Helmet law protest

[Travis398]

   

A guy in New York goes for a helmet law protest ride....................crashes his bike and hits his head, He would have lived if he had a helmet on.   

       http://www.wfaa.com/news/Helmetless-motorcyclist-dies-during-NY-helmet-protest-124939199.html

[fj1200d]

I have always and will continue to wear a full faced helmet. Without a doubt, I would not be sitting here today chatting on the FJ form if I was not wearing that helmet.

[andyb]

I nearly always wear a helmet.  That's not the issue, it's having the right to decide not to.  Sometimes I'll go without, if I'm listening for something specific or working on something.  We don't need more stupid laws for stuff that doesn't really alter other people's lives. 

[Mark Olson]

Wow crazy story,

I used to ride with no helmet here in California back in the day , then I grew up and found I could ride faster with a helmet on.

maybe it should be a speed thing or cc's.   If you ride at the posted of 35mph or more you must have a helmet on, or if you ride a 250cc or larger.

Nobody likes being told what to do and there are times I miss the open air and cruisin with no helmet but I have been known to do other stupid shit too.

thin out the herd and let nature take its course.

[Pat Conlon]

I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.

If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.

My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.

Vote for me in 2012  

[FJmonkey]

I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.

If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.

My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.

Vote for me in 2012  

Pat, I know you wear your gear all the time, I will vote for you....

[Mike 86 in San Dimas]

If it were not for the law, there times I would take short runs to a friends home near by or to the corner store without it. But I think the law is good thing. Going to Idaho next week. It's almost shocking to see the riders without helmets. Goes to show, without the law many riders will not wear them. The silly little helmets I see most cruisers wear seem useless.
Mike

[pdxfj]

Well.. he's eligible for a Darwin award.  Survival of the fittest (and smartest).

I could care less if someone wants to not wear a helmet.  I for one will never wear nothing less than a full face.  

Good idea Pat.  

[andyb]

I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.

If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.

My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.

If they have a group policy, then having big insurance just means that they're still costing the rest of us money.  The organ donor thing, I'm sorry, is retarded (but then, I don't like the concept in the first place, so I'm biased).  And doubly so if they've got a religious reason for it.  Some of the religious things are stupid, but the idea of religious freedom (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is kinda why we're here.

You're putting a band-aid on the symptoms and not fixing the problems, I think.  Make healthcare affordable so that people can pay their own bills (and remove the insurance completely, except perhaps for major sortsa things), and it'd be much less of an issue.  Or better still, if you're found at the roadside, bleeding, etc, and not wearing proper gear, why can't the EMT's just leave you there?  Either way you're cutting massive costs out of the system.

But then, it's right up there with things  that are illegal (in places) that don't directly alter anyone's life but their own.  Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, gay marriage laws, all fit in this category.

[Pat Conlon]

Andy, this is a great discussion for today.
Misinformed folks seem to think that riding a motorcycle (or driving a car) is some sort of constitutionally guaraenteed freedom. Of course it is not.
It is a privilege granted by society. If your religous beliefs (against organ donation) prevent you from participating in that privilege, so be it.
Futhermore, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a privilege, if you can not afford the insurance, buy and wear a helmet. Peroid. Simple, easy peesey.

I'm all for freedom of choice.
That does not necessarily mean that your choice is free. If you can afford it, go for it. If you can't afford it, get a fuckin job.

[andyb]

No, I absolutely agree.

However, saying that you should have to afford insurance is putting the cart before the horse.  If you're going to be an idealist on it, why not instead remove the insurance crap, lower the prices for everyone, and go from there?  The problem (imo) is that if you can't afford your care (at the ER, specifically), they cannot skip out on giving you care.  Periodically it happens that a place will refuse care for financial reasons (they're a known deadbeat, for example) and get into massive trouble when the person dies or it turns out they had money but no ID, etc.  Remove the non-payers from the system and the distributed costs for the rest of us are suddenly quite reasonable.

I don't have a religous belief against organ donation, though my ICE card lists me as religous so that my personal beliefs will be met (no blood for me, etc).  That doesn't limit anyone else's personal freedoms, so why have a law saying it?  I think it's a privilege to have someone donate their organs to you, rather than a right.  

