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 467
    More: Stupid, Governors of Michigan, Rick Snyder, Natural Selection Law, Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, natural selection, Michigan Senate  
•       •       •

3608 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Apr 2012 at 2:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



467 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
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.com
 
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  
www.harry.hirschman.com

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.com

/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.com
 
hej
2012-04-13 02:20:42 PM  
I assume the img1.fark.net 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

www.inquisitr.com
 
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.com
 
zez [TotalFark]
2012-04-13 02:23:57 PM  
You know who else used to oppose helmet laws?

www.geekosystem.com
 
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.net
/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.com

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:
www.obairlann.net

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.com

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.com

/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.com

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 [TotalFark]
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.net 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:

www.head-face-med.com

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.com 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?
www.boomtron.com

/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.

www.badcatracing.com

www.badcatracing.com

www.badcatracing.com

www.badcatracing.com

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.
 
2012-04-13 04:16:26 PM  
And for clarification... the idea behind the seatbelt is to keep you behind the controls after you smack into/bounce off of something. It's hard to bring the vehicle to a stop/regain control if you're pinballing around inside the cabin.
 
2012-04-13 04:17:04 PM  
I like that it isn't being mandated anymore... however, I will still ride with my helmet on.
 
2012-04-13 04:18:40 PM  

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

Helmets make people want to tempt Darwin.


Ummm, no (new window).
 
2012-04-13 04:18:40 PM  
As long as they make it that you can't have access to the emergency room when in an accident and not wearing a helmet unless you can prove that you can pay for it. Also you lose access to disability insurance as well as SSI/Medicaid/Medicare for injuries sustained due to not wearing a helmet, nor can hospital bills be removed via bankruptcy due to not wearing the helmet and is considered the responsibility of the parents, children and spouse(s) of the injured, sure, no problem with this.

I wish they would just make those who don't want to wear a helmet also purchase an extra rider on their insurance to cover it.
 
2012-04-13 04:18:55 PM  

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

ATGATT

Adenine Thymine Guanine Adenine Thymine Thymine baby!


Translated (to protein) it means START STOP. In the context of a motorcycle helmet thread, it made sense to me in my head.
 
2012-04-13 04:19:40 PM  

kim jong-un: 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.


That's right!

Give this man a ceegar!
 
2012-04-13 04:23:39 PM  

stuffer: 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.


A single payer health care system easily and completely fixes all of this. The helmet law hardly makes a dent in the problem. Your beef is not with them wearing a helmet, your beef is with them not paying. You're not directly addressing the problem, you are indirectly addressing it.

Like I said, I completely agree with you on the problem, I just think your solution won't help much and creates an unnecessary law.
 
2012-04-13 04:27:19 PM  

the_sidewinder: 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


I would then suggest we not craft laws until we know there is a relevant problem :-) Too bad we already did.

I think government should exist for many reasons. But preventing you from making bad decisions is not one of those reasons. By all means, perhaps aiding you make better decisions by requiring nutritional information, or warnings or whatnot seems great. But stopping you from making a less than desirable choice that only effects you goes too far.
 
2012-04-13 04:28:42 PM  
There should be no laws restricting personal choices of an obvious nature that otherwise don't directly effect others (all the arguments to health and insurance costs aside). Anything that would fall into the realm of common sense should not be regulated by a law. No reason to get rid of the PSA's regarding wearing of helmets or seat belts, just don't force compliance. The wise will take care of themselves. Others will either gain wisdom or suffer for their poor choices.
 
2012-04-13 04:29:48 PM  

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



From that link:
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29


DAMN! That's actually worse than I expected.
 
2012-04-13 04:34:14 PM  

TheGreenMonkey: one bypassing between stopped cars at red lights


Perfectly legal here in CA and may be the only state legal to do it in. It's the only lane sharing I ever do.
 
2012-04-13 04:35:13 PM  
So if we have helmet laws on bikes, we'll save a few hundred bikers.
Why not make all people in cars wear them and save thousands of lives!
Think of the children!

/Rides
//Wears helmet
///My lawn, off it!
 
2012-04-13 04:35:51 PM  

lennavan: Translated (to protein) it means START STOP. In the context of a motorcycle helmet thread, it made sense to me in my head.


I just remember what the letters stood for. I have no freakin' idea what they actually do.
 
2012-04-13 04:36:22 PM  

burning_bridge: Both are an expression of government authority over the actions of what its citizens do.


