Speed limits ?

Seat belts ?

Car seats for children ?

DUI ?

Speed cotrolled zones near schools ?

Residantial mandated speed limits ?

How about texting, cell phones use and all that is being initiated into law as we speak ?

Just a teeny tiny sample of laws intended to legislate saftey and by far many if not most have had a positive impact on saving lives, costs to teh community and other related impact.

Its hard I know to be passionate about a hobby but still be able to step back and see the big picture....even if it seem restrictive but ultimately for the greater good.

If the world was like "We" would like it to be, you would need no laws for anything but guess what.....

 

Compared to nothing that helmet could very easilly save her life....easily all day long.

 

Sorry for the posts but this is hard on a cell phone.


Anyway....


Lets use your numbers do you really think a 55% increase is not signficant?

55% more people DEAD ?

Thats backing up your opinion , man I'm clearly doing this all wrong.

 

I see there is a lot of good points in the many posts so far.....
thing i see in this hole thing some may agree some may not and thats ok
1.my helment is 6 lbs (that 6 lbs extra pounds on your neck)
2. alot of riders know the risk with riding with out one (I know i do)
If i was not a risk taker i would never get on a bike or even leave my house i would sit in side and watch cars drive by lol
anyway you look at it your damned if you do and damned if you dont

Im not for it nor am I aginced it I think it should be a choice

 

This may sound harsh, but Darwinism is a rather effective method of thinning the weak out of a herd. When people die because they do something stupid or dangerous, without taking reasonable precautions, the herd's gene pool gets a little stronger. As long as the risk takers are only killing or endangering themselves, I see no need for a law mandating that they change their behavior.

Stupid is supposed to hurt.

Someone that manages to live to adulthood without learning the consequences of their actions is likely someone who was never taught responsibility or personal accountability. I don't think it's fair that I should be forced to live by rules drafted to protect idiots from themselves, especially when those rules cover topics that most sane and rational people understand as common sense. If someone is too stupid to avoid an obvious danger and gets killed in the process, I would venture to say that the world became a slightly better place...

Wearing a helmet and gear just makes sense to me. I don't need a law to dictate my behavior on this matter. Nor do I feel I have the right to impose my belief about it on someone else, provided they aren't endangering anyone other than them self.

 

no... that's not 55% more riders dead. that's a rise of 55% of dead riders. for example, if you had 10 riders die, now you have 15 instead.

and that's not even adjusted for the increase number of riders. so no, i don't really feel that it's that substantial, but that's mostly because it doesn't affect me - even in costs

it's very unfortunate, but it's not society's responsibility is all i'm saying. any time i hear something like "the greater good", it immediately throws up red flags. free people making their own decisions and taking responsibility for said decisions is the greater good


once again, taking seatbelts and airbags out of cars is not the issue. that's essentially saying "no one can wear helmets". you're talking of absolutes - when in this convo - there are no absolutes. it's not just one way or the other for all riders

look at what different manufacturers do, they go above and beyond the law. they're not forced to, they choose too because people care for their safety. (my example here would be SNELL, which is NOT mandated)

i'm atgatt, but it's not because some law says i need to be. VW has way more airbags then the law says they need to, but the market that to families that want that.

i'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, but there need to be less victim less laws. DUI - impaired driving - that's not a victimless crime when someone is clearly not in control. they're essentially not licensed then

speed limits are a problem. tell me how many more lives are saved when they drop a speed zone from 55 to 45. they did it in my area, and the only reason was to get more federal funding. it's made things much more dangerous in my area having that slower speed limit because people now drive much more aggressively and much more over the speed limit to get where they're going. (you do know the autobahn is safer than any road in the US right? per vehicle traveled, per 100,000 miles - even the areas alone with no speed limit)

car seats for children. - come on man, kids can't take responsibility for their own safety, so there DOES need to be a law for that. but this convo is for consenting adults - so any laws where children (minors) come into play is just simply not comparable.



and i know it's off topic, i'm a guns guy too. so i would be curious to hear your views on that as well.

 

Having had the privilege of driving on the AutoBahn, I can tell you its amazing! And there is a speed SUGGESTION of 130km/hr, but it is only a suggestion. You can go as fast as you want. The deal is, if you get into an accident, and it is determined you were going over 130km/hr, you are at fault and will be cited. I couldnt believe it when I was going 140km/hr and I was being passed by the Polizei! It was awesome.

Anyway, the point of the story is that driver education is the key. Germany has a rigorous drivers ed program, and it shows.

You could mandate everyone to wear helmets and bubble wrap themselves before every ride, and people would still kill themselves because they dont understand how to look through a turn, or counter steer, or ride within their abilities, or adjust for conditions.

