Discussion in 'General VFR Discussions' started by badvfr, Nov 10, 2012.
my answer is short. ill always wear one, but i would never want the govt to say its required.
Whether the goverment says do it or not, wearing a helmet is just common sense, as is wearing gear. Required I think is not so much because of safety concerns as for preventing astronomical medical costs for insurance companies due to major head trauma.
Anything that helps cull Harley owners from the gene pool is a good thing, IMO.
I think it should be mandatory. All associated costs pertaiing to the investigation from beginning to end, beit police, insurance or what ever goes up dramatically soon as there is an injury involved vs just vehicle damage. If that accident becomes a fatal, the number of agencies and their associate costs,(which you pay for in taxes and increased premiums) goes up probably 4 or 5 fold. There is no such thing as no victims. Everyone suffers one way or the other.
Other than for the above mentioned reasons, quite frankly, if I don't know you or your family, I don't really give a rat's ass if your brain juice is running all over the roadway and being licked up by stray dogs. Believe it or not, I have seen that. But not from a biker. A pedestrian. Unfortunately in this particular case, the pedestrian was my friends 14 year old daughter. I had to investigate. I had to do the N.O.K. Impaired driving is another topic another time. I guess, even though I was being paid to attend these, I was one of many victims of that one. As was my wife who went to the morgue and did the identification.
I always ride 65 but I hate that the government says I must. Kind of like eating salmonella tainted foods, I never do it but I think it's just wrong that the nanny state government dictates we can't have salmonella in our foods.
Social Darwinism is alive and well in Detroit.
Think of all the happy ABATE dudes who are celebrating.
Think of all the PI lawyers who are expanding thier biz.
Think of all the jobs for EMT's that are going to be created
Think about all the harleydoods...Naa I take that back.. Too painful this early in the morning.
What might be fun is to see if footwear is mandatory whilst riding.
+1:thumb: They continue to pass more laws that aren't enforced, like the NH sound ordanance, what a joke, the harley Fergusons are louder now than ever. NH has never had a helmet law in my riding days, except for under 18, and I have never rode without one.
My taxes and insurance nor health costs have not risen in the time this law has been repealed. I understand the concept, and that ideal is the reason they justified the lawn in the first place. but in actual practice, i dont see how this would effect costs. It has been an entire season and i have not seen any change.
ya know, thats kinda the weird thing. when this law changed, i expected all of the squids to be going around without a helmet. I only saw one or two sport bikes with no helmets, it was all of the cruiser guys going around in high traffic areas hoping nobody cut them off. it was unexpected to me.
i did talk with one guy that said he would in traffic, but on back roads he wouldent wear one. to me this is just as dumb, i have went down on back roads because i hit gravel and my tire spun out from under me. hard to avoid gravel on back roads.
how do you feel about eye protection being required? i do agree with this one as when i get above 35 my eyes start water bad enough its hard to see, at that point if i cannot see im risking a colllision with someone else inwhich i feel i woudl be responsible and i think this law will protect other drivers from teh riders actions.
i dont know if the eye protection law has changed or not. hope not.
It is far from clear that such laws reduce aggregate health care costs. With very few exceptions, everyone dies exactly once, and people generally incur increased heath care costs as they approach their demise, whatever its cause. Dying earlier does not necessarily mean dying cheaper. Are brain injuries from hitting the pavement bareheaded costlier to treat than years of Alzheimer's? Than decades of heart medication, angioplasties, pacemakers, and bypass operations? On the other hand, people who go from 100% healthy to 100% dead instantly have, as a group, the lowest health care costs of all, and behaviors that increase the odds of this almost certainly reduce, rather than raise, the "costs to society" on which these arguments hinge.
For the individual, there are other reasons to wear a helmet, and I never ride without mine. But "cost to the collective" statistics only care about keeping you alive so long as your cash flow is positive. In dollars and cents to "society" it's optimal for me to kick the bucket the day my insurance claims, Social Security, Medicare, etc., costs exceed what I pay in taxes or policy premiums, as they will eventually do for most of us.
I would also encourage motorcyclists to think long and hard before jumping on the bandwagon of prohibiting behavior others enjoy just because "most people" think it's "too dangerous".
However, im wondering if there is any data of non helmet wearing fools...ehem..motorcylists causing injury to others by way of not wearing a helmet.
Example smacked in the head by a rock or grasshopper for that matter and hitting or hurting another.
