National Helmet Laws. Comming soon?

[awagnon]

i think the first thing legislators will try is limiting horsepower by limiting displacement. that may be our salvation.

 

This may not be out of the question. As you know, in many countries they have a graduated licensing process. For the first ? years, you are limited to X horse power. If no accidents, you can re-test and get a license for a larger displacement engine. There may be several steps before you can buy a 1000+ cc bike. Sounds very restrictive, but it might prevent the first time rider from killing themselves on their new 1500cc crotch rocket.

 

A previous poster said motorcycle accidents are below the radar for insurance companies. Not true. Many insurance companies don't cover motorcycle accidents because they are aware of the long term costs of some injuries. Many riders are surprised (too late) to find out they don't have coverage. That's the reason for the bill in congress to mandate injury coverage. (That's another thread going now and we don't want to go there.)

[russell_bynum]

Sounds very restrictive, but it might prevent the first time rider from killing themselves on their new 1500cc crotch rocket.

 

The biggest displacement sportbike is 1400cc, and I see VERY few of those on the road. Most of what I see is 600's and 1,000's...and more of the former than the latter. I don't know if that's a good representation of reality nationwide, but that's what I see here.

[BabyCow]

Australia wide compulsory helmet laws since the early sixties. No banning of motorcyles yet. Compulsory seat belt laws since the early seventies. Compulsory bicycle helmet laws since the early 90's.

[TyTass]

Australia wide compulsory helmet laws since the early sixties. No banning of motorcyles yet. Compulsory seat belt laws since the early seventies. Compulsory bicycle helmet laws since the early 90's.

What were the fatality rates before the helmet laws went into effect? What was the delta the two years afterwards (to limit the influences of other technology imporvements like hp)? Those would be useful data for this discussion. (I tried looking that up on Google, nothing definative. Can anyone find that or other comparative data?)

[BabyCow]

Try google.com.au and compulsory motorcycle helmet laws. There is some unfavourable comment at http://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/cabart.htm and favourable comment at http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19631 which states that the World Health Organization (WHO) is intensifying efforts to support governments, particularly those in low-income and middle-income countries, to increase helmet use through a new publication, Helmets: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners.

 

The manual is a follow-up to the World report on road traffic injury prevention, published in 2004 by WHO and the World Bank, which provided evidence that establishing and enforcing mandatory helmet use is an effective intervention for reducing injuries and fatalities among two-wheeler users.

I'm pro helmet (have no choice ) so I give u a bit of the excerpt from the pro site . To be honest I feel (really) uncomfortable without a seat belt in a car and slightly less without a helmet on a motorcycle. I have ridden in Florida sans helmet and found it amusing that helmet wear was non compulsory but glasses to protect the eyes were (or so I was told)

[TyTass]

Thanks for the links. My search query must not have been definative enough. Since I'm up awaitind some pain med to take over, I might as well read that.

[Ken H.]

What about when the Feds decide that motorcycles are too dangerous and take them away from us? Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

The slippery slope, sky is falling, argument. Sigh...

 

The US is not going to ban motorcycles next week/month/year, just because a helmet law passes this week/month/year. Not everything leads to an extremist inevitable ending.

 

If anything, a ban on motorcycles would be less likely because the perception (valid or not) of them in the general non-riding public/legislators would be that they are now safer with everyone wearing a helmet.

 

Noise will get motorcycles baned far sooner than helmet laws will.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The editor claimed that even though motorcycles account for 1% of all vehicles in the US, deaths from motorcycle accidents account for 10% of all fatalities. Didn't quote source.

 

Don't know about the "1% of vehicles," but the "10% of fatalities" is not far off; actually a hair under 8%.

 

The relative mileage (i.e. risk exposure) paints a more alarming picture, since the average car is driven a lot farther per year than the average motorcycle.

[Bob Palin]

found it amusing that helmet wear was non compulsory but glasses to protect the eyes were (or so I was told)

What's amusing about that - wearing eye protection is the part that makes legal sense, if you get something in your eye you might well have an impact on other road users.

[Bob Palin]

The slippery slope, sky is falling, argument. Sigh...

Forgetting the principle of the thing again, sigh...

[bakerzdosen]

found it amusing that helmet wear was non compulsory but glasses to protect the eyes were (or so I was told)

What's amusing about that - wearing eye protection is the part that makes legal sense, if you get something in your eye you might well have an impact on other road users.

