# Mandatory Helmet Laws



## jmorrison (Feb 25, 2010)

My other passion outside of fitness and lifting is riding.  Like many others who ride, I tend to be a bit independant, and also have a tendency to want to buck the system.  

Many states (20 to be exact) have mandatory helmet laws.  This means that you must wear a helmet at all times while operating a motorcycle.  The definition of a helmet differs from state to state, but most state that a helmet must fit certain safety parameters, have a strap, and be "approved" by the states governing body.

There are numerous flaws in this system.  I will list a few here:

1. The listed safety parameters are not standardized, so what is legal in one state, county, city or town, may be illegal in the next one over.  The law is subjective and open to interpretation by the investigating officer on what they consider to be a helmet.

2. Neither DOT, SCHNELL or any other helmet manufacturer has EVER been given any sort of government approval.  A DOT approved helmet simply means that the manufacturer of the helmet has inspected the helmet and found it to be inside of their quality standards.  Therefor a DOT approved helmet means nothing more than saying "yes, this helmet is within our QC standards".  

3. Most of the states laws say that a list of approved helmets must be published by the governing authority.  However, these lists are non-existant because of the above paragraph describing the "approval" methods for helmets.  Obviously the government cannot say that manufacturer A's helmet is ok, while Manufacturer B's helmet is not, without having some sort of proof that the helmets fit a government standard WHICH DOES NOT EXIST ANYWAY.  Writing into your states travel office and requesting a list of the approved helmets results in either no reply, or a reply that no such list can be furnished.

4.  Because this list cannot be furnished, who decides what is "approved"?  You? Me? The guy SELLING the helmets? The investigating officer?  Laws are not supposed to be subjective and be viewed by 3 different cops in 3 different ways.

5.  Helmets have NOT been shown to save more lives contrary to propaganda.  States with no helmet laws have not been shown to have more or less deaths at over 15mph than states that do per 100 accidents.


Most of the arguments for helmet laws are invalid and ridiculous.  First off, as stated above, helmets have not been proven to save lives.  Second off, even if they absolutely saved x number of lives per year...so what?!  If you are going to insist on attempting to save the lives of people that want to ride, then why not outlaw bikes altogether?  They are not safe.  Period.  Every single person that rides knows this, accepts the risks, and rides anyway.  This is like insisting that soldiers carry bandaids into combat in case they get shot.

The ONLY somewhat valid argument I have found for helmet laws is the burden of the uninsured.  This is of course assuming that helmets CAN save people, then allowing people to ride without them could create an unneccessary burden on the tax payers should something happen to the rider while uninsured.  This is why I like states like Floridas helmet laws.  If a rider is of a certain age, and carries sufficient insurance, then wearing a helmet becomes a personal choice.  

I am linking a site about the current fight going on in CA, that was started by a man named Quig, who was an interesting fellow to say the least.  If you are bored, google him and you will find some fun stuff.  He single handedly took on an entire states judicial system and fought the good fight for many years, until he passed away from illness.  His friends took up the fight and it continues today.

Bikers Of Lesser Tolerance of Nevada

BOLT of California - Home

Anyway, any thoughts on this?  Please discuss.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 25, 2010)

who am i to say you can't smash your head open on the street..


----------



## pitman (Feb 25, 2010)

The Situation said:


> who am i to say you can't smash your head open on the street..


 so true only takes a squirl to wipe your brains all over the street.. even the occ idiots wear helmets...


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 25, 2010)

it will free up some of that goverment(free) health care for everyone


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 25, 2010)

To require helmet use is not something I believe in.  I wear a helmet when I ride because I feel it is the smart thing to do.  

Think about it.  Motorcycle racers wear helmets everytime they go out.  Sometimes the crash at speeds well over 100mph and occasionally closer to 200mph.  Unless it's a highside they are probably going to get up and walk away from it.  

Regarding a fullface versus an open or 1/2 helmet look at it like this:  If you have an unintended dismount from your motorcycle you have a 1 in 4 chance of doing a face plant.  Which means should you go face first into the road you are going to need reconstructive surgery to fix your mug.  

Wear them if you want, don't if you don't.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 25, 2010)

You forgot the option for:
"No, people should mind their own fucking business."
I have yet to see anything that says I helmet is worth the trouble. I rode motorcycles for most of my life, and I refused to wear a gay ass fucking helmet. The only exception is street bikes, and that is only because you can't see into the wind without protection, and a motor cycle helmet look cooler than a pair of goggles. 

If you aren't going to make people wear full out Kevlar body armor, then shut the fuck up. If you aren't going to make fat fucks diet, shut the fuck up. If you aren't going to ban alcohol, shut the fuck up. If you aren't going to outlaw tobacco, shut the fuck up! 

There are a million ways to die, and there are million times more dangerous shit being done everyday. Picking on bikers is fucking absurd.


----------



## pitman (Feb 25, 2010)

KelJu said:


> You forgot the option for:
> "No, people should mind their own fucking business."
> I have yet to see anything that says I helmet is worth the trouble. I rode motorcycles for most of my life, and I refused to wear a gay ass fucking helmet. The only exception is street bikes, and that is only because you can't see into the wind without protection, and a motor cycle helmet look cooler than a pair of goggles.
> 
> ...


i love kelju's thoughts...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 25, 2010)

I've seen evidence that wearing a helmet does help in the case of a collision.  They save lives in a similar, but less effective, manner as seatbelts.  Riding a motorcycle is stupid to begin with, but if someone wants to lower the survivability even more by not wearing a helmet--more power to them.  It has a chlorinating effect on the gene pool.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Feb 25, 2010)

Pitman wears a helmet and doesn't even own a motorcycle.  

Helmet laws and seatbelt laws are just examples of the nanny fukking govt we have now.  We don't need laws protecting us from our own stupidity IMO.  If you wanna ride without a helmet and smear your fucking brains on the highway or become a hood ornament when you crash, it's your own fucking business.


----------



## pitman (Feb 25, 2010)

im florida a polametto bug will take your eye out !!!!!


----------



## pitman (Feb 25, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Pitman wears a helmet and doesn't even own a motorcycle.
> 
> Helmet laws and seatbelt laws are just examples of the nanny fukking govt we have now. We don't need laws protecting us from our own stupidity IMO. If you wanna ride without a helmet and smear your fucking brains on the highway or become a hood ornament when you crash, it's your own fucking business.


 give me back my huge jockstrap you fuck....


----------



## Kathybird (Feb 25, 2010)

My father rode for years and had a very bad accident in which he almost died.  He hit the car in front of him, sailed off the bike (Ninja 900 that he'd modified on include using airplane fuel) over the two cars in front of him, and was run over by both those cars.  What saved his life?  The ridiculously thick down vest he had on.  He did have on a full face helmet.  Did it play a part in saving his life?  Possibly, it was pretty banged up.

My husband rode for years.  He was in a few minor accidents, one with me on the back.  He is currently in the Coast Guard and can name on the fingers of more than one hand fellow Coasties he knew and worked with who have been killed on bikes.  It got so bad that the Coast Guard now requires members to complete a driving course, wear prescribed safety gear (leathers), a helmet of course, and a reflective vest.

I said yes to mandatory helmet laws, but I want that to include full-body leathers as well.  You have the freedom to risk your life.  Sure, I understand the wind in your hair feeling, I like a nice adrenaline rush myself.  But you don't bungee jump without the right gear, do you?  Or snowboard?  Or skydive?  There is someone out there who will be negatively affected by your death, whether it be the taxpayer for scraping your sorry ass off the pavement or a loved one who didn't have to lose you for your own thrills.  It's selfish.  

And what about the car drivers who don't see bikes?  I'm aware of them because of my family's history with them but they're hard to see at night and some assholes just use crotch rockets as an excuse to weave in and out of traffic inadvertently, generally at 90 mph.  How do you think some mother and her small child are going to feel when mom has to look back for a second because of something the kid's doing and a biker chooses that moment to weave, and then there's blood all over the street?  Like I said, selfish.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 25, 2010)

no joke, I had one of those smack me in the forehead last year in FL and almost took me off my bike.  Those things are scary!

I don't agree (obviously) that riding is "stupid" but I do agree that it is risky.  Being involved in a dangerous hobby is only subjectively stupid.  People that have never rock climbed would probably say that it is stupid, the same can be said of skydiving, bunjee jumping, bicycle riding, distance running, swimming, etc etc ad nauseum.  One of the most facinating aspects of this is that is has been shown that 83% of polled NON RIDERS agree with helmet laws, while the actual riders are split in the middle.  

Would wearing a helmet cut down on the amount of deaths that joggers suffer each year from being hit by cars?  Probably.  Should we now require joggers to wear helmets?  Does this mean that joggers are "stupid"?  

Paternal laws like this are ridiculous.  I think we should immediately outlaw McDonalds.  As heart disease is the #1 killer in America, it is our duty to protect people from themselves.  I mean...comon.

Keju said it the best, I think people should mind their own business.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 25, 2010)

_My father jogged for years and was struck by a car and he almost died.  The car behind him struck him in the pedestrian crossing after running a red light.  What saved his life?  The ridiculously thick down vest he had on.  He did have on a heavy duty wool cap.  Did it play a part in saving his life?  Possibly, it was pretty banged up.

My husband jogged for years.  He was in a few minor accidents, one with me jogging with him.  He is currently in the Coast Guard and can name on the fingers of more than one hand fellow Coasties he knew and worked with who have been killed while jogging.  It got so bad that the Coast Guard now requires members to wear prescribed safety gear (reflective vests), and a helmet.

I said yes to mandatory helmet laws for joggers, but I want that to include full-body leathers as well.  You have the freedom to risk your life.  Sure, I understand the wind in your hair feeling, I like a nice adrenaline rush myself.  But you don't bungee jump without the right gear, do you?  Or snowboard?  Or skydive?  There is someone out there who will be negatively affected by your death, whether it be the taxpayer for scraping your sorry ass off the pavement or a loved one who didn't have to lose you for your own thrills.  It's selfish.  

And what about the car drivers who don't see joggers?  I'm aware of them because of my family's history with them but they're hard to see at night and some assholes just run all over the place without looking where they are going.  How do you think some mother and her small child are going to feel when mom has to look back for a second because of something the kid's doing and a jogger chooses that moment to weave, and then there's blood all over the street?  Like I said, selfish._

I am not mocking you by writing this, and I appreciate you sharing your families story.  I am simply pointing out the flaw in this type of thinking.  you could replace "jogger" with almost any subjectively risky hobby and have the same argument.  Where do you draw the line?  Where do we stop trying to save people, and start giving them personal responsibility.

Just food for thought.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 25, 2010)

KelJu said:


> You forgot the option for:
> "No, people should mind their own fucking business."
> I have yet to see anything that says I helmet is worth the trouble. I rode motorcycles for most of my life, and I refused to wear a gay ass fucking helmet. The only exception is street bikes, and that is only because you can't see into the wind without protection, and a motor cycle helmet look cooler than a pair of goggles.
> 
> ...


 

well said


----------



## pitman (Feb 25, 2010)

The Situation said:


> well said


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 25, 2010)

The Situation said:


> it will free up some of that goverment(free) health care for everyone




In 2000 (the only year I could find info for), approximately 1.55 percent of total U.S. health care costs are attributable to all motor vehicle crashes.  Thats *all*motor hehicle crashes.  I don't think we would be freeing up much 

Also in reference to my earlier posts.  20% of all motorcycle injuries involve head injuries, while almost 90% of injured in car accidents involve head injuries.  Does that mean that people in cars should start wearing helmets?  I mean, it would stand to reason that more lives would be saved.  

