Motorcycle Helmet laws...

[Jinn]

I'm a pretty law-abiding citizen, generally believe most of the laws we have are necessary to protect order and citizenry. I pay my taxes, rarely participate in civil disobedience and chastise others about their law-breaking.

That said, I was just informed by a police officer (who pulled me over, mind you) that helmets were mandatory in the state of WA. Coming from CO (where they ride free), I was understandably confuse - but now I'm more mad than anything. What purpose do helmet laws serve? They certainly don't prevent accidents. And barring some sort of *ACTUAL* government takeover of healthcare, they don't decrease health care costs for non-riders.

There's no arguing that riding without a helmet is stupid, but in a Republic where we value individual freedom and (ideally) only legislate where there is a pressing public demand. This isn't like smoking bans, either, because smoking harms others via second-hand smoke. A rider choosing not to wear a helmet (or even wear a half helmet) affects only them (and perhaps their loved ones, in the event of a collision) and as such shouldn't be a "natural right" taken away.

How did these laws get on the books? From what I can tell, it's intensive lobbying by the insurance industries, because it cuts into their profits if they have to pay out larger sums for dumb dead motorcyclists sans helmets instead of severely handicapped motorcyclists with helmets. I don't think that's a valid reason to infringe on liberty.

You?

Thoughts?

[chinese crested]

In UK helmets are compulsory and have been for some years - unless you are of the Sikh religion in which case you can ride with your turban (although I dont know how you would keep it on).

[Plan9]

Relevant.

I've been riding a motorcycle since 2007. For me, it's a toy, not a vehicle. I've traveled between states. My home state is a wear-a-helmet state. Protective equipment isn't mandatory to make you feel like Big Brother is shitting down your throat, but for the good of society as a whole. Let's say you're Jinn Kai, the second baddest motherfucker on the planet. Well, third. Sam Jackson is always the first. Your most popular quote is "I'd hit it." You ride a superbike worth $91,500. You piss excellence. Doesn't matter. You aren't the one that will fuck up. That sleep-deprived Kenworth driver will kill you with a truck so big all it'll leave is a grease stain. Or maybe the giggly cellphone-using teenybopper in the Jeep. Or some crotch-coffee guy.

Motor vehicle seat belts are that important. Motorcycle helmets are that important. I'm all for that kinda Big Brother involvement.

...

Don't worry, this guy is sympathetic.

This isn't a liberty thing for a lot of people. It's a lame fashion accessory thing. Helmets just aren't cool. Especially DOT cruiser helmets. They're awful. Turn your head into a mushroom. Can't be a badass with that kinda headgear on, amiright? It's funny, all the sportbike guys I know walk around with their $200 spacesuit toppers tucked under their arms like its a tough guy badge. Maybe that is your problem. You just need a cool matching jacket, brah.

...

Hilariously ironic.

Helmets are relevant for guys like me that only get to ride maybe 500 miles a year. I'd imagine they're even more relevant for serious riders. Yesterday, for example, I did a pretty long run down the freeways here. I was five minutes from the house when house when road construction started. In order to avoid chipping the paint on their Buick POS, some dipshit cager changed lanes at the last second and cut me off so close that I could have kicked their rear quarter panel. I was thankful that some law told me that I had to wear a helmet. I could have very well died yesterday if I wasn't so lucky and dodged it. Skinning my torso on asphalt, maybe breaking a leg? You walk away from that. You don't walk away from smacking your noggin at 65 MPH.

...

TL;DR:

Don't be butthurt. Learn and respect the laws of the states you ride through or just don't ride through them.

[UnclearContent]

I don't agree with mandatory helmet laws, except for those under 18.

That said, I do agree with seat belt laws. In the event that a crash occurs, a locked seatbelt can help you remain upright in a position where you can still have some control of the vehicle. This gives the driver the opportunity to control a skid or navigate his/herself out of the way of fellow travelers. If you aren't wearing one, it's much easier to be shifted out of your seat, or pop your head on the steering wheel. This would leave the car without directed control, and would increase the danger to the passengers of your vehicle as well as others.

Seat belt laws help more than just the people who wear them. As for helmets, I don't drive a bike so I'm not sure if there's any comparable justification. Seems like if you're in a situation where the helmet is useful, you're probably no longer in control of the bike.

[Plan9]

Why? Don't our kids deserve all the liberty that adults do? I think we should totally allow kids to ride on the fuel tank of a motorcycle without a helmet.

Fuck common sense. You can't legislate it, amiright?

...

Helmets: They're for kids, Asian guys and fags.

[UnclearContent]

Originally Posted by Plan9

Why? Don't our kids deserve all the liberty that adults do? I think we should totally allow kids to ride on the fuel tank of a motorcycle without a helmet.

