Helmet Laws and Seat Belt Laws

[Ice]

Yeah, those full-body leather outfits can be cool.

Cheers

Not quite the word I was looking for, but close enough

 

[mehastings]

So if I can provide data that shows that a large percentage of human bodily damage, and/or the major cause of death in most automobile accidents is head injury, will all of you decide that a law needs to be implimented that all occupants in an automobile need to wear helmets?

Actually. Most MVC's resulting in head injury are a DIRECT result of failing to use a seatbelt.

Every day I see the effects of not wearing seatbelts and helmets. I see not only the bodily injuries that people sustain, but also the taxes on public services and the amount of taxpayer money that goes into caring for people who sustain these injuries.

Besides, I've seen enough nasty accidents. The fewer the better.

 

[Freya]

I am not playing devils advocate here because I truely believe the government has no business deciding if/when, or where I should wear a helmet.

If they are that concerned about the public health they should tackle smoking and drinking first. Then guns. Then maybe helmets. But I guess the motorcycling lobby is not pumping as much money into the political coffers as the tobacco, alcohol, and firearms lobby's are doing?

This law hits me in one of my passions.

Why the devil wouldn't you want to wear a helmet? Really? Is it such a bother?

 

[Motokid]

Piloting a motorcycle is really quite a unique experience. I would equate it to being about as close as a human can get to flying without leaving the ground. Some people find the experience almost Zen-like. There's a peacefulness and a privateness that you just can't achieve in an automobile. The leaning into the turns. The raw power, and the braking are just shit-eatin' grin inspiring. Occasionally having the wind blasting across your face, and through your hair brings the feeling of flying even closer to your heart. It is Zen to the nth power.

Now I don't buy into some of the bullshit claims that helmets impair vision, impair the riders ability to hear and other non-sence that I've heard from some "biker" types. There are actually people who will argue your are more at risk of injury if you wear a helmet. That's rediculous. But I don't think a bunch of over-paid, stuffed-shirt beurocrats (spelling) that have never thrown a leg over a motorcycle should be making laws on whether or not I should wear a helmet. Not the same guys who just passed a billion dollar bill that makes the Tax-paying American have to foot the billl for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HEALTH COVERAGE.

Really, I can't remember when I last rode outside my neighborhood without a helmet on. It's been years. but I don't need Johnny Law writting me a ticket for not wearing one if that's the way I choose to potentially end my life.

 

[mehastings]

Not the same guys who just passed a billion dollar bill that makes the Tax-paying American have to foot the billl for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT HEALTH COVERAGE.

Kind of totally unrelated isn't this? I really haven't given that topic much thought, but I'm gonna dive right in now...

I think it is important to consider the fact the vast majority of Americans come from immigrant backgrounds. My family came to this continent from France 350 years ago, but I don't think I have any more claim on this country than first or second generation Americans. Illegal immigrants don't come here because they are looking for free health care. They come here the same reason my ancestors did. Opportunities were limited where they were, and America has always been seen as a place for a fresh start. Some illegal immigrants are here because they are being persecuted in their own corrupt countries for politial reasons and our country is somewhere they see as safe because they have legal family here. It can be hard to get a visa in order when you are fleeing a death squad. Should we try to block these people? Or are we really just worried about the Mexicans?

Believe it or not, illegal immigrants provide a service to American consumerism. Try really hard to find a legal adult citizen who is willing to work 16 hour days in the hot sun picking tobacco leaves for minimum wage (or probably less) without benefits. If you can find any, please let me know. I'm sure the farmers around here would be dying to know. I'm sure that the California strawberries we are all eating these days wouldn't be here if it weren't for the readily available migrant workers.

 

[Motokid]

Unfortunately i'm afraid that discussion will quickly be considered a political thing, but so is the helmet law discusssion on some level.

The key word is "Illegal". If you are here in this country illegally you should not benefit from my tax dollars unless you are in prison. I don't care what service they provide. Illegal is illegal. And I'm afraid there's plenty that come strictly for the medical benefits. Like having a baby. The kid then is an American citizen since it was born on American soil, and the mother gets all the medical treatment for free. That's absolutley something that's happening, and It's wrong.

I have no problem with people immigrating to America as long as they follow the rules and the laws. But to give 100% amnesty to somebody who's here illegally is dead wrong. Dead wrong.

My connection to insane government decisions is not that un-related. I find that government time spent on discussing helmet laws, is just as much a waste of tax payers money and time as their decision to pay for illegal immigrant health care.

The government would save way more lives by outlawing tobacco products than making every single motorcyclist wear a helmet.

 

[Kookamoor]

My connection to insane government decisions is not that un-related. I find that government time spent on discussing helmet laws, is just as much a waste of tax payers money and time as their decision to pay for illegal immigrant health care.

