Helmet law debated
 

Article

The one thing that really irked me is the comment made by Dave Carroll saying that the debate of whether or not to reinstated helmet law is misguided because he believes the cause of motocycle accidents are cars and trucks.

The guy's an idiot, the point of the law is to prevent serious injury. BigBen of the Steelers' accident is a clear example of that.

I'm curious to hear your opinion whether or not the helmet law should be reinstated and why

Edit: Vote Yes to force riders to wear helmets. Vote No to allow riders to ride without helmets

I'm likely to be a motorcycle rider within the next six to nine months. Ain't no way in HELL you'll catch me on a bike without a proper lid. I've got too much to live for.

Yeah, okay, you can blame cars for motorcycle accidents, but what do you want to do, outlaw cars? Yes, drivers should be better educated about sharing the road with motorcycles, but until that glorious day, what's going to keep your brain off the pavement? A HELMET.

Incidentally, I believe the word you're after is "reinstated". That means "put back into effect". "Restated" means "said again". Not to be a pedant, but there it is.

There's easier ways to kill yourself than driving around on a motorcycle without a helment. Personally, I'm all for taking the retarded people out of the gene pool, but I don't want their brains all over my sidewalk.

I'm not usually one to fall on the side of loose legislation that allows people to engage in reckless, irresponsible, and selfish behavior. Take smoking for example...I think it should be banned in most public places. /end thread jack. In this case it is simply on the rider to engage in good safety practices. As a rider myself the joke has long been that a helmet only makes your face look better as you stare up out of the casket. It's selfish of you to ride that way but it's still entirely your choice to do so. For the record I don't ride sans helmet (and I'm a non-smoker).

If any more soft headed pittsburgh squeallers want to ride without a helmet... GOOD ON YA! Yeah I'm still bitter about the intentional hit on Carson Palmer but that's a story for yet another thead on yet another board! :lol:

Ride with a GOOD helmet. It just makes good sense.

Repealing the helmet law was an idiotic idea in my opinion.

Not only a no, but a HELL NO!!

as it should be - I'd like everyone to wear a helmet to protect their noggins... however.. it's not the government's place to legislate it... (I feel the same way about seatbelts.) If you want to wear one... that's fine.. you might be saving your life someday... but it's your choice... it's not up to the goverment to decide.

I currently live in NH - the only state without a mandatory seatbelt law for adults, and one of the few states without a helmet law.. Live free or die is the state's motto - and that's the way it should be... The government should exist to protect people's rights, not to punish them for activities that really don't interfere with anyone else..

I really don't care whether people wear a helmet or not... their choice...

It should really be up to the rider to decide if they want to wear a helmet or not. Their choice doesn't hurt anyone else, and I don't think it should be the government's place to protect people from their own stupidity.

seatbelts and helmets are law in Australia- as are bicycle helmets from kids to adults The laws dont really worry me as I wear helmets on motorcycles and bikes and always wear my seatbelt. I agree with maleficent that it should be up to the individual but I live in the land where democracy means compulsory voting.(Or get fined)

Anyone who rides without a helmet is an idiot in my opinion.

However I see no reason it should be illegal.

Hows about we set up a law that you get your license to be a motorcycle driver, then you can take another hour long course or whatever to have it on your license that you explicity understand the dangers of not wearing a helmet when driving a motorcycle, and you understand the risks of t hat and all. While that course in itself may not effect a person's decision to wear a helmet, the results (higher insurance probably) would effect a person's decision to wear or not wear a helmet.

Ultimately I don't think the state should regulate helmet laws. It's a personal decision. Do what you want.

People I've talked to are very awareof the dangers, but don't think it will ever happen to them - and they love the feel of the wind in their hair (and bugs in their teeth i'd imagine.)

Last week was Bike Week at weirs beach by Lake Winnepausauke - or however the hell you spell it) in New Hampshire.. There were no less than 5 deaths of motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets.. This past saturday when I was out - I didn't see one rider wearing one... Death is for other people - wont happen to them..

While that's understandable, Mal, and I do believe you, it removes the benefit of the doubt if they explicity see people with their skulls shattered across the road.

From what I understand seatbelts are also important to stop people flying around in a car and hitting other passengers in an accident. So not wearing a seatbelt actually puts other people at risk. I may just be misinformed though.

if you don’t want to wear a Helmet, you should not have to, i think it is stupid not to, but its your right, as long as doing so does not significantly increase the risk to others (and I have yet to see proof of that) the government needs to get out of people personal space, I just don’t want to be the guy scrapping you off of the road.

That being said, I do think that eye protection should be mandated, I don’t care how tough you think you are, if the car in front kicks up a rock and it pops you in the eye, all hell is going to break loose. You will not only endanger your self, but others, and that is when the government should step in.