I am not in favor of the gov passing laws to protect people from themselves. I am in favor of laws that prevent one fool from harming an innocent.
I agree with many here. I HATE creation of helmet laws but ride with ATGATT.
I broke a helmet while riding dirt bikes as a kid. I am a devoted fan of full face helmets now. Full face because I am concerned about just how ugly my face could get if drug over asphalt. Meanwhile, I agree that government should regulate less. Natural selection will prevail.
My question is more about the hypocrisy of laws. Michigan requires seat belts, but not helmets? States that do that confuse me. I know there is federal money tied to the seat belt laws. Still, it seems someone would note the disparity.
Possibly...but what IS absolutely, unarguably clear is that compulsory helmet use saves lives. Now, personally, I don't care if a bunch of Harleydoods off themselves because they think a do-rag is sufficient protection but if my taxes pay for their brain damaged existence should they survive then I believe I have a right to insist that a helmet be worn.
Anything that helps cull Harley owners from the gene pool is a good thing, IMO.
quote wrap didnt work! couldnt have sed it betta! funny shit and heated topic as well. I wont pile on and will refrain from the BS argument aboot health care costs :flip: am in Ft. Meyers FL right now, and I gota say that the HD doodes do rule. No-body is wearing a brain bucket except maybe 3% of the cruisers. Dont really see that many sport bikes or metric cruisers either. When you do see them, some arent wearing a skid-lid. I wear one when I go around the block. Thats just me, like the wife sed, "its and intelligence test." Anywho, its like when I see someone with cigarretes, "smoke em if you got em." you wana crack your melon open, go for it. Darwinian fer sure. :koolaid:
I hate how the socialist nanny state government and race track owners make me wear all my gear before I get out on the track. I mean I have a God given constitutional right to wear my skull cap and jock strap only out on the track if thats all I want to wear.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, what irks me in these threads is they are completely fucking illogical. The so called socialist nanny state tells you and me to do shit everyday that really has no logic. But the requirement to wear a helmet is somehow a big deal? The fact eye protection was brought up as a possible requirement due to responsibility to others shows this. So your going down the road and can't see shit because your are not wearing eye protection and crash into a family and kill people so "hey, we should have a eye protection law" But when you get smacked in the head by a robin at 60 mph, not wearing a helmet, this is somehow different? This actually happened to a friend of mine who thank God was wearing a helmet and it rang his bell something awful. Without a helmet who knows what would have happened.
Motorcycling is inherently dangerous and the injuries when people crash on the street are horrific. The only thing that separates you from the road is your gear.
I don't care if the government say yes or no to helmets as I always wear mine. But to somehow think its some great infringement on freedom is again fucking illogical in the extreme. Much like blaming President Obama for all of our current ills as a nation. Got news for ya, these problems have been manifesting themselves for years and sorry to break it to you folks, but Obama is just another in a long line of Presidents who haven't handled the situation well. The blame list is a bit longer.
Ok, BZ is off his soapbox.
We have a winner! Thank you for picking a easy one regarding the socialist nanny state and what they tell us to do.
By the way, any of you really study what the seatbelt laws were created?
As a complete side note, you know why the insurance companies don't usually fight to repeal the absence of helmet laws (this varies by State and the laws within that govern insure complies and policies)?
Since going down on the road 50% at intersections, the other 40% in curves, none helmet wearers usually die which makes the total insurance payout cheaper! Unlike when you are a veggie in the hospital and you have to have your family decide to yank the plug after 10 years on life support because the real socialist nanny state has intervened overriding your decision or families decision to yank the plug. Even though your living will clearly makes such request.
Thats the fucking socialist many state boys and girls.
An insurance lobbyist informed me why they don't usually fight the helmet laws being repealed.
that is a good point. perhaps it would be good to have a law stating helmets are required above certain speeds where such an event coudl be fatal to other people would be in order. as iv said before, i am only for laws that effect other people. although, it will be some time before this law will be able to be changed again.
I think the point that some are trying to make is that it doesn't actually cost you money. Your taxes do not pay for the care. at least in michigan vehicle insurance is required which includes health coverage for an accident. and as bz said, you are more likely to survive as a veggie with a helmet and more likely to die instantly without one.
or rather as it would be in the more average bad accident, break a few limbs with a helmet, die without one.
confuses me why people chose to go in traffic without one.
Separate names with a comma.