|
|
Visionary
Posts: 4278
| http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=882618&ref=nf |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 457
Green Bay, WI United States | I despise any political or other view that we all need protection from our own choices. I for one "chose" to wear a helmet but like to do some riding without. This should be my choice just like wiping with my left or right hand. Next thing you know during the "deer rut" motorcycles will be banned from riding to protect ya all. Farkin barkin ice holes - my Mother lives 2,000 miles away for a reason, no dis-respect to my lovely Mother, just trying to make a point. Join your local ABATE Chapter to support our God given right to ride hard, ride fast, but above all -ride safe......
Until we ride again my Brothers and Sisters...
Wildman |
|
| |
|
Puddle Jumper
Posts: 31
| I am not an ATGATT guy. I do have all the gear for riding long distance but there are summer days where I like to run up to the store or out to a friend's house in my shorts and no helmet. I'm glad I have that choice. I know the risks and I accept them. This is just another form of control and I hate rules made just for control sake. Reminds me of my ex wife. |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 219
Pittsburgh, PA | I do wear helmet while riding and I served my time in the military to protect our freedoms. One of those freedoms is my right to ride without a helmet, if I decide to. Now I'm labeled as anti-government because I do not want them butting into my daily decisions. what bullshit. The reason why we see more motorcycle related crashes has to do with the number of new and inexperienced riders that thought it would be so much cheaper to get there on a bike when gas was $5.00 a gallon. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 374
Tucson, AZ | Once again another skewed numbers game. Of course there are more deaths on the road than in 1970s...hmm way more people alive in the U.S. and way more bikes on the road....just more manipulating the numbers. If you want to wear a helmet, great, but if you dont, it should be up to you. And thats my final answer.
mike
|
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | I am not an ATGATT guy, nor do I play one on T.V. This topic was being heavily discussed over on theVMC and is being championed by TigerLily. The beef is not only the law that requires helmet wearing, but the method of enforcement. Personally I wear a DOT approved helmet and I do so for my family. I don't get into the angular force and trajectory and all that other stuff that people have knowledge of, but if I get flattened by a semi, I'm dead no matter what I'm wearing. But if I slip on a squirrel in the neighborhood and I fall off my bike and bang my head, I would rather have that level of protection and not the knoggin' with blunt force trauma. This way I hope to be around to take of my family a little longer.
Discussions on forums become a volleyball event and nothing is swayed or gained, but I do suggest to you that if you do care about any law to include helmet laws, VOTE in the elections, and be a member of lobby groups and participate in folks like AMA (unless you're a [1%]) or ABATE. |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 162
Northern NJ | I'm ATGATT, but I don't like laws that would mandate helmets or other safety gear for adults riders. To me, it's a common sense issue of individual rights.
That being said, IMHO if you're going to ride without a helmet, you should be required to carry sufficient insurance so that if you're brain-injured in an accident and require long-term care, the rest of us don't have to pay for it by our rates going up.
Ride safe gang. |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 169
Iowa | In the story it claims that 4,400 fatalities were from motorcycle accidents and as a nation there were 37,423 accidents for last year. The people in the story claim they want to reduce accidents and be better than other nations. (silly political BS - IMHO) If reducing accidents as a whole is their focus, then why focus on motorcycles? Not all 4,400 fatalities were from head injury due to no helmet. Even if they were, that is only 12% of all fatalities. So if half were no helmet related, it would only be addressing about 6% of all fatalities.
My point would be, if they really are concerned about reducing fatalities in the US, then address the highest risk factors in fatalities. Helmet laws, or lack of helmet laws (again only Iowa, Illinos, NH have not helmet laws) would not be the biggest cause.
I am in Iowa and I choose to wear a helmet 100% of the time. My choice. |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 162
Northern NJ | ClearVision - 2010-11-17 8:06 AM
...
My point would be, if they really are concerned about reducing fatalities in the US, then address the highest risk factors in fatalities. Helmet laws, or lack of helmet laws (again only Iowa, Illinos, NH have not helmet laws) would not be the biggest cause.
I am in Iowa and I choose to wear a helmet 100% of the time. My choice.
Statistically, a high percentage of motorcycle accidents occur with another vehicle, at an intersection, with the driver turning left in front of a rider.
I believe the AMA is behind an effort to get the government to focus on the CAUSE of the accident.
