Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
Thanks for the post BKL. It really is time for new, comprehensive motorcycle safety studies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
interesting read. I, personally, always wear a helmet even though my state does not require it. It seems to me a logical choice when moving 75mph on the interstate to want as much protection as possible.

I believe in freedom of choice, and the concept of personal responsibility. I'm pretty much with Digasi on this one, although enforcement of who is wearing a helmet (and when) could be problematic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,510 Posts
Wow, I wasn't aware that the AMA, and more surprisingly the manufacturers, fight against helmet laws.

I'm not really surprised by the AMA's stance I suppose, but the $3.8 million they spent fighting them does seem a lot.

I really am kinda shocked by a lot of the numbers in that article though.

Thanks for posting it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
889 Posts
Wow, I wasn't aware that the AMA, and more surprisingly the manufacturers, fight against helmet laws.
I believe that its motorcycle manufacturers, which makes sense that they wouldn't want to upset their customers who refuse to wear a helmet. It is odd if they are actively opposing helmet laws though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I always wear a helmet but you have to be careful with statistics. They can be used to show what the presenter wants you to see. Could it be the increase in deaths is due to more bikes on the road and more miles ridden? Does the CDC have an agenda, political or otherwise? Remember the backwards bike promoted by Jimmy Carter's transportation secratery, Joan Clay brook?
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
Does the CDC have an agenda, political or otherwise?
Everyone has an agenda. The CDC's probably includes:
1. Doing what it's supposed to do, which is gathering information and doing research on diseases, injuries and deaths in the USA.
2. Maintaining and increasing its funding from Congress to do ^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Pfft - let people go without helmets if they want to be stupid. While we are at it, let's remove warning labels from stuff. The problem will work itself out.

Darwin FTW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
People sure love to say 'Darwin' to everything that they believe to be foolish. Sure has lost all meaning.

Most folks are adults; they understand what could happen in an accident without safety gear. To those that choose to go without, perhaps the wind-in-the-air and the bugs-in-the-teeth are one of the main reasons they ride? I certainly agree with the freedom of letting them choose, but I also understand there are adverse financial effects on the state.

I think this is an issue best left to a public vote.

I can't wait to read this thread next week!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Wow, I wasn't aware that the AMA, and more surprisingly the manufacturers, fight against helmet laws.
Manufacturer--singular. I believe HD has huge influence with the AMA. Without it, we would have a federal helmet law
I think this is an issue best left to a public vote.
This is true of every federal dictate. I know that the present Bill of Rights would never survive a public vote!
Let people ride without helmets if they want too. Let insurance companies deny them coverage to those that don't ride with a helmet. Problem will solve itself.
Only if all the crashes were fatal. My only problem is the price we all have to pay for the survivors.
Nobody can be refused medical care, and we all pay the bill
statistics...can be used to show what the presenter wants you to see. Could it be the increase in deaths is due to more bikes on the road and more miles ridden?
Of course! The most telling numbers are these: 1% of the motor vehicles registered account for 12% of the fatalities.
I am sure the "accident with major injury" numbers are even higher, and they're the expensive ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
People sure love to say 'Darwin' to everything that they believe to be foolish. Sure has lost all meaning.
How has it lost all meaning? :ears:

Evolution is cognitive in addition to physical.

Eventually, the ones who don't take safety precautions will weed themselves out of the population and more and more of the remaining will have taken said precautions. We like to legislate common sense - I say to heck with that. "Yous pays your money and yous takes you chances. "
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,015 Posts
Only if all the crashes were fatal. My only problem is the price we all have to pay for the survivors.
Nobody can be refused medical care, and we all pay the bill
Of course!
We can give them care, but nothing says we can't stick them with the bill. They want to not wear a helmet, then they can come up with the funds to pay for it. Either they find insurance to help them if the event occurs or they sell their car, motorcycle, house, ... and pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,738 Posts
We can give them care, but nothing says we can't stick them with the bill. They want to not wear a helmet, then they can come up with the funds to pay for it. Either they find insurance to help them if the event occurs or they sell their car, motorcycle, house, ... and pay for it.
Two unfortunate things:
1. The bill still has to be paid by someone right then and there, even if the person pays it back over time.
2. Bankruptcy wipes out medical debt.

IIRC, medical debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US, before and after the financial and housing crash.

Also, I don't know why anyone would think the CDC would have an agenda. They've consistently been a group of the most unbiased scientists I've seen. Sure, they need money to keep going, but I don't think they're fudging or even misrepresenting the stats. They actually provided a pretty good breakdown of scenarios as well as state laws, of which you can read however pleases you most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
818 Posts
I have not read the original study, but as presented by CW, the study was about helmet laws more than helmet safety. Too many factors regarding safety were either ignored or dismissed to believe that this was without bias. As noted above, governmental agencies and employees have a primary agenda of survival and control. That is simply the nature of the beast. At the beginning, there may be noble causes and needs, but over time, survival and control (ie justification for funding, more and more funding) takes over. To believe otherwise is to ignore history and to ignore the obvious.

Of course helmets save lives. And at a reasonable cost. It is questionable whether helmet laws save lives, but they do it at an increased cost. IMHO, the cost in both freedom and finances is not worth it.

Please teach the new and the unwise as much as the are willing to listen regarding the benefits of helmet use, but without force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
best part of the article....

"(It would be interesting to see if these are the same states where sex education consists of teaching Abstinence.)"
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top