No?  Guess why you feel that way.  Because it directly impacts you as a car driver, and you don't want to be regulated in that way.  You are adults, who feel that they can make their own decisions about whether to wear a helmet or not.  Would it be safer to wear one?  Sure, why not, and there certainly shouldn't be any laws AGAINST wearing one.  But it should be voluntary.

Bikers have no problems with helmets, or the people who wear them.  They have a problem with having the choice taken away.


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 26, 2010)

going to ventura from vegas two things were really cool 

1) actually being able to say you rode thru death valley on a bike and qualify to wear one of the little black frying pan pins and 

2) crossing over into california and being able to take our fucking helmets off.


it's born to be wild not born to be a safe little pussy.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

I was only mildly hot for you in sort of a school-boy infatuation kind of way until now.

I full on have a crush on you now.

If my girlfriend and I ever split, interested in a reasonably attractive reasonably wealthy guy that rides?  If not, I will still love you, but only in that sort-of creepy stalkerish kind of way that you get on internet forums.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 26, 2010)

I hate helmets, you can't see for shit....they probably cause more accidents....

Luckily Hawaii has no helmet law....


----------



## MtnBikerChk (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I am not mocking you by writing this, and I appreciate you sharing your families story.  I am simply pointing out the flaw in this type of thinking.  you could replace "jogger" with almost any subjectively risky hobby and have the same argument.  Where do you draw the line?  Where do we stop trying to save people, and start giving them personal responsibility.
> 
> Just food for thought.



You don't jog at highway speeds.  Also, what about the situation where the driver of the car that hits the motorcyclist and the driver is completely at fault?  That has nothing to do with the motorcyclist taking responsibility.

I was hit by a car while riding my bike (bicycle).  It's scary as hell.  Luckily I didn't hit my head but I could have meant the difference between walking away and being a vegetable for the rest of my life.  I'm also for mandatory bicycle helmet laws.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 26, 2010)

Lets repeal the seatbelt laws while were at it.  They're too restrictive anyway.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

IainDaniel said:


> Lets repeal the seatbelt laws while were at it.  They're too restrictive anyway.



True story: some guy decided to be an advocate of getting seatbelt laws repealed.  The problem?  He was in an accident and was ejected from his car, causing his death.

Ah, here's the snopes article on it.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

MtnBikerChk said:


> You don't jog at highway speeds.  Also, what about the situation where the driver of the car that hits the motorcyclist and the driver is completely at fault?  That has nothing to do with the motorcyclist taking responsibility.



And this is why I called riding a motorcycle stupid.  It's not because of the driver or the motorcycle, it's because of the situation.  You can be Evel Knievel, and all it takes is one inattentive driver to ruin your day.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 26, 2010)

say what you want about mortality rates ( some studies do show benefit ) but there is no question that cost of medical care for motorcyclists in accidents without helmets are exorbitantly more than a helmeted rider

Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State.
this is just one such research article


When I was a paramedic in New York I never pulled out a dead person wearing seatbelts, I arrived on scenes all the time where a non seat belted person was thrown through the windshield and impaled on tree limbs or other sharp objects all the time, 
Most of my DOA pronouncements were with non helmetted bikers.  Also, non helmeted motor cyclists comprised the majority of facial reconstruction surgeries when I was doing my month of ENT/plastics rotation. It's amazing how asphalt can rip off your lower jaw and half your face so nicely when you are going 45 mph....


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I was only mildly hot for you in sort of a school-boy infatuation kind of way until now.
> 
> I full on have a crush on you now.
> 
> If my girlfriend and I ever split, interested in a reasonably attractive reasonably wealthy guy that rides?  If not, I will still love you, but only in that sort-of creepy stalkerish kind of way that you get on internet forums.



next time im allowed im going to rep this guy


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I was only mildly hot for you in sort of a school-boy infatuation kind of way until now.
> 
> I full on have a crush on you now.
> 
> If my girlfriend and I ever split, interested in a reasonably attractive reasonably wealthy guy that rides?  If not, I will still love you, but only in that sort-of creepy stalkerish kind of way that you get on internet forums.



lol. the restrictions on a persons right to make choices for themselves is ridiculous. you can't ride a bike without a helmet but feel free to rock climb without a rope, train big cats to jump through hoops of fire, bungee jump, sky dive, hunt bears and swim with sharks.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 26, 2010)

Little Wing said:


> lol. the restrictions on a persons right to make choices for themselves is ridiculous. you can't ride a bike without a helmet but feel free to rock climb without a rope, train big cats to jump through hoops of fire, bungee jump, sky dive, hunt bears and swim with sharks.



is this an appropriate use of that smiley?


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 26, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> is this an appropriate use of that smiley?



if you consider the people who say yea "let's make a helmet law but it's ok to go spelunking or smoke a pack of camels a day" a bunch of jerk offs, then yea.


 spelunking        
 If you ask people who actually go caving, spelunking is the derogatory term for stupid or unprepared cave trips. Origin: "spelunk" is the sound a clumsy caver makes when he slips and falls in a cave and lands in water.


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 26, 2010)

i read 1 that said spelunking was a term used for fishing for a condom that slipped off during intercourse.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

MtnBikerChk said:


> You don't jog at highway speeds.  Also, what about the situation where the driver of the car that hits the motorcyclist and the driver is completely at fault?  That has nothing to do with the motorcyclist taking responsibility.
> 
> I was hit by a car while riding my bike (bicycle).  It's scary as hell.  Luckily I didn't hit my head but I could have meant the difference between walking away and being a vegetable for the rest of my life.  I'm also for mandatory bicycle helmet laws.




Again, you completely missed my point, whether by misreading, or by being deliberately obtuse.  Let me try again.

Replace jogger with mountain climber.  Would mandatory chalk laws save more climbers lives?  Yes probably.  Should it be a law?

Replace mountain climber with fat guy.  Would mandatory calorie restriction at fast food restarunts for the obese save lives?  Probably.  Should we make it a law?

Replace fat guy with surfer.  Would wearing lifejackets save lives?  Probably.  Should that be a law?

Would wearing a helmet in a car save lives in the event of a crash?  Yes, probably.  Should we then make that mandatory too?

Better yet, why even allow these dangerous activities at all?  Why not limit everyones behavoir to a subjective definition of "safe"?  Where is the line drawn?

Paternal laws take away our freedoms.  We should all be allowed to live and die in whatever way we choose as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.  Hell, thats what our country was founded on.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> say what you want about mortality rates ( some studies do show benefit ) but there is no question that cost of medical care for motorcyclists in accidents without helmets are exorbitantly more than a helmeted rider
> 
> Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State.
> this is just one such research article
> ...




I don't doubt that medical costs for unhelmeted riders cost more to fix than helmeted ones.  But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?

Overwhelmingly, the majority of motorcyclist deaths are white, middle aged, divorced men with a median income of 55k.  These are not uninsured riders.  In fact it has been proven time and time again that motorcycle riders are _*no more likely to be uninsured than any other motorist*_and in addition, car insurance rates have been completely unimpacted in states with no helmet laws.  The society burden is NOT a plausible argument.

As far as grinding your face off, sure.  Thats terrible, but true.  Have you ever treated someone who drown?  Do you think that if they were wearing a mandatory life jacket that they may have lived?  I propose immediately that all swimmers must start wearing mandatory life jackets.

Don't you think its ridiculous to target a certain group with a risky behavoir?  And once again it is OVERWHELMINGLY (over 81%) of *non*riders who support helmet laws.  Its much easier to support stripping away freedoms from a group of people when you are not one of those people right?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Again, you completely missed my point, whether by misreading, or by being deliberately obtuse.  Let me try again.
> 
> Replace jogger with mountain climber.  Would mandatory chalk laws save more climbers lives?  Yes probably.  Should it be a law?
> 
> ...



You comparisons don't hold up.  Being a surfer, a climber, or fat does not require a motorized vehicle or take place on public roads (okay, being fat does, but they're encased in 2-ton cars).  No one is telling you to wear a helmet in your home.  Using a vehicle on the road is a privilege and not a right, thus mandating a range of compliances that you must meet; both for the vehicle and for the operator.  This includes safety devices.

Keep in mind that I'm _not_ in favour of helmet laws.  I do think that the insurance costs should be very, very high for motorcycle riders for the reasons that bandaidwoman stated.  Either that, or health insurance companies shouldn't be liable for any damage above the neck if you were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

I have to ask a corollary question: are you against seatbelts?


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I don't doubt that medical costs for unhelmeted riders cost more to fix than helmeted ones.  But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?
> 
> Overwhelmingly, the majority of motorcyclist deaths are white, middle aged, divorced men with a median income of 55k.  These are not uninsured riders.  In fact it has been proven time and time again that motorcycle riders are _*no more likely to be uninsured than any other motorist*_and in addition, car insurance rates have been completely unimpacted in states with no helmet laws.  The society burden is NOT a plausible argument.
> 
> ...




This is basically what I was getting at, also. Once you start going down the slippery slope of safety and health care cost, when does it stop? Eventually a law will be passed against something you enjoy doing, and then it is too late. 

Motor-cycle injuries are such a tiny aspect of health care cost, that it is completely bullshit to go after riders when you allow other dangerous shit that is hundreds of times worse.

I'll tell you why. Pussy ass little bitches that have never been on 2 wheels in their life pass judgment about something they don't know shit about. End of story!

The same fucking cunt that says it should be a law to wear a helmet will drive down airport blvd with four screaming ass kids in the back with a cellphone in her hear on the way to McDonalds. The hippocracy is staggering. I'm not forcing you to stop eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, stop telling me to wear a helmet!


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You comparisons don't hold up.  Being a surfer, a climber, or fat does not require a motorized vehicle or take place on public roads (okay, being fat does, but they're encased in 2-ton cars).  No one is telling you to wear a helmet in your home.  Using a vehicle on the road is a privilege and not a right, thus mandating a range of compliances that you must meet; both for the vehicle and for the operator.  This includes safety devices.
> 
> Keep in mind that I'm _not_ in favour of helmet laws.  I do think that the insurance costs should be very, very high for motorcycle riders for the reasons that bandaidwoman stated.  Either that, or health insurance companies shouldn't be liable for any damage above the neck if you were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
> 
> I have to ask a corollary question: are you against seatbelts?



Car drivers should be charged with attempted murder for injuring a motorcyclist and charged with murder for killing one. 

Being a surfer takes place on public beaches.  Somebody gets to fish your half eaten ass out of the water.  Climbing takes place in public parks.  Somebody gets to mop up your splattered self off the rocks at the scenic overlook.  When your overworked heart vaporlocks during a fit of roadrage you're going to be blocking the highway until some good Samaritan pushes your car to the curb.  

The comparisons are valid.  People want to restrict each and every groups' activities that they themselves don't participate in.  THAT is stupid.  "But it's all in the name of safety."  More people die at home than anywhere else.  Guess you should move out of your house.  Of those that die at home the vast majority of deaths occur in the bathtub.  Guess what.  You're not taking showers any more.  Forget eating, you might choke to death on your food.   So you get a nutrient rich paste to slurp down.  

