Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Michigan governor signs bill repealing motorcycle helmet requirement, or as it will soon be known--the Natural Selection Law of 2012   ( mlive.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Governors of Michigan, Rick Snyder, Natural Selection Law, Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, natural selection, Michigan Senate  
•       •       •

3627 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Apr 2012 at 2:04 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



466 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-04-13 10:02:10 AM  
On the plus side, think of all of the doctor and nurse jobs it'll create!
 
2012-04-13 10:07:34 AM  
They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.
 
2012-04-13 10:08:06 AM  
Heck PA signed that law a few years ago because the Govenor wanted to feel the air in his air when he was on the bike. The face palm is we have a law saying that if you are in the car you have to wear a seat belt. WTF I'm safer behind the car with an air bag than those retards on a bike without a helmet.
 
2012-04-13 10:08:51 AM  
please ignore my spelling mistake
 
2012-04-13 10:12:11 AM  
Way to fight for the important stuff.
 
2012-04-13 10:12:18 AM  
How does one declare a Michigan citizen legally brain-dead as opposed to just, like, being a normal Michigan citizen?
 
2012-04-13 10:15:58 AM  
Meh. The way most motorcycles ride a helmet isn't going to do shiat when when the motorcyclist gets creamed after weaving in and out of traffic at 80 mph.
 
2012-04-13 10:23:47 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


You're unable to make decisions for yourself eh?
 
2012-04-13 10:37:33 AM  
Since there have been warnings on cigarette cartons, higher taxes on cigarettes, and laws against smoking in the workplace, smoking rate has declined from 42% to 19% among Americans. A decrease in chronic diseases due to smoking will represent a large decrease in burden for American spending on healthcare (although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden). But the point stands that the change in smoking came about from direct government action.
 
2012-04-13 10:49:04 AM  

sweetmelissa31: although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden


Well, then we best start drafting legislation regulating people diets.
 
2012-04-13 10:58:11 AM  
DIA will be horrified to know that trans fats are banned in NY and chains have to make nutritional information available. Verdict: food still delicious.
 
2012-04-13 11:02:19 AM  
And billions of jobs were instantly created.
 
2012-04-13 11:02:30 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Well, then we best start drafting legislation regulating people diets



I'm pretty sure a diet of people is very regulated already.
 
2012-04-13 11:09:03 AM  
why stop there? why not repeal seatbelt laws?
 
2012-04-13 11:13:32 AM  

sweetmelissa31: DIA will be horrified to know that trans fats are banned in NY and chains have to make nutritional information available. Verdict: food still delicious.


I know. Because New Yorkers are obviously too farking stupid to take care of themselves.
 
2012-04-13 11:14:23 AM  

FlashHarry: why stop there? why not repeal seatbelt laws?


Indeed. Why not? Are you that farking stupid that you need to be told to wear one?
 
2012-04-13 11:20:56 AM  
Why is lead banned from gasoline? Are Americans too stupid to make their own decisions? :(
 
2012-04-13 11:23:18 AM  
Why does the FDA have to push its government snout into "prescription" medications? And why does the AMA have to license "physicians"? Are Americans too stupid to make their own decisions?
 
2012-04-13 11:25:02 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: And why does the AMA have to license "physicians"?


I personally only go to Rand Paul licensed ophthalmologists. If they mess up my eyes I'll just sue them.
 
2012-04-13 11:25:55 AM  
I wonder if they passed it as an emergency measure.


hillbillypharmacist: Are Americans too stupid to make their own decisions?


In a vast percentage of cases yes.
 
2012-04-13 11:30:21 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: sweetmelissa31: DIA will be horrified to know that trans fats are banned in NY and chains have to make nutritional information available. Verdict: food still delicious.

I know. Because New Yorkers are obviously too farking stupid to take care of themselves.


Ever notice that American teabaggers hate New York almost as much as al-Qeada does?
 
2012-04-13 11:32:53 AM  

Aarontology: Ever notice that American teabaggers hate New York almost as much as al-Qeada does?


I love New York. It's a beautiful state. The city is kick ass too.
 
2012-04-13 11:47:13 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: why stop there? why not repeal seatbelt laws?

Indeed. Why not? Are you that farking stupid that you need to be told to wear one?


why not just remove all road signs and abolish all speed limits? are you that farking stupid that you can't tell how fast is too fast?
 
2012-04-13 11:50:15 AM  

FlashHarry: why not just remove all road signs and abolish all speed limits?


Not even close to the same. Try again.
 
2012-04-13 12:12:03 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: why not just remove all road signs and abolish all speed limits?

Not even close to the same. Try again.


are people so stupid that they don't know what side of the road to drive on?
 
2012-04-13 12:25:41 PM  

FlashHarry: are people so stupid that they don't know what side of the road to drive on?


Once again a swing and a miss. Want some help?
 
2012-04-13 12:47:33 PM  
I see it's time once again for 'Let's Watch DIA Constantly Move The Goalposts.'
 
2012-04-13 12:51:35 PM  

Aarontology: Meh. The way most motorcycles ride a helmet isn't going to do shiat when when the motorcyclist gets creamed after weaving in and out of traffic at 80 mph.

Most

motorcyclists?

You want to know how I know you don't know many motorcyclists?

As for the article... so? I think the headline is correct, that this will cull some of the stupid out of the gene pool. If you're dumb enough to ride without a helmet or weave in and out of traffic at 80mph or be in any other was a squid, go for it. More used motorcycle parts on the market for the rest of us.
 
2012-04-13 12:51:52 PM  

GAT_00: I see it's time once again for 'Let's Watch DIA Constantly Move The Goalposts.'


Heh. Can you tell us the difference between speed limit laws and helmet/seatbelt laws?
 
2012-04-13 12:52:36 PM  

GAT_00: I see it's time once again for 'Let's Watch DIA Constantly Move The Goalposts.'


Pot, meet kettle.
 
2012-04-13 12:55:35 PM  

R.A.Danny: Pot, meet kettle.


Leave the poor chils alone. He doesn't know any better.
 
2012-04-13 12:57:29 PM  

timujin: Most motorcyclists?

You want to know how I know you don't know many motorcyclists?


Yes, most. The only real exceptions are the guys who ride cruisers.
 
2012-04-13 01:04:42 PM  
Michigan's largest export will become donor organs
 
2012-04-13 01:06:57 PM  
Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.

/oh wait they don't and won't, just like always
//more risk-dumping under the guise of liberty
 
2012-04-13 01:18:52 PM  

Aarontology: timujin: Most motorcyclists?

You want to know how I know you don't know many motorcyclists?

Yes, most. The only real exceptions are the guys who ride cruisers.


Again, you don't know many motorcyclists, do you? Or probably even notice them when you're driving it sounds like. Only the ones who act like assholes. I don't know where you live, but here in southern California, the weather is conducive to riding and a lot of people take advantage. I see guys on sport bikes every single day on the freeway. I see someone riding like a jackass about once a month or less. Now, if you don't agree, I'd ask that you take note of every motorcyclist you see and count how many of them are "weaving through traffic at 80mph." I think you'll find that you have a selective perception bias.
 
2012-04-13 01:27:02 PM  
Every time I go to Florida, it freaks me out seeing people riding motorcycles without helmets on.
 
2012-04-13 02:06:51 PM  
Pretty soon we'll have to have special facilities for Roethlisberger-Americans there too.
 
2012-04-13 02:07:42 PM  
Young otherwise healthy males with fatal head injuries are a reliable source of healthy organs for transplant. This might actually improve availability of transplantable organs, is what I'm saying.
 
2012-04-13 02:08:03 PM  
And if they get injured and not insured, I don't want to foot the bill.
 
2012-04-13 02:08:17 PM  
As long as they can sign away mandatory insurance coverage and absolve the paramedics from their duty to resuscitate, I don't see the problem.
 
2012-04-13 02:08:23 PM  
Well, ain't that a kick in the head.
 
2012-04-13 02:08:25 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.


It is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't wear a helmet. One has nothing to do with the other.
 
2012-04-13 02:10:18 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


The funny thing is that this repeal was pushed by bikers who tent to be mostly democrats.
 
2012-04-13 02:10:20 PM  

gameshowhost: Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.

/oh wait they don't and won't, just like always
//more risk-dumping under the guise of liberty


Exactly. I don't give two shiats if a motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet dies, but I don't want to pay for his/her care.
 
2012-04-13 02:10:31 PM  
If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.
 
2012-04-13 02:10:46 PM  
I'm so on the fence about this. One one hand I understand that a biker can be severely injured or killed in an accident without a helmet and that the cost of these injuries are passed on to the rest of us as higher insurance premiums, etc. But I also see the biker's side. It's his body and his life to do with as he choses. If he accepts the risk of riding without a helmet, isn't that his decision to make? Do we make farking without a condom illegal because you might get an STD? Do we make smoking illegal? Drinking? Eating fatty foods? You just can't legislate personal responsibility.
 
2012-04-13 02:11:09 PM  
How about if you don't want to wear a helmet then fine. But you have to sign this release that says you will not be kept alive, given any dr./hospital care resulting from an injury from an accident in which you were not wearing a helmet.
Personal responsibilty
 
2012-04-13 02:11:19 PM  
Does Michigan have a seat belt law?

/got a seat belt ticket from a motorcycle cop
 
2012-04-13 02:11:19 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Dancin_In_Anson: Well, then we best start drafting legislation regulating people diets


I'm pretty sure a diet of people is very regulated already.


"Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a modest proposal..."
 
2012-04-13 02:11:38 PM  
Then I'm down at the bottom of a pit in the blazing sun. Torn and twisted at the foot of a burning' bike. And I think somebody somewhere is tolling a bell.

And the last thing I see is my heart. Still beating.
 
2012-04-13 02:11:43 PM  
It amazes me that, in a day and age of friggin baby crawling helmets they'd repeal an existing law like that...
 
2012-04-13 02:12:56 PM  

I alone am best: Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.

The funny thing is that this repeal was pushed by bikers who tent to be mostly democrats.

 
2012-04-13 02:13:10 PM  
God forbid people take responsibility for their OWN actions, Libtard. Last time I checked, when a motorcycle crashes into someone else, the other party affected had no worse injuries because the cycler did or did not wear his own helmet.

I know you masturbate at night trying to figure out how to pass more laws and control behavior, but you'll have to fantasize about something else for a change...like actual women.

A cyclist not wearing his helmet has zero bearing on your life. Get over yourself.
 
2012-04-13 02:13:13 PM  
When I see a kid approaching an electric socket with a butterknife, I like to let him make his own decision. Liberty and all that.
 
2012-04-13 02:13:45 PM  
The real joke here is the $20K in additional insurance you need to carry in order to do so. Thats what? A ride in the meat wagon and a few hours in the ICU?

/From Mi
//Rides a motorcycle
///wears a full face helmet and kevlar jeans when I ride
////SLASHIES!!!!
 
2012-04-13 02:14:03 PM  
Sweet. UP here I come!
 
2012-04-13 02:14:04 PM  
Never had a helmet law here in CT. Most people I know wear one anyway.
 
2012-04-13 02:14:06 PM  

Bring It.

scrapetv.comView Full Size

 
2012-04-13 02:14:11 PM  

shootsright: Does Michigan have a seat belt law?

/got a seat belt ticket from a motorcycle cop


Yep. get's real exciting when you own classic cars. I've been questioned as to why I wasn't wearing a seatbelt in my old '52 Buick before.
 
2012-04-13 02:14:42 PM  
Anyone got the traffic fatalities stats in New Hampshire vs states where helmets are mandatory.

No helmet law, no seat-belt law.

Yes, you should wear those things. No the state shouldn't tell you to do so.

It always makes the news if someone dies in a motorcycle accident.
 
2012-04-13 02:14:47 PM  
I don't see what the big deal about wearing a helmet. I have two of 'em, one full face for when the weather is a bit chilly, and a one that is a half-face for when the weather is warmer. I mean, if people don't wear them, that's on them. To be fair though, a half-face helmet isn't going to do jack to provide protection if you faceplant... better protection than nothing, but not as much as a full face.

/here in New England, it isn't uncommon to ride when it is 40 out, as long as the roads have been cleared of the salt and sand from the winter.
 
2012-04-13 02:14:57 PM  
harry.hirschman.comView Full Size


Helmets are of limited utility to the insane.
 
2012-04-13 02:15:19 PM  
meh I know 2 bikers who lost both legs in accidents one of which wishes he wasn't wearing a helmet cause some fates are worse then dying.

kind of sad.
 
2012-04-13 02:15:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: I see it's time once again for 'Let's Watch DIA Constantly Move The Goalposts.'

Heh. Can you tell us the difference between speed limit laws and helmet/seatbelt laws?


Oo. Oo. I know this one. Because speed limit laws protect people from other people and helmet/seatbelt laws protect people from themselves?

/Did I win the prize?
 
2012-04-13 02:15:37 PM  
When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.
 
2012-04-13 02:15:57 PM  

I alone am best: Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.

The funny thing is that this repeal was pushed by bikers who tent to be mostly democrats.


And the best part is that bicyclists are still required by law to wear helmets.
 
2012-04-13 02:16:13 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Michigan's largest export will become donor organs


Just how common do you think helmet laws are?

homepage.mac.comView Full Size


/enjoy not being required to wear one
//smart enough to do it anyway
 
2012-04-13 02:16:25 PM  

JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.


