope that I won't be responding to anyone of you guys that fell and have a damn helmet strapped on the back of the bike and not on your head.

That is all!

[Casper]

I agree fireman. I'm a gear nazi also. Hell, Coop showed up the other night without a helmet. I made him come back to my house and grab my spare. Most of us agree we should wear helmets. However, should the government require it...?

[XB12Ss]

Helmet laws suck.

I always wear my helmet and am a firm believer that if you think you have anything on top of your neck worth saving, you should wear one too.

However, like with seat belt laws, I think it is completely obtrusive for the government to decide for me, how I keep myself safe. I do not need the government making decisions that involve my personal well-being in my own hands.

These laws are dangerous. Every time the government takes these little freedoms... The freedom to take care of yourself how you deem fit... they get closer to taking major freedoms away from us.

Since motorcycles are dangerous, we should require helmets... 'Well trans fats aren't necessarily dangerous, but people shouldn't eat them, so let's ban them' (already happening)... Next thing you know, 'well motorcycles are dangerous, even with helmets, and they serve no real purpose, so why don't we ban them too?' Think that's far-fetched? BELIEVE IT... and that's not the only example you can find... similar ideas have been brought up for many years.

Even more scary than that is legislating away people's ability to make good decisions. People rely on the government too much already and this sort of legislation promotes the collective suckling of the governments teet by way of making decisions that should be simple enough to make. Natural selection is being legislated out of existance.

You want to save yourself... or at least protect yourself while participating in an inherently dangerous activity? Do it. You want to take chances that really only impact your personal safety? Do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone, but you... DO IT.

Shouldn't it be my decision and my personal responsibility to determine how I take care of myself?

[thorne]

I am able to make my own decisions. BTW look at the state that wanted to outlaw sport bikes. How is that helpful?

[Smokey]

You make some great points here, but I'll bite and play devil's advocate. You are correct that a law such as this opens the door to put more and more restrictions on us both as citizens and motorcyclists....BUT.

Motorcyclist fatality rates are already a hot topic, what if implementing this law reduced deaths by...say even 2%, would that be enough to have them worry about something else for a while? How do we know that without the law that every time someone dies without a helmet on that it doesn't provoke even more restrictive laws regarding motorcycles by fueling the politician claims that they are "death machines" and serve no good purpose? Every time someone says "it's thinning of the heard"...it's BS...truth is, every time ANY motorcyclist dies on the road it reflects negatively on ALL of us.

I realize that this is a very heated topic, and unfortunately not one with an easy or clear answer, but I hope some good conversation will build out of it. Thanks Pops for bringing it up. I will point out that you didn't put your contribution on yet.

Helmet laws suck.

I always wear my helmet and am a firm believer that if you think you have anything on top of your neck worth saving, you should wear one too.

However, like with seat belt laws, I think it is completely obtrusive for the government to decide for me, how I keep myself safe. I do not need the government making decisions that involve my personal well-being in my own hands.

These laws are dangerous. Every time the government takes these little freedoms... The freedom to take care of yourself how you deem fit... they get closer to taking major freedoms away from us.

Since motorcycles are dangerous, we should require helmets... 'Well trans fats aren't necessarily dangerous, but people shouldn't eat them, so let's ban them' (already happening)... Next thing you know, 'well motorcycles are dangerous, even with helmets, and they serve no real purpose, so why don't we ban them too?' Think that's far-fetched? BELIEVE IT... and that's not the only example you can find... similar ideas have been brought up for many years.

Even more scary than that is legislating away people's ability to make good decisions. People rely on the government too much already and this sort of legislation promotes the collective suckling of the governments teet by way of making decisions that should be simple enough to make. Natural selection is being legislated out of existance.

You want to save yourself... or at least protect yourself while participating in an inherently dangerous activity? Do it. You want to take chances that really only impact your personal safety? Do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone, but you... DO IT.

Shouldn't it be my decision and my personal responsibility to determine how I take care of myself?

[hattrix]