The government would save way more lives by outlawing tobacco products than making every single motorcyclist wear a helmet.

Getting back to the issue, Moto....

I agree that making tobacco illegal would save far more lives... but wouldn't that then be the same thing as making it illegal not to wear a helmet? I mean, it's the same deprivation of 'liberties' (ie: the right to be a dickhead).

Making tobacco illegal is, unfortunately, a long time in the future due to government self interest and very very large companies. I think that when they start getting their arses sued off things may begin to change. Nevertheless, making it illegal to smoke in bars and public places is the beginning of this crackdown.

Why start with the big and complicated issue, and not with the smaller issue that's easier to control and legislate. There are police patrolling the roads already, and it's not that big of an ask for them to look for people not wearing helmets. Really, it comes down to dangerous riding. If there's a person out on a road weaving from side to side, they're in danger of having an accident and are pulled over and given a fine to prevent them doing it again. Just the same, someone not wearing a helmet is in danger of being hurt and are pulled over and given a fine. What's the difference?

Your opinion seems to be: "I should be able to choose whether I want to put myself in danger or not". Well you are. If you want to drive on your own property then there is nothing the law makers can say or do to stop you. But when you are driving on GOVERNMENT maintained roads that are funded by TAXPAYER money, then you have to abid by GOVERNMENT rules that are implemented to save TAXPAYER money. THAT is the crux of the matter!

 

[RitalinKid]

Your opinion seems to be: "I should be able to choose whether I want to put myself in danger or not". Well you are. If you want to drive on your own property then there is nothing the law makers can say or do to stop you. But when you are driving on GOVERNMENT maintained roads that are funded by TAXPAYER money, then you have to abid by GOVERNMENT rules that are implemented to save TAXPAYER money. THAT is the crux of the matter!

That is the legal logic. The government derives its authority from its ownership of the roads. You beat me to the post.

However, I understand Moto's point completely. He's toying with Libertarian ideas, as little government intervention as possible with respect for citizens' rights above all else. Here's the thing, though. We people are so fickle. We in the US demand that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) protect and regulate safe working environments, so essentially, we're demanding that the government have a hand in our safety. Then, we get on the road or we light up our cigarette and insist the government get lost. We need government-citizen relationship counselling because we send mixed signals. I have no trouble with the law . . . until I unjustly get a ticket it for it. Then I'll want it gone.

I want the government dealing with as little as possible because I don't trust politicians at all.

 

[Motokid]

So how would you feel if a law was written up to have mandatory LED monitors installed on the front and rear of your car that display your speed in real time so every cop can easily spot how fast you are going without having to use a radar gun. And on that screen there would also be a light that shows if all the seatbelts are properly fastened. This way, in one quick glance, any cop within a few hundred yards of you, whether they are coming at you, or riding behind you can automatically tell if you are breaking at least two laws at once.

Is the isssue protecting people from themselves? Saving tax payer money by not having to foot increased medical costs of riders that get into accidents?

What's the main reason for supporting a helmet law from the viewpoint of a person who does not ride?

 

[RitalinKid]

So how would you feel if a law was written up to have mandatory LED monitors installed on the front and rear of your car that display your speed in real time so every cop can easily spot how fast you are going without having to use a radar gun. And on that screen there would also be a light that shows if all the seatbelts are properly fastened. This way, in one quick glance, any cop within a few hundred yards of you, whether they are coming at you, or riding behind you can automatically tell if you are breaking at least two laws at once.

I would go on a killing spree, and then end it all in one suicidal blast because society would've reach a new peak of fascist thought and nothing would matter anymore.

Is the isssue protecting people from themselves? Saving tax payer money by not having to foot increased medical costs of riders that get into accidents?

Well, if we take the demand for OSHA as a precedent, the people have handed the government the power to ensure safe conditions for people. So, no, I think the issue is that the people have now given the government the power to regulate safety or, in other words, just protect people from unnecessarily dangerous situations. It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of health care somehow worked its way in there as a reason albeit a small reason. The "corporate fat cats" in the health industry have good lobbyists.

What's the main reason for supporting a helmet law from the viewpoint of a person who does not ride?

Those are the same people that don't work in factories, but yet give the power to OSHA to dictate the dimensions of stairs being built in factories. They're the relatives and associates of the people riding or working, and they don't want them to die unnecessarily. So, it's generally easy to convince them it's a good idea.

Our society places a lot of importance on human life. If you want to convince someone that some act is right, just convince them that you'll save at least one life by doing it.

 

[Motokid]

The “O” in OSHA stands for Occupational, which I’m more than sure you know. The intention is to protect employees from hazards that a less than caring company, or manager might otherwise overlook in the name of profits. Like making sure large cutting presses can’t be functional when somebody has their arms or entire bodies inside the machine for cleaning purposes. Again, I'm sure you know this too.

