"Helmet? I don't need no steenking helmet!"

[devildog1]

I understood your point, mine is that when the chance of injury or death increases so does the amount of rules/laws regulating it. A person being hit by a car leaving a road is very slim so no one worries about it. The chances of a motorcyclist being injured or killed on a daily basis is high enough to bring attention to it and regulations follow.

A good place to get stats on motorcycle related collisions would be any state motorcycle rights organization. In many states these organizations will be called ABATE. In Kentucky it is called the KMA or the Kentucky Motorcycle Association. You will never get accurate helmet related stats on motorcylce deaths because the stats do not show if injury is to the head or body. Most deaths are due to bodily injury instead of head/neck. A helmet can protect the head from injury but it can also cause the brain to shake loose inside the skull. Also, the extra weight of the of the helmet causes the neck to break in a high percentage of deaths with helmets. You don't get these stats; therefore, the stats are inconclusive. The helmet also offers false security thus causing riders to think are protected and they take unnecessary changes instead of being cautious and driving defensive. You may want to see if there are any stats from helmets causing paralysis.
The I.C. wards of hospitals are full of young people paralyzed because their unprotected bodies were crushed while their helmeted heads let them live. Now I do ride a Harley Roadking and of course always wear my helmet, but as I stated before when I'm putting along on some of our rural roads I'd like to be able to not wear a helmet for those few occasions without breaking the law or just because someone is taken away my freedom of me making my own choice in that matter.
DevilDog

 

[aczlan]

You will never get accurate helmet related stats on motorcylce deaths because the stats do not show if injury is to the head or body. Most deaths are due to bodily injury instead of head/neck. A helmet can protect the head from injury but it can also cause the brain to shake loose inside the skull. Also, the extra weight of the of the helmet causes the neck to break in a high percentage of deaths with helmets. You don't get these stats; therefore, the stats are inconclusive. The helmet also offers false security thus causing riders to think are protected and they take unnecessary changes instead of being cautious and driving defensive. You may want to see if there are any stats from helmets causing paralysis.

You might want check your sources. Several studies show otherwise (and disprove the flawed study that agreed with you):
Motorcycle helmets reduce spine injuries after collisions; Helmet weight as risk to neck called a 'myth'
Q&A: Motorcycle helmet use laws (see the drawbacks page and citation 8)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811159.pdf
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traf...les/Associated Files/MotorcycleHelmet2005.pdf

Aaron Z

 

[BlacknTan]

I think I'd trust the government study even less than the biker study. Both sides have an agenda, so neither is reliable...

There is no price that can be put on personal freedom, and let's nor forget that the U.S. was founded by lawbreakers and rebels. At one time we honored them... Today, they would be called terrorists or subversives...

A little revolution is good from time to time.

 

[beppington]

So I guess the right to prove one's self to be an idiot on a motorcycle is still alive....until it hits a curb anyway....

That is the way it should be. It should be up to me to decide how risky I feel like being in any particular venture.

The majority DOES have a right to be protected from the financial burden of irresponsible actions of a select few.

Maybe what we need is an "Opted-In" or "Opted-Out" status for every person.

If you've Opted-In, you will receive whatever medical attention is needed after an accident, as well as general health care at all times. And of course you will pay the taxes our wise govt deems necessary to cover all that.

If you've Opted-Out, after an accident you will receive no govt mandated help. You may receive whatever help caring citizens decide to give you, but hospitals will not be required to help you. You will be free to not pay the associated taxes our wise govt deems necessary to cover all that.

 

[TripleR]

I know I said I was done with this, but I see the argument that the rest of us should not pay for the actions of a few as sort of a red herring. Wasn't that sort of the logic behind "universal health care".

"We" are already paying for those who choose to participate in dangerous activities or those of which we disapprove without sufficient insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few on here have a limit on their coverage or have insufficient coverage, yet motorcycle helmets are the focus for your ire.

Spend some time in an ER or Welfare Office or any number of places; cat's out of the bag.

I know the subject is helmets, but if the question truly is "us" paying for "them", why stop there,

 

[beppington]

"We" are already paying for those who choose to participate in dangerous activities or those of which we disapprove without sufficient insurance.

And we should probably stop that. It may seem barbaric, but would solve many of our problems.

I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few on here have a limit on their coverage or have insufficient coverage, yet motorcycle helmets are the focus for your ire.

Spend some time in an ER or Welfare Office or any number of places; cat's out of the bag.

I know the subject is helmets, but if the question truly is "us" paying for "them", why stop there,

That's right. People can do a myriad of "risky" things. Heck, smoking is still legal - How can this be??? What about artery clogging, fattening french fries? Shouldn't they be illegal? Salt? Alcohol? OK, actually some studies show alcohol in moderation has health benefits, so I guess we need a govt mandated amount of alcohol every American must consume each day, no more, no less.

I don't think the people that create these types of freedom-killing laws are bad people, just foolishly hopeful that their idea will actually work. Karl Marx wasn't evil ... just wrong.

 

[BlacknTan]

BTW, One man's idiot is the next man's genius... It all depends upon our perspective..

The only thing that bothers me in life, is when someone wants to jam THEIR morality or correctness down MY throat!

 

[aczlan]

The only thing that bothers me in life, is when someone wants to jam THEIR morality or correctness down MY throat!

It bothers me when someone wants to CHOOSE to do something unsafe and/or illegal (ride without a helmet) and force everyone else to pay for their mistakes when they crash.

Aaron Z

 

[TripleR]

And we should probably stop that. It may seem barbaric, but would solve many of our problems.

Count me out on that one, money is not so important to me that I can abide human suffering to save a few bucks.

 

[Duffster]

Count me out on that one, money is not so important to me that I can abide human suffering to save a few bucks.

Not to mention we have to define dangerous.

Skydiving may seem obvious. But what about snowmobiling or even operating a tractor.

I had a teacher tell me it was just plain stupid to go into a silo to level it off after filling it because of the silo gas. I asked him how it should be done and he had no response except that it was stupid to do it.

Point is we could never define dangerous or risky.