Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets

[Frank Lee]

Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets, cite increase in deaths | StarTribune.com

When will they turn their attention to those hammers?

[RobertSmalls]

Wait, there's places where it's legal to ride without a helmet? And there's people in those places who do?

The government seems bent on bringing natural selection to a halt. We've already all but eliminated poverty-related deaths, so why not eliminate deaths related to habitual stupidity, too?

[Daox]

Oh yeah, here in WI I'd say probably 75% of motorcycle riders don't wear a helmet.

[cfguy2000]

In Texas you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet if you purchase extra insurance. Makes sense.

[dcb]

I don't think it does make sense, unless you are an insurance company.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets

Who likes head injuries?

[cfguy2000]

It makes perfect sense. Motorcycle riders that get into accidents while not wearing a seatbelt have much higher medical bills. Now why someone would subject themselves to that much risk, I have no idea.

[Ryland]

Here in Wisconsin you are required to wear eye protection and if you are under 18 or only have a learners permit you are required to wear a helmet.
Personally I think your insurance rates should drop if you don't wear a helmet as you chances of death decrease and medical coverage for motorcycle accents tend to be $1,000 per accident and that wouldn't cover much more then the ride to the hospital.

I've always ridden my motorcycles and mopeds with a full face helmet and my first helmet lasted me 10 years, after that it had so many chips from gravel flying in my face and bug splatters embedded in it that I couldn't imagine what it would be like to have had all of that junk hit my face.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by cfguy2000

It makes perfect sense. Motorcycle riders that get into accidents while not wearing a seatbelt have much higher medical bills. Now why someone would subject themselves to that much risk, I have no idea.

Yes, but it's a huge can of worms. Cellphone/texting drivers injure/kill/damage far more than non-helmet users, why not focus on them first? Non-helmet users is relatively self-correcting.

[brucey]

Sounds like life, liberty, and the pursuit of bureaucracy to me. Same with seat belt laws, but nearly every state has them now. I've always ridden with a helmet (and any passengers) but hate the idea of nanny police.