"That's stupid" is what you're going to reply.  So is saying any activity you don't take part in is stupid.  You believe in freedoms yet you want to restrict someone else so long as you aren't affected.  THAT is stupid.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> Car drivers should be charged with attempted murder for injuring a motorcyclist and charged with murder for killing one.



They already have those laws.  If the driver was at fault, it's called vehicular manslaughter.  Duh.



Zaphod said:


> Being a surfer takes place on public beaches.  Somebody gets to fish your half eaten ass out of the water.  Climbing takes place in public parks.  Somebody gets to mop up your splattered self off the rocks at the scenic overlook.  When your overworked heart vaporlocks during a fit of roadrage you're going to be blocking the highway until some good Samaritan pushes your car to the curb.



This part of your post brought to the group by the letter "S", for straw man argument.



Zaphod said:


> The comparisons are valid.  People want to restrict each and every groups' activities that they themselves don't participate in.  THAT is stupid.  "But it's all in the name of safety."  More people die at home than anywhere else.  Guess you should move out of your house.  Of those that die at home the vast majority of deaths occur in the bathtub.  Guess what.  You're not taking showers any more.  Forget eating, you might choke to death on your food.   So you get a nutrient rich paste to slurp down.



Ignoring points of my post doesn't make them go away.  What happens in your home, doesn't happen in public.  And they do take reasonable precautions in the home.  Those appliances?  They have to meet safety standards.  That gas furnace?  It does, too.  The building itself?  Build to code.  

Those are all reasonable precautions.  Just like like wearing a helmet while zipping around on the road on a motorcyles with other drivers who command multi-ton vehicles.  A helmet is a reasonable safety precaution.  But I guess your desire to "look cool" trumps that.



Zaphod said:


> "That's stupid" is what you're going to reply.  So is saying any activity you don't take part in is stupid.  You believe in freedoms yet you want to restrict someone else so long as you aren't affected.  THAT is stupid.



There are degrees.  Technically, taking a bath and jumping off a building can both be deadly, but telling someone not to jump of a roof is reasonable.  You know, that which you are not.

Actually, I would call the ridiculous straw man argument, ridiculous.  The rest of your post, ignoring my points and that not all things are equal, I would call retarded.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You comparisons don't hold up.  Being a surfer, a climber, or fat does not require a motorized vehicle or take place on public roads (okay, being fat does, but they're encased in 2-ton cars).  No one is telling you to wear a helmet in your home.  Using a vehicle on the road is a privilege and not a right, thus mandating a range of compliances that you must meet; both for the vehicle and for the operator.  This includes safety devices.
> 
> Keep in mind that I'm _not_ in favour of helmet laws.  I do think that the insurance costs should be very, very high for motorcycle riders for the reasons that bandaidwoman stated.  Either that, or health insurance companies shouldn't be liable for any damage above the neck if you were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
> 
> I have to ask a corollary question: are you against seatbelts?



Why does attaching a motor to something change the root of the argument?  

For the public road aspect, let me use swimmers as an example.  What would happen if lifejackets were required in all public pools, and on national beaches?  They are state-owned facilities, and as such, using them is a privilege, and not a right.  Would drowning deaths decrease?  Yes, probably.  Now on to a second part of the same example.  What if some states had mandatory life jacket laws on their swimming areas, where other states did not?  Which beaches would be used?  Would the drowning death rates be higher in states that did NOT have mandatory life jacket laws?  Of course, for 2 reasons.  One being that swimming without a life jacket is more dangerous that swimming without one, and two, because the states without the laws would have many many many more swimmers.  

Don't you think that as an adult, you should be entitled to make decisions about your personal safety?  Or do you support the above scenario?  To be honest, to support one and not the other is sort of hypocritical.

As far as the insurance aspect, this has been disproven time and time again.  Insurance rates for drivers of motor vehicles and those of motorcycle riders have not been impacted in states with no helmet laws.  only 1.8% of total deaths in the US are from motor vehicle accidents, and less than 15% of those are motorcycle deaths.  This is a tiny fraction of health care or insurance costs.

To answer your question about seat belts.  I sort of answer the same way.  I do not support seat belt laws for drivers over the age of 21 who carry sufficient insurance.  Minors and those with only liability should have to wear them at all times.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

And just to add this Doms, I am certainly not trying to be rude or trying to invalidate your points, I just disagree whole heartedly.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Why does attaching a motor to something change the root of the argument?
> 
> For the public road aspect, let me use swimmers as an example.  What would happen if lifejackets were required in all public pools, and on national beaches?  They are state-owned facilities, and as such, using them is a privilege, and not a right.  Would drowning deaths decrease?  Yes, probably.  Now on to a second part of the same example.  What if some states had mandatory life jacket laws on their swimming areas, where other states did not?  Which beaches would be used?  Would the drowning death rates be higher in states that did NOT have mandatory life jacket laws?  Of course, for 2 reasons.  One being that swimming without a life jacket is more dangerous that swimming without one, and two, because the states without the laws would have many many many more swimmers.
> 
> Don't you think that as an adult, you should be entitled to make decisions about your personal safety?  Or do you support the above scenario?  To be honest, to support one and not the other is sort of hypocritical.



Your analogy isn't quite right.  If say, there was some mythical creature that liked to push people underwater, then yes, I would support the lifejacket law.  That mythical creature is analogous to the other, very casual, drivers of vehicles that can turn a person into hamburger.  Why don't car drivers have to wear helmets?  Because they're encased in two tons of steel with numerous safety devices.  Asking a motorcycle driver to wear a helmet to cut down on injuries if he lives is reasonable.   



jmorrison said:


> As far as the insurance aspect, this has been disproven time and time again.  Insurance rates for drivers of motor vehicles and those of motorcycle riders have not been impacted in states with no helmet laws.  only 1.8% of total deaths in the US are from motor vehicle accidents, and less than 15% of those are motorcycle deaths.  This is a tiny fraction of health care or insurance costs.



Your 1.8% figure is a bit of red herring.  As for the 15%, that's interesting consider that only 2% of all registered vehicles are motorcycles.  That's about 7 times the per capita death rate versus all other vehicles.

I'll take your word about the insurance rate thing and give you that point in the conversation.



jmorrison said:


> To answer your question about seat belts.  I sort of answer the same way.  I do not support seat belt laws for drivers over the age of 21 who carry sufficient insurance.  Minors and those with only liability should have to wear them at all times.



I could almost get behind this.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> And just to add this Doms, I am certainly not trying to be rude or trying to invalidate your points, I just disagree whole heartedly.



I'm not taking it any negative way.  What we're doing is arguing, in the good sense of the word.  It's an intellectual exercise.

It's zaphod that I'm willing to shit all over.  We had another discussion, about unions, where he did the same crap he's doing here: ignoring discussion points and using straw man arguments.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Why does attaching a motor to something change the root of the argument?
> 
> For the public road aspect, let me use swimmers as an example.  What would happen if lifejackets were required in all public pools, and on national beaches?  They are state-owned facilities, and as such, using them is a privilege, and not a right.  Would drowning deaths decrease?  Yes, probably.  Now on to a second part of the same example.  What if some states had mandatory life jacket laws on their swimming areas, where other states did not?  Which beaches would be used?  Would the drowning death rates be higher in states that did NOT have mandatory life jacket laws?  Of course, for 2 reasons.  One being that swimming without a life jacket is more dangerous that swimming without one, and two, because the states without the laws would have many many many more swimmers.
> 
> ...





Wow! This is a very strong and thought out argument.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Your analogy isn't quite right.  If say, there was some mythical creature that liked to push people underwater, then yes, I would support the lifejacket law.  That mythical creature is analogous to the other, very casual, drivers of vehicles that can turn a person into hamburger.  Why don't car drivers have to wear helmets?  Because they're encased in two tons of steel with numerous safety devices.  Asking a motorcycle driver to wear a helmet to cut down on injuries if he lives is reasonable.



I certainly agree that riding a motorcycle is more risky than swimming, and that there are many more hazards.  Swimming was just the best analogy I could come up with.  

I completely 100% disagree with your answer to why don't drivers of cars have to wear helmets.  The answer is because drivers would never stand for it,and drivers encompass the majority of americans and voters.  People don't like to restrict the activities that THEY participate in, only in those that affect other people.  The question you need to ask yourself (seriously, think about this one) is:  Would wearing a helmet in a car save lives?  Before you answer, keep in mind that over 90% of reported injuries in auto accidents involve head injury.  That said, I am not trying to compare the dangers of the two activities, I am only arguing your definition of "reasonable".  Given that common sense would dictate that wearing a helmet in a car would cut down on deaths, wouldn't it be completely reasonable to mandate driving helmets?





DOMS said:


> Your 1.8% figure is a bit of red herring.  As for the 15%, that's interesting consider that only 2% of all registered vehicles are motorcycles.  That's about 7 times the per capita death rate versus all other vehicles.
> 
> I'll take your word about the insurance rate thing and give you that point in the conversation.





I would never think to argue this point Doms.  Riding a motorcycle is a very hazardous activity, and frankly the numbers of deaths surprised me, I had thought that they would be higher.  It still doesn't change the point of the argument.  Any single person with an IQ over 60 would agree that riding is dangerous, so following the logic of paternilistic law, why allow it at all?  It comes down to personal choice about inherant risk.




DOMS said:


> I could almost get behind this.



I am certainly not anti helmet.  I am only anti-helmet law.  It has been shown that in states where the helmet laws have been repealed or revised, about half of riders still wear helmets.  I believe that this is a prudent decision, best left to the individual.  I believe that helmet laws infringe on my 9th amendment rights, and I honestly believe that as long as the publics' well being is not threatened and the common rights are not infringed upon, then a persons safety is their own responsibility.


----------



## pitman (Feb 26, 2010)

it will take one by one individual to be into a cycle accident to say '' wear a fuckin helmet '' !!!!!!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 26, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I completely 100% disagree with your answer to why don't drivers of cars have to wear helmets.  The answer is because drivers would never stand for it,and drivers encompass the majority of americans and voters.



We're all over the place, so I'm going to go forward with this since it's really the crux of it.

And I have to disagree with this.  The reason that they don't wear helmets it because they already have a *reasonable* amount of safety precautions, unlike "bareback" motorcycle riders.  Part of being in society is having to put up with reasonable (sometimes, not so reasonable) mandates.  Taking advantage of the public roads means that you must adhere to some sort of safety standards.

It's in this same vein that anti-cell phone bills are passing across the nation.  It's reasonable to have the driver _not_ diddle with some piece of equipment in his hand while driving.

Again, I'm not for the helmet law.  If someone wants to kill themselves, I say let them.  I do have a problem with having children on motorcycyles, even more so when they're not wearing helmets because they're douche bag anti-helmet parents don't want to be kept down by the man.

I reiterate it one last time: being fat, climbing,  and surfing are loner activities.  You're not climbing a rock face while dozens of other people are trying to push past you, and possible to knock you to your death.  It's not the same as riding a motorcycle on the public roads.  A fender bender for cars can easily turn into a fatality with a motorcycle.  On those two points, I think it is reasonable to require helmets.

Finally, let me ask you this: why are you, and others, so set against, helmet laws?  What's the downside?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> They already have those laws.  If the driver was at fault, it's called vehicular manslaughter.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course you would.  That's your only argument.  

As far as the manslaughter goes, it isn't the same as murder.  Rarely does anyone who kills a motorcyclist get more than a slap on the wrist.  

