Helmet Law!
- Thread starter Thinker62
- Start date
- Status
Thinker your off on a tangent with this. I kill people in other lands and they try to kill me lets out law WAR cause it is dangerous too. Not everyone is as mature as you. So keep in mind the less aged will make bad decisions like we did when we were young. Give them a fighting chance to make it to be our age.
On your tangent why should it be against the law to assist someone to kill themselves if thats what they want. We try to preserve life. The car seats are a good point should that be optional as well?
Marc
indybusaman
Registered
Indiana is a funny state. I am not required to wear a helmet on my motorcycle, but I am required to wear a seatbelt in my car. Indiana also requires a motorcycle endorsement on your drivers license. Those who are against helmet laws, were you required to get a motorcycle endorsement on your drivers liscense? If so, isnt that gov't control of your freedom? Also,
the helmet laws link above is not correct (at least for Indiana) Indiana requires helmets for anyone under 18 and any person with a motorcycle learners permit.
the helmet laws link above is not correct (at least for Indiana) Indiana requires helmets for anyone under 18 and any person with a motorcycle learners permit.
Sorry Marc, I would banter with you, but I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. You said:
"I kill people in other lands and they try to kill me lets out law WAR cause it is dangerous too."
I am sorry, but I don't get the connection at all. I wish war could be outlawed, but it can't. You said:
"So keep in mind the less aged will make bad decisions like we did when we were young. Give them a fighting chance to make it to be our age."
I still don't get it, but my point was simple...I do not believe that it is fair to young people to set up all these different levels and definitions of maturity (adulthood). My point is if we feel they are mature enough to go to war and to vote, why would we limit their ability to make other adult decisions. If a helmet is optional for me, why shouldn't it be optionla for them? Do you actually dissagree with this line of thinking.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that I don't want a law stating that kids under 21 have to wear a helmet. What I am saying is that if we have such a law, then 21 should also be the voting age, drinking age, and join the military age. If they are so young that we have to try to preserve thier lives with legislation, then we should also preserve their lives in a similar fashion with regard to drinking, and going into the military.
So tell me where my logic goes south.
Daddy Fatsac
Registered
I can't believe what I'm reading here!! I see people say let the stupid people be stupid...that is the worst thing I've ever heard. People are stupid probably because they were never shown the correct way.
I'm one that crashed once several years ago on a friends bike (when I didn't have riding skills "a stupid person") and the only thing that I landed on was my helmet. I slid about 10-20 feet on the face part of it. When ever some tries to ride with me without a helmet I tell them no or they have to ride with someone else.
Another thing...if more people live on the bikes there is a good chance that motorcycle insurance would decrease!! Some places don't insure motorcycles...and I wondered why.
I had no clue that there was that many people that didn't want to a helmet law. I'll tell you like this...as soon as you see someone go down without a helmet I bet you'd rethink that.
I VOTE FOR HELMET LAW!!! ITS NEEDED TO PROTECT ALL MOTORCYCLE RIDERS STUPID OR NOT!!
I'm one that crashed once several years ago on a friends bike (when I didn't have riding skills "a stupid person") and the only thing that I landed on was my helmet. I slid about 10-20 feet on the face part of it. When ever some tries to ride with me without a helmet I tell them no or they have to ride with someone else.
Another thing...if more people live on the bikes there is a good chance that motorcycle insurance would decrease!! Some places don't insure motorcycles...and I wondered why.
I had no clue that there was that many people that didn't want to a helmet law. I'll tell you like this...as soon as you see someone go down without a helmet I bet you'd rethink that.
I VOTE FOR HELMET LAW!!! ITS NEEDED TO PROTECT ALL MOTORCYCLE RIDERS STUPID OR NOT!!
Daddy Fatsac
Registered
Also age doesn't have a damn thing to do with anything!! Just because your 21 or 61 doesn't mean your mature. So ya'll can drop the discussion about people under 21 wear a helmet. Lets say you was that person under 21 would you be saying the samething? Probably not.
Easy big Daddy. We understand your pasionate belief in wearing helmets. I am sure most of us wear our helmets with the same vigor, with or without a law. I predict that poll would be more like 85%-90% would wear a helmet, and 10%-15% wouldn't. This poll is more about choice than the value of helmets. That is why it is so split.
And I totally agree with you on the age thing.
Sorry you bowed out Marc, I really wasn't sure wich way you were voting....just know you thought I was off on a tangent.
My feelings on the subject are reflected in the vote tally. I am about 55% against these laws and 45% for them. The only reason I am against them is I do not know where you draw the line. Why wouldn't we also mandate gloves, then leathers, then boots? This IS done in some countries, so it is not unrealistic to ask. I don't have the answer...just the question.