In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.
 
2012-04-13 02:17:46 PM  
Any bets on which state will be the first to prohibit wearing helmets while riding motorcycles?
 
2012-04-13 02:17:48 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.


I don't ride yet, and I intend to wear gear but your statement is fairly absurd.

The benefit for wearing "full gear" is that the more gear a person wears the safer they are. The logical extension of that argument, considering how much more dangerous a motorcycle is than a car, is that it is stupid to ride a motorcycle at all.

It seems as if you are saying there is an arbitrary amount of risk that is acceptable and that line is drawn at a place you decide.
 
2012-04-13 02:17:49 PM  
FTFA: "... those who choose not to deserve the latitude to make their own informed judgments"

Those who choose not to, have impaired judgement and should not be permitted to exercise it as such, starting with Mister Signator himself. Self-indulgent dismissal of the truth isn't freedom, it is a lie you are bound to, an ill compromise. The deists call it Satan. If you choose stupid, no one should have any faith in your judgments about anything.
 
2012-04-13 02:17:58 PM  
I was talking about this with a friend who's a biker and we came to this decision: it's a win.

Now, we had observed that the members of the two local gangs (a chapter of the Gypsy Jokers and a chapter of the Disciples) tended to ride in a mostly safe manner. In fact, watching either chapter go up the Interstate is something of a joy to behold - clean diamond formation, clear lines through corners, AND they used their damned signals. Of course, they may be doing this to avoid getting a traffic stop while carrying a pound of meth in their saddlebags, but they are still great riders.

It's the young guys on the rice rockets who are the problem, splitting lanes, riding up the verge, cutting through service stations at 90 mph.

So, the older, safer riders are mostly at risk from car drivers - and if a car driver hits a Joker or a Disciple, well, we know that driver will end up in a ditch. So most drivers give them a wide berth. These riders will do OK.

And if some bozo on a crotch rocket gets his head turned into mushburger? Hey, just call the rescue squad to come hose off the pavement and collect the usable organs.
 
2012-04-13 02:18:16 PM  

Codenamechaz: On the plus side, think of all of the doctor mortician and nurse grave digger jobs it'll create!


/FTFY
 
2012-04-13 02:18:18 PM  

Fade2black: Libtard.


Any time you start off an argument with an insult, anything else you say afterwards tends to read as "derp derp derp derp derp derp derp."

If you want to make a point, that's the wrong way to go about it.
 
2012-04-13 02:18:30 PM  
I worked in a hospital where we did corneal transplants in the pre-helmet law era. The majority of our donors were motorcycle accidents. Anecdotal, but just saying.
 
2012-04-13 02:18:47 PM  
I don't ride any more, but the accidents I've seen (or been in) fell into two groups: low speed oops where a helmet didn't matter. Something like my personal 'favorite', dropping the bike on a graveled corner. Or high speed splats where nothing would have made much of a difference.

/Never did a splat
/wore helmet and crash suit
/the latter saved me some nasty road rashes.
 
2012-04-13 02:19:00 PM  

LarryDan43: When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.


Why? How much in surgery and rehabilitation do dead people cost?
 
2012-04-13 02:19:12 PM  

JesseL: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Michigan's largest export will become donor organs

Just how common do you think helmet laws are?

[homepage.mac.com image 640x319]

/enjoy not being required to wear one
//smart enough to do it anyway


Colorado, the land of the free!

/Buying a helmet before I buy my bike
//sometime this summer
 
2012-04-13 02:19:22 PM  

Honest Bender: It is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't wear a helmet. One has nothing to do with the other.


Bears repeating. See also: the discussion in this thread re: seat belt laws.

For those of you too dense to figure it out (and from the comments, there are a few) the difference between say speed limits and seat belt laws is speed limits are in effect because violation of them/excessive speed and hurt or kill other people. Not wearing a helmet/seatbelt only harms yourself. Granted, people should wear them, but it shouldn't be illegal not to.

/wears mine most of the time
//thinks helmet/seat belt laws are fascist
 
2012-04-13 02:19:25 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


The bikers around these parts (IL) have fended off 40 attempts at helmet laws. It's certainly not exclusive to conservatives.
 
2012-04-13 02:19:30 PM  
I have no problem with this. Also, Johnbigbootay's Insurance Company would absolutely enforce their right to void any medical insurance payouts for helmetless riders. Not that a slow speed ride to the morgue is all that expensive, but still. Fair is fair.
 
2012-04-13 02:19:35 PM  

barefoot in the head: FTFA: "... those who choose not to deserve the latitude to make their own informed judgments"

Those who choose not to, have impaired judgement and should not be permitted to exercise it as such, starting with Mister Signator himself. Self-indulgent dismissal of the truth isn't freedom, it is a lie you are bound to, an ill compromise. The deists call it Satan. If you choose stupid, no one should have any faith in your judgments about anything.


That was beautiful.
 
2012-04-13 02:19:41 PM  

TNel: Heck PA signed that law a few years ago because the Govenor wanted to feel the air in his air when he was on the bike. The face palm is we have a law saying that if you are in the car you have to wear a seat belt. WTF I'm safer behind the car with an air bag than those retards on a bike without a helmet.


It isn't your safety. A seatbelt keeps you behind the wheel in high g situations. Without it, a controllable situation may be lost because you were flung from the seat.

Any situation where a motorcycle helmet is necessary is already out of control.
 
2012-04-13 02:20:06 PM  
What we really need is a law that makes it illegal to poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
 
2012-04-13 02:20:08 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
hej [TotalFark]
2012-04-13 02:20:42 PM  
I assume the
img1.fark.netView Full Size
tag is for the bikers, and not the governor.
 
2012-04-13 02:20:47 PM  
Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.
 
2012-04-13 02:20:54 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Why is lead banned from gasoline? Are Americans too stupid to make their own decisions? :(


Q: Why was lead added in the first place?
A: Leaded gas allowed car manufactures to avoid costly manufacturing.

Q: Who would benefit most financially from having lead banned?
A: The greatest financial benefit would go to the party that no longer has to produce the additive.

/Lead is expensive.
//No citations, just cynicism
 
2012-04-13 02:20:57 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: LarryDan43: When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.

Why? How much in surgery and rehabilitation do dead people cost?


The brain dead and the unborn must live no matter what the cost, so vote Republican.
 
2012-04-13 02:21:00 PM  
First you get get rid of helmets, next you're going to get rid of seatbelts. Smart move govoner! Smart move indeed.

Think about all the people that are going to get hurt. This is going to be your fault and you're going to have to live with it. First you let the illegals come into flint and start working int he factories taking good hard working americans' jobs. Next you upped tuition at all the "state" sponsored schools so that those same people couldn't afford education. Now you're trying to get them injured!!!??

Good bye mr. governer. AND GOOD RIDDANCE
 
2012-04-13 02:22:11 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.


If go out in public and don't cover up your body in full dres Every.Farking.Time.You.Go.Out. then you deserve to have your body taken advantage of because of your slut garb.

See how stupid you sound?

Fade2black: God forbid people take responsibility for their OWN actions, Libtard... I know you masturbate at night trying to figure out how to pass more laws and control behavior, but you'll have to fantasize about something else for a change...like actual women.



Funny, cause the party that claims to hate "libtards" does what they can to tell people who they can and can't marry, what they can and can't do in the bedroom and what a woman can and can't do with her body.
 
2012-04-13 02:22:27 PM  

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.


That sounds like a pretty good compromise actually.


My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.



And you are an asshole.
 
2012-04-13 02:22:38 PM  
Yay! More organ donors!
 
2012-04-13 02:22:55 PM  

gameshowhost: Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.


^This.

To all the people that say there should be no helmet or seatbelt laws, let stupid people kill themselves if they want, they don't hurt anyone but themselves, YOU ARE WRONG.

Smart people pay for their stupidity in the form of higher insurance premiums. If somehow the healthcare system would deal with it appropriately, like make you pay cash upfront if you want to get treated for a helmetless accident or something, I would be fine with it, but that's not the case. At least with smoking they make you pay more for health insurance.

/But I'm all about having more organ donors out there, so if only they could solve the money problems, I'm all for no helmet and seatbelt laws.
 
2012-04-13 02:22:56 PM  

DrWhy: I know this one.


Indeed you do.
 
2012-04-13 02:22:59 PM  
It should be a choice. You libs are usually all about choice
 
2012-04-13 02:23:01 PM  
Approves

inquisitr.comView Full Size
 
2012-04-13 02:23:03 PM  

no 5th av. in Billings: A: Leaded gas allowed car manufactures to avoid costly manufacturing.


no
 
2012-04-13 02:23:32 PM  

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.


i55.tinypic.comView Full Size
 
zez
2012-04-13 02:23:57 PM  
You know who else used to oppose helmet laws?

geekosystem.comView Full Size
 
2012-04-13 02:24:18 PM  

natazha: I don't ride any more, but the accidents I've seen (or been in) fell into two groups: low speed oops where a helmet didn't matter.


I'm sure most low speed drops don't make it into the statistical data... which says that for reported accidents about 40% of the time initial impact is in the jaw region. Those beanies don't do squat but keep bird shiat off your head. For the record I am fine with no helmet as a rule - though I will personally choose to wear a full-face DOT approved helmet 100% of the time.
 
2012-04-13 02:24:56 PM  

o5iiawah: JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.

In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.


I don't see what personal responsibility has to do with Social Security. But then, this is Fark. You haven't made any social security "payments." You have paid a FICA tax, which is used to pay current recipients their benefits. Your future benefits are based upon how much you earn during your life, not what you have paid in taxes. You'll get far more back than you ever paid in. But, if you don't like Social Security, participation in it is 100% voluntary. When you reach retirement age, simply don't apply for benefits. Maybe you'll be alright. Or maybe you'll learn, as did so many millions of elderly people did back before Social Security, that dog food is edible.
 
2012-04-13 02:25:09 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: And why does the AMA have to license "physicians"?


The individual state medical boards license physicians, not the AMA.
 
2012-04-13 02:25:16 PM  
I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.
 
2012-04-13 02:25:16 PM  
The real losers in this move are the public libraries, they were receiving all of the money from the tickets written for not wearing a helmet.
 
2012-04-13 02:26:19 PM  

Fade2black: God forbid people take responsibility for their OWN actions, Libtard. Last time I checked, when a motorcycle crashes into someone else, the other party affected had no worse injuries because the cycler did or did not wear his own helmet.

I know you masturbate at night trying to figure out how to pass more laws and control behavior, but you'll have to fantasize about something else for a change...like actual women.

A cyclist not wearing his helmet has zero bearing on your life. Get over yourself.


You can say the same thing about gay marriage or abortion. How does a gay couple getting married affect straight people? How does a female, whom you have never met, getting an abortion affect you directly?

Plus, motorcyclists without wearing a helmet can indirectly have a bearing on your life. They could potentially increase healthcare costs for injuries that could have been avoided by the helmet.

/ I'm OK with motorcyclists not wearing helmets in Michigan... it is their heads, not mine.
 
2012-04-13 02:26:35 PM  

LarryDan43: When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.


So outlaw motorcycles.
 
2012-04-13 02:26:57 PM  

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.


I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
 
2012-04-13 02:27:49 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


I thought Liberals were all for Darwinisn?
 
2012-04-13 02:28:27 PM  

King Something: aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.


Would it be OK if they are Mexican? You know, just in case they're illegal.
 
2012-04-13 02:28:43 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: LarryDan43: When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.

Why? How much in surgery and rehabilitation do dead people cost?


I posted in another thread about helmets the other day, but my sister's bicycle accident (even with helmet) showed a bill of over $130,000 before the insurance did their thing. And that was just impacting an SUV going 20 mph tops down a hill. So if they don't die... yeah, it's gonna be damn expensive.
 
2012-04-13 02:29:17 PM  

LeroyBourne: I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.


Rain can feel tingly. Feels like standing in a blizzard with sleet pelting your face.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:24 PM  

jst3p: CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.

I don't ride yet, and I intend to wear gear but your statement is fairly absurd.

The benefit for wearing "full gear" is that the more gear a person wears the safer they are. The logical extension of that argument, considering how much more dangerous a motorcycle is than a car, is that it is stupid to ride a motorcycle at all.

It seems as if you are saying there is an arbitrary amount of risk that is acceptable and that line is drawn at a place you decide.


Riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous on it's own. That's part of the thrill of riding. Full gear, especially in the case of a full face helmet, is paramount to personal safety if you ride for both utility and for the fun/thrill of it. There is a large amount of risk associated with motorcycling period. No arbitrary lines needed. However, making certain that your skull and face are covered, your feet and ankles are protected with the proper boots, your knuckels protected with the proper gloves, and a decent jacket that either has built in armor for shoulder/elbow/back bone protection or a decent leather; is what will help keep your insides inside and your bones from splintering and your skin off of the highway in case grandma doesn't see you coming down the road and pulls out in front of you.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:26 PM  

oldfarthenry: How does one declare a Michigan citizen legally brain-dead as opposed to just, like, being a normal Michigan citizen?