Carousel Beast: No, the road signs are regulation of a public resource; they are not dictating personal behavior.


Exactly.

I can only assume that those of you who are in favor of helmet/seatbelt laws also fully support the "war on drugs"
 
2012-04-13 04:36:40 PM  
I honestly don't have a problem with this for a couple of reasons.

1. if you don't wear a seatbelt, you can become a projectile and harm others in the car (or go flying through the windshield). not wearing a helmet truly only harms yourself, since the only thing it's doing is protecting your head.

2. there's a free-market solution to this: insurance companies (life, health, or motorcycle, or even all three) saying "if you don't wear a helmet, we don't cover you in a crash." they might already do this, I dunno. but the idea of not having the bike replaced, being on the hook for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills, or my survivors getting nothing if I kick it, seems like it would override the need to feel the wind in your hair. (what are you, a dog?)

3. I'm a huge proponent of organ donation, and a young person with a fatal TBI is an excellent candidate.
 
2012-04-13 04:39:04 PM  
How dare the state not have men with guns forcing you to wear a helmet (or seat-belt).
Cr@p like that will give people the silly impression they own their own lives.
 
2012-04-13 04:41:17 PM  
I really don't have a problem with this, especially if the motorcyclists in question sign up as organ donors.
 
2012-04-13 04:42:34 PM  
Holy shiat. After reading this I see the Jump To Conclusion Mats (tm) have all been delivered and unboxed.
 
2012-04-13 04:44:34 PM  

GT_bike: TheGreenMonkey: one bypassing between stopped cars at red lights

Perfectly legal here in CA and may be the only state legal to do it in. It's the only lane sharing I ever do.


For me it's that and the wide strip between the HOV lane and the normal lanes when both are traveling under 10-15mph. And that's at only about five mph faster, people sometimes ignore those double lines.
 
2012-04-13 04:45:11 PM  
imo, Everyone can ride helmet-free (or seatbelt-free) if they sign the donor line on their license in permanent ink.

/should put a line on their license for blood type too.
 
2012-04-13 04:46:05 PM  

Arctic Phoenix: 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


Same here. Considering all the stuff I hear bounce off my helmet I really don't like the idea of all that hitting me in the face.
 
2012-04-13 04:46:28 PM  
beer is my helmet....
 
2012-04-13 04:47:32 PM  

Pray for Omarion: So if we have helmet laws on bikes, we'll save a few hundred bikers.
Why not make all people in cars wear them and save thousands of lives!
Think of the children!

/Rides
//Wears helmet
///My lawn, off it!



This is why. (new window) In the real world unhelmeted rider cost the rest of us a lot of money. If we simply said that they were on their own for the extra health care costs, and that if they couldn't afford the care then they don't get it and they just die.... then you'd have a fairly valid argument against them, in it's own strangely self-destructive way.

But that's not what happens. What happens is that the rest of us foot the bill.


Hat tip to Rufus_T_Firefly for the excellent link with real data.
 
2012-04-13 04:51:32 PM  

Callous: Arctic Phoenix: 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

Same here. Considering all the stuff I hear bounce off my helmet I really don't like the idea of all that hitting me in the face.


So I was on my Goldwing this last weekend and it has a vent in the middle of the windshield. Well it's spring and the bugs are out in force. I hit something that evidently was orange inside, because it nailed the vent dead center. At 70mph a slotted hole is like a juicer, and this thing was huge. I basically got a bug gut shower. The worst part was the taste.

/Owns an evil sport bike as well.
 
2012-04-13 04:56:25 PM  

Rufus_T_Firefly: 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?


only those who who choose to ride w/o a helmet not everyone who rides...also exempting car drivers but nice try thanks for losing
 
2012-04-13 04:56:43 PM  
I haven't read through all the comments and I'm late to the party, but here goes.

First, if you want to decrease motorcycle fatalities/accidents then the first thing you should do is to increase automobile driver training/license requirements. Here in Texas you have to take a mandatory 40 hour class that includes on-bike testing in order to get a MC license. To get a license to drive a car, you have to pass a written test and drive around the block with a DPS officer in your car. If you signal and stop at lights/signs, you pretty much pass. Since passenger vehicles account for about 90% of the traffic on the road, in my mind they should require a more significant amount of training/testing.