Fuck common sense. You can't legislate it, amiright?

...

Helmets: They're for kids, Asian guys and fags.

Hahahahahahahahaha *chokes on lunch*

[StanT]

Colorado is full of rocks and lot's of big lug tires to pick them up and throw them at you. I wear a full face helmet every time I ride. In the last few years, I've shattered two visors due to rocks.

That said, I fully support your right to go without.

[Remixer]

Agreed with Plan9 on the mandatory helmet laws.

[samcol]

I agree with Jinn and StanT.

Part of living in a free society is the right to be an idiot. Not wearing a helmet doesn't hurt anyone else except yourself.

Thanks for imposing your will on me with helmet laws. This is a microcosm of what is wrong with the government today.

Plan9 your argument is a joke, are you saying your wouldn't of wore a helmet if the nanny state government didn't tell you to? Because you only ride 500 miles a year everyone should have to wear a helmet?

What's so funny is my right to not wear a helmet in no way restricts your right to wear a helmet.

~~~

With that being said, I live in a FREE state wear you aren't required to wear a helmet. However, I wear a helmet 95% of the time and have been down at 80mph and walked away with it because I had gear on.

You know what they call motorcycle riders w/o helmets? Organ donors.

[Plan9]

Helmets: They're for kids, Asian guys and [liberals].

How do you feel about other ridiculous government intrusions? Seat belts? Traffic laws?

I know I'm a little miffed that I can't do 75 through a residential neighborhood.

Just another case of the fuckin' man trying to keep a brother down!

[Jinn]

When I lived in CO (a "ride free" state) I wore my helmet every day for about 10,000 miles of rides. I'm not arguing that it's not a life saver, only that government legislating "safety" on individuals without a clear public concern is unacceptable. The law clearly didn't require me to wear a helmet, but I did because I'm not retarded.

I didn't wear my helmet today because I was going from my door to the gas station to get an energy drink, a total distance of 0.67 miles, round trip, with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The time to put on my helmet and gloves and jacket is equal or greater to the time actually riding, and the risk of severe injury or death on a one lane road at posted limits in clear weather, extremely low to low traffic and clear mind is quite arguably no higher than the danger of walking the same distance; should they mandate I wear a helmet to walk that distance? That's what liberty is about; allowing people to self-determine their lives, even to make decisions on their own, without the government interceding.

What of the "my right to swing my arms ends at your face"? I'll reiterate again that the decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects none but the rider and (potentially) their loved ones, and legislating protection here does not serve the public interest. I know you're making caricatures (as you're wont to do) of other examples which clearly present a societal interest; traffic laws quite obviously serve the interest of many people as well as regulate the safety and order of society. Seat belts fall into the same sort of category as helmets, provided the wearer is above the age of 18. Protection of minors is a clear imperative of a just system, and "age discrimination" or not, we are well within our needs as a society to order parents and other adults to take reasonable protections for the safety of a child, even if they themselves opt to not use that same protection.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Jinn

...we are well within our needs as a society to order parents and other adults to take reasonable protections for the safety of a child, even if they themselves opt to not use that same protection.

Bullshit argument, Captain Freedom. In Freedomland, if it's good enough for dad, it's good enough for junior.

When you start making exceptions, you're eroding your valuable freedoms! Live free of chinstraps or die!

...

Did you read the "Fuck helmets!" study w/ stats link I posted above? It's pretty much all you, bro.

[cadre]

I've been riding motorcycles since I was twelve and my father and uncles ride too. None of them wear helmets unless it's cold but I wear one every single time. At this point it's just uncomfortable for me to ride without one (a full face euro approved one by the way). Plus it hides the fact that I'm a woman.

So after long discussions on helmet laws, my opinion is that they should be mandatory for anyone under 18, or maybe 21. Kids do stupid things and we as a country tend to make laws for their safety. If you ride without a helmet as an adult, I reserve the right to tell you you're an idiot. As far as laws go, I understand why people feel that they shouldn't have to wear helmet but I think that the state should require extra insurance or something if you do. The idea would be to absorb some of the costs associated with having your head bashed in.

Realistically, DOT helmets are not safe enough to keep you alive in your average accident anyway. The DOT testing is simply not up to par. If it was, you wouldn't see half helmets on the market. People don't usually land on the top of their head in an accident (though, I have seen it happen). What is a half helmet going to do when your face flies into the back or front of a car? Or when you lowside and smash the base of your skull into the road? The reality is, even if you wear a DOT helmet, your chances of walking away from an accident are not great. That said, there are a lot of lives that have been saved by helmets. Mine included.