Hey now. :)

As far as I could tell, anyone I talked to thought the repeal was farking idiotic. And yet... Here we are. I don't know how shiat gets passed these days.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:30 PM  
The shiatty thing is insurance rates go through the roof for all bikers in Michigan now. So even if you're one of the ones who always wears a helmet, because it is no longer required your insurance will go up.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:33 PM  
I don't know any bikers that have 'needed' their helmets due to accidents, but I know at least a few that have taken stray road debris, gravel, etc in the head/face area that the helmet protected them from. At the very least, it saves you from taking a small piece of rock to the forehead at 70 mph. That loud THUD and chip in your window...? imagine that on your face.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:41 PM  

The Southern Dandy: King Something: aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Would it be OK if they are Mexican? You know, just in case they're illegal.


No.

It would not be okay for ANYONE to get pulled over at random just to check that they're not breaking any laws.

/not Mexican, but can easily be mistaken for one
 
2012-04-13 02:30:58 PM  
I don't think the natural selection factor is too great.

Jeb Bush killed Florida's helmet laws more than a decade ago, yet Florida still earns its Fark tag daily.

/I guess increasing motorcycle deaths 67% just isn't enough selection pressure, to raise IQ, but at least it makes for more organ donors.
 
2012-04-13 02:31:05 PM  

King Something: aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.


That Darwin insurance is only $20k. Its mostly useless. The MCCA fee assigned to all motor vehicles in the state will cover any medical costs over $500k. Medicaid will also take a hit with this as the vegitables will eventually get enrolled in those programs.
 
2012-04-13 02:32:44 PM  
If you want to ride without a helmet, you should have to register as a helmetless rider and pay a higher rate of insurance to pay for your future vegetative state. Maybe have a designation on your license plate to show you can ride without - Perhaps a sprig of broccoli or a cabbage.
 
2012-04-13 02:33:12 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: jst3p: CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.

I don't ride yet, and I intend to wear gear but your statement is fairly absurd.

The benefit for wearing "full gear" is that the more gear a person wears the safer they are. The logical extension of that argument, considering how much more dangerous a motorcycle is than a car, is that it is stupid to ride a motorcycle at all.

It seems as if you are saying there is an arbitrary amount of risk that is acceptable and that line is drawn at a place you decide.

Riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous on it's own. That's part of the thrill of riding. Full gear, especially in the case of a full face helmet, is paramount to personal safety if you ride for both utility and for the fun/thrill of it. There is a large amount of risk associated with motorcycling period. No arbitrary lines needed. However, making certain that your skull and face are covered, your feet and ankles are protected with the proper boots, your knuckels protected with the proper gloves, and a decent jacket that either has built in armor for shoulder/elbow/back bone protection or a decent leather; is what will help keep your insides inside and your bones from splintering and your skin off of the highway in case grandma doesn't see you coming down the road and pulls out in front of you.


So some risk is OK. More risk than you find personally acceptable is not.

That is the definition of arbitrary.
 
2012-04-13 02:33:42 PM  

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.


The argument I've heard is that the dumbass insurance will still not be enough to cover the potential injuries since they are generally far more intensive. Expensive injuries, small insurance pool... :\

Mind you, I'd like to see a crackdown on people who wear flip-flops and ride, so I'm clearly biased.
 
2012-04-13 02:33:58 PM  

Aidan: oldfarthenry: How does one declare a Michigan citizen legally brain-dead as opposed to just, like, being a normal Michigan citizen?

Hey now. :)

As far as I could tell, anyone I talked to thought the repeal was farking idiotic. And yet... Here we are. I don't know how shiat gets passed these days.


Corporations buy politicians, who then do what the corporations want. Insurance companies probably love this one since the fatalities are much higher than with autos.
 
2012-04-13 02:34:05 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Since there have been warnings on cigarette cartons, higher taxes on cigarettes, and laws against smoking in the workplace, smoking rate has declined from 42% to 19% among Americans. A decrease in chronic diseases due to smoking will represent a large decrease in burden for American spending on healthcare (although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden). But the point stands that the change in smoking came about from direct government action.


Both the increase in government action and the decrease in smoking correlate to the increase in social awareness and stigma against smoking in general.

You also mentioned "spending on healthcare." As more of that burden is shifted to the government, the government will have more incentive to regulate anything it can tie to healthcare. You mentioned fatties, and yes there are people that want to regulate sugar. I'm not sure that's the road you really want to go down. If we're following this argument, then we should ban motorcycles altogether.

Where I live, they removed the helmet requirement. I really don't know what the stats are for accidents and injuries before or since. I know that the argument was that helmets decrease your range of vision, causing the bike rider to drive less safely. I have no idea what the real stats are.

I personally think bikers are stupid when I see them without helmets - and I see them all the time. There's a biker club down the road from me. But I can say that on trips to the convenience store, which is a couple blocks down 25 MPH roads, I would probably skip the helmet, too.
 
2012-04-13 02:34:06 PM  

Big Man On Campus: [www.harry.hirschman.com image 600x435]

Helmets are of limited utility to the insane.


"My helmet is a planet, your argument is invalid."
 
2012-04-13 02:34:26 PM  
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=116857&page=1

"After two years without mandatory helmet laws, trauma doctors at hospitals in Florida, for instance, say they are treating more and more patients who hit the road without a helmet. "

"A recent study in the Journal Trauma found that two-thirds of all bikers had no insurance, leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. And for those riding without helmets, the average medical cost rises to $55,000."

"All in all, the federal government estimates taxpayers and insurance companies would save $10 billion if all bikers wore helmets."

When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he flipped his Hawg without a helmet on...who do you think is playing for that? These motorcycle lobbyists groups or us?

Glad Michigan has nothing better to fix than this VITAL piece of legislation.
 
2012-04-13 02:34:49 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Since there have been warnings on cigarette cartons, higher taxes on cigarettes, and laws against smoking in the workplace, smoking rate has declined from 42% to 19% among Americans. A decrease in chronic diseases due to smoking will represent a large decrease in burden for American spending on healthcare (although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden). But the point stands that the change in smoking came about from direct government action.


This is 100% false. Smokers (and the obese) die earlier and end-of-life costs for non-smokers are higher than the cost of dealing with smoking-related or obesity-related disease.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.ht m
 
2012-04-13 02:35:06 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


Your patronizing attitude towards other's freedom of choice is amazing as well.

/oh, must match the other portion... Communiberal nazi
 
2012-04-13 02:35:19 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.



So the government should legislate and mandate every good idea. Got it. Your Friendly Government Minder will be on the telescreen tomorrow at 7am, sharp, to ensure that you do your compulsory exercise routine, comrade.
 
2012-04-13 02:35:42 PM  
Wife was in EMS for years. According to her, helmets really make little difference if the accident is bad enough to cause death. In the EMS community where she worked, the vehicles in question were called Donorcycles.

Both she and a guy I went to college with (also in EMS) told me stories about cleaning up helmets with perfectly intact heads still inside them, just no longer attached to bodies.
 
2012-04-13 02:36:06 PM  
Al Franken: This morning... you said you were against mandatory motorcycle motorcycle helmets because it's a limit to personal freedom; and then later this afternoon you said you were against decriminalizing marijuana because it causes brain damage...

Ronald Reagan: What's your question?

Al Franken: Well, can't not wearing a motorcycle helmet cause brain damage a lot quicker than marijuana by, for example, the head splitting open so that actual material from the road enters the brain?


/Favorite Al Franken moment
 
2012-04-13 02:36:20 PM  
Link (new window)

Have a nice day.
 
2012-04-13 02:36:45 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty."



And how are they not, exactly?

Let's look at some facts: Motorcycles kill about 4,000 people a year in the U.S. Diabetes alone -- not even talking about heart disease -- kills between 70,000 and 230,000.

And yet when someone brings up the idea of regulating fast food consumption among children, we freak out because it should be up to the individual to decide what they eat....and then when someone suggests that it should be up to the individual to decide how they ride, we freak out because individuals are stupid and can't be trusted to make such a decision for themselves.

Yeah, that makes sense...
 
2012-04-13 02:37:32 PM  

Danger Mouse: And if they get injured and not insured, I don't want to foot the bill.


This, for the law to be applied to you, you should have to sign a waiver that says we can pull the plug on you if and when you become a vegetable from your inevitable accident.
 
2012-04-13 02:37:59 PM  

timujin: More used motorcycle parts on the market for the rest of us.


More used body parts, too.

/if you're in to that sort of thing, that is
//thanks, donorcycle riders!
 
2012-04-13 02:38:08 PM  

o5iiawah: JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.

In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.


Hint - They don't have the money. You can't legislate government responsibility either.

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.


Yea, I'm sure they will never run into problems with being sued for harassment.

Harleys are expensive, the people riding them nowadays aren't H-As so much as they are doctors, lawyers, and other older people with money.

moops: Yay! More organ donors!


Everybody wins?

Onkel Buck: It should be a choice. You libs are usually all about choice


Just like conservatives they are all about the choices they approve of. You're too stupid to be trusted with too much freedom.
 
2012-04-13 02:38:27 PM  
http://www.freep.com/article/20120329/NEWS06/203290449/Helmet-option-b ill-passes-Senate

"Under the legislation, riders 21 and older could doff their helmets after buying a $20,000 medical insurance rider on their motorcycle policies."

Wow. An. Extra. $20K of insurance.

Do you know how quickly a major trauma case goes through $20K? In about the first 10 minutes.

"Pete Kuhnmuench of the Insurance Institute of Michigan said states that eased their helmet laws in recent years saw a sharp increase in fatalities.

"The consequences of the motorcyclist's decision not to wear a helmet is borne by all of society through higher insurance premiums, lost productivity and increased health care costs," he said."

Unbelievable.
 
2012-04-13 02:38:44 PM  
As long as they have insurance to take care of their brain injuries, they can have at it. Can't fix stupid.

I'd wear crash gear if I rode a motorcycle. Road rash sucks on a bicycle, I can only imagine what it's like to go sliding down the road at 30 mph, on your back/side, wearing nothing but a tshirt and shorts. ouch.
 
2012-04-13 02:39:12 PM  

RoxtarRyan: See how stupid you sound?


Ok. That's fine. But at least my brains will stay in my skull, where they belong.

/Damn, I knew I shouldv'e tried to snap a picture of the squid I saw yesterday: no helmet, wife beater, cut-off jean-shorts and flip-flops. They'd be spending months trying to scrap him off the pavement.
 
2012-04-13 02:39:29 PM  
Teabagger legislature - Lets repeal seat belts! Big government baaaaad. Personal responsibility goooooood.
:::a few years later:::
Teabagger legislature - Why do we have so many brain-dead patients on life support? Why has the cost of medical care skyrocketed? We have to outlaw abortion!
 
2012-04-13 02:39:54 PM  

RoxtarRyan: LeroyBourne: I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.

Rain can feel tingly. Feels like standing in a blizzard with sleet pelting your face.


Tingly? Feels like damn needles getting thrown at you!
 
2012-04-13 02:39:56 PM  
Motorcycle deaths went up in FL when the mandatory helmet law was passed...

Helmets make people want to tempt Darwin.
 
2012-04-13 02:40:07 PM  
As a rider, I have to say that I couldn't care less what the law says. I wear a helmet because I value my brainpan. (Half helmet since my face isn't worth saving.)
 
2012-04-13 02:40:08 PM  
Its okay, he has loud pipe to keep him safe.
 
2012-04-13 02:40:47 PM  

bikerbob59: RoxtarRyan: LeroyBourne: I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.

Rain can feel tingly. Feels like standing in a blizzard with sleet pelting your face.

Tingly? Feels like damn needles getting thrown at you!


THIS!
 
2012-04-13 02:40:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: why stop there? why not repeal seatbelt laws?

Indeed. Why not? Are you that farking stupid that you need to be told to wear one?


Agreed.
Operators and passengers under 18 must be belted/wear helmets.
 
2012-04-13 02:41:12 PM  

ha-ha-guy: The shiatty thing is insurance rates go through the roof for all bikers in Michigan now. So even if you're one of the ones who always wears a helmet, because it is no longer required your insurance will go up.


I pay $350 a year in WI for my bike. I wouldn't call that 'through the roof' type of payment.
 
2012-04-13 02:41:33 PM  

Sanduskyed In The Shower: First you get get rid of helmets, next you're going to get rid of seatbelts. Smart move govoner! Smart move indeed.


Govoner??

He's not "getting rid of" anything, dumbass. He's getting rid of the government telling you that you HAVE to do something FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. I have been against personal safety laws, especially seatbelt and helmet laws, since the day some overpaid busybody wet-dreamed them up.

It's great to see the nanny-law pendulum swinging the other way for once. Before the 80s, there was no such thing as a seat-belt law or a helmet law, and I don't think we as a country were any worse off for it. I rode a motorcycle pre-helmet-law in CA, and used it almost all the time, unless I was just driving leisurely down a country road and really wanted the wind in my hair. The freedom to use or not to use was good and went along fine with the principles of freedom our country once enjoyed.

Most people nowadays are accustomed to using safety features without government coercion. All those laws really do now is give the police extra power to detain you for something simple like forgetting to buckle up before driving to the corner store, then using that as a pretext to either grab money from you or search your vehicle for even more violations.

Any law that is "for one's own good" is a hallmark of the police state.
 
