It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Motorcycle Helmet Laws

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
This article hits close to home!

I am an avid motorcyclist. I have been riding motorcycles for over 30 years.

I have owned over 30 street motorcycles and owned multiple off road motorcycles, and currently own 3 bikes now.

GL1800 Goldwing, a street legal 501 Husaberg Supermotard and a 450f Honda.

I have held in my arms a dying friend who was hit by a car and he was not wearing a helmet.

I had a close friend who was a AMA professional motorcycle racer who was killed on a street motorcycle and he was not wearing a helmet.

My belief is this, if you choose to not wear a helmet when you are riding a street motorcycle, you must provide proof of a separate heath insurance policy that will cover your medical expenses in the event of accident.

I have a friend who crashed hard 2 years ago, he was not wearing a helmet and he bounced his . off the pavement after a car blew through a red light.

Now he and his wife are living with his parents because he lost his house, he had no health insurance and the medical bills are now over a half a million dollars.

He is paralyzed and uses a respirator to breath and a bag to piss and poop into.

Yes the lady who hit him had insurance, but it maxed out at 100,000 dollars. The hospital kept him for a few months, he then ended up in a nursing home but they released him after the cash stopped from the ladies insurance. He lost his job, his home and basically his life all because he chose to look cool and not to wear a helmet and now he is on state aide.

I don’t want to hear the excuse that helmets restrict vision or restrict hearing because I wear a full face helmet, and that myth is just not true with today’s modern motorcycle helmets.

I believe it’s time to make helmets mandatory on all street motorcycle.

This article from CNN spells it out clearly, if you crash on street motorcycle more than likely you are going to die or become a living pile of mush from irreversible brain trauma.


External Source


Motorcycle Deaths increase of 67 percent, from 259 in 2000 to 432 in 2004.

Study: 'Unhelmeted' deaths have soared in Florida

Monday, June 19, 2006; Posted: 4:46 a.m. EDT (08:46 GMT)

MELBOURNE, Florida (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities involving riders without helmets have soared in the nearly six years since Gov. Jeb Bush repealed the state's mandatory helmet law, a newspaper reported Sunday.

www.cnn.com...


Mod edit: added external quote tags

[edit on 6/19/2006 by Gools]




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
What about siekh`s..??...doesnt there religion make them wear a turban in public at all times...??...i can understand and if i was a biker i would wear a helmet at all times(self preservation).
but i dont think you can make someone wear a helmet..but they that choose not to have to take the consequence`s of there actions, on there own .s be it.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
You can make somone wear a helmet in the same way that you mandate safeybelts. If you chose not to wear a helmet then maybe you should pay a stiff fine and have your license suspended. Then let's see how much you enjoy 'living on the edge' and looking cool.

I guess ole Jeb wanted the 'biker vote'


[edit on 19/6/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Hey, I am a Shriner.

When I ride with our Temples motorized unit in parades we have our phez's velcrowed to our helmets.

You have to adapt to stay alive.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Excellent post.





You have voted SIRR1 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



I used to ride off-road with a little on-road riding.
Always wore a helmet.

Unlike a few other posts I see on here, you've outlined an answer for the problem instead of just bitching about it.

Helmets are not required here in Arizona and I see lots of riders without them.

I came here from California a couple of years ago and California has a helmet law.
Some riders get around the law - although illegally to my eyes - by wearing a WW2 German battle helmet style 'crash' helmet.
It's too thin to do much of anything except look cool and they don't look all that cool.
I'm not sure of the contruction of these thin skin helmets, but it's for sure they won't work as they should when needed.
I'm sure as well this style helmet hasn't been anywhere near a Snell test.

Maybe the street runners need to get into interestingly painted helmets.
We did it with our helmets when racing and riding off-road.
Some of them were works of art and others were . . . interesting.

I suppose the new contingent of yuppie Harley riders could get into the nicely painted helmets.
You can only add so much chrome to a Harley....



(Edited for spelling and to add the way above bit.)


[edit on 19-6-2006 by Desert Dawg]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
You can make somone wear a helmet in the same way that you mandate safeybelts. If you chose not to wear a helmet then maybe you should pay a stiff fine and have your license suspended. Then let's see how much you enjoy 'living on the edge' and looking cool.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by SportyMB]


If your state has a helmet law that requires you to wear one and you don't, the traffic tickets will pile up and the fines will increase and eventually your bike and auto insurance will go through the roof, and that's if you can even get insurance from all of the tickets, and thats if you still have a license from violating state laws.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I cannot comprehend why people choose not to wear helmets. The only thing I see good that could come of it is the removal of their stupidity from the gene pool, but that's another topic.