Edit: I wanted to add that the same things I mentioned above should always apply to scooters too. They are just as dangerous but I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone in gear on one.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Plan9

Bullshit argument, Captain Freedom. In Freedomland, if it's good enough for dad, it's good enough for junior.

When you start making exceptions, you're eroding your valuable freedoms! Live free of chinstraps or die!

...

Did you read the "Fuck helmets!" study w/ stats link I posted above? It's pretty much all you, bro.

The only thing I learned from that article is that helmet laws cause the state and business to lose a ton of money in revenue because people simply stop riding. They didn't even really prevent any more deaths.

It almost seems to be arguing for the no helmet law case. I dont understand what you're getting at.


Honestly, did you even read it at all?

[dksuddeth]

helmet laws, just like any other law regulating activities that mandate any sort of 'health and safety' aspect are there because we stupidly allowed ourselves to be told we're too F'ing stupid to think for ourselves. some group of people whined and cried about DUI checkpoints, so we got them even though they were only 1.6% effective in KS one time.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Op...708/103762.pdf

I could go on and on about how all of these 'regulations' are possible because the people allowed one, but it falls on deaf ears most of the time because.....well, most of you demand that people be babysat by the nannystate because only THEY know whats good for them.

you brought it on us all.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by samcol

It almost seems to be arguing for the no helmet law case. I dont understand what you're getting at.

It totally is.

It is the argument you guys should be using instead of some retarded tin foil hat flag-waving bullshit. What I'm getting at here is that people are retards. They don't want to their freedoms infringed because... well, it makes them uncomfortable. The whole motorcycle helmet law thing reminds me of the Ugandan army a few years back. They had a mass sit down over body armor they refused to wear because it was "too heavy." They'd rather take two to the chest than be encumbered by life-saving gear. Retards. I've seen dudes on Harleys in short-shorts and Crocs. Hilarious. $40k motorcycle, $20 outfit.

I can see the whole "freedom (to be a moron)" thing. I really can. But you can't play favorites. Fuck kids. And fuck traffic laws.

America!

You wanna argue no helmet laws? Use some statistics. Not Glenn Beck.

...

And what is with the Samcol / DK swarm? You guys move in packs?

[genuinegirly]

I have ridden on the back of a motorcycle all of one time, and never driven one myself. The one time that I rode on the back of a motorcycle, I would not have ridden if I were not given a helmet to wear. I am more of a bicycle person. I won't ride my bicycle on canyon roads or great distances in areas I consider dangerous without a helmet. This is because I have hit a pothole on a dirt road and flown over my handlebars - the kind of experience that makes you appreciate the helmet that ended up a shattered mess. A minor concussion is far better than death.

My personal preferences are just that.
I do feel that a motorcycle training course that involves proper use of all safety equipment should be a requirement for obtaining a motorcycle license. But once that training is over, a person should have the common sense to make a choice on their own. The only reason I would go without a helmet in a heavily trafficked area is if I was suicidal. I respect a person's right to be suicidal, and therefore respect their right to not wear a helmet.

Probably not the answer that you wanted.

[samcol]

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

Why should it even matter if it's a fashion thing.

This thread thread just went full retard.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by samcol

This thread thread just went full retard.

I'm sorry, Samcol. I'll switch the style up. Lemme explain my posts in this thread-thread in bullets:

1. I'm in favor of helmet laws because I see them in the same category as seatbelt laws.

2. If you're going to argue helmet laws, argue money and stats instead political babble.

3. People are retarded.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Plan9

And what is with the Samcol / DK swarm? You guys move in packs?

I sent out the tweet and he came in for backup.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by samcol

I sent out the tweet and he came in for backup.

Hah! Smooth.

[chinese crested]

Mycousins cousin in the states went 100yards down the road face down without a helmet. They identified him by his clothes as he had no face left.
Its important when riding or driving, to remember you are surrounded by idiots moving in heavy great lumps of metal. My sons mate was t-boned - helmeted - it doesnt take a lot to kill lumps of your brain.

[Baraka_Guru]

I tend to agree with 9er here.

The whole "dangers of the nanny state" argument kind of silly to me. The American government has been successfully running a nanny state for corporate America for well over a century now—protecting it from outside influences and from itself—I don't see why individuals should be left out of the loop.

I think from their perspective, they're primarily concerned about fewer people dying.

Those damned tyrants!

[samcol]

I honestly never knew about the money issue, but I still feel the freedom argument is just as valid. I have the exact same opinion on seat belts.

Should a mother be held responsible if her child is thrown from the vehicle due to not wearing a seat belt, probably.

