http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcyc...lmet-study.htm

What do you think...I am for 'em!

 

I see it two ways here.

#1. The government make these types of laws to protect the people. The consiquence I can think of is that it takes another bit of freedom away.

#2. Personally, I dont care if the state has a helmet law or not. If a person REALLY wants to ride without a helmet than I doubt a law is going to stop them. Besides that, why should the government pervent a person from dieing the way that person sees fit to kill themselves? Its the persons own responceability to protect themselves. The government shouldnt need to be a baby sitter. This is why I dont think there should be a NEED to have a helmet law.

This brings me to another POV. I think this type of law can be related to the statement made that driving/riding is a privilage. But...with todays setup of infastructre, I think driving/riding should now be a RIGHT. If you have no means of long distance(Up to 10miles, IMO) transportation you might as well be homeless. 1 whole day would probably be spent walking to the store to buy your groceries and back, etc, etc...

Edit: I ride with a helmet. Too many bugs.

 

Nauree...

#1 - I agree...however the freedom removed in my opinion isn't detrimental...there's absolutely no statistical evidence that wearing a helmet is bad, only good...therefore, the law is doing nothing except helping you live...which brings to #2

#2 - i also agree...maybe darwinism should be practiced a little more in society...however, that being said....i would prefer the states to make these laws just so i don't have to deal with the statistics....i don't want people saying well look...25% or 1/4 people DIE on a bike....in which say 85% of those people could have been saved by having a helmet....what i am getting at is even though those people are essentially dumba$$es for not riding with a helmet and will eventually be their own executioner, i would prefer that their stupidity doesn't mark our society/group as being the walking dead when it could be cured by merely wearing a helmet...does that make sense...

being in law, i completely embrace the idea of the slippery slope meaning you start one thing and it leads to another and to another and so on...however...when the law is truly a good law, there is nothing showing that it adversely affects anything....AND it saves lives (granted...if you are only complying because of the law you're a moron)....i can get behind it....

either way....

wear your helmet!!!

 

Last Thrusday they passed a No Helmet law in Missouri. 21 and over no lid required.

Surely any lawyer worth his education will now challenge seat belt violations, even though they are infractions, and more than likely overrule past judgements with landmark case law.

They are one in the same, seat belts and helmets.

On a side note, the prosecutor in Buchanan County, Dwight Scroggins, will also allow charges to be filed using seat belt violations as probable cause. He has yet to be challenged by anyone financially able to do so.

 

I'm a firm believer in helmets. On that same token, I also believe in full riding boots and other such quality, CE rated (as a minimum) gear.

I'm also a believer that in this modern age... the "bad" people are much worse than those of prior generations (some due to technology), and because of this, adding in the whistle-blowing idiots that cry out and complain, start patitions, do demonstrations for things that DON'T need it (aka the people with nothing better to do than bitch and sue, and I'd like to choke those people sometimes)... and you've got a government that takes/is given more and more control and takes away more and more "freedoms" in the guise of "for your own safety". The idea of "If you can't have it, you won't hurt yourself or others with it", like having the freedom of choice on owning/carrying a gun, having the choice of wearing a helmet, etc etc... is rediculous. The "bad" people (using that word loosely to describe any law breaker at any level) are just that... they do what they want. Everytime you go 5mph over the speed limit, that's your CHOICE. You follow rules out of fear. Fear of the loss of money, jail time, death, whatever. A government that gives you "piece of mind" is only one that stuck you in a cage like a sheep and told you it's safe there... since out in the free world, where you can do as you please, there's crazy things like bugs, wolves, etc... they've made you fear that freedom.

Natural selection is being weeded out here. They limit the purchase of spray paint and some household chemicals because people (who are dumb) were buying it in bulk to destroy what little bit of their brain they have left. So... the government stepped in and made it harder for someone like me who wants to paint a bike part or clean my freaking oven to get said substances. Fact is... those people either A. Huff something else... or B. They MIGHT (BIG sarcasm there) get off the stuff... but will usually fall into something else. A person who wants trouble, finds it. All we're doing is troubling the "normal" people, again, in a guise of "public safety". This goes all the way up to the "national" level. As someone who spends plenty of time in an airport... I can see this first hand. It's rediculous.