So, it it OK to call people who refuse to wear eye protection names?

 

(FWIW, I'd never thought about that. I agree with you on that one Bob. It does make legal sense.)

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What about when the Feds decide that motorcycles are too dangerous and take them away from us? Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

The slippery slope, sky is falling, argument. Sigh...

 

The US is not going to ban motorcycles next week/month/year, just because a helmet law passes this week/month/year. Not everything leads to an extremist inevitable ending.

 

Why wouldn't it? Motorcycling is a dangerous hobby; even with mandatory helmet use, motorcycling injuries and fatalities place huge financial burdens on the non-riding public. Why would you expect lawmakers to stop at simply requiring helmets?

[Ken H.]

What about when the Feds decide that motorcycles are too dangerous and take them away from us? Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

The slippery slope, sky is falling, argument. Sigh...

 

The US is not going to ban motorcycles next week/month/year, just because a helmet law passes this week/month/year. Not everything leads to an extremist inevitable ending.

 

Why wouldn't it? Motorcycling is a dangerous hobby; even with mandatory helmet use, motorcycling injuries and fatalities place huge financial burdens on the non-riding public. Why would you expect lawmakers to stop at simply requiring helmets?

Well I guess I haven't totally loss faith in this society's ability to self-correct before reaching the point of absurdity. Although granted, based on some other subjects of late, that faith is becoming more of a leap of faith.

 

But on this subject at hand, "Would or would not the USA ever ban motorcycles?", is not my point. My point is that I don't think mandatory helmet laws moves us close to that inevitable conclusion. I think it is alarmist on the part of people who oppose helmet laws to say, 'Today they make us were helmets, tomorrow they'll take away our bikes.' It's a scare tactic to divert attention from the real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one. An attempt to create unfounded panic about the subject to garner support to their side.

 

I personally just don't buy the argument that helmet laws are the beginning of the end of motorcycling in the USA. But that's just my opinion of course.

[russell_bynum]

Well I guess I haven't totally loss faith in this society's ability to self-correct before reaching the point of absurdity.

 

 

Have fun with that.

 

It's a scare tactic to divert attention from the real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one.

 

What do you percieve as "The real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one."?

[Bob Palin]

It's a scare tactic to divert attention from the real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one.

 

What do you percieve as "The real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one."?

Yes, and how do you apply that to people like me, and there seem to be quite a few here, who always wear one but absolutely oppose a law?

[Ken H.]

It's a scare tactic to divert attention from the real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one.

 

What do you percieve as "The real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one."?

Yes, and how do you apply that to people like me, and there seem to be quite a few here, who always wear one but absolutely oppose a law?

Well you two are better positioned to answer that question than my putting words in your mouth, right?

 

By now I'm just repeating some of what I've already said in this thread, and I grow weary of it, but some of the reasons I perceive people (not necessary just you) opposing mandatory helmet laws include;

 

They don't know, or don't believe wearing a helmet actually improves their safety.

 

They believe whether or not they choose to increase or decrease their chance of injury or death or is theirs and theirs alone.

 

They don't buy into the argument that their increased risk of injury or death has an expense/loss to society above and beyond their personal expense/loss. Or if they believe it, they narcissistically just don't care.

 

They know the risk of injury or death is higher, but that's part of the attraction. They intentionally do things, like not wearing a helmet, to increase the risk of riding, and don't believe anyone should take that 'risk rush' away from them.

 

They believe in the slippery slope argument. Today my bare head, tomorrow my motorcycle.

 

 

 

But then that's just my perception of the core reasons.

[John Ranalletta]

It's a scare tactic to divert attention from the real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one.

 

What do you percieve as "The real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one."?

Yes, and how do you apply that to people like me, and there seem to be quite a few here, who always wear one but absolutely oppose a law?

Great question! There travel amongst the general population a group of people who instinctively rebel against being told what to do, even when they would do that very thing if left to their own devices.

 

Whether wearing a helmet is a wise choice or not is not the issue; rather, it's the ability to exercise that choice and not be coerced into doing so by someone else who "thinks it a good idea".

 

The helmet issue is another straw horse for the traditionalists, the conformers, the social and political "nannies" to rob others of choices over how we live our lives. "Cost to society" is their pretentious battle cry. They're just "looking out for our own good".

 

Well, some of us define our greatest "good" as the freedom from their tyranny.

[Whip]

It's a scare tactic to divert attention from the real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one.