Using the size comparison you have no business on the road in a car or light truck.  Tractor trailers are so much bigger than what you drive.  Put on your helmet, it's dangerous out there.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 26, 2010)

Just so you're aware of it I wear a helmet when I'm out riding.  So do my children.  Not because it's the law, because it's smart.  

I'm against helmet laws because I'm for personal freedom.  I'm not into telling someone else how to live their life.  Someone making an uninformed opinion about something they don't even participate in is ignorant at best.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Finally, let me ask you this: why are you, and others, so set against, helmet laws?  What's the downside?



This is where you get me on MY hypocrisy.  I am against helmet laws because they restrict MY activities.  When a law interferes with your personal life, it becomes much more important to you.  

I am also against just about any laws that are in place to "protect" society.  I don't like laws against personal drug use (although I dont even smoke), or seatbelt laws, or laws against euthanasia, sodomy, homosexual marriage, or any other law that stops you from living your life the way you want if you aren't hurting anyone else. 

I guess the biggest downside of the law in my personal opinion is just being singled out.  To pick 1 certain risky behavior, and limit how people can do it, while allowing smoking, overeating, drinking (Heart disease is the #1 killer in America) or to allow driving a car without a helmet even though motor vehicle accidents are the ONLY non health related cause of death in the top 5 is just hypocritical and wrong.  Its an agenda based law, created and upheld by people that it does not affect.  

I don't really have a problem or downside to actually wearing one.  Helmet head I guess?  Minor discomfort? Its the issue of HAVING to wear one I take issue with.  Its the next thing to discrimination and profiling in my opinion.

Here was a great statement made by a more intelligent and educated man than myself:

"The ninth amendment says that no law shall be enacted that regulates the individual's freedom to choose his personal actions and mode of dress, so long as it does not in any way affect the life, liberty, and happiness of others."

It is just plain unconstitutional, and this has been upheld in several cases by the supreme courts.  We can't pick and choose what we like about the constitution.  It is a right, or it is not, and I don't want mine infringed upon by people that are not affected by the decisions that they make.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> And I have to disagree with this.  The reason that they don't wear helmets it because they already have a *reasonable* amount of safety precautions, unlike "bareback" motorcycle riders.



Sorry Doms, had to do a little work there for a sec!  On with the debate!  

This is where your factual argument and your subjective argument part ways.  The precautions in a car are what you deem to be reasonable because it is the status quo.

Automobile accidents are the *only* cause of US deaths that are not health related in the top 5 causes of death.  So many people die each year on the highways that it is a top killer in the US.  So are the safety precautions "reasonable"?  

Lets take it a step further.

I will use the helmet thing again.  Would it not save lives for car drivers and passengers to wear helmets?  Therefore, would it not be reasonable to mandate their use (following your logic)

Would it not be reasonable to limit the horsepower/speed in automobiles?  Would this not cut down on deaths?

Would it be reasonable to limit the weights of vehicles so that larger trucks could not run over smaller ones?

All of these would undoubtedly reduce deaths, and save lives.  So why are these not reasonable?  Because it would affect too many voting americans.  It all comes down to personal choice.  Why do you not drive the heaviest and safest vehicle on the road?  Why do you not make your children wear a helmet in the car?  Why do you have a car that can go over the nationally posted speed limits?  Because as an American adult you want to have control over these things and for the government to trust you with making the decisions that determine your safety.

*Reasonable* is a completely subjective word, and subjectivity should not be a part of the law-making process.  Everyone should be given the same rights, not just the majority.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 26, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Finally, let me ask you this: why are you, and others, so set against, helmet laws?  What's the downside?



They a restrictive, hot, smelly, gay, they obscure my peripheral vision, l and they prevent me from being able to hear. I wear them when they are useful, and that is only when I am going faster than 40 mph. 

I am true rider. I ride because it is as much a part of me as anything else. I ride because I love to ride, and not because of the image. I grew up riding. I had a 50cc junior when I was only 5 years old. When I am on a motor-cycle the bike becomes an extension of my body. A helmet feels like an obstruction to my senses. 

It is something only riders really understand.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 26, 2010)

This is specifically for Doms, but may be interesting to anyone who likes this topic.

Doms:  I am not saying I agree with this article, but it is a great read if you have the time and inclination.  Check it out and let me know what you think.

The Wild One - Forbes.com


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 26, 2010)

What kind of riding experience do you have, DOMS?  What makes you, or anyone else who doesn't ride, uniquely qualified to decide whether or not someone should wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> This is where you get me on MY hypocrisy.  I am against helmet laws because they restrict MY activities.  When a law interferes with your personal life, it becomes much more important to you.
> 
> I am also against just about any laws that are in place to "protect" society.  I don't like laws against personal drug use (although I dont even smoke), or seatbelt laws, or laws against euthanasia, sodomy, homosexual marriage, or any other law that stops you from living your life the way you want if you aren't hurting anyone else.
> 
> ...



I see where you coming from--the personal freedom angle.

So,  are seat belts unconstitutional?  Should that law be removed?  If it ever is, the number of deaths on the roads is going to skyrocket.

I suppose that my desire to let people kill themselves crosses over into your desire for personal freedoms.  So I guess, ultimately, I agree with the no helmet low, but I still also think it's reasonable to ask of it though.

Something just occurred to me, the why of seat belt and helmet laws.  Do you think it has to do with minors?  It's a flat law for everybody so that children have to abide by them, with no squabbling over the age issue?

More often than not, the "think of the children" mantra is used incorrectly, but in this case, perhaps not.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> This is where your factual argument and your subjective argument part ways.  The precautions in a car are what you deem to be reasonable because it is the status quo.
> 
> Automobile accidents are the *only* cause of US deaths that are not health related in the top 5 causes of death.  So many people die each year on the highways that it is a top killer in the US.  So are the safety precautions "reasonable"?



You're ignoring a simple fact in the pursuit of your side of the argument.  A person in a car has seat belts, airbags, and the reinforced frame (with crumple zones) going for him.  That's quite an amount of reasonable protection.  How much does an helmeted rider have?  None.  Asking for one precaution *is* reasonable.

In regards to wearing a helmet in a car: the person in a car already has a reasonable amount of protection.  Why not demand that all motorcycle riders use helmets, skid and impact resistant jackets, grieves, gloves, and boots?  Because it's not reasonable.  However, a single device to protect your face (follow bandaidwoman's link) is.




jmorrison said:


> *Reasonable* is a completely subjective word, and subjectivity should not be a part of the law-making process.  Everyone should be given the same rights, not just the majority.



There are objective ways to make these decisions.

For example, a study should be done in automobile accidents to determine the most relevant factors that lead to death and then pass laws forcing solutions to reduce those most relevant factors.

They have.  That's how we have seat belts (for ejections), airbags (head trauma from striking the steering wheel or dash), safety glass (deep glass cuts), and reinforced frames with crumple zones (crush damage).

The same thing has been done to motorcycle accidents.  The single biggest factor that can be affected is head wounds.  This has been proven in numerous studies.  So, I'm hoping for the last time, helmets are in fact reasonable as laid out by the facts regarding motorcycle accidents.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

KelJu said:


> They a restrictive, hot, smelly, gay, they obscure my peripheral vision, l and they prevent me from being able to hear. I wear them when they are useful, and that is only when I am going faster than 40 mph.
> 
> I am true rider. I ride because it is as much a part of me as anything else. I ride because I love to ride, and not because of the image. I grew up riding. I had a 50cc junior when I was only 5 years old. When I am on a motor-cycle the bike becomes an extension of my body. A helmet feels like an obstruction to my senses.
> 
> It is something only riders really understand.



There are helmets that provide for peripheral vision.  The rest of your reasons are aesthetics.  Not a really compelling argument.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> This is specifically for Doms, but may be interesting to anyone who likes this topic.
> 
> Doms:  I am not saying I agree with this article, but it is a great read if you have the time and inclination.  Check it out and let me know what you think.
> 
> The Wild One - Forbes.com



Not bad.  

I'm all for helmet laws for those under 21.

Having said that, and not having read the transcript of the debate, the issue of being on public roads, and thereby somewhat the responsibility of the local government, was not addressed.  More importantly, neither was the issue of not having an adversary while surfing.   There aren't hundred of inattentive surfers, surfing with you, whose merest touch can result in your death.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

So how much riding experience do you have that makes you qualified to speak on the subject?  Seriously.  How much?


----------



## KelJu (Feb 27, 2010)

DOMS said:


> There are helmets that provide for peripheral vision.  The rest of your reasons are aesthetics.  Not a really compelling argument.



That is completely wrong on all accounts. You are going to a lot of effort to downplay anything we say just because you don't understand it.  

There is no helmet that offers 100% true peripheral vision. Even if the entire helmet is made of clear plastic, if you look at piece curved plastic at the corner of your eye, you get distortion and glare. 

Hot and smelly are not aesthetic. Hearing, and this is a big one, is completely fucked with a helmet on. A car horn could be beeping at you, but you have no idea from where. The helmet distorts your ability to discern what direction the sound is coming from. 

I have nothing against the aesthetics of a helmet. As a matter of fact, I have an awesome Fox Racing helmet. I got it when I was 15. I couldn't wait to use it when I got home. I used it for abotu a month before I finally said fuck it. 

I couldn't wear the damn thing. It seriously got in my way. I sweat a lot, and the damn thing smelled like my football locker, and trust me that shit stuck to high heaven. I couldn't see out the corner of my eye for shit. 

And on top of everything, the fucking thing felt restrictive. I don't like restrictive. I don't fucking like it. That's why I don't buckle up. I can't explain it. It fucking makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

KelJu said:


> That is completely wrong on all accounts. You are going to a lot of effort to downplay anything we say just because you don't understand it.
> 
> There is no helmet that offers 100% true peripheral vision. Even if the entire helmet is made of clear plastic, if you look at piece curved plastic at the corner of your eye, you get distortion and glare.
> 
> ...



I've read plenty of studies done on the topic of helmets and it's affects on hearing and vision.  Nothing conclusive has been determined from those studies.  The difference, if any, was too small to measure.

Of course, you're gonna chime in with "but I do it every day!".  Which, I suppose is a fair statement, but a very heavily biased one.  Just as your so quick to spout out with "non-motorcycle riders just want to hate on an activity they don't take part in!", it's fair to say that people that do partake in the activity are just as biased.

On a related note, you can, in fact, turn your head. 

Hell, there are people out there that advocate not wearing seat belts despite the multitude of evidence that it saves lives.  Which brings me to...



KelJu said:


> And on top of everything, the fucking thing felt restrictive. I don't like restrictive. I don't fucking like it. That's why I don't buckle up. I can't explain it. It fucking makes me uncomfortable.





Try not to get into a car accident, you're not going to like it.   I speak from personal experience.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

Also, a valid concern that hasn't been brought up yet (in favour of not having helmets):

"When sitting on a spotlight under 100% humidity with the sun heating up so hard and heat coming off the road, one may even pass out. There have been reported cases of motorcycle riders passing out on the spotlights with their helmets on."


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

I'll take you lack of an answer as "no riding experience."  In other words you're just talking out your ass.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> I'll take you lack of an answer as "no riding experience."  In other words you're just talking out your ass.



Incorrect.  I'm not responding to you for a different reason.  Last night I remembered talking to you in another debate.  It was the thread where you said, in not so many words, that you like sucking UAW cock.  

In that thread, you outright ignored the points that you didn't like and resorted to straw man arguments, just like you started to do here.  

