1980 for me, sliding my bike under a car that pulled out in front of me didn't do it. Having my pregnant girlfriend, now wife, demand that I wear one did the job. It prefer one now.

Last year, an acorn sized rock got flung off a tire and took out the polycarbonate visor on my helmet. The visor stopped the rock; but was no longer transparent afterwards. I'm not sure what would have happened if it had hit my face, instead.

I wear a full faced, Snell approved helmet, leather jacket, gloves and boots every time I ride. However, I fully support your right to be a moron if you choose.

If they don't put into effect a helmet at least make people sign a release if they don't want to wear one.

At least in California, the legislation was put into effect soely because of the state footing the healthcare bills for those who are dependant on state care for the many expensive-to-treat and preventable head injuries. Ideally, if the state takes care of your butt (or your head, or any combination of the two), then I'd say they have a right to tell you you have to wear a helmet.

Obviously though, that'd be impossible to enforce.

I guess the next best thing would be for the insurance companies to do the ruthless enforcement--that's their specialty, after all.

It's hard, because I do believe that helmet laws save and improve lives in general, but it's easy to see how this line of thought could be abused by the government. It's also easy to see how the general public could also take this arguement to rediculous extremes.

Edited to add: I do like the idea of the mandatory organ donorship if nothing else but to make a point, but I'm sure that would inflame people who don't want the gov't to impose *that* either.

For the record, I'm highly in favor of organ donorship. By force, if needed! :p :thumbsup:

To be honest, if you chose to ride a bike/motorcycle without a helmet, your an idiot.

I've come off various vehicular transportation devices with a helmet, hurt like hell, but i'm still hear now to moan and bitch about it.

As long as you have insurance, so the country doesn't end up paying for your hospitalization because of your "preference", it should be your call if you wear a helmet or not.

I'd just prefer that everyone did, because I live in Florida, so I won't have to scoop up so much brain matter and console your families when i'm a Paramedic.

I don't like legislating personal decisions that have no impact on me. If you want to die, I'm not gonna vote on a law to keep you from it.

I already had one kid yesterday during one of my clinicals who fell off his moped, landed straight on his head at only 30 mph. 17 years old. Thankfully, he lived because he had his helmet on.

I find it funny that a state the foots the bill for thousands of illegals, has a problem with paying for people who don't wear a helmet even if they pay health insurance and/or pay into socialized healthcare system. To me it seems they did it more to enhance the police-state than to save on healthcare costs.

You see how helmet laws could be abused by the government, but fail to see how organ donation could be abused by them too? Sorry, but mandatory organ donorship is a hellish practice. Just look to China where you can get a match for a pristine 20 year old's kidney in two weeks. You don't have to have that great of an imagination to figure out that scenario is impossible unless you're killing people only for their organs.

True! I find it interesting as well.

I thought it would be funny to propose organ *Donation* by force...it's a joke, see?

Well being that I've been riding motorcycles for a while and that I race my bikes off-road this is a big thing for me. I don't know many people that approve of me riding on the street but I'm trying to get a street bike anyways. I live in Phoenix, one of the most dangerous places for motorcycles and I've know people that have died or been injured on motorcycles.

It's true that alot of the danger comes from other people on the road but I do agree that it is a surival of the fittest issue. I don't think that it's necessarily right for the government to control helmet use but I understand that it would save lives. It's not about speed it's just how you will hit the pavement when you crash. Your skin gets damaged too but you can easily fall back and hit your head hard enough to have permanent brain damage.

That said, my dad is a neurologist and he constantly rides without a helmet. I can understand people not wanting to wear helmets, especially out here where it's 117 degrees in the summer but personally, I've hit my head enough to have learned. Granted I still ride on the dirt with out protection somtimes..last time I did I flipped my bike and lost a good amount of skin.

I'm all for freedom.

I'll stay out of the whole helmet thing, I just don't enjoy arguing that much but I do have a couple of observations.

In this state, and probably most of the country, you can just walk in and buy a zero to 60 in 3 seconds, 160 MPH or faster machine, weighing anywhere from 300 to 1800 pounds, (yes, really), and you don't even need to prove that you can operate the thing. You might need a license to ride it on public roads, but not to buy it.

To get a license in this state, unless you were grandfathered in like me, you need to take a basic class at slow speed to learn to operate said machine. Bingo, you have a motorcycle license and you can now ride it where ever you want.

Interesting observation about helmets. So, you have the best helmet money can buy, guaranteed to save your noggin. So, where are your boots, leathers, armor, gloves, etc? I see people every day with helmets, and T-shirts, shorts, flip flop shoes and women with almost nothing on but the helmet. (Not that I don't enjoy that part).

I have wrecked a few times and have seen several. I pretty much have slid to a stop on my leather jacket, jeans, gloves, and boots each time. I have also seen a few folks slide to a stop on their arms and bare legs. I once saw a guy slide to a stop with his bike on top of his left leg. He was wearing tennis shoes and had sanded the outside of his ankle off. From the screaming I assumed it probably stung a little.