A doctor on TV suggested something that seems like a good idea to me.

If you don't wear a helmet, you should be required to be an organ donor.

My motorcycle riding father (who always wears a helmet) has a bandana that he wears under it.. LIVE FREE OR DIE.


I really don't feel it's the place of the government to put a law in like that. Personal responsibility goes away, so does a mature society. Personal responsibility can never be legislated. I'd wear a helmet 99% of the time, but if I don't feel the desire -- it's MY CHOICE.

I have no problem with mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. If the study listed above was any indication, the laws may actually increase the liklihood of a driver rider using the proper safety precautions.

I didn't vote in the poll because I don't know if I'm supposed to vote yes or no if I'm in favor of helmet laws.

Gilda

It's interesting to see that the American perspective of the debate is quite different from Canadian's perspective.

I would think that Americans are more likely to say no to the poll because they're not the one that's being footed with the health care cost of people who didn't wear helmet and got their head smashed.

However, on the northern side of the border, Canadians would be more likely to say yes because of the fact that health care is practically free and it is being paid for by taxpayers.

That's just my opinion though.

With the Motorcycle craze that's hit the US in the last 5-6 years there's ALOT more rookie riders on the road. I think this, along with the the repeal of the helmet law has caused an increase. I don't necessarily agree that there should be a law requiring helmets but it's kinda crazy NOT to.

I personally wear a half helmet since full face and open face helmets annoy my peripheral vision. They say it's not as safe which is logical and I agree but it's definitely not safe driving with blinders on. Not to mention it's much more comfortable.

your healthcare is not free -it is being footed by taxes... Our healthcare is being footed by taxes (medicare/medicaid) or thru private insurance (paid for by an individual or thru a group plan thru an employer) Inmost cases, with the group plan, a non smoking healthy eater who drives a safe car pays exactly the same amount as the smoker, who lives on fast food and drives a motorcycle without a helmet.

the cost of healthcare has no bearing on my argument... it's about the government trying to protect people from themselves... that's not their place to do that.

I'd say it is - that is why hard drugs are illegal, for example - people as a whole are notorious for taking extraordinarily bad care for themselves. My buddy came over the handlebars of his bike not long ago. It was a 1000cc yamaha, and it landed on his head. If his arm didn't catch on the mirror and break his wrist and shoulder, he would have walked away from it with cuts and bruises.

If someone wipes off their bike and dies, they're not the only ones affected - their friends, their families have to deal with the pain involved. Nobody will come and arrest you for not wearing a helmet, it's a fine, a deterrent. Getting rid of that? You're just asking to foot the bill for massive cosmetic surgery, quadraplegics, comatose patients. Bad idea.

Every time some idiot gets killed or turned into a vegetable for not using a helmet, my insurance rates go up. I could care less if the less intelligent amongst us are weeded out by death due to misadventure, but alas, it ends up costing me so I am entirely in favour of seatbelt and helmet laws.

And perhaps the poll should be edited for clarity.

I think healthcare does factor into it. My taxes go to pay for the idoit that rides his motorcycle without a helmet. More to the point, it increases the governments expenses so it behooves them to mitigate those expenses by limiting the damage one can do to oneself with helmet and seatbelt laws.

I wouldn't be surprised to see insurance companies add caveats that if the rider is determined to not have been wearing a helmet then they aren't covered. This would be the equivalent action.

So if we just have people wandering around with a shot gun and kill the people who wipe out on their bikes and eliminite the whole - living for years in a vegatative state at the taxpayers expense - the problem is solved right? :D

Not a good reason for the government saying they shoudl wear a helmet, they shoudl wear a helmet for their own good... because they want to protect themselves... and perhaps their loved ones...

A motorcycle, like any other vehicle, has to be insured... if a person chooses to not wear a helmet, then they should have higher insurance rates for the motocycle.

Simple solution: Outlaw motorcycles :)

The high majority of injuries caused my bike accidents are not to the head. My father whom worked as an EMT many many moons ago told me this. He also said that the weight of some helmets can cause serious neck injuries.

Also, I dont feel that its the governments buisness to force us to protect ourselves for our own good. That goes for seat belts as well. I do wear my seat belts, and I don't ride bikes, but if I did my state doesnt require me to wear a helmet and I'm glad

Cars have accidents, outlaw cars.
Children fall off of bicycles, outlaw children.
People stub their toes on furniture on the way to the bathroom in themiddle of thenight, outlaw bathrooms - or the middle of the night... your choice. :D
People take the info given on afternoon talk shows seriously, outlaw people.
Decaf coffee makes me cranky, outlaw me.
People get divorced, outlaw romance...