First, I should decide what I eat, what I wear, what I put in my body. Not the government. As long as I am not hurting others, why does it matter? People keep bringing up insurance. If I don't wear a helmet I am more likely to die in a crash. If I am wearing one, I live with life long injuries that need constant medical care. Which is more expensive? HMMM. Freedom is never taken away rapidly. It is eroded over time. Piece by piece. First they make you wear seatbelts and helmets. Then they tax luxury items. Then they take away smoking. Than they take away fast food. They take one piece at a time until you look around and think, "What the hell happened to my freedoms?" Hitler didn't rise to power in a day. It took a decade and it was slow. His early ideas made sense to most but some objected. Over time, all but a very small minority had something taken away that they wanted but by then it was too late. In case, you are wondering, no, I am not saying if you are for helmet laws you are a Nazi. I am saying that if you are for them, you are facilitating the rise to power of fascist government power that seeks to strip you of your rights. Fireman, I understand your emotional position, but each of those people that died undersood the risks they took riding without a helmet and accepted them. He hurt himelf and his family but no one else. Yes, there was a cost for you to respond to the accident but more than likely, you would have responded anyway. Then the guy would have had to go to the hospital, have wounds treated and get medications which would have cost more. I know it sounds heartless but their dying was cheaper to medical costs than living. The human loss is undeniable and sad but he chose that risk. Nobody should be allowed to decide to choose for him. Think, if you agree to helmet laws, the next logical progression is anti motorcycle laws. Both the cost-arguments and lifesaving-arguments still work for anti motorcycling laws as much for helmet laws. Let the rider decide.

Oh, and yes, I wear a helmet so this isn't so I can ride 100 miles an hour on 270 with a bandana to protect my cranium.

[gruss]

I put the lid on for every ride nowadays but the helmet law is worthless. From what I saw living in MI, people who don't want to wear a helmet go buy some 10 dollar skull cap and write DOT with a sharpie and seemed to get away with it. I really dont see how thats any safer than not wearing one at all.

If you really want to promote safety, then promote safety don't cram it down my (our) throat(s).

[XB12Ss]

Devil's Advocate is a requirement in ANY well thought out debate.

The question is... How long will the decrease in fatality rates appease the masses? Even better yet, motorcycles are becoming more popular... More riders = more rider fatalities... gear or no gear. Currently fatalities are up 5% or something. So will the decrease in fatalities from forced helmet use cover the gap created by growth in the market? I dunno... Or perhaps even more idealistic of a question... Is it possible that the growth will legitimize the usefullness of a motorcycle in the eyes of the general public? How big does the motorcycle community have to grow before the pendulum swings the other way?

And the thinning the herd thing... Yeah, it does reflect poorly on us, but Darwinism is not a bad thing in the grand scheme of all things...

Remember the Lawn Dart recall in the 80's? I was a kid, but remember it well... A couple morons stuck their kids in the face and wanted to sue the manufacturer for not adequately warning them that a 2lb steel tipped projectile hurdled 100 yards could hurt someone. It's even worse now... although interestingly enough, Lawn Darts are making a comeback!

You make some great points here, but I'll bite and play devil's advocate. You are correct that a law such as this opens the door to put more and more restrictions on us both as citizens and motorcyclists....BUT.

Motorcyclist fatality rates are already a hot topic, what if implementing this law reduced deaths by...say even 2%, would that be enough to have them worry about something else for a while? How do we know that without the law that every time someone dies without a helmet on that it doesn't provoke even more restrictive laws regarding motorcycles by fueling the politician claims that they are "death machines" and serve no good purpose? Every time someone says "it's thinning of the heard"...it's BS...truth is, every time ANY motorcyclist dies on the road it reflects negatively on ALL of us.

I realize that this is a very heated topic, and unfortunately not one with an easy or clear answer, but I hope some good conversation will build out of it. Thanks Pops for bringing it up. I will point out that you didn't put your contribution on yet.

[Smokey]

HAHA...I remember Lawn Darts, and you're spot on. Same concept with the "thinning of the heard" comments...I read the Darwin Awards and laugh my ass off at them. However, in this circumstance I believe it's foolish to think that another motorcycle rider dying on the road (whether or not they "deserved" it or not) will not affect the rest of us (i'm also not saying that was your position).

It's very interesting to think about the evolution of decisions like these down the road. I'd love to see America as a county that used motorcycles as a mainstay of transportation like European countries do. I'd also like to see us adopt the same stringent licensing policies that they have as well (just not their insurance prices). A lot of people forget that riding a motorcycle is a privelage NOT a right.

Sadly, in looking at other states that have gone through this, I doubt much will come of it. Even if the state passes a law requiring helmets I doubt it will go much further than that. Politicians will move on with bigger and better hot buttons to worry about.

Devil's Advocate is a requirement in ANY well thought out debate.

The question is... How long will the decrease in fatality rates appease the masses? Even better yet, motorcycles are becoming more popular... More riders = more rider fatalities... gear or no gear. Currently fatalities are up 5% or something. So will the decrease in fatalities from forced helmet use cover the gap created by growth in the market? I dunno... Or perhaps even more idealistic of a question... Is it possible that the growth will legitimize the usefullness of a motorcycle in the eyes of the general public? How big does the motorcycle community have to grow before the pendulum swings the other way?

And the thinning the herd thing... Yeah, it does reflect poorly on us, but Darwinism is not a bad thing in the grand scheme of all things...