Treat the cause of the problem, not the symptoms.

 

I understand the point you're making here, but these two sentences just completely contradict each other. Protecting its people from any dangers they might face, including themselves.

You make the argument that seatbelt laws are completely different. Seatbelt laws are there to help protect you in the event of a crash, whether it is instigated by yourself or another person. How is a helmet any different from that very definition?

"Victimless crime" is also rubbish. Say someone hits you while you're on your motorcycle. It was their fault, but they are a empathetic human being who did it on accident and feels completely awful. They have good insurance that makes sure you're covered. If you're wearing a helmet, you come out with maybe something broken or other somewhat serious injury, but still 100% recoverable. If you're not wearing a helmet, and you die, now this person might be on trial and in jail for manslaughter. Based on YOUR CHOICE. And who do you think helps pay for that kind of thing? We do.

The money that could go towards rider education and potentially helmet laws is far less than the money it takes to support everything that comes from helmet-less accidents. (By the way, regarding your flight for life example - every think that maybe someone not wearing a helmet might not necessarily die, but require flight for life, instead of having less severe injuries with a helmet? It goes both ways.) ObamaCare for instance - we're now paying to fix people who don't have proper insurance. I bet that includes a lot of motorcyclists...

No, they don't understand what they're doing. Because common sense is wearing a damn helmet. Sure, they are making that conscious decision. But that doesn't mean they're smart or have common sense.

I'm not coming down on you, either (I like to debate), but you seem more interested in the "free country, we don't need bull**** laws" defense, without caring about what kind of good these laws could do. Look at the safety statistics in that other thread linked here, and try and tell me that they are doing more harm than good...

 

i agree 100%

 

it' doesn't contradict itself at all

if they're in court facing vehicular manslaughter - there's a victim. if it's his fault that he hit a motorcyclist, it's his fault. do you not understand that? the motorcyclist, either wearing a helmet or not, dead or alive, is still a victim. and if he's dead because of no helmet, there's a certain amount of negligence on the rider (wouldn't you agree?)

if you want to take that arguement the whole way, you eventually lead to banning motorcycles (because hey, if he was in a car, maybe he wouldn't have died). and believe me, that's where this ends. there are people already calling for that in the USA under the guise of public safety or the "greater good" . that's where this progression with public safety laws ends. it's like saying eventually, castration will be a preventative measure against testicular cancer. helmet laws a good start down that road


if it's the motorcyclist's fault - it doesn't matter whether he died or not, there would never be any manslaughter charge.


you look at that data and the immediate "good" they're doing... thats fine. but long term, they're bad. look at how dumb people have become. cars are better than ever. safer, more reliable, more driver aids, and yet we have the worst drivers ever. the number 1 cause of all accidents is now: negligence. that's what happens when you put a band aid on a problem, it gets worse. roads are not safer now by any stretch of the imagination. there may be less fatal accidents now, but there are much more wrecks in general. your safety laws have contributed to a much worse problem - bad driving. it's an unattended consequence. when there are case studies done, you don't get the full picture. it judges on the problem the law set out to correct, but it doesnt take into account all the other problems created. need an example? tax law, look how corrupt, complicated, and unequal it's actually become - all when created to make things more "fair".


and like i said, when you compare the "minimal" laws we have here in the US, with the "extensive" laws that are in europe, by everyone's arguments here, costs and insurance should be cheaper, and motorcycling should be safer.

but it's not. it's been tried. real world tested. none of the pro's you guys point out have ever worked in practice. those who are safe will be safe. those who don't care - they need to rely on luck.

people, in our country, whether you like it or not, have the right to be dumb.

and youre wrong about the public paying for these accidents. with a helmet law, there will be just as many bad crashes and money spent on people who are under insured and uninsured. you've kicked the can a bit further down the road. helmet law does not mean less crashes. it means (at the most) a few less fatalities. there will still be plenty of head trauma and other head injuries (even with helmets). and there will be *for certain* far more neck and spinal injuries. if you look at all of the long term recovery costs associated, it wont get cheaper for anyone


and you're right about me feeling like i don't need any more bullsh*t laws. i don't need some dumbass in tally (i live in florida) or washington telling me how to live my life. and i wouldn't press my views upon the guy next door. and believe me, we need fewer, not more laws. but that doesn't mean we need NO laws or rules either. there just needs to be a better balance.

i don't care if someone wants to inject heroin up their *** with a rocket launcher - if they're not concerning me or anyone else with that - i'm fine with them choosing that for themselves.

it's about the rights of MAN vs men.