We as riders know that increasingly, accidents are being caused by inattentive and distracted drivers. There needs to be better driver education and awareness of motorcycles. There should also be stronger laws to punish drivers that cause injury or death to motorcyclists.
Join the AMA and help support your rights as a rider. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 3006
San Antonio, TX | varyder wrote....Discussions on forums become a volleyball event..............
If that is the case, could I suggest it be a Female Beach Volleyball event???? Everybody likes a body likes Female Beach Volleyball!
Yes, I wear a helmet by choice (I like my brain with its current amount of damage. No more damage needed.)....A helmet law is not required. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1484
LaPorte,Tx. | RT, when you talk about "Brain Damage" I remember the Bill Cosby Live skit where he talks about his kids being "Brain Damaged". Makes me smile. I wear a DOT approved helmet, I believe it is the thing to do. I'm happy with my decision and I'm happy that my state does not force folks to wear a helmet. I wear as much personal protection that I can as long as it is comfortable and does not take away from the riding experience. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 367
Cottage Grove, Mn | I should think their time would be better spent getting and KEEPING drunk drivers off the highway?. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 8144
New Bohemia, VA | I'll agree with you BJ, but my other conclusion is that as riders that we educate ourselves to recogonize and avoid potential dangereous situations through knowing what "might" happen. If I know that people have a tendency to turn left in front of me I'm suspect of any car nearing a road that coming from the opposite direction that might not see me. I think folks get my point, but though it might be said that luck plays a big part of what we do, training and awareness helps combat the enemy all the more when you don't know when they will appear. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 2300
Georgia, west of Atlanta | Helmets should be a choice not an enforced law from State goverments............ |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 367
Cottage Grove, Mn | varyder - 2010-11-17 1:09 PM
I'll agree with you BJ, but my other conclusion is that as riders that we educate ourselves to recogonize and avoid potential dangereous situations through knowing what "might" happen. If I know that people have a tendency to turn left in front of me I'm suspect of any car nearing a road that coming from the opposite direction that might not see me. I think folks get my point, but though it might be said that luck plays a big part of what we do, training and awareness helps combat the enemy all the more when you don't know when they will appear.
VA
I ride with the simple assumption that no one see's me including the driver of the car who's door handle I can reach out and touch. I have saved my butt many times riding under that assumption. And I always wear a helmet not because I have too but because I see no valid reason not too. |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 127
OHIO | Well I guess it will be time to sell if it comes around here. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 537
, FL United States | I agree, too many "uneducated" riders. By that I mean too many people not knowing how to ride a motorcycle buying them and riding becasue of the price of gas... |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 499
Chattanooga, TN | They won't stop here , either. Once they get what they want, then it's on to the next thing. What's next, mandatory seat belts? |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 50
hudson, IL United States | i think that a lot of the time it is a cars fault. but i know where i live two of the wrecks that i knew someone that died they where both dumb kids on rice rockets. one did a wheelie with a girl on the back and when he came down he had to hit the brakes hard. they hit heads and fell off she died he almost did, no helmets. the other a kid tried to run a red and lost, full gear and died. so i don?t think it is a matter of motorcycles are unsafe and we all need helmets or we will die. i think it should be up to us but in there numbers it should say if they where braking the law when they got in the wreck. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1359
New Bohemia, Va | Government will target where they can gain revenue. Sure, they'll say they are out for your safety, but the bottom-line is the dollar. Federally mandated seatbelts is just the beginning, and statistics will say seatbelts save lives. I will agree with this, but it saves lives because it keeps you from bouncing around when you get in an accident that could have been avoided if everyone is driving safely.