In short: you're not worth talking to.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Incorrect.  I'm not responding to you for a different reason.  Last night I remembered talking to you in another debate.  It was the thread where you said, in not so many words, that you like sucking UAW cock.
> 
> In that thread, you outright ignored the points that you didn't like and resorted to straw man arguments, just like you started to do here.
> 
> ...



Still pissed about your low IT pay, eh?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

Wandering through a motorcycle dealer dreaming about owning a bike doesn't count as riding experience.  Neither does riding bitch.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> Still pissed about your low IT pay, eh?



Your memory is on par with your debating skills.  Which makes sense.  Shit begets shit.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Your memory is on par with your debating skills.  Which makes sense.  Shit begets shit.



Asking about your riding experience is and how you've become such an authority on helmet use is a valid argument.  Claiming "strawman argument" isn't an argument, it's a diversion used when you honestly have no argument.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 27, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> Asking about your riding experience is and how you've become such an authority on helmet use is a valid argument.  Claiming "strawman argument" isn't an argument, it's a diversion used when you honestly have no argument.



  You're doing it *again*.  You're ignoring the stuff that you don't like.  I'm referring to the posts before you started asking that question.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

I asked you that quite some time ago.  So who is ignoring something he doesn't like?  

What is your riding experience and how are you an authority on helmet use?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

Here's some advice:  Go back and read everything youv'e posted.  It is all opinion.  You've got nothing beyond "What's so bad about wearing a helmet?"  Utter fluff for the sake of trying to debate a point you know nothing about.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

Lets keep it friendly boys!  Lots of people with more real world experience, case studies, education, and subject matter expertise have been arguing this for literally decades, so I think its fair to say that it is more than a "I'm right, you're wrong" scenario.

My grandpa was a pretty wise man, and he told me once, "if you have 2 smart people arguing opposite sides of the same issue, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle".  I have found through my life experiences that this may have been the most accurate statement I have ever heard.

This is why I say that a good middle ground is to require riders under 21, who may or may not have achieved the maturity level to make informed decisions, and the underinsured should be mandated to wear helmets, while adults who carry sufficient insurance should be able to do as they like.  

They are insured, so it will not burden society and their 9th amendment protections to civil liberties are upheld.

I stand by my assertion that the definition of reasonable that you are using is purely subjective.  What you consider to be reasonable, what I consider to be reasonable, and what some 80 year old lady down the street thinks is reasonable are all very very different things.  Laws should not be made subjectively.

Also you have never even broached the topic of helmet law enforcement.  THIS is the area that is getting the laws repealed to begin with.  WHAT constitutes an approved helmet, who does the approval, and who decides what fits that definition?  This is just another judgement call, which is wrong and against everything I believe in.  Laws should be standardized and the same for everyone (at least up to state level if not federal) and what is legal/illegal in one city/town/county when pulled over by one cop, should be legal/illegal in every city/town/county when pulled over by ANY cop.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 27, 2010)

zaphod said:


> wandering through a motorcycle dealer dreaming about owning a bike doesn't count as riding experience.  Neither does riding bitch.



-1.  you're skills of debate leave much to be desired


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 27, 2010)

a bike with a helmet is like sex with a condom. who the fuck WANTS to wear one? that's what's so bad about wearing a helmet. my brain is still in my head after thousands of miles sans helmet. i understand the safety argument but it should be MY choice unless the government wants to ban tobacco, alcohol, firearms and _everything_ else that's dangerous too. people lose their heads on roller coasters... where are their helmets? i went down on a bike, i know i posted about it here sometime in the last 6 years, no helmet and the worst of it my leather got scraped up and i had a hole in my knee. maybe people should wear helmets in cars... i think the government should take like 12 steps back and get their noses out of my ass.


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 27, 2010)

if you took a group of 100 kids and listed the SHIT medications their drs have them on the helmet law is so much fucking bullshit. you think the government cares about our safety? they need to require insurance n stfu.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 27, 2010)

Little Wing said:


> ... i think the government should take like 12 steps back and get their noses out of my ass.





and about 86% of the men here at IM I would presume.


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 27, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and about 86% of the men here at IM I would presume.



it's a simple ratio problem, we need more girls here. if we're nice maybe kathybird won't get scared off. she seems cool.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

Little Wing said:


> a bike with a helmet is like sex with a condom.



I didn't even think to use that example, but its better than my swimming one.  Maybe the government should mandate condom use?  Not using them certainly causes a larger burden to society, impacts public safety, causes more deaths, and is MUCH more risky than riding a motorcycle, so why not make it law, and punish those who have been found to not be using them?

Or is that not reasonable because it actually affects most people instead of just a niche?

It's the double standard that kills me.  The typical answer to this would be "No, that's ridiculous.  I don't WANT to wear condoms.  I am careful in my partner selection, I don't fuck "X" type of people...blah blah blah...and anyway, if I die from an STD, whose business is it but mine?  I don't need the government to tell me what I can do with my body."

DING DING DING.

What is good enough for the goose is not, in fact, good enough for the gander.


----------



## Little Wing (Feb 27, 2010)

the government does not operate on anything as beautifully simple as common fucking sense.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 27, 2010)

Little Wing said:


> it's a simple ratio problem, we need more girls here. if we're nice maybe kathybird won't get scared off. she seems cool.



I'm not sure you understand men that well. this could be 50% male 50% female and 86% of men would still be posting dirty sexual fantasies about you. Men are dirty, and evil. we know it, and we accept it


----------



## FMJ (Feb 27, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I'm not sure you understand men that well. this could be 50% male 50% female and 86% of men would still be posting dirty sexual fantasies about you. Men are dirty, and evil. we know it, and we accept it


 
It's part of our lifestyle.


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

I rode a lot in my teens and twenties. Naturally I thought that the helmet laws were stupid, I live in GA and it seems that we have had them forever. Now that I am in my fifties I see guys riding their bikes in other states and I think "What a idiot!" 
Someone mentioned earlier that racers wear helmets, I am certain that if they were not required, they would still wear a helmet. Chances are you will not die from your severe head injury but you will have permanent brain damage and me and the other tax payers will be taking care of you the rest of your life. I raced motocross in the 70s and we had a saying, "If you dig teeth, you will wear a full face helmet."
Bottom line; if you want your liberty to ride without a helmet, I would like the liberty of not having to pay for your nursing home expense.... like a living will that says that if you are in a wreck and you have severe head trauma, go ahead and put me down!


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

Or just insist that they have insurance.  Which is completely reasonable.


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

If you purchased enough insurance for that kind of care, you would not be able to afford the bike. Look at your auto policy and look at the limits on your coverage. At the most you may have $100K for bodily injury, head trauma will use that up in a month or less. When the rider gets hurt and he is all but brain dead, you know their family will be insisting that they keep them alive and we know who picks up the bill (the tax payers and the people that actually pay their hospital bills).


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

So you are seriously for helmet laws using the ol' "Burden to society" argument?  This has been disproven over and over again, but people just gloss over what they don't want to hear.  In fact, it's already been covered in this thread!  

Motorvehicle deaths and injuries (ALL motorvehicles) comprise a FRACTION of health care costs in this country.  Motorcycle deaths and injuries comprise an even smaller fraction, and helmetless riders even smaller.  This is just an asanine argument that is a knee-jerk reaction answer.  In fact, helmet laws COST states more than they save.  Bike rallies, bike bars and clubs, biker political organizations, and bikers in general AVOID states with helmet laws, costing BILLIONS (yes with a B) to the tourism trade annually.  If you think that taxpayers are covering BILLIONS of dollars of wrecked motorcycle helmetless riders annually, you are either delusional, or once again (more likely), deliberately obtuse.  This has been proven, tried, and upheld in many states.

In fact, if you want to be angry or frustrated at paying someones health bill, why not enact laws to protect the taxpayers from the idiots that are REALLY costing us big bucks.  Heart disease is the #1 killer in America.  We pay BILLIONS (yes again with a B) annually to pay for treatment for diabetes, strokes and obesity in general, but we have NO laws requiring any sort of change to this system.  Why not some laws that say you MUST maintain a certain level of bodyfat or below?  Or mandate diet and exercise for the obese?  No...that would once again affect too many voting americans, and it is easier to have a double standard for a small niche of people.

I want debate, I like debate, but at least give people in the thread the courtesy of reading through it before posting.  Arguing the same points is disheartening at best.


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

Actually I am for helmets because I don't want to be burdened by someone's health care expense while they were enjoying their freedom. I do not like big brother telling me to do anything but it is a shame that big brother has to tell you to wear a helmet. When I was young and less than aware I hated the helmets too. That is until I had a major wipe out racing motocross. Don't know exactly how much the helmet did to protect me but in hindsight I am fortunate that I was wearing one. 
You sound like the stubborn people I deal with that don't want to wear safety glasses, ear plugs, steel toes shoes or a hard hat. "Well we have always done it this way and we haven't been hurt yet!"
You are spewing a lot of talking points regarding lost revenue, the total cost of healthcare, etc. A fraction of healthcare, can you be a little more specific? A fraction could be one dollar or one billion dollars. I know of a case going on as we speak where a worker has a head injury from an industrial accident. It is in the neighborhood of a half million after one month. It is a worker comp claim but it makes a point on the costs involved.
I honestly cannot understand how intelligent people can make a decision to throw their leg over a motorcycle and enter the public roads. Someone made an excellent point earlier, it is the automobile drivers that make bike riding dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that a helmet does provide head protection. How much? Any helmet on the market is better than nothing. The last thing a helmet manufacturer wants is a lawsuit from selling an inferior helmet. They will probably get sued anyway if the wearer receives a head injury but they will have enough testing data to prove that they did their due diligence.
I am not ignoring anything, I am telling you how I feel about a very serious subject based on my safety background as well as considerable experience dealing with insurance.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

Fair enough.

A Harborview Medical Center study discovered that the percentage of motorcyclists who relied on public funding for medical treatment (63.4%) was actually lower than that of the general population (67%).  Similarly, the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center found that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had insurance to cover their medical costs, were nearly identical compared with 50.4% of other road trauma victims.

in 2005-06, Alabama and California were 2 of the 3 states with the highest rise in the amount of Motorcycle deaths.  Both have mandatory helmet laws.  Ohio, New Hampshire and Illinios had the largest decrease in motorcycle deaths.  There is no Helmet law for adults in any of these states.  These states continue to have lower overall motorcycle deaths than many helmeted states.

Southern states, which are the biggest portion of helmet law states, (specifically the bible belt) average far more deaths than elsewhere in the country.  

Motorcycle registrations have more than doubled since 1997, and new motorcycle sales have quadrupled since then. Surely, when the population is increased one must expect the crash numbers to climb as well. Simple statistics. 

The last time motorcycle deaths were as high as they are now was in 1986, when motorcycle registrations were slightly more than 5 million. In 2006, almost 6.5 million motorcycles were registered in this country. That's an additional 1.5 million motorcycles and the same number of fatalities. Maybe the motorcycle fatality rate isn't as out of control as some would like you to believe. 

I will look for some numbers for you on how much lost revenue a state estimates that they lose over helmet laws.  Not that I predict that you will read/care or even pay attention to it.  

Now would you do me a favor and show me what your definition of an approved helmet is, who approves it, and what is it approved to do.  The answers may surprise you.  (only because you obviously didnt read the thread in its entirety, otherwise you wouldn't be surprised at all.)

And before saying things like "spewing" in regards to my talking points, I would like to see some factual information from you.  

