Obama Calls For Helmet Laws

[riggerrob 643]

cruelpops

***How do you feel about drug use? Should a grownup be allowed to ingest any chemicals they want to?

Sure, why not? An adult should be allowed to do whatever they choose to do so long as their actions do not put innocent persons in harms' way. The way I see it - let Darwin take care of them and God will sort it out. I don't think there should be seatbelt or helmet laws for the operator of any vehicle. But passengers should be required to wear helmets and seatbelts.

........................................................................

The problem is that when helmet-less riders got injured ... under the old plan, they expected the county tax-payers to pay their medical bill.
It is unfair to stick your neighbors with huge medical bills.
Now with Obama-care, they will expect federal taxpayers to pay their medical bills.
In most other industrialized nations, everyone pre-pays for medical insurance.

Ergo ... you should only be allowed to ride helmet-less if you have already paid for huge amounts of medical insurance.

[Coreece 190]

jclalor

When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

One could argue that you are more likely to die when not wearing a helmet, thus limiting the liability for tax payers....and that it's those who wear helmets that sustain non-life threatening injuries that require long term medical care.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Amazon 7]

Coreece

***When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

One could argue that you are more likely to die when not wearing a helmet, thus limiting the liability for tax payers....and that it's those who wear helmets that sustain non-life threatening injuries that require long term medical care.

Its all about keeping the precious bodily fluids and some people get all "Rippered" about it

[Stumpy 284]

Coreece

***When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

One could argue that you are more likely to die when not wearing a helmet, thus limiting the liability for tax payers....and that it's those who wear helmets that sustain non-life threatening injuries that require long term medical care.

You could argue that, but i doubt it would stand up.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[kelpdiver 2]

Coreece

One could argue that you are more likely to die when not wearing a helmet, thus limiting the liability for tax payers....and that it's those who wear helmets that sustain non-life threatening injuries that require long term medical care.

That's not an argument, but actual experience seen in California. The average cost by uncovered riders was marginally lower for those wearing helmets. Which shouldn't surprise - dead is cheap. But for those who don't actually ride, the helmet isn't going to save you at impacts over speeds in the low 20s mph. IMO (with 100k miles wearing Shoei RF200s or 700s), eye protection is the most significant safety item, even though it doesn't come on the skull cap helmets.

So as usual in these threads, we had 3 (4?) who proscribe that no riders can go without a helmet unless they're willing to cover their medical for life, though I can't think of any other recreational or personal (to drive drunk, for example) decision that has such a mandate. These arguments support a similar proposal for health insurance to not cover skydiving accidents at all. Pay for it yourself. We cost far more our proportional share, and we're a much much much smaller minority than bikers, so there's no chance you could stop a ballot proposition.

[labrys 0]

Quote

When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

Do you think that no one should be able to skydive without "proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life" too?

What paperwork will we need to present to manifest?

Owned by Remi #?

[airdvr 210]

Squeak

******Good, its about time.

I've always called riders who choose not to wear helmets dumbasses, but in the land of the FREE, they should choose whats right for THEMSELVES. That's the thing about freedom. But you can go right ahead and let everyone else choose whats best for you, and soon enough you'll be wearing depends waiting for the gubment worker to come change them out. Seriously are all australians raging vaginas or do any of you actually have a pair?
35 years riding experience here.
You DON'T have the right to smear your face all over the public roads, nor do you have the right to traumatise, LEOs or EMTs with your open cramium splilled over the pavment, All because YOU think you live in a fantasy land called "the home of the free".
These sorts of law are not to protectl you theyre to protect decent folk from the likes of idiots who think its cool to run about in traffic lid free

Wow...how traumatized do you think some poor EMT is when he has to go pick a jumper out of a crater? How's the emperor like his new suit? Will that be what you say when some fool says leaving an airplane in flight is too dangerous? I don't think anyone here has much room to be criticizing people's choices.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[turtlespeed 226]

jclalor

When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

Hah.

Welcome to Obama care

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jclalor 12]

turtlespeed

***When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

Hah.

Welcome to Obama care

Amen.

It must really suck to see the ACA getting more and more successful as time goes on.

[tkhayes 348]

we passed seatbelt laws....what's the difference? We put airbags in cars - STOMPING on your freedoms! We require you to drive a certain speed limit - DENIGRATING your constitutional rights. My god, we even tell you what dangerous chemicals exist in bottles of drain cleaner - HOW DARE WE steal that freedom from your kids to not be allowed to find out for themselves what is and is not dangerous.....

'society' is calling for helmet laws...there are dozens of organizations out there advocating for helmet laws. not 'Obama'.

I always love how everything bad comes back to the president. He must be some busy 'god-like' guy spending every waking moment of every day trying to screw just 'you' over.

get over yourselves. really.