There’s a huge difference between protecting employees from tyrannical bosses and owners, and protecting somebody from a hobby and a passion that a specific person gets involved in 100% by choice. People have to work, and working conditions must be kept as safe as possible (within reason) to keep employees safe.

How ‘bout if a law is written to make 5-point seatbelt harnesses the only legal type of seat belt? Like racecar drivers. What about full roll cages in cars, especially roll-over prone SUV’s?

And by the way, I never said I wanted cigarettes outlawed. I once said if cigarettes are legal why shouldn't pot be legal. Still feel that way, but that's the marijuana thread.

I don't believe laws for an entire country should be written to protect an individual from themselves. There's a law against suicide. Does that make sense? Does it work? Is it needed? If I'm going to kill myself am I going to worry about breaking that specific law, or any law for that matter? "Gee, I'd better not put this gun in my mouth and pull the trigger cause I'll be breaking the law." Not sure that's much of a deterent.

To me, it's just re-god-damn-diculous to constantly debate the helmet law issue.

Let those who ride decide.

 

[Kookamoor]

To me, it's just re-god-damn-diculous to constantly debate the helmet law issue.

Let those who ride decide.

When we can pick and choose who gets hospital care and disability benefits based on their stupidity levels, I'll back you on this one, Moto.

 

[RitalinKid]

To me, it's just re-god-damn-diculous to constantly debate the helmet law issue.

Hey, you started the thread. Maybe I don't need to be posting in this thread. Even the guy that started the thread thinks it's ridiculous.

We in the US demand that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) protect and regulate safe working environments

The “O” in OSHA stands for Occupational, which I’m more than sure you know.

Safe bet. If Vegas has odds, take it.

There’s a huge difference between protecting employees from tyrannical bosses and owners, and protecting somebody from a hobby and a passion that a specific person gets involved in 100% by choice.

The common factor in both cases is that the government is acting in a protective role. Once we've handed them the role of protector in one case, the line becomes blurred (as is attested to by the existence of this thread) as to when the gov't can act as a protector.

I don't believe laws for an entire country should be written to protect an individual from themselves. There's a law against suicide. Does that make sense? Does it work? Is it needed? If I'm going to kill myself am I going to worry about breaking that specific law, or any law for that matter? "Gee, I'd better not put this gun in my mouth and pull the trigger cause I'll be breaking the law." Not sure that's much of a deterent.

Those laws don't make any sense. There's that whole thing with society valuing life again. We even write irrational, useless laws to show just how compassionate we are. Then, we let white collar criminals go after destroying hard working people's pensions, and spend billions on new weapons ...to kill people. But really, we value life; we don't approve of suicide. Society is one big ball of contradictory BS. We're going way off topic, Moto. I guess that's just our nature. Oh, well, I've said about all I need to say anyway.

 

[Motokid]

"To me, it's just re-god-damn-diculous to constantly debate the helmet law issue. "

O.k., what I meant was, that I hate the idea of my tax dollars going to a bunch of highly overpaid, government blowhards just so they can sit back and discuss my right to chose whether or not I wear a helmet. And then doing it again and again and again. Getting my tax money for their salary each and every time they discuss this topic.

Also, if you don't want to pay for hospital care and disability then you should be all for riders choice. A helmet will more than likely save the life and require the hospital and disability care. No helmet would more than likely result in death. Only coroner and funeral costs.

A helmet does not change the chance of getting in, or having an accident. It may change the outcome of the accident. It may mean the difference between life and death. But I'm not sure the National Debt will change just because a helmet law is passed. You come off a motorcycle at 50mph with or without a helmet your going to require hospital care. A car hits you at any speed your going to require hospital care.

Helmets don't make motorcycles safe to operate, or ride on. Marginally safer, yes, but safe, no.

If the helmet law is passed what type of helmet should be required? Full face? Half-helmet? German WW2 helmet? Skateboard/bicycle helmet? Football helmet? Will there be penalties for helmets that don't fit right?

What about a law requiring full-body leathers/kevlar, boots, and gloves? Spine-protectors?

What about horespower restrictions on bikes? My motorcycle makes over 150 horsepower and weighs about 400 pounds. It'll hit about 70mph in first gear if I rake it out to redline. Is that much power something that should be outlawed?

Where do you start and stop government intervention in your personal freedom?

And again, it seems the overall concern here is about your tax payer money going to pay medical costs for accidents and injuries. Our tax money goes to pay for all kinds of stupid stuff, and many things are way more costly than a few helmet-less motorcycle injuries to mainly a bunch of chopper riders. The only reason most people don't give a shit about this issue (which means they are all for helmet laws) is that the law does not personally effect them.