2012-04-13 02:42:11 PM  

BigNumber12: Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


So the government should legislate and mandate every good idea. Got it. Your Friendly Government Minder will be on the telescreen tomorrow at 7am, sharp, to ensure that you do your compulsory exercise routine, comrade.


That's pretty standard false dichotomy, but I think yours needs more "sheeple". I did enjoy how you used "comrade" instead of "citizen" like most people do with this cliche'. The commie angle was nice.
 
2012-04-13 02:42:54 PM  
I've always heard, "if you have a $10 head, wear a $10 helmut". Guess that puts this law in perspective.
 
2012-04-13 02:43:04 PM  

claudiogut: Motorcycle deaths went up in FL when the mandatory helmet law was passed...

Helmets make people want to tempt Darwin.


The helmet law in Florida is U21. It's been in place since 2000. Are you referring to some very old data?
 
2012-04-13 02:43:09 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous on it's own. That's part of the thrill of riding. Full gear, especially in the case of a full face helmet, is paramount to personal safety if you ride for both utility and for the fun/thrill of it. There is a large amount of risk associated with motorcycling period. No arbitrary lines needed. However, making certain that your skull and face are covered, your feet and ankles are protected with the proper boots, your knuckels protected with the proper gloves, and a decent jacket that either has built in armor for shoulder/elbow/back bone protection or a decent leather; is what will help keep your insides inside and your bones from splintering and your skin off of the highway in case grandma doesn't see you coming down the road and pulls out in front of you.


Hear, hear. No matter the weather or the temperature or weather, this is what I wear (other than the race jersey):
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size

/Triumph makes some biatch'n race leathers.
 
2012-04-13 02:43:17 PM  

Bag of Hammers: Danger Mouse: And if they get injured and not insured, I don't want to foot the bill.

This, for the law to be applied to you, you should have to sign a waiver that says we can pull the plug on you if and when you become a vegetable from your inevitable accident.


I think that should be a condition to getting a motorcycle license, personally. You want to take enormous personal risk? Then your organs are forfeit if fate hands you a pink slip on life.

Also by the time you can pull the plug on someone, they've already racked up $100k in medical bills, since that would be in an ICU.
 
2012-04-13 02:43:48 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: Teabagger legislature - Lets repeal seat belts! Big government baaaaad. Personal responsibility goooooood.
:::a few years later:::
Teabagger legislature - Why do we have so many brain-dead patients on life support? Why has the cost of medical care skyrocketed? We have to outlaw abortion!


Yes, because obviously it is the responsibility of the hospital to keep the patient alive on the public's dime, rather than requiring the family to pay for the services or face the chance of being taken off the treatments, and forcing people to think of their own safety, welfare, and financial resources for once...
 
2012-04-13 02:43:55 PM  
Oh well, Americans need organ donors. Carry one Darwin contestants, carry on.


/Friend's Dad was killed in a bike accident. Not his fault but a helmet would have saved his life.
 
2012-04-13 02:44:00 PM  
Great, more overtime for gov employees responsible for cleaning up human road kill and brains that are splattered all over the higheay. Good thinkin'!
 
2012-04-13 02:44:23 PM  
southparkstudios.mtvnimages.comView Full Size


You fellers never got what these people are really about! Freedom! Rebellion against the system! A living image of independence! Solid, defiant, and supremely cool, the biker is an All-American icon of resilient individuality and freedom.
 
2012-04-13 02:44:26 PM  
Was this one of those bills passed under "emergency" legislation?
 
2012-04-13 02:44:50 PM  

sweetmelissa31: hillbillypharmacist: And why does the AMA have to license "physicians"?

I personally only go to Rand Paul licensed ophthalmologists. If they mess up my eyes I'll just sue them.


And you can take all your future eyes to a competing ophthalmologist, because free market.

Codenamechaz: On the plus side, think of all of the doctor and nurse jobs it'll create!


No, it kills jobs. It takes more time to rehabilitate someone with some broken bones than to simply say "time of death xx:xx." Why does the GOP want to eliminate these high paying jobs?
 
2012-04-13 02:45:22 PM  

destrip: Sanduskyed In The Shower: First you get get rid of helmets, next you're going to get rid of seatbelts. Smart move govoner! Smart move indeed.

Govoner??

He's not "getting rid of" anything, dumbass. He's getting rid of the government telling you that you HAVE to do something FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. I have been against personal safety laws, especially seatbelt and helmet laws, since the day some overpaid busybody wet-dreamed them up.

It's great to see the nanny-law pendulum swinging the other way for once. Before the 80s, there was no such thing as a seat-belt law or a helmet law, and I don't think we as a country were any worse off for it. I rode a motorcycle pre-helmet-law in CA, and used it almost all the time, unless I was just driving leisurely down a country road and really wanted the wind in my hair. The freedom to use or not to use was good and went along fine with the principles of freedom our country once enjoyed.

Most people nowadays are accustomed to using safety features without government coercion. All those laws really do now is give the police extra power to detain you for something simple like forgetting to buckle up before driving to the corner store, then using that as a pretext to either grab money from you or search your vehicle for even more violations.

Any law that is "for one's own good" is a hallmark of the police state.


Personally, I wish they would repeal open container laws and no I'm not being sarcastic I really wish they would. Currently, I just ignore them as does pretty much everyone else I know. I live in the city so it's not really a big deal because cops aren't randomly pulling people over like they do out in the burbs.

My parents live out in the sticks and they drive around with beers in hand as well. Sometimes I prefer to make a cocktail because you don't have to worry about an empty can in the car if you do get pulled over.
 
2012-04-13 02:45:58 PM  
Makes sense only if your state motto is "Live Free or Die"

And that state's name: "Upside-down Vermont"
 
2012-04-13 02:46:33 PM  
You can choose to wear one, or not. Personal choice.

I usually only opt for the removal of personal choice in issues where there is an impact on others, or the public writ large. In the case of helmets, it's not like the public picks up a lot of medical bills from these people - they're usually dead.
 
2012-04-13 02:47:52 PM  

JohnBigBootay: natazha: I don't ride any more, but the accidents I've seen (or been in) fell into two groups: low speed oops where a helmet didn't matter.

I'm sure most low speed drops don't make it into the statistical data... which says that for reported accidents about 40% of the time initial impact is in the jaw region. Those beanies don't do squat but keep bird shiat off your head. For the record I am fine with no helmet as a rule - though I will personally choose to wear a full-face DOT approved helmet 100% of the time.


This is the graphic you're looking for:
obairlann.netView Full Size


Percentage of damage to post-crash helmets in a european study.

Also, you don't want Snell approved helmets, but rather the European or British approved.
 
2012-04-13 02:47:54 PM  
Michigan also allows the blind to hunt, with guns or modified crossbows:

Legally blind hunters may use laser sighting devices to take game, subject to all other regulations, with a firearm or crossbow if all the following conditions are met:

The person is accompanied by a sighted person who is at least 18 years of age;
The sighted person possesses proof of a current or previous hunting license (other than an apprentice license) or proof of successful completion of a hunter safety class;
The legally blind person possesses the appropriate hunting license and proof of impairment in the form of a Secretary of State ID card.
No permit is necessary for this accommodation.

This seems like another drop in the bucket.
 
2012-04-13 02:48:26 PM  
I don't see the outrage. Why should the government force people to wear helmets?

FlashHarry: why stop there? why not repeal seatbelt laws?


Agreed. The best I've ever heard is not wearing a seatbelt might turn you into a projectile that might hurt someone else. Seems weak, I'd repeal seatbelt laws too.

Oh, wait you were sarcastic? The government should be allowed to mandate things that are in your best interest? Why not make everything bad for you illegal then?
 
2012-04-13 02:48:56 PM  

JackieRabbit: o5iiawah: JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.

In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.

I don't see what personal responsibility has to do with Social Security. But then, this is Fark. You haven't made any social security "payments." You have paid a FICA tax, which is used to pay current recipients their benefits. Your future benefits are based upon how much you earn during your life, not what you have paid in taxes. You'll get far more back than you ever paid in. But, if you don't like Social Security, participation in it is 100% voluntary. When you reach retirement age, simply don't apply for benefits. Maybe you'll be alright. Or maybe you'll learn, as did so many millions of elderly people did back before Social Security, that dog food is edible.


The thinking behind SS is that someone cannot possibly be responsible for their own livelihood so we'll take 12% of every check they ever earn and then trickle it back to them if and when they reach 67.5. As I earn more, I pay more in SS tax, so yes, what I get back is based on what I earn as well as what I pay.

Participation is not 100% voluntary since individuals do not have the choice to pay into the program or not. If someone wants to pay into something their whole life so it can be there when they retire, fine. Allow those who want to be responsible for themselves to keep their money. The idea of a program like this is the same as every other progressive wet dream. It is wonderful! and popular! but it has to be mandatory!

How will I get "far more back" that I ever pay in? and how is that sustainable? If I croak on my 67th birthday, I wont receive a cent.

Meanwhile $100 a month invested in the DJIA from age 25 to 60 will return a million upon retirement.
 
2012-04-13 02:49:00 PM  

Kit Fister: Yes, because obviously it is the responsibility of the hospital to keep the patient alive on the public's dime, rather than requiring the family to pay for the services or face the chance of being taken off the treatments, and forcing people to think of their own safety, welfare, and financial resources for once...

*


*Offer only valid in Texas
 
2012-04-13 02:49:19 PM  
[waiting eagerly to serve o5iiawah his first bowl of cold, lumpy Alpo]
 
2012-04-13 02:50:06 PM  

LasersHurt: In the case of helmets, it's not like the public picks up a lot of medical bills from these people - they're usually dead.


Never mind the cost and time involved for a full fatality investigation by the police and subsequent road closure.
 
2012-04-13 02:50:06 PM  

jst3p: So some risk is OK. More risk than you find personally acceptable is not.

That is the definition of arbitrary.


Oh good gods. You're an older fellow with youngish children, yes? I'll be sure to tell them when you make a silly beginners mistake; Sorry kiddos, dad thought protecting himself fully while enjoying an inherently dangerous hobby was arbitrary.
 
2012-04-13 02:50:46 PM  
I do wonder how the actual figures balance out for helmet vs. no helmet accidents. There are 2 outcomes:

situation 1: slight injury with helmet, severe injury without=higher insurance cost

situation 2: major injury with helmet, quick death without=lower insurance cost, but higher police and cleanup cost with the bonus of donated organs sometimes.

If the majority of people without helmets just died and donated organs, health care premiums might even go down because of them, but I don't think that's the case. The data on the % of situation 1 vs situation 2 and the costs would be interesting.

Maybe even give bikers a health care discount for riding a motorcycle with a spiky helmet that will kill them instantly if they crash freeing up their organs. best example of concept I could find:

i.cdn.cnngo.comView Full Size


alt pic link if hot link goes bad (new window)
 
2012-04-13 02:50:52 PM  

grinding_journalist: Not wearing a helmet/seatbelt only harms yourself.t


This is actually not true in some circumstances. A person without a seatbelt on can move rather freely inside a vehicle if it crashes, if there are other people in the car, they can be killed or injured just by the loose person
 
2012-04-13 02:50:53 PM  

MadUncleEoin: Wife was in EMS for years. According to her, helmets really make little difference if the accident is bad enough to cause death. In the EMS community where she worked, the vehicles in question were called Donorcycles.

Both she and a guy I went to college with (also in EMS) told me stories about cleaning up helmets with perfectly intact heads still inside them, just no longer attached to bodies.


who would leave a perfectly good head lying around?:

24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size


/not obscure if you have kids...or like cartoons...
 
2012-04-13 02:51:24 PM  

shootsright: Does Michigan have a seat belt law?

/got a seat belt ticket from a motorcycle cop


Was he wearing a helmet, though.
 
2012-04-13 02:51:55 PM  

timujin: Aarontology: Meh. The way most motorcycles ride a helmet isn't going to do shiat when when the motorcyclist gets creamed after weaving in and out of traffic at 80 mph.

Most motorcyclists?

You want to know how I know you don't know many motorcyclists?

As for the article... so? I think the headline is correct, that this will cull some of the stupid out of the gene pool. If you're dumb enough to ride without a helmet or weave in and out of traffic at 80mph or be in any other was a squid, go for it. More used motorcycleist parts on the market for the rest of us.


FTFY
 
2012-04-13 02:52:19 PM  
Simple solution is to write into the law that if you ride without a helmet, you automatically are under a Do Not Resuscitate order and also automatically an organ donor. Everyone wins.
 
2012-04-13 02:52:32 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: jst3p: So some risk is OK. More risk than you find personally acceptable is not.

That is the definition of arbitrary.

Oh good gods. You're an older fellow with youngish children, yes? I'll be sure to tell them when you make a silly beginners mistake; Sorry kiddos, dad thought protecting himself fully while enjoying an inherently dangerous hobby was arbitrary.


So, you think it's your place to tell him what risks are acceptable while parenting kids? Or what?
 
2012-04-13 02:52:53 PM  

vernonFL: Every time I go to Florida, it freaks me out seeing people riding motorcycles without helmets on.


The real farktards are the ones riding in shorts and sandels and nothing else.
 
2012-04-13 02:53:19 PM  
 
2012-04-13 02:53:26 PM  
I've said this before, but I'm still amazed that the People's Republic of Illinois does not have a helmet law even though they regulate just about everything else to farking death.
 