I dont honestly care if someone wears a helmet or not... all I want to know is...

How many people died of just head injuries in which a helmet "may have" spared their life and how many would have died anyway from massive internal organ trauma or from their bodies being so mangled and broken that no matter what they would have been toast.

If someone cares so little for themselves and their families that they're willing to risk their life and cause their loved ones' grief, then let survival of the fittest take effect. I have been on a motorcycle once in my life without a helmet, and that was in a large private parking lot, going very slowly, on the weekend when there weren't any other vehicles there, for a total of three minutes. It's exhilirating, yes, but worth risking my life to do that on the streets, no. I don't even like the "brain bucket" helmets. Put me in a full helmet with a face shield, or nothing at all.

First of all...I should like to state for the record, that I, Bill O'Rights, have not ridden a motorcycle sans helmet since 1978. It was during that year that I pulled my Yamaha off of the top of me, sat down on the side of the gravel road that I had just wiped out on, removed the helmet, that heretofore I had only worn sporadically, took a look at the left side of it. Or rather...what was left of the left side of it. It had been almost completely ground away from the abrasion. I had ridden that exact stretch of road only the day before with no helmet. Had I crashed then...well, suffice it to say that any face that I have today would have been prosthetic. I kept that helmet. 28 years later...I still have it. It's a nice reminder of what could have happened. And I do bring it out on occasion. Usually to demonstrate to someone why helmets are necessary.

However...the government need not legislate laws to protect me from myself. I am fully capable of making these decisions for myself. In fact, nowhere, that I can seeing, is there any provision in the Constitution, or anywhere else for that matter, giving congress the authority to mandate the personal use of any safety equipment. Therefore, pro helmet as I am...I am adamantly against any form of helmet or seatbelt legislation. Period.

This is a great example of the huge problem with socialized healthcare. Now that everyone is forced into a healthcare system, most feel it's OK to legislate out things that are agreed to be dangerous or unhealthy. Who are you to say that I must wear a helmet? It's bad legislation on top of bad in my opinion.

Voluntary healthcare and voluntary helmet wearing is the solution that supports everyone's freedoms the best.

That's an excellent point, they don't have the authority to legislate that. They have no jurisdiction over my body. Any law they pass regarding helmets is done through fiat. Government's job is to protect the rights of people, not to protect people from themselves. Riding without a helmet is not violating anyone's rights.

My thinking is that it is a common sense thing to use a helmet when you're riding a motorcycle. No! your face is not harder than the ashphalt and it's not harder than a truck's windshiled, if you're idiot enough not to realize it, then the gene pool is running low in your side and it will be nature's responsability to take care of you so you can't breed. That been said, no law should interfere with nature's survival of the fittest.

This thread underscores, once again, the great divide between Canada and the US.

The US sure loves their freedoms.


(no sarcasm intended... just an observation of differences)

sometimes we're like petulant 4 year olds... we're gonna do what you want us to do anyhow - just don't tell us that we have to do it... :)

heh that was my thought, but I wasn't going to say it...

Yes but aren't the legislators morally obligated to pass such legislation if it will save lives? I can understand concerns about this being a case in which, to a certain extent, freedom is being traded for security and there is a rather famous quote warning againts that.

But being forced to wear a helmet however, could be compared to being stopped walking near an unstable cliff. Would you stop your friend walking next to the cliff even if they were fully aware of the risk? What about banning it for everyone?

I am not entirely comfortable in dismissing any law to do with the safety of individuals (even if they're not putting anyone else at risk). I am not againts saving people from their own stupidity. Of course there is still the fundemental problem in that you're limiting somebody's freedom in a way that is incompatible with the underlying ideals of the United States.

I guess I would agree with Charlatan. You will find more opposition for this kind of law in the United States because of the great emphasis on individual freedom in the nation's ideals. The opposition will come because of these principles. Then again you hardly see anyone in Germany on a bicycle wearing a helmet, but in Australia most do and it is mandated by law. So it's not like the USA has a monopoly on non-helmet wearing culture at the expense of the western European social democracies.

Be still my beating heart.... :love:

As for the tax angle...I don't mind paying a bit more today to cover the acts of the 'hopelessly stupid,' as long as, in the future, they remember my generosity and return the favor.

no - legislators are obligated to protect the rights of individuals.

if we're going by moral obligation, who's morals are we going by? Mine (I'm an uptight prude) someone else's who's less uptight? Doesn't that become a slipperly slope at some point, if we start legislating on what is morally right or not?

Don't encourage them. They already sneer down their noses at us because we're not entirely obsessed with hockey. You're only feeding their Canadian sense of superiority with remarks like that. :p

Your original Constitution and all amendments have been based on the morals of those that wrote them, ye know.