Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets

[cfg83]

RobertSmalls -

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

What's the downside of wearing a helmet, again? How is it anything but a good idea?

It's like being in a convertible. For a short time in Los Angeles in the early 1980's I could ride my motorcycle without a helmet. In high summer it's definitely "fun" to ride without a helmet, wind in your hair and all that.

I always thought it would be neat to have a designated "no helmet" highway with a dedicated motorcycle lane. Maybe 100 miles in nowheresville for riders to enjoy the ride. In that instance you could probably have restaurants and stuff at stops along the way. It could become a motorcycle-tourist thing.

CarloSW2

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by cfg83

I always thought it would be neat to have a designated "no helmet" highway with a dedicated motorcycle lane. Maybe 100 miles in nowheresville for riders to enjoy the ride. In that instance you could probably have restaurants and stuff at stops along the way. It could become a motorcycle-tourist thing.

How about the Blue Ridge Parkway? That place is already taken over by motorcycles which you can hear from three valleys away. Make them take their helmets off, then maybe they'll notice that nature and noise pollution don't mix (or at least - shouldn't).

[Frank Lee]

Yes, I'm fully aware this could be construed as a double standard, but I would like to see a regulation that states if one is going to run their vehicle (everything, not just bikes) without mufflers (evidently the current muffler laws are universally ignored) that the outlet of said straight pipe(s) must be oriented towards, and not further away than 10", from the operator's ear(s).

[dcb]

loud pipes are for attention seeking posers, a different thread.

[NeilBlanchard]

I have about 100,000 miles in the saddle. I always wore a helmet, and my hearing is the better for it. I always wore a heavy leather jacket, gloves, boots, and jeans -- chaps or a rain suit as required. I wish I could have afforded a Aerostitch suit -- those are awesome gear.

Originally Posted by dcb

I don't know why all these cagers are mouthing off on bikers. Turn in your dam cellphones if you really give a crap. Don't hit motorcycles and cut them off and run them over, hows that for brilliant?

If you don't ride, you can just shut the hell up, because you are completely igorant as to how bad drivers (and a few cyclists) really are, which is the main problem. Your car isn't made out of foam rubber? you should pay, now!

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The rules of the road are not always based on the best evidence.

But in the case of the helmet and seatbelt laws, they actually ARE.
They really make the difference between a banal incident, and a fatal accident.

Sure, you can always find a few lucky b@$t@rd$ who survived the freak circumstances of a freak accident because they didn't wear a helmet or a seatbelt, but most of them simply don't survive even minor accidents.

[dcb]

The people who push these sorts of things through are cagers and corporations. %50 of bikers are pro-choice on the matter. The stats say like 400 people a year would not die if everyone wore a helmet, vs the hundreds of millions that die every year from other causes. Where's the outrage?!? Helmets are "curing the symptom" IMO, the disease that needs addressing and would benefit everyone IS CRAPPY DRIVERS!!! The US is falling farther and farther behind other countries in making sure the driving populace is properly skilled for the task. We are really good at crappy driving, and good at blaming whatever we hit for us having hit it in the first place.

You folks are distracted, there is a moose on the table here.

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by wdb

Let those who ride, decide.

As long as they also pay for those decisions, in the form of higher insurance rates etc.

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. If a biker wants to wear a helmet he is free to do so, if not, why is it anyones business but his? Doesn't mean he is stupid, maybe he enjoys it enough to merit the added risk. How can a (stupid) politician know what each biker values most? But if I as the gov't tell you its the law to wear a helmet, wear a seatbelt, use daytime running lights, etc, before too long you will give up any other rights I want to take.
As I've said before, I get wary when gov't tries to restrict others freedoms, else it may be my turn someday.

[Thymeclock]

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. If a biker wants to wear a helmet he is free to do so, if not, why is it anyones business but his? Doesn't mean he is stupid, maybe he enjoys it enough to merit the added risk. How can a (stupid) politician know what each biker values most? But if I as the gov't tell you its the law to wear a helmet, wear a seatbelt, use daytime running lights, etc, before too long you will give up any other rights I want to take.
As I've said before, I get wary when gov't tries to restrict others freedoms, else it may be my turn someday.

The politicians you mention are anything but "stupid". They (as legislators and executive authorities) justify their positions and their very existence by generating and enforcing more laws. It is their 'raison d'etre'.

In the past, the reason for public safety laws was to protect the public from the behaviors of other individuals that might cause harm to anyone other than themselves. Nowadays the Nanny State mentality strives to generate laws that supposedly protect individuals from themselves.

Young children might need nannies until they become adults; adults do not. The Nanny state has a vested interest in treating us as children, so they can dominate us as our nannies. They want to spare us the consequences of our own actions - supposedly for our own benefit.

It's hardly about genuine concern for us. It's all about maintaining and increasing the power and dominance of those who benefit from regulating us.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

The politicians you mention are anything but "stupid". They (as legislators and executive authorities) justify their positions and their very existence by generating and enforcing more laws. It is their 'raison d'etre'.

It's hardly about genuine concern for us. It's all about maintaining and increasing the power and dominance of those who benefit from regulating us.

I agree, good reason to force issues back on them with a little backlash, if the government doesn't fear the people it rules it dominates them instead.