How the hell can you use a civil litigation suit to prove your point about taxpayers dollars?!  Talk about comparing apples and oranges.  I thought we were talking about healthcare costs (which by the way is estimated to average around 40k for an uninsured motorcycle rider) not workmans comp.  That doesnt show ANYTHING.

I have been a LOT more specific, but once again, i dont believe you read the thread.  I have already said that 1.8% of ALL deaths in the US involve motorvehicles, and LESS than 15% of THAt number involved motorcycles.  So 15% of 1.8%, and you are honestly concerned about the cost to taxpayers?  And this is DEATHS, let alone injuries!  This is just a strawman argument with zero basis in reality.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

People drink the kool-aid and will only believe what corporate America or the government tell them.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 27, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> -1.  you're skills of debate leave much to be desired



Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

I found some numbers for Michigan.  Just going to have to be happy with using it as an example, unless you can show me where else to dig up lost revenue numbers.

An independent consulting firm, (Michigan Consultants) estimates an annual Tourism increase of 53.9 million dollars, New sales and accessory increases of 500 million dollars (motorcycle industry),and over 2700 new jobs between tourism and sales with a helmet law repeal.

FL vs. CA 
From July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 motorcycle registrations in Florida went from 195,306 to 473,637 which represent a total of a 143% increase. 
	The following is the estimated revenue increase from the registrations and bike purchases: 

•   278,331 new Motorcycles at an average of $10,000 each = $2,783,310,000 
•   Sales tax on Motorcycles at 6% = 			       $   166,998,600 
•   Registration Fees for Motorcycles =		       $     10,047,749 
•   Change of title =				       $       8,280,347 
Total =	               		                                        $2,968,636,696 
      This is almost three billion dollars in five years that has been put into the economy of the State of Florida. Over one hundred eighty million dollars in taxes went directly into the state treasury for the general fund. This does not include the tourist money that has increased because of Florida being a freedom of choice state. In the past five years over 3 billion dollars has been put into the economy in general from Bike Week and Biketoberfest. 

After passage of the mandatory helmet law in California , in 1992-93 there was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales and rider-ship dropped by 18%. This cost the state over $1 million in gasoline tax, $15 million in lost sales and payroll taxes, and $1 million in lost registration fees. There is of course no way to estimate how much was lost by the hotels, motels, gas stations, and restaurants across the state as bikers chose to visit helmet-free states for their vacations and day trips.

According to a UCF survey, Daytona Beach 's two annual motorcycle rallies (Bike Week and Biketoberfest) generated $744 million in revenue for the area and an equivalent of 17,800 full-time, year-round jobs in 2001, the year of the study. Daytona Beach actually takes in more money from its motorcycle rallies, than by the NASCAR events held there. 
  Myrtle Beach , South Carolina takes in $350 million in 1 week during their Myrtle Beach Bike Week. 
  Johnstown , Pennsylvania 's Thunder in the Valley had their attendance jump from 70,000 to over 100,000 the year after mandatory helmets were eliminated in Pennsylvania in 2003. 
  Sturgis , South Dakota attendance has grown to over 850,000 bikers last year during the Sturgis Rally (2004). 
  Laconia , New Hampshire had a record year last year when over 400,000 bikers attended Laconia Motorcycle Week (2004). 
  The one thing all of these states have in common is that they are states that allow motorcyclists freedom of choice when it comes to wearing a helmet.


And you want to talk about costing you money?!  No my friend, paternilistic bullshit laws that take away money from your state cost you and your community money.  

The Burden To Society argument is absolute bunk.  There is no basis in reality to this argument.  You will have to find another justification for your reasoning in stripping away someones 9th amendment rights.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

In case this hasnt been "specific" enough for you, here is more.

California

California is proving the consistent trend that states with mandatory helmet laws have higher death rates than those which repealed the law. Instead of seeing a dramatic decrease in fatalities as proponents predicted, the truth is California 's death rate is 2% higher than the year before the helmet law went into effect. This falls in line with the experience of other states with mandatory helmet laws. In 1992, the states with the lowest fatality rates were Iowa , Minnesota , Wisconsin , New Hampshire , North Dakota and Wisconsin none of which have full helmet laws. Coincidentally, those states with the best overall safety also have comprehensive rider education courses in place. More evidence to the value of safety programs comes from the fact that in California , their award winning safety program accounted for a 43% decrease in fatalities and a 40% decrease in injuries from 1986 through 1991, before the helmet law was in effect. The decrease in injuries alone amounted to 12,258, compared to 5,829 which the California Highway Patrol attributes to the helmet law between 1992 and 1993. Did the helmet law in California cause a drop in fatalities? While deaths did go down, the number of riders decreased at even a greater number. That coupled with a national trend of continued fatality decreases, it's hard to credit the helmet law with anything more than causing a financial disaster in California . 
	There was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales in 1992-1993. Ridership was down an estimated 18%. How does that compute to dollars lost to California ? Over $1 million less was received in gasoline tax and over $15 million was lost in sales taxes, payroll taxes and in state income taxes. The state lost $950,000 in registration fees. California used to account for 1/5 of all motorcycles in the United States . They are now experiencing the lowest totals since 1969. 
	The helmet law costs California money. It has severely depressed the motorcycle business in California with a resulting loss of jobs and tax revenue.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

Michigan again

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MODIFICATION TO MICHIGAN’s MANDATORY HELMET LAW [4] 
	Nationally, motorcycle registrations increased annually for eleven straight years though 2002. A key influence has been the aging baby boomers. The median age for motorcycle owners was 38.0 in 1998, compared to 24.0 years in 1980. A 1998 study found the median income of motorcycle owners to be over $44,000, almost three-fifths were married, and over one-half had furthered their formal education after high school. 
	In 2002, there were 197,735 motorcycle registrations in Michigan . On a per capita basis, Michigan was significantly below the levels of bordering states. The Motorcycle Industrial Council estimated that in the year 2002 in Michigan there were 528 motorcycle retail outlets, with 5,624 employees, and an annual payroll of over $138 million. 
	Modification of the helmet law holds clear potential to increase the sales of vehicles and accessories, as well as retaining a portion of the tourism spending of Michigan motorcyclists and attracting the spending of out-of-state motorcycle enthusiasts. The report details the methodology, sources, assumptions, and calculations used to generate the estimated impacts. 
The key estimates are as follows: 
Economic Activity--direct 
New sales...................................................................... $461.2 million 
Resale’s increased......................................................... $124.8 million 
Accessory sales increased............................................. $  27.7 million 
Tourism .......................................................................  $  53.9 million 
 Total direct................................................................... $667.0 million 

Impact including ripple effect.................................... $1,200.6 million 
Sales tax direct............................................................. $   40.0 million 

Employment 
	Direct (sales and tourism) jobs......................................1,500.2 
	Total jobs, including from multiplier............................ 2,700.4 
The report emphasizes that conservative estimation techniques and assumptions are used throughout. The actual potential, particularly in the area of attracting the tourism spending of motorcycle enthusiasts from other states, is actually far greater than enumerated in the estimates.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 27, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> In fact, if you want to be angry or frustrated at paying someones health bill, why not enact laws to protect the taxpayers from the idiots that are REALLY costing us big bucks.  Heart disease is the #1 killer in America.  We pay BILLIONS (yes again with a B) annually to pay for treatment for diabetes, strokes and obesity in general, but we have NO laws requiring any sort of change to this system.  *Why not some laws that say you MUST maintain a certain level of bodyfat or below?*  Or mandate diet and exercise for the obese?  No...that would once again affect too many voting americans, and it is easier to have a double standard for a small niche of people.



Fine with me.  Make it maybe 23% or lower for men, 30% or lower for women.  It's not hard to get those numbers.  I'd also be in favor of getting someone with real knowledge into a position of power related to health in this country.  It's ridiculous that a lifetime politician is secretary of health, or that an overweight woman is surgeon general.

Honestly, the health insurance companies should model car insurance companies to a degree.  A car insurance company raises premiums when you engage in risky behavior such as speeding, DUI, racing.  They reduce premiums for good records, seatbelt usage, etc.  Why not make it the same for health?  If you want to live as an obese chain smoker, fine - expect your premiums to double.  On the other hand, if I'm a young person with low bodyfat that doesn't drink, smoke, etc - I should be rewarded with low premiums.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

Ok, show me the numbers now for all the vegetables on life support you are paying for because of not wearing a helmet.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 27, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> Fine with me.  Make it maybe 23% or lower for men, 30% or lower for women.  It's not hard to get those numbers.  I'd also be in favor of getting someone with real knowledge into a position of power related to health in this country.  It's ridiculous that a lifetime politician is secretary of health, or that an overweight woman is surgeon general.
> 
> Honestly, the health insurance companies should model car insurance companies to a degree.  A car insurance company raises premiums when you engage in risky behavior such as speeding, DUI, racing.  They reduce premiums for good records, seatbelt usage, etc.  Why not make it the same for health?  If you want to live as an obese chain smoker, fine - expect your premiums to double.  On the other hand, if I'm a young person with low bodyfat that doesn't drink, smoke, etc - I should be rewarded with low premiums.




I could get behind this completely also Danzik.  I just dont see why insurance companies cant just offer riders lower premiums for wearing a helmet.  Probably because premiums have historically been unnaffected by helmet laws, but still!


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

When or where did I say that worker comp is the same as the insurance for an injured biker? I was pointing out how much a head injury can cost. I am sure you already know this but a comp injury is going to be less expensive than a biker injury. 
Comparing apples to oranges? Kind of like comparing lifestyle illness with an injury. I believe I told you in uncertain terms that I am not an advocate for big brother or the govt telling us how to live our lives. It is simply unfortunate that supposedly intelligent people want to ride a bike without head protection. Look how many football players suffer from injuries they incurred when they had their head slammed onto the field. If you low side a bike you probably only get road rash but if you high side the bike you will be thrown. 
Lost revenue in this debate has nothing to do with the preventing an injury or serious head trauma. I am sure more revenue makes everybody happy. But if anyone is driving to Daytona they have to pass though these southern states and buy some gas, maybe stay in a hotel, eat in restaurants, etc. 
It is obvious that you are not going to change my mind and I will not change your mind. As a matter of fact I could care less if you want to wear a helmet but if your state says wear a helmet I am sure your do. If your state gives you a choice, more power to you. 
How many injuries is acceptable? How much is acceptable as far as dollars spent on the injuries to riders? Where I come from one is too many. Even if they have insurance it simply raises the cost for everyone else when there is a catastrophic claim. If you have been keeping up with current events you will have noticed that insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates on everyone else.


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

Oh yeah, the helmet testing! I am sure there is a decal in your helmet that shows that some kind of testing has been done. Like I said (or did you read my response completely?) the helmet manufacturer is going to protect itself from litigation by testing their helmets. I do not know who comes up with the testing standards but these people are about 100 times smarter than you or me so they know what they are doing. When they are dragged into court they will have mountains of documentation to back up there testing. 
Is that what you were referring to when you asked why I would use civil litigation when we were talking about medical costs? I was referring to the helmet testing. 
You said that 64% of motorcycle riders depend on the public for health care compared to a similar number for the rest of the population. Does that mean that 64% of bike riders get injured so bad that they need the state to pick up the tab? That sounds too high but these are your numbers. 50% of NC bikers have insurance to pay for their injuries. Why would there be a separate category for bikers? But 50% with no coverage for their injuries? 
Answer two questions for me:
What is the difference between an injury and an illness?
What happens to you if you wreck your bike at 60 mph and your head hits the asphalt without a helmet?