Aside from that, sometimes you can get into a motorcycle accident and walk away when you're not wearing a helmet. I remember a story on the local news from a few years ago (which I haven't located yet) about a guy who was in a motorcycle accident. He wasn't wearing his helmet (even though Michigan state law requires one) and was hit by a car. He wasn't hit badly, as his bike was still okay and he got up with some scrapes and bruises. Later that day he died. Why? Because of internal hemmorhaging in his brain that he obviously couldn't diagnose.

What is the point? That even in a crash where you can walk away from, you should still get checked out by a medical professional.

It stinks because they're talking about repealing the hemlet law here too now.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
yeap I agree helmets are the only way I have been riding for over 30 years, from motto X, enduro, flat track, ice-racing, and I have landed many times on my ., I hit a steel culvert (drainage ditch) one time face first, in a hounds and hair. I thought I had died, it was bad if not for the full face I had on it would have been much worse.
But as to road riding as far as I am concerned law or no law, I would always wear one. They do say most accident occur close to home.
Just to ad I too have lost a few friends, but it's the risk you take, sad though it's usually the car drivers that are at fault ( but not all the time ) young kids with 200 mile an hour bikes and no proper riding skills is another.



[edit on 19/6/2006 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I'd agree it's in your interests to take out some kind of health insurance, but wearing a helmet or not should be a matter of choice. It's no-one else's business if another wants to do something that puts them more at risk than some other activity.

Let's be honest here - say aliens landed and demanded that we all take out life insurance policies because if any of the many disasters that might occur were to occur, we'd be screwed and not even have food. Think.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ed 209
I'd agree it's in your interests to take out some kind of health insurance, but wearing a helmet or not should be a matter of choice. It's no-one else's business if another wants to do something that puts them more at risk than some other activity.


It's also the government's responsibility to protect us (within reason)....even from our own stupidity. The wearing of helmets should be mandated and strictly enforced, just like safety belts and child seats.

SIRR1 provided stats...did you even look at them? The numbers are crazy. Imo, the option of wether to wear a helmet or not is killing too many people.....let's mandate helmet and the stats will decrease. Bet.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I cannot comprehend why people choose not to wear helmets.

Some motorcyclists believe it has to do with the feel of freedom, and the air from the open road.

It gives them a sense of being one with the enviroment and wearing a helmet will take away that feeling or rush, and some motorcyclists believe that it's their right to not wear a helmet.

Kind of like, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religon and freedom to choose to wear a helmet or not.

I know what these people are saying about the rush because I have felt the same thing wearing a helmet.

When it rains you get wet, when someone is cutting the grass you smell it, When the sun is out you get warm, it's the same thing with a helmet on only if I crash and bounce my . off the pavement, most likley I will get up and walk away, slowly, beat and bruised, but I will walk away.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I think the helmets should be voluntary. The state's job is not to protect people from their own stupidity.

I feel the same way about seatbelts.

People who make good decisions live long, happy lives. People who make bad decisions wind up hurting themselves. You can't change that - you can only try to educate people and encourage them to make good decisions, in their own best interest.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The state's job is not to protect people from their own stupidity.


Interesting comment, that one is. Very open ended.

At the extreme end of it you could say that it's not the state's job to provide police, fire, or EMS services. After all, it would be the person's own stupidity for having a house a person could burglarize, or having wiring that somehow shorted out igniting a wall, or a pipe breaking and the home filling with carbon monoxide, right?

Those are all things people can control to save thier lives and protect themselves, just like wearing a helmet or not. After all, like deciding to wear a helmet, they can choose to lock their windows, have the wiring/pipes tested by a professional electrician/pipe-tester (not sure what someone of that profession's titles would be), or, at the very least, having alarms installed to protect from those things. But if they don't and they die or are harmed from it, should the state be called to help out? Going by what you said there? Nope.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
No it shouldn't. You have no right in any way whatsoever to demand that someone riding any kind of vehicle should strap up or suit up or boot on or helmet on etc.

Just get over it, that's fascism pure and simple. Then you'll want them to remove their helmets every time they go in a shop or bank or whatever. Ooooooh safety first.....

How about some sensible ones then? Like - why don't passenger planes request that you know how to parachute jump before you are allowed to fly? And then have a chute per passeneger? As long as we're talking actual safety, why pick on people who if anything did happen they'd only be harming themselves in it (flying through a windscreen and landing on another person excepted)?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ed 209
No it shouldn't. You have no right in any way whatsoever to demand that someone riding any kind of vehicle should strap up or suit up or boot on or helmet on etc.

Why? Ive heard reasons why wearing helmets should be the law, but why not?



Just get over it, that's fascism pure and simple. Then you'll want them to remove their helmets every time they go in a shop or bank or whatever. Ooooooh safety first.....