Honestly, I believe the seat belt law is just a door for the state to pull you over and check everything out. IE revenue.

The motorcycle helmet thing is different though. I'm trying to figure out the motive to pass a helmet law. I'm sure the citizens aren't exactly calling for states to have mandatory helmet laws, and from your article it's clearly not revenue based

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Plan9

And what is with the Samcol / DK swarm? You guys move in packs?

DuneDan will show up shortly as well.

[Plan9]

Baraka,

You can't agree with me--you're Canadian.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The whole "dangers of the nanny state" argument kind of silly to me. The American government has been successfully running a nanny state for corporate America for well over a century now—protecting it from outside influences and from itself—I don't see why individuals should be left out of the loop.

I think from their perspective, they're primarily concerned about fewer people dying.

Those damned tyrants!

motorcycles are dangerous for two reasons.

1) some people shouldn't be on them because they're retarded, and

2) cagers (those who drive cars) are even more retarded, don't look for bikes, or simply don't care.

given the 2nd argument, and the theory that the nannystate just wants to save lives, ban motorcycles. Since people in cars can't be held responsible for killing people on bikes, we'll just take away bikes.

[Plan9]

I'm cool with that, DK. I've got a preban.

And I'm cool with getting rid of cars, too.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Plan9

Baraka,

You can't agree with me--you're Canadian.

But you're a liberal, which pretty much makes you Canadianesque.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

motorcycles are dangerous for two reasons.

1) some people shouldn't be on them because they're retarded, and

2) cagers (those who drive cars) are even more retarded, don't look for bikes, or simply don't care.

given the 2nd argument, and the theory that the nannystate just wants to save lives, ban motorcycles. Since people in cars can't be held responsible for killing people on bikes, we'll just take away bikes.

I'm talking about the nanny state, not the police state. They're not going to take away your bikes.

[Plan9]

Baraka,

Pfft! I'm hardly a liberal. They don't ride cruisers. Only pussy putters like Vespas.

That and I just spent two grand on an !!!ASSAULT RIFLE!!! That's totally right wing.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Plan9

I'm cool with that, DK. I've got a preban.

And I'm cool with getting rid of cars, too.

skateboards are dangerous also, and bicycles. rollerskates.

i heard barbie dolls could be dangerous when used improperly.

maybe guns also? heard they are dangerous.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Plan9

Pfft! I'm hardly a liberal. They don't ride cruisers. Only pussy bikes like Vespas.

That and I just spent two grand on an !!!ASSAULT RIFLE!!! That's totally right wing.

But you're always quoting that liberal pundit Henry Rollins.

I don't get it.

[Plan9]

DK,

Come on, now. I wouldn't know anything about guns.

And have you seen where you can shove a Barbie?

God, college girls.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

skateboards are dangerous also, and bicycles. rollerskates.

i heard barbie dolls could be dangerous when used improperly.

maybe guns also? heard they are dangerous.

Slippery slopes are dangerous too.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Slippery slopes are dangerous too.

Brilliant pun

[Baraka_Guru]

Sorry. I wasn't going to pass it up.

[Plan9]

I want to party with you guys.

While wearing a beer helmet.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Slippery slopes are dangerous too.

i still gotta find out this mysterious anomaly that lets slippery slopes fade out of existence when a democrat is president, yet appear out of thin air with a republican president. fascinating.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

i still gotta find out this mysterious anomaly that lets slippery slopes fade out of existence when a democrat is president, yet appear out of thin air with a republican president. fascinating.

I assure you, it's always around.

[chinese crested]

skateboards are dangerous also, and bicycles. rollerskates.

i heard barbie dolls could be dangerous when used improperly.

maybe guns also? heard they are dangerous.

Have you met my mother? Cycling was a no no, as were rope swings, and walking on walls - because - ready for this, and remember I was about 5 - you can damage yourself and no decent man will want you.

I remember looking at the scabs on my damaged knees, and thinking it a bit silly. I also wasnt allowed to catch sticklebacks in the river, or paddle in it on a hot summers afternoon for fear of drowning. Of course I did all these things - but out of sight of course.

On helmets - cycling i got carved up by a taxi, had to leave the bike to save myself from full impact, banged my head landing - and for a few years my sentences would be in my head, but when I tried to vocalise them - the words would vanish. I did manage to find words at the time, as passers by kindly helped me out of the road (on a roundabout) - I believe they were 'You Fucking Wanker!' The police had an ambulance take me away.

Q. Those of you who prefer to ride topless - would you rather your kids wore helmets if they rode bikes, or would it not worry you either way? Oh and whats wrong with those fuckwits who dont wear adequate footwear when out on a moterbike - see the kids out on their bikes in the summer in shorts and trainers - and how stupid is that.