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.
The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head
Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.
FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.
Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.
The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.
Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
source: Motorcycle-Accidents.com

1998 Motorcycle Accident Statistics: 
2,284 motorcyclists died and approximately 49,000 were injured in highway crashes in the United States.
Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.
In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.

In 1998, 500 motorcyclists lives were saved due to helmet usage; 307 could have been saved.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

Here is the law regarding helmet testing and minimum requirements. I thought you said that there was no standards for helmet testing?

<< Back   	  Print Version 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (Motorcycle helmets)


[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 49, Volume 5, Parts 400 to 999]

[Revised as of October 1, 1997]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 49CFR571.218]

[Page 581-596]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER V--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS6--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Sec. 571.218 Standard No. 218; Motorcycle helmets.

S1. Scope. This standard establishes minimum performance

requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other

motor vehicle users.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and

injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting from

head impacts.

S3. Application. This standard applies to all helmets designed for

use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.

S4. Definitions.

Basic plane means a plane through the centers of the right and left

external ear openings and the lower edge of the eye sockets (Figure 1)

of a reference headform (Figure 2) or test headform.

Helmet positioning index means the distance in inches, as specified

by the manufacturer, from the lowest point of the brow opening at the

lateral midpoint of the helmet to the basic plane of a reference

headform, when the helmet is firmly and properly positioned on the

reference headform.

Obviously this isn't the whole standard but you can look it up if you need want to read it all.


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 27, 2010)

Gotta love this statistic.....
Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

You are the most adept person I have met on these forums at avoiding an entire wall of text that you dont want to hear, and zeroing in on the little things that you think back up your argument.  Here I will make it easy for you.




maturemuscle said:


> I believe I told you in uncertain terms that I am not an advocate for big brother or the govt telling us how to live our lives. It is simply unfortunate that supposedly intelligent people want to ride a bike without head protection.



Wanting to have a choice in the level of safety you enjoy during activities is not some reflection of intellect.  Just becuase people do things that YOU do not do, does not make them inferior or anymore lacking in intelligence.  I do not think that skydivers are stupid, although I would not personally jump out of a plane.



maturemuscle said:


> Look how many football players suffer from injuries they incurred when they had their head slammed onto the field. If you low side a bike you probably only get road rash but if you high side the bike you will be thrown.



I don't think anyone is debating that helmets MAY help prevent injuries.  Thats not the point.  Full leathers, a padded jacket, gloves and reflective vests also MAY prevent injuries, hell so would huge red flashing light on the top of the bike.  That doesnt mean it is the governments place to mandate these controls.



maturemuscle said:


> Lost revenue in this debate has nothing to do with the preventing an injury or serious head trauma. I am sure more revenue makes everybody happy.




You are correct but it has EVERYTHING to do with your primary argument.  You are backpeddling here.  Your initial argument against law repeal was so that you (as a taxpayer) would not have to cover the supposed huge amount of money that injured un-helmeted riders would cost the state.  I have shown you that:

1. It has been PROVEN that motorcyclists are no more likely to be uninsured than any other driver.

2. It has been PROVEN that less cyclists rely on government spending to cover their medical costs than the general population

3. It has been PROVEN that cyclists involved in accidents are just as likely to be able to pay with insurance than anyone involved in other road incidents.

4. It has been PROVEN that states with no helmet laws generate far more income based on motorcycling activites than states that do.

In other words, your societal burden argument is BULLSHIT.  It has no basis in reality at all.




maturemuscle said:


> But if anyone is driving to Daytona they have to pass though these southern states and buy some gas, maybe stay in a hotel, eat in restaurants, etc.


 
Yes, and it has been PROVEN (North Carolina and South Carolina) that helmeted states are passed by and lose countless dollars over those that allow choice. So there goes that argument too.

You are the most frustrating kind of person to debate with.  You feel a certain way.  You dont really have any legitimate reason for feeling that way, so you use a flimsy argument.  When that flimsy argument is destroyed, you ignore the facts, and go straight to another flimsy argument.



maturemuscle said:


> It is obvious that you are not going to change my mind and I will not change your mind.



No, what's obvious is you couldn't give a rats ass about facts.  You just feel a certain way, and that's that.  Who needs actual information when you have unbased accusations?  





maturemuscle said:


> Even if they have insurance it simply raises the cost for everyone else when there is a catastrophic claim. If you have been keeping up with current events you will have noticed that insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates on everyone else.



Here you go again with this cost crap.  If you had the slightest grip on reality vs your assumptions you would know that this is a bald-faced lie.  Insurance rates have NOT been impacted in states with no helmet laws.  Not. At. All.  This is a biased, bullshit statement.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

Ok, those just came through, I will address them individually.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

maturemuscle said:


> Oh yeah, the helmet testing! I am sure there is a decal in your helmet that shows that some kind of testing has been done. Like I said (or did you read my response completely?) the helmet manufacturer is going to protect itself from litigation by testing their helmets. I do not know who comes up with the testing standards but these people are about 100 times smarter than you or me so they know what they are doing. When they are dragged into court they will have mountains of documentation to back up there testing.



Ok, this is why you feel the way you do, and why you are so frustrating to me.  You only have a loose understanding of the facts.  

Helmet testing.  I will use DOT for example since it is so readily known.  A DOT sticker/decal on your helmet means that the helmet passed DOT quality control standards.  That is it.  Just like when you get a new shirt and there is a little sticker in it that says "Inspected by".  It is in no way affliated with any government safety program, nor is it recognized by the government in any way to meet any sort of safety standard.  It is a sham that uninformed people like yourself fall for every day.  Go ahead and ask the next cop you meet to show you what an "approved" helmet is.  I'll give you a hint _*as of right now, there is no such thing outside of manufacturer approval.*_  Thats right, the people selling the helmet approve it.  Do you know what it is approved to do?  Absorb an impact from 6-9 feet simulating your head striking the pavement at 15mph.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

How much riding do you do at sub 15mph?  

Now I am not arguing that helmets are safer than no helmets.  Lets just get that out of the way immediately.  I am saying that your idea of "approved" is misinformed.  There is absolutely no safety standard set out as approved by the government.  




maturemuscle said:


> Is that what you were referring to when you asked why I would use civil litigation when we were talking about medical costs? I was referring to the helmet testing.



Once again.  A helmet manufacturer would only have to show that you were moving more than 15mph to avoid any sort of liability.  Why the hell do you think they are still in business?  




maturemuscle said:


> You said that 64% of motorcycle riders depend on the public for health care compared to a similar number for the rest of the population. Does that mean that 64% of bike riders get injured so bad that they need the state to pick up the tab? That sounds too high but these are your numbers.



I will repeat myself.  The percentage of motorcyclists who relied on public funding for medical treatment (63.4%) was actually lower than that of the general population (67%). Similarly, the University of North Carolina???s Highway Safety Research Center found that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had insurance to cover their medical costs, were nearly identical compared with 50.4% of other road trauma victims.

To make it simpler for you I will write it in plain english *less motorcyclists need any government aid to pay for any medical costs than the general population. IE: EVERYONE ELSE*

And no, it means that 64% of bikers injured in highway crashes need assitance outside of their insurance to cover some cost.  WHICH IS LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE.  If you think thats fucked up, fix the system.  It has nothing to do with bikers.  Bikers need help LESS than Suzy down the street who would never look at a bike.



maturemuscle said:


> 50% of NC bikers have insurance to pay for their injuries. Why would there be a separate category for bikers? But 50% with no coverage for their injuries?



I am not sure what you are asking. It has been proven however that bikers are no more or less likely to be insured than an auto motorist.  The insured percentiles are almost identical.




maturemuscle said:


> Answer two questions for me:
> What is the difference between an injury and an illness?
> What happens to you if you wreck your bike at 60 mph and your head hits the asphalt without a helmet?



I won't even bother to answer the first question.  I wasn't the one comparing the comparative cost to tax payers of a motorcycle wreck and a workmans comp case.  They are completely unrelated, and I am very, very familiar with injury vs illness, as well as RDC, LTA and workmans comp.

The second question?  I could answer this in about 9 million smart ass ways, but I will give you the answer you want, simply because it proves my point more:

You would probably die.  If not, and you lived, you would probably suffer brain damage.  If not, you would at least suffer some horrific injuries and scarring.  If not...well then you should give your life to the lord because you were insanely lucky.

Look, no one is debating that wearing a helmet is potentially safer than not wearing one.  It just doesnt have anything to do with the argument.  This has also been covered.  It is not the governments place to protect us from ourselves.  That is why we are allowed to smoke, drink, have unprotected sex, engage in all sorts of dangerous activities, and generally behave as we like.  Because it is our right to live and die as we see fit as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

maturemuscle said:


> The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.
> The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head
> Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.
> FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.
> ...



No one is arguing that wearing a helmet is not potentially safer than not wearing one.  No one is even arguing that wearing one is a good idea.  I maybe am missing your point.  I could just as easily prove that wearing lifejackets at the beach reduces drowning.  I dont think anyone would argue with that either.  It doesnt mean that people want to do it or that the government should start making them.



maturemuscle said:


> 1998 Motorcycle Accident Statistics:
> 2,284 motorcyclists died and approximately 49,000 were injured in highway crashes in the United States.
> Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
> Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.



As well as in car crashes.  Did you know that about 40%ish (I can look it up again if you need proof) of injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents involve head injuries, as opposed to 90% of those in auto accidents?  Of course you didn't, because you skipped over all the shit in this thread you didn't want to hear.  Does this mean that all car drivers/passengers need to wear a helmet?



maturemuscle said:


> In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash.



I love this.  This is why statistics are such garbage.  Watch this maturemuscle, I will say the exact same thing, but make it back up MY argument:  In 1998, only 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets, as opposed to the 54% who were at the time of the crash.

The whole statement is stupid anyway!  In non helmeted states, it is estimated that roughly half of riders wear helmets and half do not.  It makes perfect sense that about half of riders killed would not be wearing helmets! This is like talking to a wall!  You aren't even seeking comprehension, you are just slamming out responses.  READ. UNDERSTAND. LEARN.



maturemuscle said:


> NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.



I'll buy that.



maturemuscle said:


> In 1998, 500 motorcyclists lives were saved due to helmet usage; 307 could have been saved.



But not that.  To understand that statement, you have to understand what it is based upon.  It is based upon the percentage of overall deaths that have risen between 1997-1998.  What is NOT taken into consideration is the sheer amount of actual bikes on the road campared between the two years.  Fatalities rise with the amount of drivers.  Basic math and common sense.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

maturemuscle said:


> Here is the law regarding helmet testing and minimum requirements. I thought you said that there was no standards for helmet testing?
> 
> <followed with DOT standard>



Yes, that is the manufactures standard.  This has not been approved on any government level, state or otherwise, and is the approval method I was telling you about where the helmet is dropped from 7-9 feet to simulate impacts up to 15mph.

I don't understand where you are going with this.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.



bio-chem 
Reputation: *2049157*

Zaphod 
Reputation: *10*


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Yes, that is the manufactures standard.  This has not been approved on any government level, state or otherwise, and is the approval method I was telling you about where the helmet is dropped from 7-9 feet to simulate impacts up to 15mph.
> 
> I don't understand where you are going with this.