I suppose you think that child seats are a waste too. What about steel toe boots and gas mask...oooooh safety first




How about some sensible ones then? Like - why don't passenger planes request that you know how to parachute jump before you are allowed to fly?

Umm, they provide life jackets, isle lights, rafts and give a SAFETY brief before the flight. And every passenger having a parachute is not practical.


As long as we're talking actual safety, why pick on people who if anything did happen they'd only be harming themselves in it (flying through a windscreen and landing on another person excepted)?

Im lost on this one. Can you break it down for me, please?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ed 209
You have no right in any way whatsoever to demand that someone riding any kind of vehicle should strap up or suit up or boot on or helmet on etc.

Just get over it, that's fascism pure and simple. Then you'll want them to remove their helmets every time they go in a shop or bank or whatever. Ooooooh safety first.....


So people working on construction of a highrise building shouldn't have to wear safety goggles, hardhats, harnesses, steeltoed boots, etc either? Maybe you should write a letter to OSHA saying they're a bunch of facists...

And if that safetly equipment does pose a threat to the wearer or anyone else when being used/worn improperly, then that's exactly right that they should be made to remove it before going into a "shop or bank or whatever"


How about some sensible ones then? Like - why don't passenger planes request that you know how to parachute jump before you are allowed to fly? And then have a chute per passeneger?


I find it funny that you call that "sensible" - mainly because statistics prove that flying in a commercial airliner is safer than driving in a car, which in turn means it's even safer than riding on a motorcycle.



As long as we're talking actual safety, why pick on people who if anything did happen they'd only be harming themselves in it (flying through a windscreen and landing on another person excepted)?


Huh? I'm with SportyMB on this one... What do you mean by that?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Right. So you'd be happy to jump from a crashing airline - with a life-jacket only to help you out with that.

is all that says to me.


The comments are the same as before - it's not your business what safety gear anyone wants to wear or not. You aren't in charge of other people, you don't know what levels of proection or whatever they have in their life. You're slapping a very narrowminded experience of how things are onto everyone that exists, well some people just don't drop down to those levels of unsafety. And even if they did, it's still no-one else's business to tell them what safety gear to wear. Recommend - yes, by all means. Enforce - absolutely not.


(the one you didn't understand - I'm just acknowledging that there is that scenario where not wearing your seatbelt might harm another person apart from you, so that's the only one you have some kind of point in. Slightly.)



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ed 209
Right. So you'd be happy to jump from a crashing airline - with a life-jacket only to help you out with that.

Did you read what cmdrkeenkid posted about the stats? And you still don't have a good point...do you know how long it would take to get everyone out the airplane? what about the altitude that planes fly at..and the speeds?

(Don't answer the above questions)



The comments are the same as before - it's not your business what safety gear anyone wants to wear or not.

No, it's not mine, but it's the states business. And they have the responsibility to ensure that persons on their highways are protected.

I don't follow your logic at all man. It's a small safety measure that requires minimal work and will save thousands of lives and millions of $$$.


You aren't in charge of other people, you don't know what levels of proection or whatever they have in their life.

No, I don't and Yes, I do. If they chose to ride without a helmet....then the answer is NONE.


You're slapping a very narrowminded experience of how things are onto everyone that exists, well some people just don't drop down to those levels of unsafety.

levels of unsafety!?!?! Are you serious? People that don't wear helmets are dropping down to levels of unsafety.

[edit on 19/6/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Oh, I see what you're saying. A person not wearing a helmet dying/getting injured in a motorcycle accident only hurts the person involved. Right, how wrong of me to think that it could pose a problem in any way for the family members, friends, or employers...


EDIT TO ADD:


You aren't in charge of other people, you don't know what levels of proection or whatever they have in their life.


So if you had a child, would you allow it to touch a hot stove? Jump into a pool when it cannot swim? Stick a metallic object into an electrical plug?

[edit on 6/19/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
And you still don't have a good point...do you know how long it would take to get everyone out the airplane? what about the altitude that planes fly at..and the speeds?

(Don't answer the above questions)


Sorry, but I'm gonna.


The speeds would be enough to injure people. For example, a crew member of a B-52 bomber (which flies at roughly the same speeds as modern airliners) could be 6'6" at take off. Something happens and they have to bail out. On the ground, they would be 6'0". Why? Because the sudden forces of jumping into a 600+ mph wind causes the bones and joints to compress. Do you think most people could survive that?

Now, for the altitude? Well, those b-52 pilots would have an airsupply with them, allowing them to breathe. A normal passenger of an airliner has no such thing. Secondly, if that were not a problem, the temperatures would be enough to send the person into shock.

So, unless having the proper equipment and training, having people bail out of an ailing commercial airliner just isn't feasible. On the other hand, going over the safetly information and preparing for an impact on the ground works much better, and would have a higher survivability.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join