Helmets are under the same scope, people won't drive safely, therefore accidents occur and if you are on a motorcycle, you'll get the worse end of the deal. As an a rider, I want to end my day alive, I can't wait for laws to change, and it does me no good, nor my family if I'm dead and it was the other drivers fault. Survivability when riding a motorcycle means keen awareness what the other person MIGHT do and keep a safe zone from that hazard in case it does. Helmets help when that doesn't happen or cannot be avoided and you go down. It might be a good idea to take a motorcycle safety course, money well spent. |
|
| |
|
Iron Butt
Posts: 619
Southeast Iowa | I'm no fan of a Helmet law (yes I wear one) or most any other laws that seemed to get passed. I like the stupid arguments about how helmet-less riders who survive the accident are such a drain to us that have insurance and pay taxes. Come-on people wake up! If you want to fight things that are a real drain on tax payers look no further than Health Care and our Welfare programs!! As screwed up as our country is right now you would think the law makers could actually find a cause worth fighting for that would have a meaningful impact to our country. For some reason we encourage people that spend their lives bantering about gay marriage, helmet laws, and other meaningless shit that really does not change the world we live in. It pisses me off that we allow our elected officials to waste their time with this stuff when there are so many "real" problems that need addressed. Seems to me our society is turning into a bunch nosey ole do gooders that feel the need to save me from myself. To them I say F-ck-off, mind your own business, and get a real job that somehow benefits society!! |
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 203
Rapid City, SD | Why is this any different from seat belt laws. Once upon a time there were no laws for wearing seat belts and life was good. I had the choice to fly through a windshield and damn it... I want that choice back again. Fast forward to the helmet debate... if I choose to have my cranium bounce across the pavement resulting in large outpouring of tax payers dollars then f-the rest of you cause it's my choice. While we are at it WTF is up with the speed limits. If my bike is capable of doing 120MPH then by GOD I want to go 120MPH.
Where am I going with this? Sometimes laws aren't only to infringe on your right to be careless. Some are enacted for the publics general wellbeing. Now it is true, this among others isn't at the top of my list. I just find it humorus how animated some of you get over the subject. If it were me I would direct my attention to DUI enforcement. Something I would venture a guess at least 65% of the country does to some extent or another. Hell that should be your choice as well right?
For the short sided helmet hating clan that think their choices don't affect others I laugh at your inability to see past your front tire. Maybe you are just perpetuating the worlds natural selection process. Flame away but I will not reopen this thread so I don't waste another 5 minutes of my helmet wearing life. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 423
northwest florida | stinking lawmakers....vote them out!! Wait we did do some of them. Time to remind them of what happened. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 2118
Pitt Meadows, BC Canada | 25 years ago I argued against the Helmet Laws - and one of my arguments was that "If a biker dies from head injuries because he was not wearing a helmet - the cost to the state is a lot less than the cost of looking after a biker with a broken neck after the helmet saved his life".
I would rather be dead than in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.
The bastards didn't buy that argument either - even after I proved to them that more people died falling out of bed, than die from bike accidents.
I think they just don't like bikers, or are just plain jealous that they can't ride (wife won't let them) .... so they think up ways to make us miserable.
|
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 329
scotts valley, California | In California, I comply with the helmet law because I want to ride and I don't want to pay a bunch of fines. However the one and only serious accident I was involved in (hit the pavement at 75mph) did not produce one single scratch on my helmet. My wallet was shredded and I ended up with six stitches between my.. let's not go there. Suffice it to say I was wearing the helmet on the wrong end of me. Fortunately I could still make babies after the accident. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 4278
| WE should have the right to beside! Bell helmet say if the helmet drops from about waist high and hits the ground you should send it back for inspection.
So if falls off your gas tank or seat you should send it back for them to check. Why don't they put out more adds for cage people to be aware. I know when I drive my cage I feel that I am a better drive cause I do look for bikes. If we have to wear helmets all bicycle riders better from kids on up to old people. Maybe any on that climbs a step ladder should too. I mean you could fall of the roof and get hurt. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 457
Green Bay, WI United States | Thanks John, most do no know this. If you helmet falls off the seat of you bike it should go back to the manufacture to insure it's Snell Rating and your safety. I know they sent a helmet back to the manufacture back in the day after AJ Foyt hit the wall in a USAC Sprint Car and they were told no one could have lived thru that much impact, go figure!!! Riding with or without is my choice, at least at this time. Join ABATE, AMA or any other lobbing agency and make a difference. Not sure about motorcycle laws but I know for a fact that the AARP is the biggest anti-gun lobbing group in the USA.
Ride hard, ride fast, but above all - ride safe...... |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1436
| There are of course a FEW statistics that are left out and I won't go into whether one should or should not wear a lid, to me it is the riders choice as it should be. Here are a few stats not included in the Feds push for mandatory helmet laws and just food for thought. These don't provide a conclusion for wearing or not as printed by NHTSA.