Not wanting to be told to wear a helmet is one thing, trying to discount a proven safety device is another, and it hurts your argument.

I don't think that adults (21 and over) should have to wear a helmet, but I do know that helmets are a proven safety device.


----------



## maturemuscle (Feb 28, 2010)

I just looked at your profile and I see that you are only 29 so I have to cut you some slack. You haven't been around long enough to see what really matters. Remember this:

Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

You say that I do not have any idea about these things. I just so happens that I have managed as much as 9 million dollars in injury claims, I have performed accident investigations for multi million dollar vehicle accidents, I have made decisions for the company on claims mediations where we settled the case for hundreds of thousands of dollars so we could get it off the books. I also perform DOT audits, OSHA audits and I advice companies on how to lower the risk exposures. 

So I may not have as much experience as you do with how much a claim costs or dealing with those that have been severely injured,, I am sure you have gone out to more accident scenes that me and you have tons more experience in finding ways to reduce accident exposures. 

In the business world if you determine that something will lower your exposure to accidental losses, you adopt that as your company policy. You already admitted that helmets are safer so in my world that is the end of the story.

Guess what? This conversation is over as far as you and I are concerned.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> bio-chem
> Reputation: *2049157*
> 
> Zaphod
> Reputation: *10*



when has pointing out the obvious worked with this guy before?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> bio-chem
> Reputation: *2049157*
> 
> Zaphod
> Reputation: *10*



Oh, yes.  That means so much.  To a twelve year old.  If that really matters to you...


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Yes, that is the manufactures standard.  This has not been approved on any government level, state or otherwise, and is the approval method I was telling you about where the helmet is dropped from 7-9 feet to simulate impacts up to 15mph.
> 
> I don't understand where you are going with this.



Actually there is a DOT standard that all helmets must meet to be sold as protective riding gear.  Snell is a recognized and purely optional standard for street riding.  Often Snell is required for any kind of competition riding.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 28, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> Oh, yes.  That means so much.  To a twelve year old.  If that really matters to you...



The prosecution rests Your Honor........


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> The prosecution rests Your Honor........



So a juvenile rating matters to you?


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Not wanting to be told to wear a helmet is one thing, trying to discount a proven safety device is another, and it hurts your argument.
> 
> I don't think that adults (21 and over) should have to wear a helmet, but I do know that helmets are a proven safety device.



Still trying to line up a ride so you can honestly lay claim to having ridden?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 28, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> So a juvenile rating matters to you?



not at all. It's funny though, what effect do you think going around antagonizing the long time members is going to have? pretty soon no one is going to pay attention to what you say regardless of it being a legitimate point or not. good luck with that


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 28, 2010)

when i was a 14 teen  i when to my cousins wedding.. i had fun her husband was a big motorcycle rider  . didn't wear head gear. so 6 month later he crashes and is brain dead. my cousin quit her job to take care of her husband as his nurse... she was a lawyer.. anyway he stay alive for 11 years that way ..he made  a choice not to wear but if you have kids of a wife should u wear one..i don't care oneway or another but 10years of her life gone...jusr my 2cents


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> when has pointing out the obvious worked with this guy before?



I wonder if he realizes that, in the greater scheme of things, our debate only matters to the people who are here?  Hence the reputation reference I made.

I wonder if he thinks his opinion here is going to matter at the state capital or Washington?


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

maturemuscle said:


> You already admitted that helmets are safer so in my world that is the end of the story.
> 
> Guess what? This conversation is over as far as you and I are concerned.



The conversation between you and I was over before you came into this thread.  You are close-minded and already have your preconceived notions firmly in place.  You don't care about facts, you only care about things that seem to reinforce your opinions.

For one, I don't need your slack.  I am neither untrained nor uneducated, and I have absolutely no idea where you would get this impression.  If I have come across in that way whatsoever, I am shocked.  Your assumptions are once again nothing more than hot air and opinion.  Facts really aren't your friend are they?

I am however young.  Well youngish anyway.  I would be willing to bet that if you looked at the vast majority of repealed laws, and the vast majority of consitutional defense programs, they have been spearheaded by the young and passionate, before apathy rears its ugly head and the status quo becomes acceptable.

I care about the constitution, have been an oathkeeper for many years, and will continue to argue against slippery slope laws that erode our personal freedoms.

Until you can answer, with a straight face, why we dont have laws controlling obesity, smoking, drinking, and risky sports, but to limit a persons use on a motorcycle is acceptable, then you are right, we are done here.  My only regret in this thread is that I wasted so much time researching facts for you that you didn't even bother to read or take into account.

This my friends, is the internet equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA".


Doms- I almost 100% agree with your post earlier.  I too think that wearing a helmet is the more responsible choice.  I just by-God dont want to be told that I have to wear it.  I tried to rep you, but apparently rep is like AIDS.  I have to spread it around a little.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 28, 2010)

Jesus Christ, this thread is full of so much shit. 

Why won't anyone address the issue? The issue is, of coarse, not that helmets may save you from injury or death. The issue isn't how much helmets save Americans on insurance premiums.  

The issue is simple. There are a million ways to die or become injured. Most of those ways can be avoided by instituting legislation for mandatory safety precautions. Why pick on motorcyclist?    

Laws against eating or drinking in cars would save 10 times as much money as helmets of motor cyclist. Tougher enforcement for basic driving safety would actually make money. Why not give tickets to assholes that impede the passing lanes? Why not give tickets to people who don't stay in their lane during a turn? 

While we are at it, I ask again why is alcohol and tobacco legal? Why is hydrogenated oil legal? Why isn't exercise mandated by law? Why isn't a healthy diet mandated by law? Why isn't stress management mandated? You know what I'm talking about, the real killers of Americans. I'm talking about the majority of health care cost in America.

So lets me honest, ok. Lets cut the bullshit. Too many people, smoke, drink, eat like shit, never exercise, live on the couch in front of the tube, ect ect ect ect. Too many people would be against making the changes that would make an actual difference. 
However, there aren't many motorcyclist out there, so the minority gets shit on. We have to deal with the stupid fucking rules doled out to us, while the rest of you hippocritical fucks can feel like you are some how making a difference and help to make things safe. 

*Bullshit! *

Everyone one of you in favor of helmet laws had your mind made up before you ever came in this thread, and you will search google for hours looking for some kind of data to support your preconceived beliefs about motorcycles. Cognitive dissidence is a mother fucker I tell ya!

So be honest. If you are an advocate of helmets just be honest about it. "I think everyone should wear helmets because it saves money, and the law doesn't effect me"


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Why won't anyone address the issue? The issue is, of coarse, not that helmets may save you from injury or death. The issue isn't how much helmets save Americans on insurance premiums.



jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums.  Which sounds reasonable considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles.  And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents.  So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance. 

Short version: if you ride a bike and get in an accident, do everyone a favor and die.  Thanks.  

But the government, rightly or not, is mandated to keep the deaths on the roads down.  Which is why they force safety measures on drivers.



KelJu said:


> The issue is simple. There are a million ways to die or become injured. Most of those ways can be avoided by instituting legislation for mandatory safety precautions. Why pick on motorcyclist?



Picking on motorcyclists?  You mean like making car drivers pay for seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones?  Or making truck drivers pay for all that, mudflaps, and underrun bars?

No one is picking on any specific subset of drivers.  It's all in your head.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums.  Which sounds reasonable considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles.  And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents.  So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance.
> 
> Short version: if you ride a bike and get in an accident, do everyone a favor and die.  Thanks.
> 
> ...



Bullshit! 

Half of that isn't even relevant to the discussion anyway. Helmets are for personal safety, where as mudflaps and under run bars are for other driver's safety. You are posting anything you can think of to show you are right.

I doubt you really even care about the issue. So, I am bowing out at this point.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

A small percentage of a small percentage doesn't raise the cost of anything.  You're believing what the politicians want you to believe.  The data is out there, Morrison presented it to you.  In all the time you spend on the internet you should be quite adept at finding it on your own.  

The government isn't mandated to do anything to keep the general public safe.  There have been Supreme Court cases regarding this.  

Since you have to pay for your seatbelt, crumple zone and airbags you feel that you're being picked on so it only makes sense to pick on someone else?  

Once you think about it, with all the safety devices in place it could be argued that drivers are being less responsible and driving more dangerously since all of those safety devices lend a sense of invulnerability so they don't feel the need to actually drive rather than point their two ton penis extension in a general direction.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I wonder if he realizes that, in the greater scheme of things, our debate only matters to the people who are here?  Hence the reputation reference I made.
> 
> I wonder if he thinks his opinion here is going to matter at the state capital or Washington?



but of course. everyone knows that the federal government is actively monitoring the rigorous debates here at IM in order to better understand the needs of the people and chart a course for our country.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 28, 2010)

I haved owned motorcycles in the past and I wore a helmet(the law in NC). I would wear one even if it wasn't the law. Given you are at a very high risk any way to die in a motorcycle wreck, I would eliminate what I could.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> but of course. everyone knows that the federal government is actively monitoring the rigorous debates here at IM in order to better understand the needs of the people and chart a course for our country.



In that case, hookers and pot for everyone!

I think I hit a nerve.  He negged me for zero points.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> A small percentage of a small percentage doesn't raise the cost of anything.



That's what I said.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Bullshit!
> 
> Half of that isn't even relevant to the discussion anyway. Helmets are for personal safety, where as mudflaps and under run bars are for other driver's safety. You are posting anything you can think of to show you are right.
> 
> I doubt you really even care about the issue. So, I am bowing out at this point.



My point was that the government has to take steps, all sorts of them, to try to keep deaths down on the road.

But feel free to get your panties in a bunch.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> In that case, hookers and pot for everyone!
> 
> I think I hit a nerve.  He negged me for zero points.



i received the same thing.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> In that case, hookers and pot for everyone!
> 
> I think I hit a nerve.  He negged me for zero points.



Hookers, pot, guns, no helmets, test, and HGH for all!


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> That's what I said.



Go back and read what you said.  You said it raises the cost of insurance.


----------



## Zaphod (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> My point was that the government has to take steps, all sorts of them, to try to keep deaths down on the road.
> 
> But feel free to get your panties in a bunch.



The government doesn't have to.  They just want to, propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> Go back and read what you said.  You said it raises the cost of insurance.



I suppose I couldn't have been bit clearer, but I said:



DOMS said:


> *jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums. Which sounds reasonable *considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles. And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents. So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

Zaphod said:


> The government doesn't have to.  They just want to, propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created.



I want  to be clear on this: you think that seatbelts laws are "propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created"?


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I want  to be clear on this: you think that seatbelts laws are "propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created"?



This is opening an entire can of worms, but in my _*opinion*_ the primary purpose of seat belt law is for increased ticket revenue, and more probable cause stops.

However, I am willing to concede that I may be a little jaded at this point!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 28, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> This is opening an entire can of worms, but in my _*opinion*_ the primary purpose of seat belt law is for increased ticket revenue, and more probable cause stops.
> 
> However, I am willing to concede that I may be a little jaded at this point!



I'm gonna have to go with option two, Mr. Morrison.


----------



## jmorrison (Feb 28, 2010)

It could be.  It seems like the older I get, the more liberal and conspiracy driven I get.

HELP I AM TURNING INTO A DEMOCRAT!  Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 1, 2010)

DOMS said:


> jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums.  Which sounds reasonable considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles.  And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents.  So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance.



You still missed it.


----------