Make it 100% illegal to eat/phone/text whatever while driving. We have enough problems with people who are incapable of operating vehicles under the best of circumstances without added distraction.

Stop giving driver's licenses to 16 year olds. At 16 we've decided as a society you incapable of making many life choices, but we willingly put other people's lives in your hands.

Now, for all of you who believe that any motorcyclist who gets injured/killed deserves it for choosing a "dangerous" form of transportation, keep in mind that most motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases it is the other driver's fault, the most common being an automobile turning left in front of an oncoming motorcycle. This is usually followed the by driver saying "I never saw the motorcycle". What they really mean is "I wasn't paying enough attention to see the motorcycle".

/yes, I know the data is old but it's still the latest data available
//data from the Hurt report, circa 1980
 
2012-04-13 05:00:17 PM  

Rapmaster2000: 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.



What - never read 1984?
 
2012-04-13 05:00:30 PM  

timujin: GT_bike: TheGreenMonkey: one bypassing between stopped cars at red lights

Perfectly legal here in CA and may be the only state legal to do it in. It's the only lane sharing I ever do.

For me it's that and the wide strip between the HOV lane and the normal lanes when both are traveling under 10-15mph. And that's at only about five mph faster, people sometimes ignore those double lines.


Oh, and for what it's worth, splitting lanes is statistically safer than not.
 
2012-04-13 05:02:31 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.



So much this. I love people who are more eloquent than I am.
 
2012-04-13 05:03:00 PM  

fluffy2097: 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.


Been there, done that. Armor saved a lot of skin. Didn't even realize that my helmet had hit the ground until I took it off and saw all the scratches and dings. Don't like thinking about what my head would have looked like if I had been lidless. Probably not fatal, but damn.......

Two kinds of bikers, those that have gone down and those that will.
 
2012-04-13 05:03:38 PM  

timujin: GT_bike: TheGreenMonkey: one bypassing between stopped cars at red lights

Perfectly legal here in CA and may be the only state legal to do it in. It's the only lane sharing I ever do.

For me it's that and the wide strip between the HOV lane and the normal lanes when both are traveling under 10-15mph. And that's at only about five mph faster, people sometimes ignore those double lines.


Which is why I pass stopped traffic only.
 
2012-04-13 05:05:02 PM  
There's an old saw about a liberal being a conservative who has never been mugged...

I'd say anyone who fights "wear a goddamn helmet" laws is someone who has never been in an accident with a car no matter who was at fault.
 
2012-04-13 05:05:40 PM  

Do the needful: Callous: Arctic Phoenix: 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

Same here. Considering all the stuff I hear bounce off my helmet I really don't like the idea of all that hitting me in the face.

So I was on my Goldwing this last weekend and it has a vent in the middle of the windshield. Well it's spring and the bugs are out in force. I hit something that evidently was orange inside, because it nailed the vent dead center. At 70mph a slotted hole is like a juicer, and this thing was huge. I basically got a bug gut shower. The worst part was the taste.

/Owns an evil sport bike as well.


Had a June bug hit me in the neck once(hurt like hell) on the highway and the guts were running down my chest. I keep my chin down now.
 
2012-04-13 05:06:48 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.


If helmets save lives, and you think the government should make motorcycle riders wear helmets, should people driving/riding in cars be required to wear helmets as well? How many people die in car accidents due to some sort of head trauma?

I say make wearing a helmet mandatory while operating, or being transported in, any type of vehicle. If it will only save one life, won't it be worth it? Helmets for everyone!!1!

/sometimes I just don't feel like wearing a helmet on my motorcycle.
 
2012-04-13 05:08:17 PM  

Tumunga:

/sometimes I just don't feel like wearing a helmet on my motorcycle.


That feeling..... Let it go.
 
2012-04-13 05:11:56 PM  
Since the topic came up...

Bikes being able to ride up the white line? I first encountered that when I got sent from the east coast for training in CA. We don't have that here.

I have to admit, my Weeners was to open the car door and clothesline some biker.

It makes sense, but still. Drive I-495 a few thousand times and you get stabby about people taking advantage of not-lanes including say, the shoulder.
 
2012-04-13 05:12:12 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.


And when those decreases in the number of chronic diseases doesn't come about, can we go after the real problem... the chemicals our food is loaded up with? Far worse for us than smoking.

Seat belt and helmet laws are stupid. Those who would choose not to wear either are the kind of people we should be taking out of the gene pool anyway.
 