1. the feds own report clearly indicates more fatalities occured in the USA of riders 'wearing' than riders who were not. 52% of fatalities were wearing.
2. states "with" mandatory lid requirements do not show a decline in rider fatality. To the contrary they are increasing regardless of lid requirement.
3. The number of fatalities is increasing disproportionate to the number of bikes registered. In other words there are MORE bikes/riders taking to the road BUT this increased ridership is NOT the sole cause of the increased number of fatalities.
4. The number 1 cause of motorcycle accidents result from another motorist crossing the path of the motorcycle.
5. NHTSA has promoted helmet use for the past 30 years and it's implimentation has never decreased fatality rates. Stats have been altered to make it appear as something it was not. For example NHTSA uses an annual miles ridden by state conversion to arrive at their numbers for the years helmet laws supposedly decreased. However, NHTSA did NOT actually collect miles ridden numbers, they made them up so as to make it appear their recommendation was working. They have been sued multiple times by MRF because of these false numbers and have had to admit to making them up, multiple times.
and finally number 6. The Fed is making several FAULTY assertions that can neither be supported or proven. The assertions are that head trauma is the leading cause of death and that helmet use would prevent this trauma, which cannot be proven nor will any helmet manufacturer make such a claim. Further it ASSUMES (no numbers to support, but plenty to call into question the feds assertions) that because a state does NOT require helmet use, that riders are not wearing. It should b interesting to know that in great britian where helmet use is mandatory, MC fatalities are also at record highs.
I live in PA who adopted a helmet modification bill some years back. Helmet use is required for most riders unless you meet certain exceptions such as being 21 years of age, 2 years of MC experience since endorsed and/or MSF certification and a few others. Initially what I saw was EVERYONE riding lidless, but within a very short span about 50% or more reverted back to wearing (by their own choice). If forced to guess I'd have to say far more riders wear within the Commonwealth than those who ride lidless. So to "claim" helmet use would decrease fatalities based on realistic data collected, just isn't supported. I therefore have to conclude that we should let those who ride decide. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 307
Columbia, SC | (1) Depends on how the data was reported. If it's percentage of fatalities, you can't go by that. Cause if 99 people wear helmets and one doesnt, then it goes without saying that there it is more likely for a helmeted rider to die than a non-helmeted one. What we'd need for accuracy is what ratio of helmeted riders died to what ratio of non-helmeted riders (for example 1 out of every 100 helmeted riders, to 1 out of every 50 non-helmeted would mean you're twice as likely to die without than with). So without knowing what exact numbers their using, we can't make assumptions.
(2) Out of curiousity, are ALL states rising in fatalities? Or just ones with mandatory helmet laws. Just curious.
(3) Sounds about right. I get angry with the Army's safety briefings for this every year. Seems like every year "More and more motorcycle riders are dying".... but they NEVER seem to report how many more people are BUYING motorcycles. Seems like it's "Last year 20 people died. This year 22 people died. UNACCEPTABLE!" When in reality, maybe last year 2000 people rode and this year 2400 people rode. In which case it's a step in the RIGHT direction.
(4) While that may be the number one reason, keep in mind that the number one reason for a SOLE motorcycle accident is usually user error, usually involving excessive speed. Bummer that we're killing ourselves, huh?
(5) .I know. I hate only hearing half a story.
(6) I like Austin's law. Where in order to ride without a helmet you have to carry a certain amount of insurance so that the taxpayers will not have to foot your emergency room bill when you crash. That's my main gripe about riding helmetless. If someone crashes, even a minor crash, if your head collides with something, the hospital ends up footing the bill. Which means the cost goes SOMEWHERE, and it's usually on us, the taxpayers and people whose insurance rates go up every year that end up paying it. I mean, I know if I'm an insurance company and I was in a state where the rider was more likely to have a SERIOUS injury rather than minor in the event of a crash, I'd raise MY rates. I've no problem with people riding without a helmet. I personally will never ride without a helmet. I just want the cost of not wearing a helmet to be completely up to the rider. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 432
Gettysburg, 2008 Tour Premium | I know that bikes are getting faster and faster. I know that people have figured out ways to "ride" there motorcycles that could not have been imagined back when I had more testosterone that brains, just one example is riding wheelies down busy 4 lane hwy's at rush hour. Most of those guys where full face helmets, and they are making up part of the statistics. Enough said.
