Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3058
Agreed. Totally agree with Frank too, just another example of nanny gov't. If a biker goes down at 65 on the freeway, a helmet does little or nothing, only in the (rare) incident the only impact occured on the top of the head, with no spinal injury.
|
As a rider who went down going 70 on the freeway, I thank God I was intelligent enough to wear a helmet, and require my passenger (my wife) to do the same. I also required her to wear long pants and a coat despite the 85 degree weather.
Had I not enforced those requirement of common sense, depsite the fact the helmet law in Arkansas was revoked over 10 years ago, I may never have seen my youngest 2 daughters being born.
Helmets are common sense. How can a law requiring the use of common sense be wrong? If you are traveling at 30 mph and don't think you need a helmet at such a low rate of speed, does that also mean the driver of the idiot who hits you will be also going 30 mph? If it is a head on collision, that's a 60 mph crash.
Never underestimate the power of inertia, even at low speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Numbers. I need to see numbers for all this money the govt spends on health care for unhelmeted bikers. Everyone seems to know them but me.  |
Does it matter? You know for a fact at least 1 person has had their medical bills waived for lack of ability to pay after a motorcyle accident. Who ultimately paid the bills but the subsidies that keep most hospitals afloat.