2012-04-13 02:53:31 PM  

the_sidewinder: grinding_journalist: Not wearing a helmet/seatbelt only harms yourself.t

This is actually not true in some circumstances. A person without a seatbelt on can move rather freely inside a vehicle if it crashes, if there are other people in the car, they can be killed or injured just by the loose person


How often does that happen? Honest question. If it happened once in the history of the world, who cares. If it happens more, maybe it's relevant.
 
2012-04-13 02:53:40 PM  

Callous: o5iiawah: JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.

In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.

Hint - They don't have the money. You can't legislate government responsibility either.

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

Yea, I'm sure they will never run into problems with being sued for harassment.

Harleys are expensive, the people riding them nowadays aren't H-As so much as they are doctors, lawyers, and other older people with money.

moops: Yay! More organ donors!

Everybody wins?

Onkel Buck: It should be a choice. You libs are usually all about choice

Just like conservatives they are all about the choices they approve of. You're too stupid to be trusted with too much freedom.


So what... their votes should count for like 3/5th or something?
 
2012-04-13 02:53:50 PM  

grinding_journalist: Honest Bender: It is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't wear a helmet. One has nothing to do with the other.

Bears repeating. See also: the discussion in this thread re: seat belt laws.

For those of you too dense to figure it out (and from the comments, there are a few) the difference between say speed limits and seat belt laws is speed limits are in effect because violation of them/excessive speed and hurt or kill other people. Not wearing a helmet/seatbelt only harms yourself. Granted, people should wear them, but it shouldn't be illegal not to.

/wears mine most of the time
//thinks helmet/seat belt laws are fascist


I skew liberal, but I'm okay with repealing a helmet law for adults, particularly if Supplemental Darwin Insurance is necessary for any non-helmeted riders. This moves the onus of a risky decision almost entirely onto the individual making the riskier choice.

That said, it annoys the crap out of me when people call helmet/seat belt laws "fascist." It really dilutes the term. Realistically, requiring a helmet or seat belt is a modest inconvenience, arguably a minor overstep of government authority. Fascism (new window) it ain't. (In fact, given the social Darwinism and hyper-masculinity components of actual fascist governments, mandating such safety features seems like it would be somewhat orthogonal to a Fascist nation's cultivated image...)

Fight against the laws as you see fit, but you look like an ass whinging about "fascist" helmet/seat belt laws.
 
2012-04-13 02:54:43 PM  

SixPaperJoint: the biker is an All-American icon of resilient individuality and freedom.


sturgis.comView Full Size


Live to ride, ride to live, baby!
 
2012-04-13 02:55:17 PM  

probesport: Then I'm down at the bottom of a pit in the blazing sun. Torn and twisted at the foot of a burning' bike. And I think somebody somewhere is tolling a bell.

And the last thing I see is my heart. Still beating.


+ 1
 
2012-04-13 02:56:07 PM  
Is this the same Fark that gets jacked up when govt dictates what free speech is and where you can speak it? The same Fark that gets upset when they are told what they can eat,drink or ingest? Good then you should ALL support this. Freedom of choice. End prohibition. Kill seatbelt and helmet laws. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Absence of a safety law is not a mandate for unsafe behavior.

Freedom of choice, how does it work?
 
2012-04-13 02:56:17 PM  

gameshowhost: LasersHurt: In the case of helmets, it's not like the public picks up a lot of medical bills from these people - they're usually dead.

Really?

Data Trends after the Repeal of Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet
Laws in US and Estimated Socioeconomic Effects
of Repealing Michigan's Universal Helmet Law
Charlotte A. Kilvington
Office of Highway Safety Planning
February 14, 2011 (new window)


BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm anti-motorcycles... I've been riding (and have had my motorcycle license) since I was 16 -- coming up on 28 yrs now. Personal responsibility includes taking on *all* of the risk associated with your expected return.
 
2012-04-13 02:56:56 PM  
I am okay with requiring seatbelts, but not helmets. Here's why.

Say you wreck your car. The seat belt will keep you in it, so your body doesn't come flying down the road and put a big dent in my door.
Now say you're on a bike. You're gonna go flying anyway, but without a helmet, your head will crush easier, making for a smaller dent in my door, leading to cheaper repair costs.
 
2012-04-13 02:57:22 PM  

nickerj1: Also, you don't want Snell approved helmets, but rather the European or British approved


I came to the same conclusion when I read up on it a few years ago. Seems like I concluded the Snell approved shell specs were too rigid - did I remember that right?
 
2012-04-13 02:58:12 PM  

Kittypie070: [waiting eagerly to serve o5iiawah his first bowl of cold, lumpy Alpo]



Why would I eat Alpo? it is possible for people to do anything without the government?
 
2012-04-13 02:59:29 PM  
the population is up to 7 billion on this planet so anything that culls the dumbasses is just fine with me

unless i know you or care about you, in which case i'll tell you about the people i knew who lost their lives in motorcycle accidents
 
2012-04-13 02:59:31 PM  
Coach_J: When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he flipped his Hawg without a helmet on...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he stroked out from high blood pressure from his fatty diet...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he got lung cancer from smoking....who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob's kids are in prison because Billy Bob couldn't raise 'em right...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is unemployable because he picked a vocation he's no good at...who do you think is playing for that?

You see how that goes? Trying to regulate personal choices that *indirectly* impact society is crossing a line that leads directly to government oppression. Once you decide that making people wear helmets/seatbelts "for the good of society", THERE IS NO LOGICAL STOPPING POINT. Do you want to see the day when you need government approval to breed? Get ration cards for beer? Butter?

Stick to regulating personal actions the DIRECTLY impact others, like rape, murder, stealing, speeding, arson, etc..
 
2012-04-13 03:00:41 PM  
I'd like to state that I'm disturbed by those of you who are wishing death on strangers because of how they choose to get around. I'm starting to think that my antisocial tendencies on the road are justified.

/Thanks for the explanation, Mod.
 
zez
2012-04-13 03:02:38 PM  

ttc2301: I've said this before, but I'm still amazed that the People's Republic of Illinois does not have a helmet law even though they regulate just about everything else to farking death.


I'm pretty sure they have one of the strictest seatbelt laws in the country too.

I live right across the river from Illinois along a scenic road that is often used by motorcyclists. I love watching the riders come from Missouri into Illinois where they stop, take off the helmet and strap it to the back of their bike.
 
2012-04-13 03:02:55 PM  

mark12A: Coach_J: When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he flipped his Hawg without a helmet on...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he stroked out from high blood pressure from his fatty diet...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he got lung cancer from smoking....who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob's kids are in prison because Billy Bob couldn't raise 'em right...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is unemployable because he picked a vocation he's no good at...who do you think is playing for that?

You see how that goes? Trying to regulate personal choices that *indirectly* impact society is crossing a line that leads directly to government oppression. Once you decide that making people wear helmets/seatbelts "for the good of society", THERE IS NO LOGICAL STOPPING POINT. Do you want to see the day when you need government approval to breed? Get ration cards for beer? Butter?

Stick to regulating personal actions the DIRECTLY impact others, like rape, murder, stealing, speeding, arson, etc..


And stop paying for Billy Bob on his ventilator. If he (or his family/church/insurance/etc) can't pay for it, let the farker die.

Compassion is a great excuse for what amounts to claiming ownership of someone's life.
 
2012-04-13 03:03:11 PM  

simon_bar_sinister: Is this the same Fark that gets jacked up when govt dictates what free speech is and where you can speak it? The same Fark that gets upset when they are told what they can eat,drink or ingest? Good then you should ALL support this. Freedom of choice. End prohibition. Kill seatbelt and helmet laws. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Absence of a safety law is not a mandate for unsafe behavior.

Freedom of choice, how does it work?


It's a fine principle, but you still have to analyze each situation to discover where the nose/fist line exists. In this case, cyclists aren't paying higher premiums for their increased risk -- everyone else in the risk pool is taking on that excess burden.
 
2012-04-13 03:03:58 PM  
DRTT, and I'm sure this has already been said, but:

So long as you checked the Organ Donor on your license, plus the new "No Extreme Measures" box...

Then you go right ahead and let your freak flag fly.

I've ridden both with and without helmets, and as I've gotten older seen too many people farked up from bike-related head injuries and had to many EMT friends call motorcycles "donorcycles."

So if you're willing to waive life support and even better willing to donate organs... Hey, you go right ahead.

If not? Don't expect a lot of sympathy for
img1.fark.netView Full Size
behavior.
 
2012-04-13 03:04:02 PM  

simon_bar_sinister: Is this the same Fark that gets jacked up when govt dictates what free speech is and where you can speak it? The same Fark that gets upset when they are told what they can eat,drink or ingest? Good then you should ALL support this. Freedom of choice. End prohibition. Kill seatbelt and helmet laws. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Absence of a safety law is not a mandate for unsafe behavior.

Freedom of choice, how does it work?


That was my reaction too. I can't believe it. People really like being told what to do by the government that much? How many times have I heard nanny state on this site as well. I'm for smaller government and less laws, I think this is a good thing. I think its smart to wear a helmet, but the government shouldn't need a law to tell me that.
 
2012-04-13 03:04:10 PM  

ronnie spleen: timujin: Aarontology: Meh. The way most motorcycles ride a helmet isn't going to do shiat when when the motorcyclist gets creamed after weaving in and out of traffic at 80 mph.

Most motorcyclists?

You want to know how I know you don't know many motorcyclists?

As for the article... so? I think the headline is correct, that this will cull some of the stupid out of the gene pool. If you're dumb enough to ride without a helmet or weave in and out of traffic at 80mph or be in any other was a squid, go for it. More used motorcycleist parts on the market for the rest of us.

FTFY


Mildly more amusing considering your username.
 
2012-04-13 03:04:27 PM  

mark12A: Coach_J: When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he flipped his Hawg without a helmet on...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he stroked out from high blood pressure from his fatty diet...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he got lung cancer from smoking....who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob's kids are in prison because Billy Bob couldn't raise 'em right...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is unemployable because he picked a vocation he's no good at...who do you think is playing for that?

You see how that goes? Trying to regulate personal choices that *indirectly* impact society is crossing a line that leads directly to government oppression. Once you decide that making people wear helmets/seatbelts "for the good of society", THERE IS NO LOGICAL STOPPING POINT. Do you want to see the day when you need government approval to breed? Get ration cards for beer? Butter?

Stick to regulating personal actions the DIRECTLY impact others, like rape, murder, stealing, speeding, arson, etc..


Yes there is: it's called the ballot box. That's why we live and legislate in shades of gray, not black and white.
 
2012-04-13 03:05:41 PM  

gameshowhost: Really?

Data Trends after the Repeal of Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet
Laws in US and Estimated Socioeconomic Effects
of Repealing Michigan's Universal Helmet Law
Charlotte A. Kilvington
Office of Highway Safety Planning
February 14, 2011 (new window)



Did you read what you posted? Because what it says is that when people stop wearing helmets then deaths, injuries, severity of injuries, and the cost of caring for those injuries goes up substantially. Just so you know.
 
2012-04-13 03:07:21 PM  

stuffer: gameshowhost: Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.

^This.

To all the people that say there should be no helmet or seatbelt laws, let stupid people kill themselves if they want, they don't hurt anyone but themselves, YOU ARE WRONG.

Smart people pay for their stupidity in the form of higher insurance premiums. If somehow the healthcare system would deal with it appropriately, like make you pay cash upfront if you want to get treated for a helmetless accident or something, I would be fine with it, but that's not the case. At least with smoking they make you pay more for health insurance.

/But I'm all about having more organ donors out there, so if only they could solve the money problems, I'm all for no helmet and seatbelt laws.


Okay, let's stick with this logic: Once you pay higher health insurance premiums, you get a card that lets you eat fast food everyday. Let's you skydive. Let's you ride a bike without a helmet. Let's you forget about the seatbelt. Let's you talk and email while driving. Let's you smoke cigarettes. I could go on....

Simply put, your argument is stupid b/c there are many more people doing dangerous and crazy stuff that effects everyone's premiums more than the helmetless riders are going to effect your premiums.
 
2012-04-13 03:09:08 PM  
The libertarian in me is okay with this. Also okay with no seat belt laws for 18+. If you want to possibly die in an accident, be my guest.
 
2012-04-13 03:09:59 PM  

JackieRabbit: I'm so on the fence about this. One one hand I understand that a biker can be severely injured or killed in an accident without a helmet and that the cost of these injuries are passed on to the rest of us as higher insurance premiums, etc. But I also see the biker's side. It's his body and his life to do with as he choses. If he accepts the risk of riding without a helmet, isn't that his decision to make? Do we make farking without a condom illegal because you might get an STD? Do we make smoking illegal? Drinking? Eating fatty foods? You just can't legislate personal responsibility.


Which, I think most people are fine with (rolling back things to not legislate personal responsibility), if we (as society) didn't have to foot the bill of the results of (perceived) stupidity (or, maybe in some cases more called risk-taking). Of course, different things have different levels of determining if there is a "risk-taking"/"life choice" issue as the "culprit" (ie, obviously, a guy without a helmet in a motorcycle accident... he might have not been in a coma had he had a helmet, or the guy who gets an STD with unprotected sex.... vs. a guy who had a heart attack... was that because of his diet, just because of a bad heart, because of smoking, etc... more difficult to say "Aha!").
 