Edited by wroman 2010-12-16 10:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 152
Litchfield Park, AZ | Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet....if you're an adult I could care less...I believe in an adult's right to choose, but please don't ever let a child on a bike without a helmet.
One thing I know is that figures lie and liars figure.....but do not tell me that a human being stands a better chance of decreasing brain damage and/or walking away from a crash without a helmet. Take all the "statistical variables" out of it and answer this one question: If I told you that you were going to be in a moderate collision in the next 200 miles while on your motorcycle, would you want a helmet on your head?
Again, I could care less if you wear one, but PLEASE don't pretend that they don't help people walk away from crashes....siting statistics is like pissing in the wind and arguing whether or not its raining. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1359
New Bohemia, Va | I'm all for rider choice, but it is hard to argue that not wearing a helmet is better than wearing one. Just wearing a hat has protected me, so I know that wearing a helmet would save me from the blunt force trauma of bumping something if I went down. Most of us have a foredrawn conclusion of what we think is right, so trying convince another is an exercise in futility.
The real issue is, should wearing a helmet be legislated, and if so, how is it enforced. Everyone who is using statistics will always collect the data in their favor for the cause they champion. From every motorcycle accident I read about, I examine as much information as I can and use it to keep me safer when I'm on the road. As a rider, I pay attention to every place that runs a risk of a driver not seeing me, or taking a chance and cutting across my path. I've had motorcycle riders that did not see me and try to do that. What a hayday that would have been, two bike crashing, one cutting across the path of another. I pointed a shaking finger at him and told him to pay attention. I might have read about him already as a statistic, who knows?
The bottomline is, I like the freedom to choose, and I pay attention because no one else will for me. I've enjoyed riding with no helmet, but I relent and put it back on as I don't want my family to have to deal with "if only he wore his helmet" should something had happened.
Ride on, ride safe!
Edited by Cap'n Nemo 2010-12-17 6:11 AM
|
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 548
Mount Vernon, WA United States | sfalexi - 2010-12-16 7:53 PM
(6) I like Austin's law. Where in order to ride without a helmet you have to carry a certain amount of insurance so that the taxpayers will not have to foot your emergency room bill when you crash.
I think behind this law is hiding the TRUE dirty little secret. It's really not that Helmets save lives. That may be true, may not be true... doesn't really matter... "Helmets prevent injury" is the REAL reason in my mind that any of the lawmakers even bother.
Yes deaths happen... lets forget all that for a moment and just talk injury. That's really where the money is spent, that's where the whole "your state must have a helmet law or we aren't giving you money" from the fed comes from. People who die in motorcycle accidents don't really put that much of a burden on emergency rooms compared to how many people are just INJURED... But... they could never get away with trying to enforce a law based on "it will save you from getting injured".
I too think a helmet is a choice. My choice is AGAT (All Gear All the Time)... and to be perfectly honest... it's for comfort not safety. I like being warm, I like pockets, I don't particularly like the wind in my face.
I have seen and read a lot about accidents over the years as most of us had. I have seen 100+ mph crashes where the rider walked away, and there have been instances of people essentially just dropping their bike and smacking their helmeted head on the pavement and dying of snapped neck. Each accident is individual. One thing I have NEVER seen... I have never seen an accident in which someone died, where the helmet or lack of helmet made a difference. Did the guy who hit the wall at 100+ live because of the helmet?? Really?? I doubt it. What about the guy who hit the bridge at about 35 mph... he had a helmet on... he died... I was run over by a truck... pretty much the only thing that WASN'T touched... was my Helmet.. It had nothing to to with my surviving.. and in fact... the 1st idiot on the scene almost killed me trying to pull it off of me cause he didn't know about the chin strap and was choking me.
Anyway... back on track... I believe Helmet laws only exist so states can continue to get funding to support those uninsured who are INJURED in bike accidents. I bet there is a correlation, like Austin to states who require insurance... probably have more lax helmet laws. I have no idea where to find this information, it's just a gut feeling.
|
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 204
guelph ontario | Riding a motorcycle produces organ donors-riding without a helmut produces more organ donors. As told by my Doctor. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 329
scotts valley, California | Just guessing, but I don't think Probie's doctor is a biker...... |
|
| |
dick heads are up to NO good helment law