My only point in all of this is that it is not just a helmet issue. Idiots with helmets die also. If you are going to discuss safety equipement then I think you should discuss all of it.

By the way, I don't ALWAYS wear a helmet but I have two and they are both full face, high dollar items. I wear em as I see fit.

As you were.

Sorry, I guess I'm too used to the more abrasive and no joking around attitude over in the politics forum to pick up on jokes. :thumbsup:

Exactly why I can't survive in the Politics forum.:)

I don't think the government should mandate helmets or seatbelts. Recommend yes, Require no.

I wonder which would save more lives and injury, requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets or requiring car passengers to wear helmets. By shear numbers alone I bet many more lives would be saved in the car crashes even with seatbelts on. How far do we want our government to go in protecting us? I do not like the logic of "if it saves one person's life, it is worth it". Freedom from excessive intrusion from our government is worth something.

My insurance agent tells me that motorcycle insurance is reasonably priced because 9 out of 10 times an accident is the car driver's fault and they collect from them. However since they also insure the cars they probably wish that motorcycles would just go away.

I don't want to get into a lot of statistics debate because one can usually twist the numbers around to show what you want but a few comments on the OP's Florida numbers:
I wonder how many of those would have died even with a helmet on?
From my experience riding over 30 years, there are many who will stop riding altogether or ride a lot less if required to wear a helmet. Perhaps the number of increased riders and miles ridden are contributing to the increase in deaths? I believe that one of the main reasons that helmet laws save lives is because it reduces the amount of motorcycle riding. Our government and the insurance companies would probably support an outright ban of motorcycles if it was politically possible and with the attitudes expressed in this thread we may not be far from it.

That, my friend, is a most excellent point. If we're going to legislate the mandatory use of helmets, then let's also make mandatory the use of leather jackets, chaps, gloves and boots. And, while we're at it, lets also recognize that 4 wheels on the ground are much safer than 2. Therefore, let's enact legislation requiring all motorcycles to have 4 wheels. Is it not also common sense that it is safer to be surrounded by a protective cabin, than ride out in the open? Ok...let's mandate that all motorcycles be surrounded by a cabin constructed of metal and glass (you have to be able to see out). Oooh...I know...let's also make straps that the operator can tie himself to seat with, and mandate thier use.

There are far more people dying of causes that leave healthy organs available for transplant than there are people needing organs. The shortage is caused by people not taking the time to indicate that they want to donate. Because it's a system that is based on the presumption of not consenting, the large majority who never think about it one way or the other end up being buried with their organs intact.

I'm fully in favor of a presumption of consent to donate. It would work exactly as it does now. In case of an accidental death, the family would be contacted and asked what their wishes were regarding donation, and if the next of kin objected, no donation would occur; if they consented, the organs would be donated.

The big difference would be for the apathetic middle. Those like my family would still donate, and those, like the Orthodox Jewish family that lives next door, who have religious or other reasons not to donate, would still have their wishes honored. But that apathetic middle would be donating rather than not, and the organs lost because a person with a donor card or donor marked license has no family to consent would be used.

Heck, short of that, a very simple, easy to implement change would make a huge difference: Ask people when renewing licenses if they want to donate their organs. Many who make no effort on their own will say yes when asked. Make this a standard section of the license and then use that as consent without requiring additional family consent.

Grace has told me that they routinely get potential donors with a donor card or a marked license whose organs are lost because a family member can't be located quickly enough or the family member refuses donation against the expressed wishes of the patient. The beauty of this system is that it's a small change, no government intrusion, and it follows the wishes of the individual rather than relying on others to speak for her.

Grace also is a bit ambivalent regarding helmets. Young, healthy accident victims with severe head injuries and intact internal organs are the perfect organ donors.

Gilda

Can we build them to seat eight and get real crappy gas mileage? :lol:


This is how the system should work. Decision ----> consequence

Sorry, I draw the line on chaps.

Every time I consider them, I get Village People flashbacks.:eek:

I don't know Bill, that contraption full of folks strapped into the equipment sounds pretty darn dangerous to me. And you want to surround these folks with glass? Shouldn't they be wearing helmets? And gloves? Glass can cut you pretty bad. And how can you jump off if it decides to fall over? Wouldn't you all be mushed together inside if it rolled over several times?

It certainly looked like a learning experience to me. Pretty messy once we got the bike off of him also. Ich! The screaming sure harshed my buzz!

And I agree StanT, but then I live in cowboy country and can get away with it a little better. ;)




And I didn't even plan to have a horse in this race! Sucked in again.:cool:

When you buy car or motorcycle insurance it's not to protect you from any harm other than financial. If you're in a single car or bike wreck, your insurance company isn't going to pay for anything other than you damaged vehicle. So if you drive your bike into a concrete wall at 100 mph (with or without a helmet), your insurance company is just going to send your estate a check for the cost of the bike minus depreciation.