2012-04-13 05:13:18 PM  

Callous: Had a June bug hit me in the neck once(hurt like hell) on the highway and the guts were running down my chest. I keep my chin down now.


The worst for me was I once looked down and realized I had a bee on my leg. Didn't panic, just said to myself "that's odd". Right about that time he managed to get his stinger through my pants. Now that farking hurt.

Been hit with all manner of bugs over the years. Being forced to follow a gravel truck is worse though.
 
2012-04-13 05:15:59 PM  
Having first-hand knowledge of the research used to create the law in California, I can tell you that helmetless riders are at more-than-minimal risk. The accident victims' burden to their families and the medical system is significant when compared against helmet-wearing victims. Vegetables ruin the lives of everyone connected to them more than their immediate deaths would.

Now, with that being said, the government will ALWAYS try to find a way to regulate the economy in an attempt to strengthen it: helmet sales for riders, blue tooth sales for drivers, booster seats for 8 year-olds, etc.

My humble advice: Think First
Link (new window)
 
2012-04-13 05:16:01 PM  

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


No, thank a drunk, on-duty cop: Link (new window)
 
2012-04-13 05:17:02 PM  
Nice, now all Chancellor Snyder's buddies in the Insurance business get to raise our rates because this is a higher risk state.

MMM, Tastes all freedomy!!!
 
2012-04-13 05:18:04 PM  
Is it too late for me to come in and say something before some dipshiat equates freedom and constitutional this-and-that with basic safety procedures?

Whoops. Guess not.
 
2012-04-13 05:20:47 PM  

timujin: 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 think referring to motorcycle enthusiasts as a-holes is valid in the sense that the bikes are universally tuned to be too loud.
 
2012-04-13 05:20:52 PM  

BigNumber12: 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.


So much this. I love people who are more eloquent than I am.



Except he missed the glaring problem with this which is that people ALSO expect us to not let people just die in the hospital, or be avoidably maimed, or to just be kicked out on the street in screaming pain with serious injuries because they're uninsured or underinsured for the care they need.

There is a real cost to the rest of us from the folks who choose to not wear helmets. The argument against these laws - which he himself just echoed - is that they are only hurting themselves by choosing to not wear a helmet.... but that is demonstrably false. It is a factual statement that their unwise choice imposes costs on the rest of society.

But hey, if you can figure out a way to firewall those costs off from everyone else, then I'm all in favor of letting Darwin sort it out. The problem is that no one actually does keep those costs separate, and that proposals to do so would horrify most people and thus not be tenable.

Just take a look at how actual facts intersect with this issue: (new window)
A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists' hospital bills would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.11

Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29
 
2012-04-13 05:21:51 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.


You would be surprised. A good friend of mine had new suspension on his bike and took it out for a whirl last summer. Around 75 the bike started vibrating badly and after a few seconds it swung to the side and then flipped over.

My friend ended up landing on his head then tumbling with the bike for a couple hundred feet. The bike's front end is flattened and the frame was bent at the middle. My friend had broken ribs, bad bruising, and no memory of the impact or first couple hours. His helmet looks like it was held against a belt sander for several minutes.

But a few months later and he was remarkably recovered. Had it not been for the helmet, and the probably the suit, he would either be dead or massively incapacitated.

So while it's true that a helmet isn't a magical force field around you, a helmet and proper suit will mitigate a tremendous portion of life-threatening injuries in most accidents. Quite the opposite of "isn't going to do shiat".
 
2012-04-13 05:29:27 PM  

dustygrimp: timujin: Again, you don't know many motorcyclists, do you? ...

I think referring to motorcycle enthusiasts as a-holes is valid in the sense that the bikes are universally tuned to be too loud.


As soon as you say anything is universal, you lose all credibility.
 
2012-04-13 05:31:00 PM  

RoxtarRyan: 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.


I crashed wearing a 3/4 helmet and luckily never introduced my face to the ground. Somehow I wound up rolling and skidding sideways for about 20 feet. Never realized I even hit my head until I looked at the helmet the next day.

Got a quarter-sized bit of road rash on my knee. My jeans were torn up and a mirror got scratched and that was the extent of damage (the shifter got bent but I bent it back lol)
 
2012-04-13 05:31:31 PM  
Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.