[skygypsie 2]

75% of All Motorcycle Fatalities:

"the failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents"

Most states require mandatory MOTORISTS carry proof of financial responsibility (LIABILITY).

If a motorist is liable for mc rider accident resulting in serious injury / fatality, THEY are financially responsible...
insurance companies pay out.

My opinion... this is just another example of insurance industry backing !

* 20 year HD MC owner-rider & do not wear a helmet...
my choice & would like to keep it that way.

If I'm going down bad enough to have severe head injuries, the rest of me is likely to be mashed, as well.

Personally, helmets inhibit my needed defense driving senses (e.g. peripheral vision, hearing-though I ride with straight pipes...)

Have you ever seen a rider go down with a helmet on, lose consciousness & strangulate because there was not the ability to remove the helmet, due to other injuries...who otherwise may have lived ?

I have !

[GD64 1]

You said Northwood's on profile.......ever make it to the fall ride in the beautiful rolling hills and lake country around Tomahawk, Wisconsin?

Nice "Springer".....I rode a 97 "Bad Boy" (last year made) for a lot of years. Love the "old school" look and feel of springers.

Sorry to all, damn, O/T again, (one of my flaws)

[craddock 0]

RMK

***Seriously are all australians raging vaginas or do any of you actually have a pair?

Your avatar shows a picture of a grown male, yet your posts seem to be written in the vernacular of a 10yr old boy. Do Mummy & Daddy know you're using the computer all on your own?

PA's are now allowed? I am going to try one quick and see if it stands

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

GD64

You said Northwood's on profile.......ever make it to the fall ride in the beautiful rolling hills and lake country around Tomahawk, Wisconsin?

Nice "Springer".....I rode a 97 "Bad Boy" (last year made) for a lot of years. Love the "old school" look and feel of springers.

Sorry to all, damn, O/T again, (one of my flaws)

Snow and cold on the Tomahawk ride many years.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[Andy9o8 2]

As I've explained in other "helmet law" threads, most of the posters here are missing at least half the point when all they focus on is health insurance only. It's really not about protecting un-helmeted riders from themselves. It's about protecting everyone else's automobile (not health - automobile) insurance rates from the effect of allowing un-helmeted riders.

Your auto insurance rates are based, in very large part, on the company's assessment of your risk that the company will have to pay out on claims made against you by other people with whom you get into an accident. And the insurance companies don't just look at you (like your age and driving record) in setting that rate, they look at everything that affects that financial risk in setting that rate. Including, among other things, whether motorcycle riders in your state are or are not required to wear helmets.

Point being, if you (driving your car) get into an accident with a motorcyclist, there's a higher chance that his injuries will be more serious if he's not wearing a helmet than if he is wearing one. That means your insurance company bears the financial risk of having to pay out a higher amount on a claim by an un-helmeted rider than by a helmeted one. That, in turn, means that the auto insurance companies use that as justification to set everyone's auto insurance rates higher.

So this really isn't about "nanny state" versus "personal freedoms", much as the use of simplistic slogans like that makes those who speak them feel good.

[GD64 1]

True Craddock.......also mixed in with a few days of crystal clear air and bright sunshine, as the golden leaves fall from the trees like large snowflakes.

It's always a happy/sad ride (last one of the year), as thoughts on the way home turn to tucking my ride away for a long winters nap.

[craddock 0]

regulator

***Good, its about time.

I've always called riders who choose not to wear helmets dumbasses, but in the land of the FREE, they should choose whats right for THEMSELVES. That's the thing about freedom. But you can go right ahead and let everyone else choose whats best for you, and soon enough you'll be wearing depends waiting for the gubment worker to come change them out. Seriously are all australians raging vaginas or do any of you actually have a pair?

I have always called people who throw themselves out of airplanes yet put others down in a derogatory fashion because of something statistically safer they engage in doesn't match their personal values and beliefs........ Dumbasses

Having personally witnessed many fatalities in several sports, having attempted CPR more than once, having been "on the grounds" numerous times when other fatalities occurred, and having lost many friends and acquaintances over the years, I find it appalling that the attitude here can be reflected so negative toward others acceptance of risk.

I have logged many miles on the road without a helmet and I am aware I am always at risk of getting taken out when in traffic. Been on rides with bikes in the hundreds and while that has always been a concern and I try to stay in the front and then to the back after a "block"(for those that don't know large rides have blockers that stop traffic so the group can ride through) and avoid the middle, I have never know anyone that ended personally or been with some one that ended up dead or a veggie because they did not have a helmet on.

I am not trying to say they won't help or that they are not a good idea but for heavens sake. How can people in this forum be so judgmental toward others acceptable risk??? WTF? Skydiving as so many more times more risky than riding without a helmet.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[GD64 1]

+1

Oh, Craddock.......you seem like a smart guy.......that electric clothing can feel toasty from time to time.....yes

[turtlespeed 226]

jclalor

******When someone can provide proof of financial responsibility for long term medial care for the rest of their life, is when I'll agree it's their choice to wear or not to wear a helmet.