I wrote on this topic about a year ago, and I think it is time to restate this:
I am in favor of helmet laws OR more stringent licensing requirements that make riding without an endorsement a felony.
Why?
I think that newer riders, especially those that do not have good motorcycling "mentors" (friends, relatives, etc.) do not have the requisite knowledge to make a well-informed decision for or against helmet use.
I believe (and I think the data supports this postion) that we need to either give new riders time, by keeping them alive, to acquire helmet information or give them the information at licensing time.
There is a correlation (certainly not 1:1, but there) between helmet use, head injuries and licensing. In general, un-licensed riders wear helmets less and have more frequent / severe head injuries.
There are literally millions of people operating motorcycles without endorements or training. I would like to see this activity made substantially less attractive, hence the felony requirement.
If someone rides without a helmet after being presented with the data, then we have done all that we can. It is a poor decision at best, but at least it was made in the face of data. As an aside, I will always believe it is unfair to make others pay for helmet-less rider's injuries, but I seem to be a minority in this regard.
Mike
I am in favor of helmet laws OR more stringent licensing requirements that make riding without an endorsement a felony.
Why?
I think that newer riders, especially those that do not have good motorcycling "mentors" (friends, relatives, etc.) do not have the requisite knowledge to make a well-informed decision for or against helmet use.
I believe (and I think the data supports this postion) that we need to either give new riders time, by keeping them alive, to acquire helmet information or give them the information at licensing time.
There is a correlation (certainly not 1:1, but there) between helmet use, head injuries and licensing. In general, un-licensed riders wear helmets less and have more frequent / severe head injuries.
There are literally millions of people operating motorcycles without endorements or training. I would like to see this activity made substantially less attractive, hence the felony requirement.
If someone rides without a helmet after being presented with the data, then we have done all that we can. It is a poor decision at best, but at least it was made in the face of data. As an aside, I will always believe it is unfair to make others pay for helmet-less rider's injuries, but I seem to be a minority in this regard.
Mike
I certainly agree with revamping the licensing...I couldn't believe how easy it was to get a motorcycle endorsement!
I've got some younger guy friends that are talking about getting their endorsement, and I keep touting the MSF class over just going through the motions to get one, then learning the hard way what not to do...
Hrmmm...a new thread just came to mind...
I've got some younger guy friends that are talking about getting their endorsement, and I keep touting the MSF class over just going through the motions to get one, then learning the hard way what not to do...
Hrmmm...a new thread just came to mind...
Makes sense to me, specially if those statistics are correct. I fully believe that there is a correlation between new riders and unlicensed riders. That seems very logical. Secondly, I believe that there is a correlation between new riders and accidents. That also makes sense. But, unless there really are stats on the subject, I cannot make the stretch that new riders wear helmets less than long term riders. It could be argued that new riders have more frequent head injuries simply because they have more accidents, not because they wear helmets any less.
In either case however, more stringent licensing requirements would make sense because new (inexperienced) riders are going to crash more without a doubt. In fact, that is actually the best argument I have heard for requiring people under 21 to wear helmets in state that do not otherwise require them. The argument assumes that people of such age are probably not very experienced riders. It does not target or penalize them because of their age or immaturity, it would protect them as a response to inexperience.
So now I am 53% against helmet laws and 47% for them, specially with respect to NEW riders.
Good one Mike!
outjustout
Registered
Let's consider all this talk about sky high insurance rates and those under 21 required to wear helmets. If riding without a helmet actually resulted in a substantial number of serious accident or fatalities we would not be able to buy insurance without a clause requiring a helmet, regardless of what the law said. The insurance companies already make it difficult for anyone under 21 to drive or ride a high performance vehicle. We are a capitalist society, let the market decide. Financial penalties are a far better at changing behavior than the law. Yes the speeding ticket is expensive, but the increased insurance is what really slows us down, that and the thought of losing our license.
The quote of the century! I completely agree.
busapilot911
Registered
Here might be something to consider.
If you have an accident with a car and you die of head injuries, which may have been prevented by a helmet, could that be considered vehicular manslaughter? I realize that this could happen with or without a lid, but say it was your fault (motorcycle), how would that affect the other driver emotionally, legally, etc.
I voted for, besides, I look much better in the helmet...trust me.
If you have an accident with a car and you die of head injuries, which may have been prevented by a helmet, could that be considered vehicular manslaughter? I realize that this could happen with or without a lid, but say it was your fault (motorcycle), how would that affect the other driver emotionally, legally, etc.
I voted for, besides, I look much better in the helmet...trust me.
- Status
Similar threads