2. It's rarely the motorcycles acting like a-holes. It's the drivers on their cell phones, the moms with three screaming kids in the giant suv, or sometimes just an arrogant truck driver who thinks because he's bigger he has right of way.

3. Anyone who says motorcycle riders are naturally road kill/organ donors are ignorant of facts unless they've ever actually ridden one. You have much quicker reflexes in a motorcycle than you do in a car. That being said, speeding is the #1 cause of motorcycle deaths.

And 4... Cops always blame the motorcycle riders even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yes, that motorcycle rider was just ASKING for that semi to violate right of way and not give him enough time to stop.

I speak as someone who has both ridden bikes and lost someone who rode one. The end all be all is just be smart about it, helmet or no. Honestly without helmets I think riders might ride safer. But that's just my opinion.

/may we never forget Darren Russell Harris, taken from this world 6/12/08
 
2012-04-13 05:32:04 PM  

JohnBigBootay: 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.


That's the weird thing: most people I know who support helmet laws are not riders. But every rider I know wouldn't consider riding without a helmet (granted, I grew up and live in CA, where helmet laws have been in place for ages, so it's the norm for me and my friends).

IMO, if you want to ride without a helmet, go for it. Crashing sucks, even with a helmet. I've done it a few times, so I know. But I also know I won't feel your pain if you crash.
 
hej
2012-04-13 05:35:52 PM  

kiwimoogle84:
3. Anyone who says motorcycle riders are naturally road kill/organ donors are ignorant of facts unless they've ever actually ridden one.


I've ridden one, and I still think this. In fact, it was after I became interested in motorcycles that I developed this opinion.
 
2012-04-13 05:36:17 PM  

Texas Curmudgeon: dustygrimp: timujin: Again, you don't know many motorcyclists, do you? ...

I think referring to motorcycle enthusiasts as a-holes is valid in the sense that the bikes are universally tuned to be too loud.

As soon as you say anything is universal, you lose all credibility.


Not necessarily, this could be a pic of dustygrimp:
www.majhost.com
 
2012-04-13 05:36:43 PM  

Tumunga: /sometimes I just don't feel like wearing a helmet on my motorcycle.


That feeling is Darwin checking to see if you increase or decrease population fitness. Answer in your most honest way.
 
hej
2012-04-13 05:37:09 PM  

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


Yes. We can let the owners of said motorcycles ride around without a helmet on.
 
2012-04-13 05:38:25 PM  

Texas Curmudgeon: dustygrimp: timujin: Again, you don't know many motorcyclists, do you? ...

I think referring to motorcycle enthusiasts as a-holes is valid in the sense that the bikes are universally tuned to be too loud.

As soon as you say anything is universal, you lose all credibility.


Is that true in all cases?
 
2012-04-13 05:38:33 PM  

hej: kiwimoogle84:
3. Anyone who says motorcycle riders are naturally road kill/organ donors are ignorant of facts unless they've ever actually ridden one.

I've ridden one, and I still think this. In fact, it was after I became interested in motorcycles that I developed this opinion.


Oh I didn't say they weren't correct. I'm just saying that people who spout statistics and opinions about motorcycles without having ever ridden one are only privy to half the facts.
 
2012-04-13 05:38:49 PM  

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

So outlaw motorcycles.


This is why I joined the American Motorcyclist Association.

Also, CAR insurance rates do not go up unless drivers cause more accidents with helmetless riders. MOTORCYCLE insurance rates might if the data shows that there is an increase in motorcycle accident payout costs due to helmetless riders.
 
2012-04-13 05:39:57 PM  

ZenBrony: (Half helmet since my face isn't worth saving.)


My teeth and chin are still attached to my head for having worn a full face helmet.

:D

/other driver was at fault before the finger-waggers read ths
 
2012-04-13 05:40:51 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: That's the weird thing: most people I know who support helmet laws are not riders. But every rider I know wouldn't consider riding without a helmet (granted, I grew up and live in CA, where helmet laws have been in place for ages, so it's the norm for me and my friends).



One constant I've found over the years is that when people have the opportunity to put restrictions onto other people without it infringing on their own freedoms, they are all for it.
 
2012-04-13 05:42:02 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.



You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.
 
2012-04-13 05:42:29 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.


Don't insurance companies have to have a reason to increase rates? I didn't think they could do it because they THOUGHT their payouts might go up.
 