It seems that some think the financial cost of personal freedom should be provided by the tax payer.

Hah.

Welcome to Obama care

Amen.

It must really suck to see the ACA getting more and more successful as time goes on.

Only at the cost of freedoms, but you are in favor of that aren't you?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[BIGUN 1,402]

Quote

The complaint has a point, but it considers only the costs of motorcycle accidents, not the—yes—benefits. At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.

Besides, the argument on safety and medical costs is one that proves too much. Brain buckets reduce the chance of being killed in a wreck, but federal data indicate that most of those who die in motorcycle accidents would be killed even with a helmet. So it's safe to assume that most of those seriously injured would be laid up in the hospital either way.

The real danger is not from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but from riding, period. If you crash a hog at 70 mph, your head is only one of the body parts that will come out much worse for wear. If we're justified in requiring helmets to save medical expenses, why not simply outlaw motorcycles entirely? That would prevent a lot more death and injury.

It's also hard to see why we single out motorcyclists for the sin of saddling everyone with higher health care costs. Plenty of patients suffer from self-inflicted ailments—lung cancer from smoking, liver damage from drinking, diabetes from eating unhealthy foods, AIDS from unprotected sex. Yet we don't ban these activities.

Why not? Because we retain a respect for individual freedom and choice—even in matters of life and death, even when individual choices have collective costs. Motorcycle helmet laws are an unwarranted exception to our normal, sound approach, which can be summarized: It's your life, and it's your funeral.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/25/the-case-against-motorcycle-he

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[skygypsie 2]

Yep...been to Tomahawk Rally & most Wisconsin State rallies for many years & "rode" to Sturgis.

I've been a H.O.G. & Ladies of Harley member for almost 20 years, having gone to most rallies in the state for quite a few years.

I'm originally from southern WI., now not far from Superior.

The Sportster was my 1st bike..a Christmas gift.

Actually my Dad died that night, so had it painted as a tribute to him ( rose with thorns-heart w/ black tear drop, feathers for his side of our family's Native American heritage), but that Springer...that is absolutely my favorite.

It's highway riding, especially on windier days, & the way it hugs curves...feels more comfortable

Craddock...1st year I went was a snow storm, miserable 4 hour ride home, but returned again & again

[winsor 236]

I was out to dinner in Saigon one night, and a young woman on a Honda 50 had a spill at the intersection in front of the restaurant. Luckily she seemed to have only minor injuries.

I asked Ngoc what was the story regarding helmet laws, and he seemed puzzled by the concept. I then elaborated my question to include quite what happened if you got your head smacked in, and he said it was basically no problem - you went to a hospital until your funds ran out, then you went home where your family looked after you until you died.

Tough, but realistic.

I am a huge fan of a YOYO clause regarding liability. If you choose to ride a bike without a helmet, or to drive without a seat belt, You're On Your Own. You are officially uninsured under those circumstances, and you cannot file a claim - regardless of who may or may not be at fault.

If it is THAT important to ride helmetless, or to eschew a seat belt, knock yourself out. I applaud your decision to take full responsibility for whatever comes to pass while you are enroute.

You want to be covered while on the road? Fine, buckle up and/or wear a skid lid. Your call.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Amazon 7]

tkhayes

we passed seatbelt laws....what's the difference? We put airbags in cars - STOMPING on your freedoms! We require you to drive a certain speed limit - DENIGRATING your constitutional rights. My god, we even tell you what dangerous chemicals exist in bottles of drain cleaner - HOW DARE WE steal that freedom from your kids to not be allowed to find out for themselves what is and is not dangerous.....

'society' is calling for helmet laws...there are dozens of organizations out there advocating for helmet laws. not 'Obama'.

I always love how everything bad comes back to the president. He must be some busy 'god-like' guy spending every waking moment of every day trying to screw just 'you' over.

get over yourselves. really.

As General Ripper knew... their precious bodily fluids are in jeopardy... Obama is out to ban those too.

[chutem 0]

How many lives and how much money would be saved if helmets were required in automobiles?

[grue 1]

Arvoitus

******Good, its about time.

I've always called riders who choose not to wear helmets dumbasses, but in the land of the FREE, they should choose whats right for THEMSELVES. That's the thing about freedom. But you can go right ahead and let everyone else choose whats best for you, and soon enough you'll be wearing depends waiting for the gubment worker to come change them out. Seriously are all australians raging vaginas or do any of you actually have a pair?

How do you feel about drug use? Should a grownup be allowed to ingest any chemicals they want to?

Yes, as long as he doesn't affect the life, liberty or property of anyone else without their consent.

cavete terrae.