2012-04-13 03:10:14 PM  
I'm pretty neutral to helmet laws. I don't really see the point in them, but I'm not against them, either.

Even when I ride the bike in states that don't require a helmet, I still wear mine. It's stupid not to.

/Why don't they require other safety gear like jackets, long pants, etc., too? Not wearing those can be almost as stupid.
//Though I will very occasionally ride without the jacket on, but not very often
 
2012-04-13 03:10:18 PM  

lennavan: I don't see the outrage. Why should the government force people to wear helmets?


People not wearing helmets makes my insurance premium higher, which is not cool. Same for people who don't wear seatbelts. The whole "they don't hurt anyone but themselves" is flawed logic. They hurt my bank account.

destrip: Any law that is "for one's own good" is a hallmark of the police state.


helmet and seatbelt laws are there to protect the rest of society for paying for their stupidity through higher insurance premiums. Just because you think something doesn't affect others doesn't make it so. There may be aspects you didn't think about.

Not to mention if the police are busy scraping you off the pavement or processing a fatality they can't respond to a real crime, or if a doctor is fixing your head up he can't deal with someone who didn't hurt themselves in such a fashion, etc... It may create jobs, but so does vandalism because it has to be cleaned up but that's not a good thing.
 
2012-04-13 03:10:44 PM  

gameshowhost: LasersHurt: In the case of helmets, it's not like the public picks up a lot of medical bills from these people - they're usually dead.

Really?

Data Trends after the Repeal of Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet
Laws in US and Estimated Socioeconomic Effects
of Repealing Michigan's Universal Helmet Law
Charlotte A. Kilvington
Office of Highway Safety Planning
February 14, 2011 (new window)


That is a small part of a larger problem - uninsured people. The solution is not to regulate and force all people to live safely since some people are uninsured. The solution is something like a single payer system (or a mandate, teehee).
 
2012-04-13 03:10:48 PM  

o5iiawah: The thinking behind SS is that someone cannot possibly be responsible for their own livelihood


No, the thinking behind SS is that not everyone can be responsible for the outcome of their own livelihood, and for the most part it is true. Circumstances can, and will, ruin lives, from accidents to medical emergencies. SS is simply a sane and respectful way to allow people to end their lives with comfort and dignity.

Now tell me: What's so farking wrong with that?
 
2012-04-13 03:11:41 PM  

mark12A: Coach_J: When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he flipped his Hawg without a helmet on...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he stroked out from high blood pressure from his fatty diet...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he got lung cancer from smoking....who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob's kids are in prison because Billy Bob couldn't raise 'em right...who do you think is playing for that?

- When Billy Bob is unemployable because he picked a vocation he's no good at...who do you think is playing for that?

You see how that goes? Trying to regulate personal choices that *indirectly* impact society is crossing a line that leads directly to government oppression. Once you decide that making people wear helmets/seatbelts "for the good of society", THERE IS NO LOGICAL STOPPING POINT. Do you want to see the day when you need government approval to breed? Get ration cards for beer? Butter?

Stick to regulating personal actions the DIRECTLY impact others, like rape, murder, stealing, speeding, arson, etc..


Making someone pay a higher (and actuarially-correct) insurance rate works fine. We've been trying to do that with smoking.

The other things you mentioned are far more complex -- major issues with proximate cause -- so guidance (in the form of increased information) is the best we have to work with.

There is a logical stopping point: You just have to stop freaking out for a moment, take a deep breath and put some time into analyzing the situation.
 
2012-04-13 03:11:46 PM  

lennavan: So, you think it's your place to tell him what risks are acceptable while parenting kids? Or what?


Well, look at it this way: if he dies, his kids will have to go live with HER.

/we should all get behind keeping that from happening.
//;)
 
2012-04-13 03:12:07 PM  

jag164: Simply put, your argument is stupid b/c there are many more people doing dangerous and crazy stuff that effects everyone's premiums more than the helmetless riders are going to effect your premiums.


sure - but there's a pretty direct and immediate and easy to trace correlation when states go helmetless. If I were the insurer I'm free to charge more for that aren't I? Smokers pay more. I'd definitely charge the helmetless more - it just makes financial sense and actuarial sense. That group of people WILL have higher claim costs, end of story.
 
ows
2012-04-13 03:12:15 PM  
they will all now get discounts on their insurance.

insurance is such a ripoff even a caveman can do it.
 
2012-04-13 03:12:54 PM  

gameshowhost: Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.

/oh wait they don't and won't, just like always
//more risk-dumping under the guise of liberty


You realize using your logic the government can/should control every individual choice you make?

Every decision can have some "health care" ramification.

In any case, I'll bite...

You can probably argue that not wearing a helmet is a less burden on health care as you are more likely to be DoA instead of just badly injured.
 
2012-04-13 03:12:58 PM  

JohnBigBootay: gameshowhost: Really?

Data Trends after the Repeal of Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet
Laws in US and Estimated Socioeconomic Effects
of Repealing Michigan's Universal Helmet Law
Charlotte A. Kilvington
Office of Highway Safety Planning
February 14, 2011 (new window)


Did you read what you posted? Because what it says is that when people stop wearing helmets then deaths, injuries, severity of injuries, and the cost of caring for those injuries goes up substantially. Just so you know.


That was my point, so... yeah. lol
 
2012-04-13 03:13:16 PM  
The governor is just doing his part to alleviate the shortage of donated organs.
 
2012-04-13 03:14:28 PM  
who cares about insurance? we gots obammy care now! no need for insurance!
motor cycle and human parts available for transplants too!
get rid of your 401k plan as we gots ssi to cover old age!
 
2012-04-13 03:15:35 PM  
I'm ok with this but with a few provisions:
You have to get a separate endorsement on your driver's license for helmet-less driving.
This will be reflected in your insurance rates as insurance companies will be allowed to charge your a different rate based on your license. Both your automotive and medical insurances.
ER's can refuse to admit these drivers if their injury is mainly attributed to not wearing a helmet.
I'm allowed to drive in front of helmetless bikers and throw banana peels out of the window.
 
2012-04-13 03:15:46 PM  

stuffer: lennavan: I don't see the outrage. Why should the government force people to wear helmets?

People not wearing helmets makes my insurance premium higher, which is not cool. Same for people who don't wear seatbelts. The whole "they don't hurt anyone but themselves" is flawed logic. They hurt my bank account.


I get where you're coming from and agree with the problem. I just think your solution is completely wrong. Helmet wearers are a small part of a larger group of people that hurt your bank account in this respect - uninsured people.

Making motorcycle riders wear helmets is not going to solve that problem. When they wear helmets but remain uninsured, your insurance premium will still be higher than it should. The correct solution is to make them be insured, not make them wear helmets.

Similarly, fat people who eat lots of McDonalds without insurance are making your premiums go higher when you have to pay for their life saving cardiac care. Taking your helmet solution, here it seems your solution would be to ban fast food, where again, I would just make them buy insurance.
 
2012-04-13 03:16:47 PM  
*oh ffs*
 
2012-04-13 03:18:03 PM  
Did not read the FT, I never do. It helps me stay awesome and avoid the derp.

But squirrels is as squirrels does.

/squirrels, squids, whatever, you're still dumb.
//Get a cage.
 
2012-04-13 03:18:09 PM  

jst3p: CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.

I don't ride yet, and I intend to wear gear but your statement is fairly absurd.

The benefit for wearing "full gear" is that the more gear a person wears the safer they are. The logical extension of that argument, considering how much more dangerous a motorcycle is than a car, is that it is stupid to ride a motorcycle at all.

It seems as if you are saying there is an arbitrary amount of risk that is acceptable and that line is drawn at a place you decide.



Sometimes it doesn't make a difference. Wouldn't click it if I were you...
 
2012-04-13 03:19:15 PM  

Codenamechaz: On the plus side, think of all of the doctor and nurse jobs it'll create!


This.
 
2012-04-13 03:19:19 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: why not just remove all road signs and abolish all speed limits?

Not even close to the same. Try again.



Oh? How so? Both are an expression of government authority over the actions of what its citizens do. Both are responded to in the same way in that if you speed you get pulled over and get a ticket as you would riding without a helmet where it was illegal. Also note these are state regulations. I thought you were all for states rights.


Fade2black: God forbid people take responsibility for their OWN actions, Libtard. Last time I checked, when a motorcycle crashes into someone else, the other party affected had no worse injuries because the cycler did or did not wear his own helmet.

I know you masturbate at night trying to figure out how to pass more laws and control behavior, but you'll have to fantasize about something else for a change...like actual women.

A cyclist not wearing his helmet has zero bearing on your life. Get over yourself.



Yeah, having the brains and other kibbles and bits of a douche on a crotch rocket spread all over the back of a SUV isn't going to affect anyone. An SUV driven by a 16 year old and her friends on the way home from school. They'll be totally unaffected. Or a 19 year old kid splatters all over the hood of a 75 year old who has the spend the rest of his short years knowing some kid never had a chance because he happened to not notice the dude when he pulled forward from a stop sign.

I'm not saying the law should or shouldn't be. I'm saying your argument isn't very well thought out.
 
2012-04-13 03:19:39 PM  
Freedom really scares liberals.
 
2012-04-13 03:19:51 PM  
I seriously give up.

I don't know how Jon Snow does it. I know ~why~ he does it, but I don't know where he gets the energy to do it.
 
2012-04-13 03:20:32 PM  
Three of my friends died in three separate motorcycle accidents over the years. All three were wearing helmets. Two were taken out by curves on wet roads and one by a pickup truck doing a left turn. I am not really trying to make a point, I'm just having a sad.
 
2012-04-13 03:22:11 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: sweetmelissa31: DIA will be horrified to know that trans fats are banned in NY and chains have to make nutritional information available. Verdict: food still delicious.

I know. Because New Yorkers are obviously too farking stupid to take care of themselves.


Well, they did vote for Mike Bloomberg...
 
2012-04-13 03:23:19 PM  

stuffer: gameshowhost: Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.

^This.

To all the people that say there should be no helmet or seatbelt laws, let stupid people kill themselves if they want, they don't hurt anyone but themselves, YOU ARE WRONG.

Smart people pay for their stupidity in the form of higher insurance premiums. If somehow the healthcare system would deal with it appropriately, like make you pay cash upfront if you want to get treated for a helmetless accident or something, I would be fine with it, but that's not the case. At least with smoking they make you pay more for health insurance.

/But I'm all about having more organ donors out there, so if only they could solve the money problems, I'm all for no helmet and seatbelt laws.


Who knows though, this may free up some of the costs spent on things like dialysis thanks to all those nice young kidneys coming in through the ER.
 
2012-04-13 03:23:50 PM  
Also, I agree with those who say, "Cool, more organs for donation."
 
2012-04-13 03:24:42 PM  
If the law would be written so that the public didn't have to pick up the medical costs of the helmet-less then I would have absolutely NO problem letting Darwin sort this one out.... but we all know that's not how it's going to work.
 
2012-04-13 03:24:44 PM  
a = Fnet / m
Fnet = m * a

So, first, physics. An object in motion stays in motion, unless it hits something.

Second, the thickness of your noggin:

head-face-med.comView Full Size


So, that's 3mm in the front if you're a woman, possibly 4mm if you're a dude.
(http://www.head-face-med.com/content/1/1/13)

Let's talk force needed to fracture:

"a force of 73 Newtons is enough to cause a simple fracture, this
force is the equivalent of walking into something solid. An
unrestrained adult fall from standing has been shown to produce a
minimal force of 873 N which is more than enough to produce a skull
fracture." (http://tinyurl.com/88qrjs6)

OK. So, since God/Yahweh/Space Dust/Etc. didn't figure on us moving around in devices that, inevitably would be quite fast, we simply do not have the equipment inherent to save us (other than thinking, reflexes, common sense, etc.) if we fark up on a bike.

You wash your hands after wiping your ass. Why? Cause you might get sick. You wear a rubber before having sex with that sexy Thai boygirl. Again, cause ew, gonorrherpasyphilaids.

You even put pants on before you go out because you know sitting on something naked might hurt.

Why? Because you don't want to fark YOURSELF UP.

Part of the fun is being able to do something awesome again and again. The only way to truly ride safe with NO protection is on a sealed, deserted road, and even then you still stand a great chance. Should we all be hermetically sealed in blocks of protective amber?

No, you idiot. But use some common bloody sense. I don't see fighter jet pilots complaining they have to wear helmets, and they're in a pressurized farking cockpit.

Then the seriously
img3.ranker.comView Full Size
stuff starts. Have you ever had a junebug smack you in the face at 70 MPH? Have you ridden in the wind and rain, with nothing on your noggin? Rain turns into knitting needles of pure pain. I had a friend open her mouth to say something into her intercom with her half-head helmet and instantly deep-throated a wasp. Next time, surprise, full-face on the highway.

WHOOO IMA ALL FREEE is fun until it's not. And then you get to see just how not it is. With luck, you'll still be able to walk.

/And yes, did get to see a friend who's brains gooshed out the back of his head when the bike stopped, he didn't and he decided his forehead was the best thing ever to hit the curb with.
//You could almost see the neurons keep firing as the shredded pink glop (Formerly him) tried to comprehend why it was now outside, in the light, before dying.
 
