I dont really know where i stand. I feel that if a rider chooses not to wear a lid, he must deal with the consequences. The only problem with that, is he is not the only one who suffers. What if he/she is a mom or dad, someones child, husband/wife, you get the idea, other people suffer too if something terrible were to happen. What if the rider hits a car? Doesnt matter who is at fault, the driver of the car could be traumatized for the rest of their lives knowing that they killed a motorcyclist who chose not to wear a lid.
I always wear mine, its saved me twice now. Who knows if i would be here today if i wasnt wearing one, or i may be here but be a veggie for the rest of my life. I guess after all this rambling i still havent answered the question though :dunno
But this is exactly true of any decision people make. To eat badly, to smoke tobacco, to SCUBA dive, to ride a motorcycle in the first place. To claim the right to dictate people's lives because what they do affects their friends and family is to open the door to complete governmental control of every aspect of your life. Which is a poor idea.
mandatory. It will be amazing how low the fatality rate would be if it was mandatory.
No it won't. This experiment has already been done, since there are places now where it is mandatory, and places where it isn't. Fatality rates do go down where it is mandatory, but do not become "amazingly low".
But also note that outlawing motorcycles would also reduce the fatality rate. As would outlawing french fries and candy bars. Or mandating a timer on televisions that shuts it off after an hour, and you can't turn it back on until you come back with a significantly elevated heart rate and sweat level.
People have the right to make their own decisions about their own lives, and even fatality rates do not give the government just authority to interfere. Only if their actions are causing damage or excessive risk to people who have not consented to be involved, is there justification for using force on people.
I'm a selfish bastard.
If you want to ride without a lid I think you should have to sign something that says society does not have to pay your medical bills when you cant.
As long as you sign, ride however you want.
That's the key. You make your own decisions, you live (or die) with your own consequences. That's fair, and respects everyone's rights.
I feel that people should have a choice, however when people consistantly make the "wrong" choices we need to help them out. How many teens just starting out riding would pick up a bike without a helmet if there was no helmet law in california? Im guessing quite a few. Helmet laws lower fatalities, and everytime I hear about some motorcyclist that died somewhere my mother always feels the need to tell me. I understand it makes her worry even more about me, more than she really should. And we cant forget that "squids make our insurance go up!" quote. All in all I believe people should have the right to decide things they want and dont want to do to themselves but I think helmet laws are in place for the better of society. If your state doesnt want helmet laws, fine. If mine does then I wont fight against it. So im voting for helmet laws.
And besides...If you want to ride wothout a helmet nothing is "physically" stopping you. You will just get a ticket.
When people consistently make the "wrong" choices we need to try to educate or persuade them. We don't have the right to force them.
A problem here is that EVERY argument you make for a law requiring helmets would be EQUALLY valid for a law prohibiting motorcycles entirely. Which I'm sure we ALL would agree would not be right. And conversely every argument you can make for retaining the freedom to ride at all applies equally well to the freedom to ride without a helmet. At the bottom line, you cannot logically support both motorcycling and helmet laws -- both hinge on the right of the person to choose his own activities and set what risk level he is comfortable with in his own life.
As long as seat belts are mandatory, then yes, I believe helmets
should be.
With that said, I really don't care if a rider chooses not to wear a helmet. I'd say 75% of the riders here (read: cruisers) don't wear a helmet. It doesn't bother me.
So two bad laws are better than one? Seatbelts shouldn't be mandatory either, for the same reason.
I'm all for choice as a rider but also feel strongly on having to wear a helmet mandatory. My friend just picked up a 82 Suzuki gs450 and he doesn't wear a helmet since its not mandatory in ohio. He makes fun of me for always wearing my helmet and other gear. His excuse is if he goes down he'll die no matter what so he sees no point in wearing a helmet. He also says they are stupid and calls everyone who wears helmets a puss. I've tried to convince him but he doesn't listen.
Even if there was a helmet law I know he wouldn't wear one. He would rather pay the ticket.
That makes no sense.
Your friend is being an idiot, but he has that right. You may try to persuade him, you may decide whether or not to stay friends with him if means you might have to witness his brains being splattered about. You may not point a gun at him and say "wear your helmet or else", or delegate someone else to do so.
I wonder if the helmet laws will change if there's ever Free Health Care? Anyway, I will always wear one but do not think it should be a law to have to.
Another reason not to make that mistake. When all of health is a "public expense", then ANY activity that might affect your health becomes subject to regulation on that basis. A very bad idea.
I hate to say it but I'm for 100% mandatory- after being at Indy this weekend seeing the vast majority of the local sportbike riders riding sans helmets (and after the race hearing about one jackass injuring himself) it just makes sense to do so.
Biker Badly Injured In Crash With Ambulance - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810806.PDF :
“NHTSA estimates that helmets saved 1,658 motorcyclists’ lives in 2006, and that 752 more could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.”
Just my opinion, but if we can reduce fatalities and serious injuries then it's worth making the helmet use mandatory.
It's not your job, your duty, or even your right to save people's lives against their will. You may try to convince people to do things "for their own good", but don't have the right to force them to.
i think the value-add to making helmets mandatory for all riders far exceeds the inconvenience to riders.
That's your opinion. But others may have different opinions, and you don't have the right to force your opinion of that on others.
Check the stats...there are more riders killed wearing helmets than not wearing helmets.
For 2007, the NHTSA and the US DOT says Forty-five percent of fatally injured motorcyclists did not wear helmets.
That statistic is totally meaningless without knowing what percentage of the people who crashed were wearing helmets.
The argument is not whether wearing a helmet is safer than not -- that question is not rationally under dispute. Helmets are proven to be effective safety gear, and I will always wear mine, law or not, and even though I LOVE the feeling of riding without. The argument is whether YOU have the right to make that decision FOR ME, and the correct answer to that is "no, you don't". Regardless of what I decide.
PhilB
nfloor