 

What do you percieve as "The real reason they don't want to be forced to wear one."?

Yes, and how do you apply that to people like me, and there seem to be quite a few here, who always wear one but absolutely oppose a law?

Great question! There travel amongst the general population a group of people who instinctively rebel against being told what to do, even when they would do that very thing if left to their own devices.

 

Whether wearing a helmet is a wise choice or not is not the issue; rather, it's the ability to exercise that choice and not be coerced into doing so by someone else who "thinks it a good idea".

 

The helmet issue is another straw horse for the traditionalists, the conformers, the social and political "nannies" to rob others of choices over how we live our lives. "Cost to society" is their pretentious battle cry. They're just "looking out for our own good".

 

Well, some of us define our greatest "good" as the freedom from their tyranny.

 

 

Hey John

 

Will you run for president????

 

 

Please!!!!!!

 

 

Hey Ken

 

How about it feels good......so I do it when I feel like it.

 

 

Whip

[russell_bynum]

Great question! There travel amongst the general population a group of people who instinctively rebel against being told what to do, even when they would do that very thing if left to their own devices.

 

Whether wearing a helmet is a wise choice or not is not the issue; rather, it's the ability to exercise that choice and not be coerced into doing so by someone else who "thinks it a good idea".

 

The helmet issue is another straw horse for the traditionalists, the conformers, the social and political "nannies" to rob others of choices over how we live our lives. "Cost to society" is their pretentious battle cry. They're just "looking out for our own good".

 

Well, some of us define our greatest "good" as the freedom from their tyranny.

 

Exactly.

[John Ranalletta]

Will you run for president????

Think I could carry Texas? Probably wouldn't quality 'cause I think I once made an "off the books" payment to an illegal alien to rake the gravel in my driveway. Didn't have a 1099 on me at the time to cover the $15.

[HexHead]

What about when the Feds decide that motorcycles are too dangerous and take them away from us? Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

The slippery slope, sky is falling, argument. Sigh...

 

The US is not going to ban motorcycles next week/month/year, just because a helmet law passes this week/month/year. Not everything leads to an extremist inevitable ending.

 

Why wouldn't it? Motorcycling is a dangerous hobby; even with mandatory helmet use, motorcycling injuries and fatalities place huge financial burdens on the non-riding public. Why would you expect lawmakers to stop at simply requiring helmets?

 

That's like saying that because they require cars to have seatbelts that they are going to ban cars next.

[David]

That's silly.

 

We're talking about the difference between how a majority and minority are handled. That's at the heart of a constitutional government, and the comparison you're making doesn't fit.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Motorcycling is a dangerous hobby; even with mandatory helmet use, motorcycling injuries and fatalities place huge financial burdens on the non-riding public. Why would you expect lawmakers to stop at simply requiring helmets?

 

That's like saying that because they require cars to have seatbelts that they are going to ban cars next.

 

Hardly. Motorcycling is a dangerous pastime practiced by a small minority of Americans, with an extremely small minority who are truly passionate about it. On a per-mile basis, cars have about 1/20th the fatality rate. "Hobby" means it's not exactly critical to the daily livelihood of the nation. It's facing the tyranny of a large non-riding majority, and being defended pretty much exclusively by that tiny, passionate minority.

 

Cars, OTOH - as seen from the perspective of the majority of Americans - are indispensible tools for transporting people and goods between home, work, and other places. They're also relatively safe (compared to bikes).

 

Whatever becomes of motorcycling, the voting majority will not be outlawing cars any time soon.

[Dave McReynolds]

Things do tend to get outlawed when the majority gets stirred up. Think of guns, booze, prostitution, dog and cock fighting, mountain lion hunting in CA, marijuana, opium, polygamy, interracial marriages, etc. They have all been totally legal at some times and places, totally illegal at others, and sometimes partially legal but restricted.

 

As far as how this pertains to motorcycles, it wouldn't surprise me at all to have legislation proposed to limit the sales of motorcycles based some kind of maximum allowable performance standard.

[John Ranalletta]

Things do tend to get outlawed when the majority gets stirred up.

Can the end be far away? See article in this months' AMA mag. The nannies are fully engaged again on this issue.

[TyTass]

Things do tend to get outlawed when the majority gets stirred up.

Can the end be far away? See article in this months' AMA mag. The nannies are fully engaged again on this issue.

