Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,830 Posts
In states with helmet laws nearly 100% of riders wear helmets. In states with no helmet laws only around 50% on average wear helmets.

People are dumb and need laws like this to protect them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I wear a helmet every time I ride. I'm not naive enough however, to think that someone who doesn't is "dumb" or in need of my protection.
I think helmet and seat belt laws are ridiculous for adults.
I think many laws are ridiculous for adults, and would like to see more education and less legislation.


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,573 Posts
The last time I went for a group ride in full gear, we stopped at a pub whose patrons were mostly cruiser riders. When we stood up to leave, one of the guys in our group hit the head and when he came out he said, "Boy those guys couldn't wait for us to leave so they could make fun of us for wearing full gear in 85 degree weather."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
I think helmet and seat belt laws are ridiculous for adults.
I think many laws are ridiculous for adults, and would like to see more education and less legislation.
You're right, we don't need nor should need to educate an adult. One legislation coming up, if you have a head injury without use of a helmet, pull the plug and save my dollars for the kid trying to beat cancer.

I now introduce "The right to pull the plug act". :ears:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
We don't need legislation for that, one can already dictate advanced directives for actions to be taken in case of various degrees of injury.
You're still talking about punitive legislation, which is almost always unnecessary, and removes any incentive to think. You're still punishing someone for their decision, which you've agreed they're free to make.
We either accept the risk of our fellows in society or we don't. We don't get to decide we won't pay for healthcare for lung cancer patients who are smokers, or non-helmet wearers.
As someone whose life has been saved twice by organ donation, I do call helmet-less riders "donor-cycles," and hope they're all donors. I have voted in my own state against making donation auto-opt-in, so while I may be totally wrong, I'm at least consistent. :)


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,213 Posts
Helmet and seat belt laws help everyone around drivers and riders. They reduce the likelihood that emergency personal will have to scrap your brains off the pavement. They reduce medical care costs. They make it more likely for a driver or rider to maintain control in the event of an accident so that further damage or injury can be avoided.

It's a win win. The government has a vested interest and the riders and drivers have no counter argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I just wanted to clarify that when I say "healthcare" I'm not speaking about single-payer care, or beginning a political debate. Just referring to the emergent, sponsored care already available to everyone who walks into the E.R. that we subsidize either through higher premiums or via tax dollars.
In general I'm just against legislation which forces action without inherent protection of innocents.


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,213 Posts
I just wanted to clarify that when I say "healthcare" I'm not speaking about single-payer care, or beginning a political debate. Just referring to the emergent, sponsored care already available to everyone who walks into the E.R. that we subsidize either through higher premiums or via tax dollars.
In general I'm just against legislation which forces action without inherent protection of innocents.


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
I just told you how it protects innocents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Armyodarkness:
If it is simply a question of cost and safety, then we should also be able to force full racing leathers with armor, disallow soda, smoking, and McDonalds. If you follow that logic, where do you stop progress?

The counter argument is not only existent and valid, but simple.
The issue isn't one of cost/longevity, but one of scope and choice. Laws which protect only the decision maker are unneeded, or at very least outside of the intended scope.
I completely agree in the benefits of these safety measures (though without a cite I don't accept lower cost; as the death rate decreases, rate of serious injury increases).
I'm only against mandating it, not practicing it. :)


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Yeah, we cross posted, I didn't see what you wrote until after I posted.

I still disagree - the case for helmet laws inherently benefitting and protecting innocent lives seems a stretch to me. While there may be some narrow margin or use case where this is in fact protecting, this protection isn't "inherent."

We simply disagree on this topic, and the role of government in general I imagine.


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,213 Posts
Armyodarkness:
If it is simply a question of cost and safety, then we should also be able to force full racing leathers with armor, disallow soda, smoking, and McDonalds. If you follow that logic, where do you stop progress?

The counter argument is not only existent and valid, but simple.
The issue isn't one of cost/longevity, but one of scope and choice. Laws which protect only the decision maker are unneeded, or at very least outside of the intended scope.
I completely agree in the benefits of these safety measures (though without a cite I don't accept lower cost; as the death rate decreases, rate of serious injury increases).
I'm only against mandating it, not practicing it. :)


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
Helmet laws are easily implemented and effectively enforced. They reduce injury and fatality rates. So your supposition that decreased fatality rates mean higher rates of severe injury is total BS.


I'm not here to argue the merits of banning soda or cigarettes. Nice try though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Helmet laws are easily implemented and effectively enforced. They reduce injury and fatality rates. So your supposition that decreased fatality rates mean higher rates of severe injury is total BS.


I'm not here to argue the merits of banning soda or cigarettes. Nice try though.

I feel the argument regarding full leathers and McDonalds is fully valid. While forcing helmets is better for society, so is banning fast food, forcing people to exercise for a half hour daily, banning cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

All of these bring some sense of enjoyment to the person - just like the feeling of wind through your hair. I'm not arguing that helmet laws do not save the general population money, but I'm damn well arguing that the costs of motorcycle fatalities are FAR less than either cigarettes or fast food and an unhealthy lifestyle.


It's a matter of where to draw the line. It should not be up to the government to say that activity A is illegal while allowing activity B to remain legal with similar implications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
I thought this was going to be a fun thread....






And it's not...


Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle - I can't believe my iPhone can use a Motorcycle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
213 Posts
I have to agree, less legislation and more education. I know plenty of people in the Maine/New Hampshire area who dont wear helmets or any gear at all. I just don't get why no one would want to wear riding gear, but to each there own.

And I also had someone start talking about how if I was to fall and be injured that I should have to pay out of pocket for all medical costs since they chose to drive a car. Long story short they had a slightly different opinion once I told them I ride all gear all the time.

end rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Armyowalgreens:
As I said, without a cute I have no idea whether helmets pose a greater or lesser aggregate cost to society. If there's a comprehensive study that has looked at this I'd love to see it.
I agree that helmets reduce injury. They reduce all injury, so a fatal I jury gets reduced to nearly-fatal perhaps. I have no idea what the numbers look like, but would guess there isn't a huge societal cost shift between helmets vs. no helmets.
Not anything compared to, say, the tens of thousands of saved lives we could attain annually by lowering Interstate speed limits to 20mph.

The greatest good in society is freedom, not longevity. That good is best served with more choice and responsibility, even if society incurs a cost.
All philosophy aside, the most utilitarian reason for this is that stable, happy, free people are more productive, and tend to do far better as a group.

It's ok if we disagree of course.


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
Nary a helmet to be seen anywhere...


Sent from my Motorcycle iPhone app
squiddlyness has nothing to do with gear and more to do with moronic riding habits gear or not

fwiw, NH has highest per capita motorcycle ownership in country, one of lowest bike fatality rates, also amoung lowest in insurance rates ( maybe cause insurance is not mandatory

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
florida is just as bad.

on our 20 minute walk to breakfast this morning, of the 20 bikes that we saw shooting up and down our road, all except TWO were wearing helmets. a lot of harleys and cruisers, but there were guys riding nude gear-wise on 5 of the busas that went by.

bananas i tell ya.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top