Do I give people a hard time if they don't wear gear? Absolutely. Will I ride with them? Not if I know them... and if I do, I stay away from them. Do I try to stay safe while on the streets? Most of the time. All of these are my choices. Hell... if I want to rock a "Brohawk", then I will. This is two fold. I take my freedoms as I give others theirs.

I used to not wave to sport bikers without gear, but I would to Harley riders in the same situation. The irony dawned on me... so now I wave to everyone again. It's my right to gear up and save my skin... it's their right to roll with the risk. It's my right to own a gun, it's someone elses right to not want one in their house. It goes on and on. If someone wants to be informed, the information is out there... there's no excuses. Hell, anybody who's ever FALLEN DOWN on concrete has logical knowledge to apply that to greater speed on a bicycle, up to a motorcycle.

The other night I was out and watching on a local cruise spot for what's called the Meridian Cruise. A ton of hot-rod cars leave the car show and cruise up and down the street. There were TONS of cops, including the helecopter. You couldn't so much as fart without getting pulled over... it was just STUPID. A guy was sitting in his truck with his buddies a few cars back at a stoplight and he put the truck into neutral and reved the engine... just once. He didn't see the bike cops. They pulled him over as soon as he got moving and gave him a citation. (it was about 9pm, in town, non resedential area). Common!

Okay... end rant. Whew... that was weird...

 

I am not going to argue with anyone because hell, I agree with 99% of all the comments thus far....but I do believe in a balance. You can't want a completely hands off gov't while at the same time you don't want a dictatorship. Sometimes, and i stress SOMETIMES, I think laws will help.

Where I draw the line is where there is 50/50 on both sides. I won't get into gun stuff because that is much different in my opinion. But in terms of helmets....there is no downside other than protecting people who would otherwise weed themselves out via darwinism. I agree, laws function via fear. I don't want to get caught mentality. That's absolutely true. I do believe though that if a law scares someone, even if it's just a fear of a ticket, into wearing a helmet, it's worth it. The only people who should be upset are those that feel they don't need to wear one, in which case, you're an idiot (sorry...)

If there was no showing that they helped, and that there are detriments to wearing one, I would say step back gov't, but this is an idea that doesn't hurt anyone. I know, we can talk about the trouncing of freedoms and whatnot, but what I would like to stress is that this does not trounce on the freedoms of people with half a brain. This is the gov't stepping in to protect the stupid. Should we have to? No. But I am not opposed to this sort of intervention. Not really.

My big reason as said before is that perhaps...PERHAPS...by saving the lives of the 'tards that would have otherwise wiped themselves off the planet, maybe we as a group get a little more credibility. Meaning, if so many less people die on a bike, MAYBE people stop referring to bikes as death machines and the like.

Like I said, I am not advocating anything, but rather merely agreeing with the idea and that it doesn't trounce on any real freedom other than the right to kill yourself and at the same point, may help sportbike and all riders reputation among other people, even if the facade of responsibility is forced.

 

My only response to that is... save a " 'tard"'s life and then they breed more tards... and more... and more. I have trouble with that mentality... but I do understand your point. It's a fine balance, very true.

 

haha....I concur Lrn...that the idiots of the world breed more idiots....but here's my logic....see if you agree...haha...

Those that would have been so dumb as to ride without a helmet and eat concrete and were subsequently saved via a helmet law out of a fear of a ticket.......ARE....

SOOOOO dumb that they will eventually find a way to do themselves in in another way, thus completing the Darwin circle of life!

I would just prefer they don't do it on a sportbike so it doesn't reflect poorly on me.....HAHAH! [:'(]

 

very well put. you sir are a MASTERdeBATER lol