Remember the Lawn Dart recall in the 80's? I was a kid, but remember it well... A couple morons stuck their kids in the face and wanted to sue the manufacturer for not adequately warning them that a 2lb steel tipped projectile hurdled 100 yards could hurt someone. It's even worse now... although interestingly enough, Lawn Darts are making a comeback!

[hattrix]

Won't go any further? Like the smoking laws. California is the state to watch. They seem to do everything first. They were one of, if not the first to pass smoking bans. Other states followed. Smokers said, well, it will stop there and at least we can smoke outside the door. Then the laws were changed to anywhere within 15 feet of a door. So smokers said, it will stop there and we can still smoke outdoors. Then the laws were changed to ban beaches, college campuses, and many other outdoor areas. Now they are proposing laws to ban smoking anywhere in public outdoors or in. What it boils down to is the insurance lobby is VERY powerful. They have led the anti smoking campaign and the helmet and seat belt campaigns. California is their proving ground. Cali was one of the first for helmet laws. Now some cities are moving to restrict the use of bikes. Watch, as XB12 said, when the number of deaths don't go down much, they will start a new campaign. First it will be more age restrictions. Then it will be power restrictions. Then it will be limiting time bikes can be ridden. I hate to harp on the Nazi reference but Chamberlin and Roosevelt thought that if they let Hitler have the Rhineland he would stop there. He took Poland and Czechoslovakia soon after. Burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away has proven to only fuel the drive of the opposition. Unless you stand up for your rights, the government will keep taking them away.

[Smokey]

You use a good example with the smoking bans, but I just don't think this will follow the same path. Call me pesimistic or what you will, I just don't see it keeping much steam after the helmet law. If you look back, laws have already been made to limit the power of bikes (186mph rule anyone?), which haven't affected us too much.

California also happens to be the one state in the union that has given riders MORE freedom through their allowance of lane splitting. I think that california is promoting the use of motorcycles as daily transportation. E-check/laws aside, they're very motorcyclist friendly.

[XB12Ss]

Always nice to debate with like-minded people. Makes things much smoother.

I too like the idea of Euro style licensing... graduating licensing, etc. I am generally not a fan of more laws, but there are exceptions like this. The current licensing system is an absolute joke... zero real-world application in most of the sections. 25 questions and a pathetically easy 'road' course.

I think the MSF beginner's course should be mandatory for ALL vehicle operators... The experienced course should be mandatory to get your MC learner's permit... and a REAL test should be given.

Any schmuck with a steady paycheck can go finance a racing machine and pass get his/her license with no legitimate riding ability necessary.

HAHA...I remember Lawn Darts, and you're spot on. Same concept with the "thinning of the heard" comments...I read the Darwin Awards and laugh my ass off at them. However, in this circumstance I believe it's foolish to think that another motorcycle rider dying on the road (whether or not they "deserved" it or not) will not affect the rest of us (i'm also not saying that was your position).

It's very interesting to think about the evolution of decisions like these down the road. I'd love to see America as a county that used motorcycles as a mainstay of transportation like European countries do. I'd also like to see us adopt the same stringent licensing policies that they have as well (just not their insurance prices). A lot of people forget that riding a motorcycle is a privelage NOT a right.

Sadly, in looking at other states that have gone through this, I doubt much will come of it. Even if the state passes a law requiring helmets I doubt it will go much further than that. Politicians will move on with bigger and better hot buttons to worry about.

[XB12Ss]

I concur. Legislators just love taking away our freedoms under the guise of protecting the masses. It's a scary time folks...

As for CA, motorcycles are about the only thing that state is not completely backasswards on..

You use a good example with the smoking bans, but I just don't think this will follow the same path. Call me pesimistic or what you will, I just don't see it keeping much steam after the helmet law. If you look back, laws have already been made to limit the power of bikes (186mph rule anyone?), which haven't affected us too much.

California also happens to be the one state in the union that has given riders MORE freedom through their allowance of lane splitting. I think that california is promoting the use of motorcycles as daily transportation. E-check/laws aside, they're very motorcyclist friendly.

[Smokey]

I won't argue that legislators are slowly taking choices away from us, it's very true and very scary. I guess with this issue since I sit on the fence I find myself not fighting for one side or the other very hard. If the law never happened I wouldn't be upset, if it did, I wouldn't take it as the beginning of the third reich in Ohio.

"Any schmuck with a steady paycheck can go finance a racing machine and pass get his/her license with no legitimate riding ability necessary."

^This is a very true and very scary statement. Unfortunately man (the species not the sex) by himself is intelligent and reasonable. When man becomes part of the masses all of a sudden all reason and intelect are thrown out the window. I believe this is the dichotomy that politicians are dealing with. Do they make the laws for the masses or with the individual in mind?