John,

 

Thanks. You're right in that this does pertain to this discussion of the relative danger of motorcyle riding. Funny how the statistcs once again do not pan out to prove helmet use anywhere near the core issue for motorcycle safety. Doesn't mean it isn't - just means no one collects and collates that data in a meaningful way. On the other hand, speed, alcohol, and rider inability/ignorance are clearly stated as the most significant causes of not only fatalities but general collision claims.

 

However, I don't really view this article as the nannies getting stirred up. This is the insurance industry doing what they should - analyzing the claim and NHTSA data and feeding the actuarial tables. I have no issue with insurance companies collecting and reporting this type of data (provided it's accurate). It's what they should be doing as long as it translates to higher premiums for those in high risk groups and not spread around to other consumers. Now this doesn't mean I don 't have a bazillion issues with the business practices of insurance companies - one of the most lucrative ventures in the world with several corporations in the top 20 in reported revenues (oh yeah, they're hurtin' alright, poor them). But I think we can refrain from that discussion as long as insurance company business practices are not argued here as concretes and provide justification for creating additional laws (helmet or otherwise) that reduce freedoms for the public rather than mandating changes for "unfair and unethical" business practices in the insurance industry.

 

Overall, I agree with you in this discussion. And I too can see people missing the clear message in data such as this and getting themselves a whipped up to the point of legislating not just helmets use, but all manner of motorcycle use.

[beemerman2k]

Great question! There travel amongst the general population a group of people who instinctively rebel against being told what to do, even when they would do that very thing if left to their own devices.

 

Whether wearing a helmet is a wise choice or not is not the issue; rather, it's the ability to exercise that choice and not be coerced into doing so by someone else who "thinks it a good idea".

 

The helmet issue is another straw horse for the traditionalists, the conformers, the social and political "nannies" to rob others of choices over how we live our lives. "Cost to society" is their pretentious battle cry. They're just "looking out for our own good".

 

Well, some of us define our greatest "good" as the freedom from their tyranny.

 

 

This is an excellent post. Sums up my feelings exactly.

[John Ranalletta]

Great question!

 

Well, some of us define our greatest "good" as the freedom from their tyranny.

This is an excellent post. Sums up my feelings exactly.

This situation might be analogous to what some of us experienced with our parents. We loved 'em dearly and we know they loved us, but just couldn't tolerate the regimens & restrictions they attempted to layer upon us. If I had a dime for every time my folks started a conversation with "you should", "if I were you", "we never", I'd be rich. Every time I heard it, to myself (and sometimes aloud) I'd say, "...but, I'm not you."

 

With one grandchild a reality and another in the oven, I wrote a father's day letter to my boys, trying to speak to this issue:

I guess the most important thing I’d pass along is, don’t sweat the small stuff. The big stuff is health and happiness, and maybe not in that order.

 

and

 

It’s possible and likely they’ll be different from you, that they will need different things than you. As they grow, meeting their needs, not yours, will be more important to building their self confidence. Pass along your experiences, your knowledge and your heritage, but not your fears.

[Bud]

Things do tend to get outlawed when the majority gets stirred up.

Can the end be far away? See article in this months' AMA mag. The nannies are fully engaged again on this issue.

 

I found the table in the report very interesting. Cruiser bikes had the lowest fatalities. My guess that there are more HD bikes represented in the cruiser classification than any other brand. At least they sure sell a heck of a lot of them each year, over 325,000 last year, and more than any other brand of cruiser.

 

That would seem to be contrary to the stereotype of HD riders as unskilled, inexperienced, drunken slobs that ride from tavern to tavern drinking their way to a winning poker hand. (Not exactly accurate, as most stereotypes are prone to be.)

 

So, why do you think their numbers are the lowest?

[TyTass]

I found the table in the report very interesting. Cruiser bikes had the lowest fatalities.

 

That would seem to be contrary to the stereotype of HD riders as unskilled, inexperienced, drunken slobs that ride from tavern to tavern drinking their way to a winning poker hand. (Not exactly accurate, as most stereotypes are prone to be.)

 

So, why do you think their numbers are the lowest?

Bud, I point out the following:

 

Alcohol impairment was an even bigger factor in the fatal crashes of cruisers and standard bikes and touring motorcycles, particularly among riders 30-49 years old. Thirty-three percent of cruiser and standard riders and 26 percent of touring motorcycle riders had blood alcohol concentrations above the legal threshold for impairment.