2012-04-13 05:43:48 PM  

MorePeasPlease: Mitch Taylor's Bro: That's the weird thing: most people I know who support helmet laws are not riders. But every rider I know wouldn't consider riding without a helmet (granted, I grew up and live in CA, where helmet laws have been in place for ages, so it's the norm for me and my friends).


One constant I've found over the years is that when people have the opportunity to put restrictions onto other people without it infringing on their own freedoms, they are all for it.



One constant I've found over the years is that when people have the opportunity to pass the costs of their own behavior on to other people they are all for it.
 
2012-04-13 05:44:38 PM  

mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.


You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.


I have actual data. It's called my husband dying in a motorcycle wreck without so much as a scratch on his brand new helmet. There wasn't any contact on his head or even above the shoulders. Had he not been wearing one, he would have died exactly the same way.

/sad story bro
 
2012-04-13 05:48:31 PM  

Znuh: /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.



Good post.

Like you, I also had to see a friend right after he got smacked into a barrier after losing control of his bike. When a mate lifted him up, his brains sagged out through the back of his skull.

It was a low-speed spill and he wasn't wearing a helmet.

The worst part is he 'survived' for a few years, if you consider being in a permanent vegetative state a form of survival.

RIP, Rev.
 
2012-04-13 05:48:57 PM  

mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.


You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.


Although perhaps I should have said in "some" cases the helmet doesn't do a damn thing, rather than "most". But other than that there wasn't a single shred of falsehood in what I said.
 
2012-04-13 05:51:41 PM  

kiwimoogle84: mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.


You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.

I have actual data. It's called my husband dying in a motorcycle wreck without so much as a scratch on his brand new helmet. There wasn't any contact on his head or even above the shoulders. Had he not been wearing one, he would have died exactly the same way.

/sad story bro


Truly sad (and I empathize - an ex girlfriend of mine was killed while riding on the back of her new boyfriend's bike.)
But, it should not be an all or nothing scenario. Head trauma is the most common life-threatening injury to motorcycle riders. Wearing a helmet, however, will not protect your life if you impale your heart with a tree branch.
Just becauase government doesn't prescribe a full set of armor, does not mean that riders should stop taking all precautions.
 
2012-04-13 05:53:01 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: 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.


Hi there, nice to meet you! My first accident was on a friend's bike. I knew how to ride a 125cc dirt bike, so I thought I could handle a Suzuki GS850. Well, I didn't know how to counter-steer, which is a key streetbike skill. One massive tankslapper later and I regained consciousness while sliding down the road. I must've hit my head pretty badly at about 50 MPH. The helmet was a mess. It was black to begin with and after I crashed, it was abraded on all sides and cracked in the back. I definitely would've broken my skull if I hadn't been wearing the helmet. And I still have scars on my hands and stomach from the road rash...and this was in December, 1984.
 
2012-04-13 05:54:44 PM  

highendmighty: kiwimoogle84: mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.


You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.

I have actual data. It's called my husband dying in a motorcycle wreck without so much as a scratch on his brand new helmet. There wasn't any contact on his head or even above the shoulders. Had he not been wearing one, he would have died exactly the same way.

/sad story bro

Truly sad (and I empathize - an ex girlfriend of mine was killed while riding on the back of her new boyfriend's bike.)
But, it should not be an all or nothing scenario. Head trauma is the most common life-threatening injury to motorcycle riders. Wearing a helmet, however, will not protect your life if you impale your heart with a tree branch.
Just becauase government doesn't prescribe a full set of armor, does not mean that riders should stop taking all precautions.


I never said all or nothing. I said "most" when I meant "some". And no, he hit the rear axel of a semi truck ribcage first and then lost a leg under the back tire. Helmet didn't do squat.

Sorry about your ex.
 
2012-04-13 05:56:43 PM  

mongbiohazard: One constant I've found over the years is that when people have the opportunity to pass the costs of their own behavior on to other people they are all for it.


To elaborate, in most of the conversations with folks I've had, even scenarios where they aren't on the hook for anything still aren't enough for them to curb their urge to legislate away other people's freedoms (as long as they remain unaffected, that is).

Trust me, I wish there was a logic to it.
 
2012-04-13 05:57:12 PM  
I took a rhino beetle to the face at 60kmh, with my visor up. It felt like I'd been punched in the face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFiOITXtRVM&feature=related

These guys may as well not even wear helmets. If they ride like that and come off, the helmet won't do much.
 