 

[RitalinKid]

"To me, it's just re-god-damn-diculous to constantly debate the helmet law issue. "

O.k., what I meant was, that I hate the idea of my tax dollars going to a bunch of highly overpaid, government blowhards just so they can sit back and discuss my right to chose whether or not I wear a helmet. And then doing it again and again and again. Getting my tax money for their salary each and every time they discuss this topic.

No doubt. This also happens to be the reason I voted Libertarian in the last election. Have you seen the bumper sticker that says, "No Incumbents"? That would be great. Then those guys you're talking about wouldn't be sitting around talking about nothing.

Where do you start and stop government intervention in your personal freedom?

This happens to be the million dollar question in politics.

 

[Motokid]

"This also happens to be the reason I voted Libertarian in the last election. Have you seen the bumper sticker that says, "No Incumbents"? That would be great. Then those guys you're talking about wouldn't be sitting around talking about nothing."

I like that bumper sticker. And I fully like the Libertarian party. I voted for Nader and I hated that people would tell me I was just throwing my vote away. I've never voted for anything but a third or forth party candidate in my life except once. That was for the Dem. Governor choice in Delaware and mainly cause she was the one who enacted the smoking ban in my state. A bit hypocritical I'll agree, but boy does it make dinning in a restaurant a much nicer experience.


I would fully support some kind of term limit for all government posts. I hate that a guy like Ted Kennedy, or the late Strom Thurmond (spelling?) or my states Joe Biden can set up camp and remain in a postion of power for life. There's something wrong with that.

Boy, that's off topic isn't it...and political...well shut my mouth....

Sorry mods...but RK and myself seem to have this thread all to ourselves and I wanted to enjoy the moment of bonding....I'll stop...right now.

 

[Kookamoor]

Sorry mods...but RK and myself seem to have this thread all to ourselves and I wanted to enjoy the moment of bonding....I'll stop...right now.

To yourselves?! I thought I was putting up quite a fight!!

Oh, and for the record, I am referring to both bicycle and motorcycle helmets, Moto. In an accident a bicyclist is quite likely to receive serious head injuries in *any crash* where they are not wearing a helmet, be it in an incident with a vehicle or just hitting a patch of bitument the wrong way.

Anyway, I've made my point. The Government is being protectionist, but I'm quite happy for them to be so when they're preventing my money going to idiots! That being said, I also believe that some scare campaigns every little while about the importance of wearing a helmet and the reason WHY one should be worn is very, very important. Not everyone understands the risks, and not everyone is the competent and sensible rider that you are, Moto.

 

[Motokid]

Sorry Kook, I thought I was doing you a favor by keeping you out of the political kitchen, but if you want to get a spankin’ for being a part of things join the fun…not leaving you out of the credits for the overall thread contribution…..

Speaking of bicycle helmets, I saw a father and his three kids riding down the sidewalk yesterday. The sidewalk was along a two lane road with a 30mph speed limit. Only one of the kids had a helmet on. Youngest kid looked to be about 6 (no helmet) and the oldest looked to be about 10 (with helmet). What should the fine be for the adult in that situation? Or should the adult be fined?

Does anybody know of a fine being issued for a child not wearing a helmet while on a bicycle?

 

[Kookamoor]

Sorry Kook, I thought I was doing you a favor by keeping you out of the political kitchen, but if you want to get a spankin’ for being a part of things join the fun…not leaving you out of the credits for the overall thread contribution…..

Speaking of bicycle helmets, I saw a father and his three kids riding down the sidewalk yesterday. The sidewalk was along a two lane road with a 30mph speed limit. Only one of the kids had a helmet on. Youngest kid looked to be about 6 (no helmet) and the oldest looked to be about 10 (with helmet). What should the fine be for the adult in that situation? Or should the adult be fined?

Does anybody know of a fine being issued for a child not wearing a helmet while on a bicycle?

Good point, I'm not a big fan of the political kitchen. Too many things look tasty but turn out to be somewhat poisonous. It's better to stay away, I find.

Not sure of the fines that should apply, but there is an example of a father who simply doesn't understand the benefits of a helmet. I hope this is the case, anyway, if it was caused by apathy that's somewhat more disturbing.

 

[Motokid]

I can't even tell you if there's a law for bicycle helmets in my state. I've never heard of, or seen anybody getting a ticket of fine for not wearing a helmet. If there's a law it's overlooked on such a regular basis that it should not be a law. There was no such thing as a bicycle helmet when I was growing up. I delivered morning newspapers for years, in the dark on a bicycle as a young teenager. I can't remember when I first started seeing helmets for bicycles. I guess about the time mountainbiking started becoming so popular.


I have also never heard of anyone getting a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in a car.

Anybody here get e ticket for not wearing a seat belt in an automobile?