As you point out, HD surely makes up the majority of bike sold in the us in these categories. So, while I agree the data does disprove the stereotype inaccurate on the "unskilled" and "inexperienced" aspects, I don't think it supports entirely getting rid of the (in your words) "drunken slobs that ride from tavern to tavern drinking their way to a winning poker hand" aspect.

 

I suspect our distribution as sport touring types crosses several of the categories. It would have been really interesting had they broken out the data better - brand-by-brand, model-by-model - as they had for the Ninja.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...Cruiser bikes had the lowest fatalities. My guess that there are more HD bikes represented in the cruiser classification than any other brand. At least they sure sell a heck of a lot of them each year, over 325,000 last year, and more than any other brand of cruiser.

 

...So, why do you think their numbers are the lowest?

 

<Speculation>

Cruiser bikes appeal to middle-aged and older men, who are not seeking an adrenaline high and who are more likely than average to have the maturity and judgment to not do highly risky things (like 120MPH down a city street). Not only will their bikes not do zero to sixty in three seconds, these are the riders who aren't even particularly interested in that kind of edge-of-the-envelope performance.

 

OTOH, high-power sportbikes are largely desired by young, thrill-seeking men who tend not to have yet developed a high level of maturity and judgment. It's a bad combination that entails (as you are seeing in the stats) a high risk of disaster.

</Speculation>

[John Ranalletta]

Here's a link to the AMA article.

[beemerman2k]

JohnR, you are clearly interested in raising independently thinking, responsible adults as opposed to grown ups with some sort of umbilical cord attached to their parents.

 

In my own narrow view of things, people who promote "laws" designed to control others aren't interested or do not see this nation as being composed of adults, instead they see us as a country of children who need a parent to save them from themselves. In such a world view, the government is the parent and the populace are the children.

 

Again, in my narrow opinion, that kind of viewpoint leads to the very kind of paternalistic spirit that is being rebelled against by some of us in this thread.

 

To me, the relationship between two adults in this country -- be it an individual or an organization (government) is not one of "parent-child", where it is the role of one to regulate the other, but of "adult-adult", where mutual respect is the order of the day. So let us humbly regulate our own lives and respect the freedom, maturity, and independence of others to pursue their own lives, liberties, and the pursuit of their own happiness

[John Ranalletta]

Wouldn't a reasonable first step be to limit bike horsepower/pound of vehicle weight? Given the average car weighs 4,000 lbs with about 200hp, Why would a bike need more than 5hp/100 vehicle weight? The 1200RT weighs in at 451 lbs dry giving a hp limit of (.5 x 451) or 23hp. That should move it along a the speed limit.

 

Let the mfgs make all the sport bikes they want, but simply limit horsepower and make it a federal violation to modify the engines.

 

Oh, likely none of our current bikes would qualify, but if we really wanted to be safe and consistent with enforcing helmets to protect people from their own decisions.....

 

I could see a huge market in used bikes.

[Ken H.]

JohnR, you are clearly interested in raising independently thinking, responsible adults as opposed to grown ups with some sort of umbilical cord attached to their parents.

 

In my own narrow view of things, people who promote "laws" designed to control others aren't interested or do not see this nation as being composed of adults, instead they see us as a country of children who need a parent to save them from themselves. In such a world view, the government is the parent and the populace are the children.

 

Again, in my narrow opinion, that kind of viewpoint leads to the very kind of paternalistic spirit that is being rebelled against by some of us in this thread.

 

To me, the relationship between two adults in this country -- be it an individual or an organization (government) is not one of "parent-child", where it is the role of one to regulate the other, but of "adult-adult", where mutual respect is the order of the day. So let us humbly regulate our own lives and respect the freedom, maturity, and independence of others to pursue their own lives, liberties, and the pursuit of their own happiness

OK, but how are you defining "adults" and "children"? Strictly by chronological age or level of maturity, responsibility, and similar attributes?

 

I know a lot of children over 21-years old.

[russell_bynum]

I know a lot of children over 21-years old.

 

Oh yeah...Well...you're a big doodoo head.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

I know a lot of children over 21-years old.

 

What I am about to say considers Russell Bynum to be the exception rather than the rule

 

From a legal point of view (and this is a discussion about helmet laws) I would disagree; you don't know any Americans who are over 21 yet are still children. To your own way of thinking, they may make childish decisions, but they are not children. If they can vote, go to war, drive a vehicle, pay taxes, and go to prison, they are not children. They are adults and are expected to behave as such -- at lease when it comes to their interactions with society. Should they prove to be irresponsible in that regard, they will pay the penalties any adult would face; the judge isn't going to slap their writs and send them to bed without dinner (except for maybe Paris Hilton!).