2012-04-13 03:25:31 PM  
The people wearing the helmets are the ones who cost the taxpayers money in medical care. They survive more often, if barely, and have to be turned toward the sun twice a day.

The helmet-less riders involved in wrecks die quickly and only cost as much money as it takes to wash the blood off the street.
 
2012-04-13 03:25:37 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.


ATGATT, baby. All the gear, all the time. But I don't need a law telling me this is a good idea.
 
2012-04-13 03:25:45 PM  
I don't give a crap what the law is, I'm wearing my helmet and gear every time I ride. Who knows, I might just sell the bike if I keep hearing about bikers dying.

Sorry about your friends TheVeryDeadIanMartin, its stories like yours that make me re-think riding.

/Lives in KS, no helmet law
 
2012-04-13 03:27:39 PM  

lennavan: How often does that happen? Honest question. If it happened once in the history of the world, who cares. If it happens more, maybe it's relevant.


I'm having a hard time finding reliable stats on this, it seems that the surveys tend to only look at fatalities of those who use seatbelts to those without. There is a bit of government propaganda and some articles that talk about it (one even said that 1 in 4 serious injuries from accidents were caused buy a loose passenger hitting another passenger, mostly from the rear seat to the front seat) but no one seemed to link to their source, and while I did skim over a few of the reports from agencies that they "cited" (they cited the agency, not a specific report let alone section of a report) I could not find any proper stats
 
2012-04-13 03:29:10 PM  
Did someone say Jon Snow?
boomtron.comView Full Size


/super hot
 
2012-04-13 03:29:14 PM  

timujin: Aarontology: timujin: Most motorcyclists?

You want to know how I know you don't know many motorcyclists?

Yes, most. The only real exceptions are the guys who ride cruisers.

Again, you don't know many motorcyclists, do you? Or probably even notice them when you're driving it sounds like. Only the ones who act like assholes. I don't know where you live, but here in southern California, the weather is conducive to riding and a lot of people take advantage. I see guys on sport bikes every single day on the freeway. I see someone riding like a jackass about once a month or less. Now, if you don't agree, I'd ask that you take note of every motorcyclist you see and count how many of them are "weaving through traffic at 80mph." I think you'll find that you have a selective perception bias.


I agree to some extent, but more and more lately I see the 'asshole' motorcyclists on the roads than the non. a list of motorcyclists I've seen just in the past week includes:
one following too closely
one burning through yellow and/or red lights
one riding along in the emergency lane
one weaving in and out of traffic
one weaving in and out of traffic going about 70mph
one bypassing between stopped cars at red lights
one cut off a tractor trailer making a right hand turn
one driving with no lights
one with no tail lights(there were none at all on the bike that I could tell)

Of course there were asshole car drivers out there as well, but when a person on a motorcycle does it, it's much more noticeable.

Now I'm not saying I agree or disagree with motorcycle helmet laws, personally I think it should be left up to the rider, but riding any kind of 2 wheeled conveyance without proper gear just screams stupidity to me. That's only because of personal experience on motorcycles and standard bicycles though. I'd also have to say that if a motorcycle rider does happen to get a serious injury from riding without one then don't expect sympathy from me.

/no difference between seat-belt laws and helmet laws in my opinion
//but aliens
 
2012-04-13 03:29:53 PM  

stuffer: lennavan: I don't see the outrage. Why should the government force people to wear helmets?

People not wearing helmets makes my insurance premium higher, which is not cool. Same for people who don't wear seatbelts. The whole "they don't hurt anyone but themselves" is flawed logic. They hurt my bank account.

destrip: Any law that is "for one's own good" is a hallmark of the police state.

helmet and seatbelt laws are there to protect the rest of society for paying for their stupidity through higher insurance premiums. Just because you think something doesn't affect others doesn't make it so. There may be aspects you didn't think about.

Not to mention if the police are busy scraping you off the pavement or processing a fatality they can't respond to a real crime, or if a doctor is fixing your head up he can't deal with someone who didn't hurt themselves in such a fashion, etc... It may create jobs, but so does vandalism because it has to be cleaned up but that's not a good thing.


So when will you be picketing in favor of laws to ban rock climbing, skiing, skydiving, etc? All of those are high-risk for injury and will drive up your insurance premiums. Not to mention the need to legislate diet, exercise, and the amount of time you're allowed to use your electronics.

Have you figured out where the flaw in your line of thinking is, yet?
 
2012-04-13 03:29:56 PM  
Can we do something about those farking loud pipes next?
 
2012-04-13 03:29:57 PM  

jag164: Okay, let's stick with this logic: Once you pay higher health insurance premiums, you get a card that lets you eat fast food everyday. Let's you skydive. Let's you ride a bike without a helmet. Let's you forget about the seatbelt. Let's you talk and email while driving. Let's you smoke cigarettes. I could go on....

Simply put, your argument is stupid b/c there are many more people doing dangerous and crazy stuff that effects everyone's premiums more than the helmetless riders are going to effect your premiums.


I doubt skydivers affect insurance premiums much, smokers have to pay more already, and I do wish there was a way for lazy fat farks to have to pay more as well, but after smokers and lazy fat farks, I think no helmets/seatblet accidents may be the next greatest thing to affect my premium, there are just so many accidents every day. Distracted/drunk driving is a big problem too, which is why it's illegal.

Easy to prove you're a smoker, hard to prove you're lazy and eat crap which is why they can't charge higher insurance premiums to those people.

So other than people eating crap, what affects my insurance cost more than seatbelt/helmet choices that isn't already dealt with by being illegal or having higher premiums associated with it?
 
2012-04-13 03:30:59 PM  

Great_Milenko: Can we do something about those farking loud pipes next?


You know what? Let me kick down a little thing to you that our Founding Fathers kicked down to me. It goes, "Don't. Tread. On me," and right now, you are TREADING ALL OVER ME.
 
2012-04-13 03:31:41 PM  
The result of getting tossed and breakdancing down the front straight of Reno/Fernley Raceway at about 130mph.

badcatracing.comView Full Size


badcatracing.comView Full Size


badcatracing.comView Full Size


badcatracing.comView Full Size


I came out totally unscathed, the same couldn't be said for my gear, which worked flawlessly.

Not the first time I've had a triple-digit get off and went for a slide and tumble wacking the crap out of the helmet in the process.

Any time I see someone say, "Well helmets only work at low speeds..." I wish I was Ganesh so I had more hands to facepalm with.
 
2012-04-13 03:32:10 PM  

TheGreenMonkey: Of course there were asshole car drivers out there as well, but when a person on a motorcycle does it, it's much more noticeable.


This is the thing I was talking about before, selective perception bias, you notice the assholes more than the ones riding safely.
 
2012-04-13 03:32:14 PM  

burning_bridge: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: why not just remove all road signs and abolish all speed limits?

Not even close to the same. Try again.


Oh? How so? Both are an expression of government authority over the actions of what its citizens do. Both are responded to in the same way in that if you speed you get pulled over and get a ticket as you would riding without a helmet where it was illegal. Also note these are state regulations. I thought you were all for states rights.



No, the road signs are regulation of a public resource; they are not dictating personal behavior.
 
2012-04-13 03:38:18 PM  

Rapmaster2000: You know what? Let me kick down a little thing to you that our Founding Fathers kicked down to me. It goes, "Don't. Tread. On me," and right now, you are TREADING ALL OVER ME.


Totally agree. As long as you are withing the boundaries of my municipalities' nose ordinance guidelines.
 
2012-04-13 03:40:13 PM  

gameshowhost: That was my point, so... yeah. lol


Cool. Thanks.
 
2012-04-13 03:41:05 PM  

MilesTeg: gameshowhost: Provided that those who choose not to wear helmets go ahead and pay for the increased cost of care (e.g. don't shift the burden onto the rest of society), fine.

/oh wait they don't and won't, just like always
//more risk-dumping under the guise of liberty

You realize using your logic the government can/should control every individual choice you make?

Every decision can have some "health care" ramification.

In any case, I'll bite...

You can probably argue that not wearing a helmet is a less burden on health care as you are more likely to be DoA instead of just badly injured.


Well, you could argue that... but you'd be wrong.

gameshowhost: LasersHurt: In the case of helmets, it's not like the public picks up a lot of medical bills from these people - they're usually dead.

Really?

Data Trends after the Repeal of Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet
Laws in US and Estimated Socioeconomic Effects
of Repealing Michigan's Universal Helmet Law
Charlotte A. Kilvington
Office of Highway Safety Planning
February 14, 2011 (new window)

 
2012-04-13 03:42:01 PM  
A helmet saves you from a concussion and road rash in a minor fall.

In a more serious fall, you will get road rash and a concussion instead of brain damage.

In a MORE serious fall, you will get brain damage instead of death.

In the most serious falls, The helmet holds your brains and skull together making it easier to wipe off the highway.

/Does not care if a biker wears a helmet or not.
//maybe bikers who wear helmets could get insurance discounts.
///Then again a funeral is cheaper then brain damage re-rehabilitation.
////Don't ride a bike unsafely if you have kids.
 
2012-04-13 03:42:59 PM  
I hope Ted Nugent owns a motorcycle.
Maybe he'll do a 'Gary Busey'.
 
2012-04-13 03:43:16 PM  

Codenamechaz: On the plus side, think of all of the doctor and nurse jobs it'll create!


I was thinking the other way. Think how much healthcare money this will save without having to keep those motorcyclists on life support whose helmets just happened to keep their brains from dying too.
 
2012-04-13 03:44:12 PM  

Fade2black: God forbid people take responsibility for their OWN actions, Libtard. Last time I checked, when a motorcycle crashes into someone else, the other party affected had no worse injuries because the cycler did or did not wear his own helmet.

I know you masturbate at night trying to figure out how to pass more laws and control behavior, but you'll have to fantasize about something else for a change...like actual women.

A cyclist not wearing his helmet has zero bearing on your life. Get over yourself.


You sound like a Republican, I can tell by the lack of thinking things through.

Motorcyclist injured, goes to emergency room, doesnt pay. No insurance.

Doesnt affect us?
 
2012-04-13 03:45:00 PM  
Yeah. So all the back and forth clearly reveals why laws are difficult to make worthily and properly.

When laws can be made that efficiently restrict all dangerous behaviour without undue burden on specific minorities of individuals I will be in full support of helmet laws. Until then, requiring adult helmet use under all circumstances is an imposition by an ignorant, largely uninvolved majority on a very well informed minority and is at least bullshiat.

Put another way: since helmets are cheap... if they are worth wearing to improve the odds of survival of a small subset of individuals, would it not be reasonable to require every one to wear one while say, driving? There has to be perhaps small but significant subset of car accident victims that suffer traumatic head injuries. Why should society be burdened by the loss or their worth or the expense of their care? Seems possible even a 30 dollar bicycle helmet could make a difference.

Why shouldn't everyone wear the best/optimal economic safety gear all of the time?

Too ridiculous for you too?

More deaths/injuries occur from improperly handled firearms. More brain damage from cardio challenged stroke victims. All that is required (or would be allowed) to improve either set is more education/information. Want to make laws imposing more of that? On everybody? Regardless of whether they are already educated and making informed decisions?


/Rider for 46 years, sometime non helmet wearer, tho always wear a helmet when downhilling mtn bike, definitely weave in and out of traffic occasionally, and occasionally over 80 and absolutely split lanes from time to time because I can.

//stay off my lawn
 
2012-04-13 03:45:33 PM  
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context =publichealthresources

Helmet laws do not reduce fatalities.

If you truely wanted to make motorcyclists (and cyclists and pedestrians for that matter) safer on the roads, abolish seat belts and airbags in automobiles. A motorcycle rider being slightly more reckless due to a false sense of security he/she has from a helmet is only hurting themselves. Higher speeds/reckless driving from a sense of security from today's airbags/seatbelts/crumple zones/etc pose a major risk to those not in the vehicle (cyclists/pedestrians/etc.)
 
2012-04-13 03:46:12 PM  
Michigan: Come for the tourism, stay for the free organs from our donorcycles!
 
2012-04-13 03:46:28 PM  

timujin: TheGreenMonkey: Of course there were asshole car drivers out there as well, but when a person on a motorcycle does it, it's much more noticeable.

This is the thing I was talking about before, selective perception bias, you notice the assholes more than the ones riding safely.


Ah, but this past week I did not see any motorcycle riders that were tooling along obeying the rules of the road. None. And I'm pretty damn good about noticing motorcycles because I've ridden them in the past, both on and off road. Along with bicycles as well for the same reason I do my best to give them all the same considerations as I do other drivers. And probably more.
 
2012-04-13 03:47:15 PM  

MadUncleEoin: The people wearing the helmets are the ones who cost the taxpayers money in medical care. They survive more often, if barely, and have to be turned toward the sun twice a day.

The helmet-less riders involved in wrecks die quickly and only cost as much money as it takes to wash the blood off the street.


This keeps getting repeated but I don't think it's actually true. It looks like non-helmeted riders DO cost us more in health care costs. (new window)

The reason why is that, sorry to burst the bubble but, riders without helmets do NOT always die, but their injuries are far more frequently far more severe and often involve very lengthy and expensive rehabilitation.
 