I'm all for wearing a helmet (and jacket, and earplugs, and gloves, etc), and generally do.  But I'm also unhappy when I'm forced to do so.  Freedom of choice being the ideal there.  I cannot carry a concealed weapon (welcome to IL, I think the only state now that doesn't have CCPs?), but it's one of the few states where I'm not required to wear a helmet for my own safety.  Running around the block while listening for that stutter coming onto the needles is easier without a lid on.

Like I said though, it's up with gay marriage and other limitations on personal freedom that really don't alter anyone else's way of life.  Common sense should be the law, rather than requiring a law.

Anyhow, it's Independence day.  Nothin to do with freedom, other than that of being free of England's control. 

[Ned]

Using the argument that speed should dictate whether you wear a helmet or not is a just waste of space. You nly need to consider the damage done to your skull if it hits the road or a kerb at just 10mph.
Also arguing that it doesn't impact onother people's lives is a fallacy. The estimated cost of looking after someone with long term head injury problems runs into millions a year. Is it that person's right to inflict that cost on the general public or is it their responsibility to ensure that they don't?
In NZ we have just spent the last two years protesting against huge hikes in compulsory ACC levies which are paid as part of annual road licencing on all vehicles. The cost went from a few hunred to over $700 a year if you ride a bike over 600cc. The fee covers accident claims in all sectors and is also paid by employers for their staff. The government's argument that big bike riders have more accidents and more serious accidents  has been disproved but we're still wearing the extra levy. If, as Pat suggests, there are some restrictions that must be met before riding without a helmet then perhaps your average brain dead motorcyclist who is prepared to turn their own life and those of their families to custard, might reconsider and do the only sane thing - wear one even to ride to the corner store. I know from my recent bird strike what a helmet can do for you.

Ned

[andyb]

Using the argument that speed should dictate whether you wear a helmet or not is a just waste of space. You nly need to consider the damage done to your skull if it hits the road or a kerb at just 10mph.
Also arguing that it doesn't impact onother people's lives is a fallacy. The estimated cost of looking after someone with long term head injury problems runs into millions a year. Is it that person's right to inflict that cost on the general public or is it their responsibility to ensure that they don't?

The first part was tested by some study, yes?  You're only going to fall so far from a sitting position, or at worst a highside.  Sliding into something is where you really get swatted though.

And no, it absolutely doesn't impact anyone else's lives..... but there's a big if here, and that's if you can afford the care yourself.  It's when you run out of money or don't have insurance, etc, and the bill is paid either as a write-off (costing everyone who pays their bills), or from the government (costing everyone who pays their taxes).  The costs associated with major injuries aren't the issue, it's who foots the bill!  But then in the states, we could easily cut 80% off our total healthcare spending by simply executing everyone over a given age, as that's where the vast majority goes.  The easiest answer is to stop treating high-end healthcare like a right, but instead like something that you actually have to purchase.

[SkyFive]

I took my 84 out today for the first long ride since I got it all back together, 103 miles on the engine with a trip to the Ceasar's Head and back. As I was cautiously making my way around the turns, peaks and dips in the road I thought about Pat and his accident. When your actually riding a motorcycle it's alot easier to understand how something like that can happen, sneak up on you, even with a experienced rider (that I'm not). South Carolina has no helmet law and as much as I would like to ride without one it's not worth the risk. I may lose all the skin on my elbows, knees, hands and ass but I won't break my calculator, hopefully.

[RACER111V]

 One of the first things I noticed when I went to interview for my job at R&R cycles was there were no helmets for sale in the showroom.I'm guessing maybe 10% at best of our customers wear helmets.Our MA customers have to wear them to get home.But they stop at the border to put on/take off their helmets.I have seen a few do this without stopping.
I drive by every day, memorials on the side of the road where two of our customers have died.Both were single vehicle accidents.Both were slow speed head/curb impacts with no helmets.

I always wear a helmet,without exception.As a person who cares about people other than just myself I am 100% for a helmet law.I have heard all the "reasons" not to wear one and I don't believe any of them.

While we are at it what about age/experience/cc laws. There is something wrong with a 16 year old kid buying a 100hp/150 mph bike.