Unfortunately, the insurance industry can't solve this problem, no matter how much they may want to (and trust me, anything that will lower claims costs they are all for). Since insurance policies are written to protect the people you hurt (liability section), your physical property (physical damage section) and you if you're hit by someone with no or not enough insurance (uninsured/underinsured motorist section), there's no way to craft any language anywhere except the UM/UIM portion (which is an optional coverage only purchased by about 35% of drivers) to remove coverage if you don't wear your helmet. Most auto claims end up going to the health insurance carrier and since most Americans buy their health insurance through work to get better rates, it's unlikely that a blanket helmet requirement would be legal since it's a coverage provided by the employer who pays for at least a portion of it. If I'm driving and hit someone, my insurance can't have an exclusion of coverage for a third party that I injure because of my actions/negligence because that third party wasn't wearing a helmet. I'm still liable for my actions, and that denial of coverage could theoretically bankrupt me.

That all said, I'm fine with the state telling you to wear your damn helmet just as I'm ok with them telling you that have to have the proper departments have to sign off on the plans for your new house - it's too dangerous to have a lack of oversight.

Just to clarify...

I agree that some government oversight is good. We probably just differ on what kind and how much. There are many things we people do that is not healthy or safe. I guess I look to the state to be more like the protector of our freedom rather than protecting us from ourselves, at least in most cases.

I just don't want to be stuck with the bill when one of these people ends up a vegetable.

Helmet laws are good for the idiots that make the foolish choice not to wear one.
Stupid people need stupid laws.

Unless you are the guy who has to come along afterwards and clean someone's brain off the road. I'd say having to clean up after irresponsible people is having your life interfered with. I've gotta say I'm happy that Oz has legislation that makes safety things compulsory. Sometimes I think Americans take their "freedom" a little too seriously.

Perhaps we need to outlaw guns ;)

You obviously don't watch funniest home videos - there is almost always a 4 wheel motor bike doing strange tricks (i.e. flipping over). 4 wheel bikes are inherently unstable - their center of gravity is just wrong...

I see, and agree, with both sides of the argument.

I agree that helmets save lives, and that every motorcyclist should wear one.

I also agree that it isn't the government's place to enforce it, it should be common sense.

And yeah... survival of the fittest is great to bring up in this argument.

My problem with the whole thing is that there are some pretty shady traffic laws in this country. Enough that if the motorcyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet caused an accident with me, and his brains end up on my vehicle... if his family got a snazzy lawyer, -I- could be liable for his death. That's fucked up. There are laws that try to simplify traffic accidents to the point that in many states, you are automatically at fault if you were the car in the rear or the accident. So if Joe Headstrong decides to dump his bike right in front of my car, and I crush his head under my wheels, suddenly I am at fault for his death.

My feelings are, if you want to ride without a helmet on public roads, you should feel free to do so, but if you do, then you are held responsible for all injuries to your head, regardless of who's fault an accident is.

Cars have to meet a minimum crash rating to be allowed on public US roads for a reason. There is no reason they shouldn't have that same crash rating for your head.

The mafia has "cleaners" that come along and clean up after a mob hit... they could be put to good use here :)

Riding a motorcycle in traffic is like diving in shark infested waters without a cage. Riding the bike in traffic in the first place is the big danger and helmets offer little protection.

I still believe that the reason the stats show fewer deaths/injuries when helmet laws are enacted is largely because of the reduced number of riders and miles ridden.
Forbes: http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/mike...9/Helmets.html
I found the following rather amusing but it hasn't been all that long ago when most people would say that seatbelt laws were ridiculous.

I was almost run over 3 times within 7 minutes today made me glad I was wearing my helmet, gloves, jacket, jeans, and boots. Would have given me a fighting chance if they had gone ahead and run over me.

As long as the passenger is wearing a helmet, I couldn't care less. If someone wants to ride without a helmet and ends up dead, well... that's their own damn fault. They should've known better.

Where in the hell did you get such a drastically untrue opinion stuck in your head?

What, do you think the #1 cause of motorcycle deaths is road rash or something? No. What's the part of the body most likely to kill you if you sustain trauma there? That's right, it's your head.

I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. It just creates more room for the rest of us.

When I was 13, I asked my father for a motorcycle. He said he'd rather give me a pistol instead, because if I really wanted to kill myself he'd rather I do it properly. On that same note, my big sister is a high-ranking official in state government yet she rides her Harley everywhere (including Daytona every March). ANd she does wear a bucket.

So...about this sister of yours....:D

You mean the redheaded one? The married redheaded one? The married redheaded one whose ex-tournament karate-fighting husband rides with her to Daytona on his Harley, too?

Of course, if you whipped that spidercrawl manuever on him, I think you could take him.