2012-04-13 03:48:47 PM  
Teabagger/glibertarian/rugged individualist logic on helmet laws: Gubbermint can't force me to wear a helmet! It's my life! Personal freeeeedom, biatches!

Teabagger/glibertarian/rugged individualist logic on abortion: BAN THAT SHIAT. Not yours! Unborn babby needs protecting!
 
2012-04-13 03:49:19 PM  
The Michigan Senate late last month approved a bill that would eliminate the decades-old helmet requirement if qualified operators had additional insurance coverage. Senate Bill 291 is now Public Act 98 of 2012.

They required them to purchase an extra $20,000 of insurance.

Do the Republicans realize they just did exactly what they say is terrible about Obama's health plan: Mandating someone to buy insurance?
 
2012-04-13 03:51:28 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Since there have been warnings on cigarette cartons, higher taxes on cigarettes, and laws against smoking in the workplace, smoking rate has declined from 42% to 19% among Americans. A decrease in chronic diseases due to smoking will represent a large decrease in burden for American spending on healthcare (although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden). But the point stands that the change in smoking came about from direct government action.


I think you have that completely backwards.

The sentiment of the public on smoking changed. The peer pressure caused by the majority saying "Smoking is gross" , "Smokers are dirty" etc has allowed for those warnings, taxes, and laws to be created. The smoking "fad" has been in a decline for decades.

Motorcycle helmets and Seatbelts however are a completely different, unrelated topic. While they both are loosely "public safety" the big difference is the fact that me not wearing a helmet or seat belt does not directly impact you. Before you go and quote medical expenses... they don't pay to fix dead people. Alive people after a motorcycle accident can costs millions (My best friend in middle/high school had a head on and was in a body cast for 3 months and the whole process cost several million in the early 90's). He also was not wearing a helmet and sustained no damage to his head/brain even though he put a 3-4 inch deep dent in the hood of the truck with his head. Had he died the cost would have been the funeral and repairs to the truck..

I can understand laws indicating that minors (Who legally cannot make decisions unless the gov wants them to be able to make decisions for the purpose of trying them as an adult) need to wear seatbelts or helmets. But adults should have a choice.
 
2012-04-13 03:51:43 PM  

Noxious1: I hope Ted Nugent owns a motorcycle.
Maybe he'll do a 'Gary Busey'.


Maybe Nugent will sh*t his pants first.
 
2012-04-13 03:52:37 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


I usually refrain but: you're an as$hole. It's people own responsibility to care for themselves. It is NOT the govs.

BTW, you've got some of Obama's schmeg on your chin.
 
2012-04-13 03:52:50 PM  

Rufus_T_Firefly: Do the Republicans realize they just did exactly what they say is terrible about Obama's health plan: Mandating someone to buy insurance?


I like you. You make me loff.
 
2012-04-13 03:53:35 PM  

lennavan: Making motorcycle riders wear helmets is not going to solve that problem. When they wear helmets but remain uninsured, your insurance premium will still be higher than it should. The correct solution is to make them be insured, not make them wear helmets.


The uninsured may be a bigger problem, but at least it is illegal. An attempt has been made to deal with it. I wish the penalties were higher, or less people did it, but after making it illegal, you can't really do much to prevent something without violating freedoms, especially since if you drive by a cop without insurance he can't see that, which makes it hard to enforce. Just because the bigger problems are harder to enforce doesn't mean they shouldn't worry about the smaller ones.

There really is no good way of dealing with uninsured people, even if you make it so that they lose their license forever if caught, then you just have an unlicensed uninsured person out there on the roads. Is there anything that would work short of every vehicle having a network uplink so they only work if insured? even then, I'm sure that would be hackable.

I wish I could get a breakdown of what my insurance would cost without stupid people out there, then how much is added because of each group.
 
2012-04-13 03:54:45 PM  

moike: The result of getting tossed and breakdancing down the front straight of Reno/Fernley Raceway at about 130mph.

[www.badcatracing.com image 450x337]

[www.badcatracing.com image 450x337]

[www.badcatracing.com image 450x337]

[www.badcatracing.com image 450x337]

I came out totally unscathed, the same couldn't be said for my gear, which worked flawlessly.

Not the first time I've had a triple-digit get off and went for a slide and tumble wacking the crap out of the helmet in the process.

Any time I see someone say, "Well helmets only work at low speeds..." I wish I was Ganesh so I had more hands to facepalm with.


Did you high side? low side? head over the handlebars? I want more info! A minor fall can happen at high speeds, but a major one can happen at low speeds too. High side in a corner at low speeds and your head will be thrown to the pavement at considerable speeds, leading to a bad day. On the other hand. Lowsiding, and rolling and sliding down the road depletes the kinetic energy over a much longer period of time. You probably would have died of road rash without that armor there to sacrifice itself for your skin.
 
2012-04-13 03:56:00 PM  

gameshowhost: "It's a fine principle, but you still have to analyze each situation to discover where the nose/fist line exists. In this case, cyclists aren't paying higher premiums for their increased risk -- everyone else in the risk pool is taking on that excess burden."



...Aaaand again -- unhealthy eaters and couch potatoes aren't paying higher premiums for their increased risk either -- everyone else in the risk pool is taking on that excess burden -- and there are a WHOLE lot more of them then there are cyclists. Do we legislate what they can eat and fine them for not exercising?
 
2012-04-13 03:56:11 PM  

TheGreenMonkey: timujin: TheGreenMonkey: Of course there were asshole car drivers out there as well, but when a person on a motorcycle does it, it's much more noticeable.

This is the thing I was talking about before, selective perception bias, you notice the assholes more than the ones riding safely.

Ah, but this past week I did not see any motorcycle riders that were tooling along obeying the rules of the road. None. And I'm pretty damn good about noticing motorcycles because I've ridden them in the past, both on and off road. Along with bicycles as well for the same reason I do my best to give them all the same considerations as I do other drivers. And probably more.


Weird. Maybe riders on the east coast are more toolish than over here, Aarontology is in New England. Maybe the squids are out being stupid after being locked up all winter.
 
2012-04-13 03:57:50 PM  

Dalemite: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&contex t =publichealthresources

Helmet laws do not reduce fatalities.

If you truely wanted to make motorcyclists (and cyclists and pedestrians for that matter) safer on the roads, abolish seat belts and airbags in automobiles. A motorcycle rider being slightly more reckless due to a false sense of security he/she has from a helmet is only hurting themselves. Higher speeds/reckless driving from a sense of security from today's airbags/seatbelts/crumple zones/etc pose a major risk to those not in the vehicle (cyclists/pedestrians/etc.)


You honestly think there is a non-insignificant portion of the driving population that thinks "normally I wouldn't do this, but I have a seat-belt and an airbag so gun it!"?
 
2012-04-13 03:58:18 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.

ATGATT, baby. All the gear, all the time. But I don't need a law telling me this is a good idea.


I took me far too long to realize this wasn't a genetics reference.
 
2012-04-13 03:59:14 PM  
Accidents do happen. I was run over from behind on the freeway by a car, and if I hadn't been wearing my gear, I would be dead. I was wearing top end gear, including boots, helmet, and armored leather jacket. I still ended up with a separated pelvis, broken left arm (in two places), broken right hand, 10 broken ribs, road rash, and internal bleeding. I've saved the helmet, which ended up being split open, so that I can show folks what can happen to their head.
 
2012-04-13 04:01:23 PM  

Dalemite: Helmet laws do not reduce fatalities.


How the hell did you conclude that?
 
2012-04-13 04:03:18 PM  

fluffy2097:
Did you high side? low side? head over the handlebars? I want more info! A minor fall can happen at high speeds, but a major one can happen at low speeds too. High side in a corner at low speeds and your head will be thrown to the pavement at considerable speeds, leading to a bad day. On the other hand. Lowsiding, and rolling and sliding down the road depletes the kinetic energy over a much longer period of time. You probably would have died of road rash without that armor there to sacrifice itself for your skin.


I've highsided/lowsided at high speeds and low speeds... The helmet and gear have always done their job well.

My worst highside was at Sears Point in the middle of turn 11 at about 45mph. Those who witnessed it said I was a good eight feet in the air before I started to come back down. Which when I did I landed head/right hand first. Smashed up my Arai and I dislocated my right shoulder... but other than the shoulder injury I was perfectly fine, no concussion.

Moral of the story, ever since then when I fall I slap my collarbones and tuck my chin. Don't stick your limbs out in an attempt to arrest your fall... let all that expensive CE armor take the impact.
 
2012-04-13 04:03:21 PM  

NateGrey: Motorcyclist injured, goes to emergency room, doesnt pay. No insurance.

Doesnt affect us?


But aren't we now saying motorcyclist X times more likely to be DOA and not need the health care part?
 
2012-04-13 04:04:30 PM  

Kazrath: Motorcycle helmets and Seatbelts however are a completely different, unrelated topic. While they both are loosely "public safety" the big difference is the fact that me not wearing a helmet or seat belt does not directly impact you.


Helmets and seatbelts are not a public safety issue, they are a legal issue.
 
2012-04-13 04:05:02 PM  

timujin: Weird. Maybe riders on the east coast are more toolish than over here


(North)East coast riders are usually late middle age yuppies with no experience in riding at all. They have a midlife crisis, Buy a Harley with saddle bags, and tool around town on nice weekends. They don't have a clue how to ride, but they mostly go slow enough not to kill themselves.

There is also the youth segment, which seems to be prevalent on both east and west costs. They can be identified by their habit of riding barely street legal racing bikes and flying between stalled cars in a traffic jam by line straddling at 50mph (I don't like like line straddling, but that's the bonus you get by riding a death machine. If you're doing it, don't go so much faster then other traffic! what if someone opens their door on you?).

Youths on street bikes tend to be universally dumb and universally prone to killing themselves.

Between these 2 extremes, lay all decent motorcyclists.

The big thing about New England is that half the year is unsuitable for riding. So bikers come out in droves when they CAN ride.
 
2012-04-13 04:05:48 PM  
For those who could use some statistical information on the subject. (pops like an unprotected cranium)
 
2012-04-13 04:10:45 PM  

moike: Moral of the story, ever since then when I fall I slap my collarbones and tuck my chin. Don't stick your limbs out in an attempt to arrest your fall... let all that expensive CE armor take the impact.


I learned a similar story snowboarding and in gymnastics. When you fall, your fingers should never be pointing forwards and down towards the ground. Make fists, bring them in, tuck and roll.

I got to see someone in my snowboard lesson break his wrist by forgetting this rule. Put his hands out to stop from doing a face plant. Once his hands were down and planted his body kept going forward over them. Your wrists only bend so far before *SNAP*.

/great. I just gave myself the heebeejeebees remembering that story.
 
2012-04-13 04:10:53 PM  

jst3p: Dalemite: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&contex t =publichealthresources

Helmet laws do not reduce fatalities.

If you truely wanted to make motorcyclists (and cyclists and pedestrians for that matter) safer on the roads, abolish seat belts and airbags in automobiles. A motorcycle rider being slightly more reckless due to a false sense of security he/she has from a helmet is only hurting themselves. Higher speeds/reckless driving from a sense of security from today's airbags/seatbelts/crumple zones/etc pose a major risk to those not in the vehicle (cyclists/pedestrians/etc.)

You honestly think there is a non-insignificant portion of the driving population that thinks "normally I wouldn't do this, but I have a seat-belt and an airbag so gun it!"?


I like it when people create unlikely stereotypes and hypotheticals.
 
2012-04-13 04:10:57 PM  

lennavan: I took me far too long to realize this wasn't a genetics reference.


ATGATT

Adenine Thymine Guanine Adenine Thymine Thymine baby!
 
2012-04-13 04:14:56 PM  

timujin: TheGreenMonkey: timujin: TheGreenMonkey: Of course there were asshole car drivers out there as well, but when a person on a motorcycle does it, it's much more noticeable.

This is the thing I was talking about before, selective perception bias, you notice the assholes more than the ones riding safely.

Ah, but this past week I did not see any motorcycle riders that were tooling along obeying the rules of the road. None. And I'm pretty damn good about noticing motorcycles because I've ridden them in the past, both on and off road. Along with bicycles as well for the same reason I do my best to give them all the same considerations as I do other drivers. And probably more.

Weird. Maybe riders on the east coast are more toolish than over here, Aarontology is in New England. Maybe the squids are out being stupid after being locked up all winter.


Kind of thought it was weird myself, normally it's pretty decent. It's the first really good week we've had this year weather wise and I think the stupids have tried dusting off their bikes. I do believe this week has been an anomaly, but law of averages and all that. Most riders I see are pretty good.

Having been in accidents both on powered and non-powered bikes I do tend to look out for riders and make sure to pay more attention just in case. It just seems to be the proper thing to do.
 
2012-04-13 04:15:16 PM  

Rufus_T_Firefly: For those who could use some statistical information on the subject. (pops like an unprotected cranium)


Good. I absolutely understand the arguments for no helmet laws. I really do. I'm fine with it being a choice though I personally will always ride with a helmet and that helmet will always be full face. But I truly wonder about the people who try to show some data claim from somewhere that says helmets do not reduce fatalities or reduce injury costs. it's just so mind numbingly obvious that it's so.