 

It is not for me or you or the government to decide what adults should be treated like children. Furthermore, we cannot do so anyhow without grossly restricting all adults in general!

 

Because some are too immature to ride without a helmet, NO ONE will be allowed to ride without a helmet!.

 

Because some will abuse their rights, ALL must be regulated in the use of said rights. That, my friend, is tyranny!

 

And it's not a very mature way to address the problem in my view.

[John Ranalletta]

OK, but how are you defining "adults" and "children"? Strictly by chronological age or level of maturity, responsibility, and similar attributes?

 

I know a lot of children over 21-years old.

Ken, it doesn't matter. They don't need a nanny or someone who doesn't have anything better to do than "look after" the interests of people they don't even know.

[TyTass]

I could see a huge market in used bikes.

Though I love the sarcasm, I think you missed how it would pan out given your scenario. There would be no used bike market. How would one legally sell a bike that's been decreed unsafe and made illegal ride down the road? Your $17K bike would be worth nothing.

[Bud]

This in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch.

 

San Juan, Puerto Rico

 

New motorcycle safety law is very strict.

 

Tropical Puerto Rico will require motorcycle drivers to wear protective jackets, gloves, long pants and boots as part of a strict safety law signed by the governor of the U.S. commonwealth on Wednesday.

 

Augmenting an existing helmet law, the new law also sharply lowers the maximum allowable blood-alcohol level to 0.02 percent from 0.08 percent for motorcycle and scooter enthusiasts, below levels tolerated for automobile drivers.

[russell_bynum]

This in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch.

 

San Juan, Puerto Rico

 

New motorcycle safety law is very strict.

 

Tropical Puerto Rico will require motorcycle drivers to wear protective jackets, gloves, long pants and boots as part of a strict safety law signed by the governor of the U.S. commonwealth on Wednesday.

 

Augmenting an existing helmet law, the new law also sharply lowers the maximum allowable blood-alcohol level to 0.02 percent from 0.08 percent for motorcycle and scooter enthusiasts, below levels tolerated for automobile drivers.

 

Already a thread about the Puerto Rico law here

[beemerman2k]

This in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch.

 

San Juan, Puerto Rico

 

New motorcycle safety law is very strict.

 

Tropical Puerto Rico will require motorcycle drivers to wear protective jackets, gloves, long pants and boots as part of a strict safety law signed by the governor of the U.S. commonwealth on Wednesday.

 

Augmenting an existing helmet law, the new law also sharply lowers the maximum allowable blood-alcohol level to 0.02 percent from 0.08 percent for motorcycle and scooter enthusiasts, below levels tolerated for automobile drivers.

 

 

Awww, Mom...

 

(BTW: The "Mom" phrase is in reference to the government)

[harleyjohn45]

it just keeps getting better. lets see 51 % wear a helmet. now when this new helmet law is forced thru and the next years statistics shows the death rate did not drop significantly, then they will introduce draconian measures.

you see most of the people who die while riding without a helmet would have died anyway. i understand there are exceptions, but not enough to alter the statistics.

 

lets be careful, you may just get what you wish for.

[velomoto]

you see most of the people who die while riding without a helmet would have died anyway. i understand there are exceptions, but not enough to alter the statistics.

I think the bigger picture also includes the people who survive accidents but have closed head injuries. These are real, the brain doesn't "just heal" like a bone nor can closed head injuries be fixed with simple surgery. Unfortunately closed head injuries are something one frequently gets to live with the rest of their life. Does this affect more than just the person who has the injury? Yes. Do helmets help protect against this injury? Yes. Will America become a communist state if we pass helmet laws? No. Do I really care if we have a national helmet law? No - I think we'll all do just fine either way.

[MAT2CHI]

I started riding in 1962 and wore a crash helmet when I rode my dirt bikes. In 1972 I started riding street bikes and never wore a helmet on the street until the helmet law took effect in California in 1991 or 1992. I hated riding with a helmet on the street, but after fifteen years the law makes sense to me now. My only son was born six years ago and I would never ride without a helmet now, even if it was legal. As much as helmet laws suck, I believe they do save lives. But we all are our own executioners so to speak.