2012-04-13 06:00:27 PM  

jonny_q: 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.


Freak accidents happen. I saw a "for sale" posting on a motorcycle list I'm on that was caused by a low-speed "just going to test the bike" accident. The seller's father was doing some work on the bike and wanted to go for a quick spin around the neighborhood to test it. I don't think he made it down the block before hitting a patch of gravel that tossed him over the bike (called a "highside" crash) and he hit his head. Now he needs 24/7 medical care and obviously won't be needing the bike anymore. It's very sad, and again, a freak accident, but it can and does happen.
 
2012-04-13 06:01:03 PM  
t.qkme.me

D_S_W: I took a rhino beetle to the face at 60kmh, with my visor up. It felt like I'd been punched in the face.

 
2012-04-13 06:02:28 PM  
So when's the seat belt law being repealed?
 
2012-04-13 06:02:31 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Just becauase government doesn't prescribe a full set of armor, does not mean that riders should stop taking all precautions.

I never said all or nothing. I said "most" when I meant "some". And no, he hit the rear axel of a semi truck ribcage first and then lost a leg under the back tire. Helmet didn't do squat.

Sorry about your ex.


I hear you. I went a little hyperbolic with the suit of armor comment. I am sorry for your loss, too, and wish you peace.
 
2012-04-13 06:08:43 PM  

highendmighty: kiwimoogle84: Just becauase government doesn't prescribe a full set of armor, does not mean that riders should stop taking all precautions.

I never said all or nothing. I said "most" when I meant "some". And no, he hit the rear axel of a semi truck ribcage first and then lost a leg under the back tire. Helmet didn't do squat.

Sorry about your ex.

I hear you. I went a little hyperbolic with the suit of armor comment. I am sorry for your loss, too, and wish you peace.


I understand. But after all that I'm taking the safest course possible... Four doors and a steering wheel. That way I'll never have to worry and my mom's blood pressure has improved considerably :)
 
2012-04-13 06:13:00 PM  
While I think it cool that she did ride, I'm kinda glad my girlfriend stopped riding years ago. I like her in this world, with me.

Motorcycles are cool, until they're not.
 
2012-04-13 06:13:10 PM  

MorePeasPlease: Mitch Taylor's Bro: That's the weird thing: most people I know who support helmet laws are not riders. But every rider I know wouldn't consider riding without a helmet (granted, I grew up and live in CA, where helmet laws have been in place for ages, so it's the norm for me and my friends).


One constant I've found over the years is that when people have the opportunity to put restrictions onto other people without it infringing on their own freedoms, they are all for it.


This is often true.
 
2012-04-13 06:16:49 PM  

ZeroCorpse: While I think it cool that she did ride, I'm kinda glad my girlfriend stopped riding years ago. I like her in this world, with me.

Motorcycles are cool, until they're not.


This. Truer words have never been spoken.
 
2012-04-13 06:17:50 PM  
The problem is that the majority of people don't look at personal risk the right way. When you "bet" something you should only do so if you're willing to lose what you, not because you don't think you're going to lose. In contrast, most people riding without a helmet aren't thinking "I don't mind being a quadriplegic" but are thinking "it won't happen to me". This means they are NOT actually accepting the risk, but rather they are ignoring it.

Basically, I suggest you should only be allowed to ride without a helmet if you are a personal care-giver for someone who is permanently disabled from a motorcycle accident. It's the only way to prove you understand and actually accept the risk.

Anyway, my point is you can only claim to accept a risk if you are willing to accept the loss, not just that you think it won't happen.
 
2012-04-13 06:19:43 PM  
So, helmet prices set to drop in Michigan then.

/30 year helmeted rider.
//R1100R
 
2012-04-13 06:22:14 PM  

wedding vegetables: 2. there's a free-market solution to this: insurance companies (life, health, or motorcycle, or even all three) saying "if you don't wear a helmet, we don't cover you in a crash." they might already do this, I dunno. but the idea of not having the bike replaced, being on the hook for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills, or my survivors getting nothing if I kick it, seems like it would override the need to feel the wind in your hair. (what are you, a dog?)


that doesn't really work. If they don't have insurance they get treated anyways then someone has to pay the bill when they fail to do it themselves. What would work is proof of insurance or pay up front for treatment or you don't get treated, but some people have a problem with that.
 
2012-04-13 06:27:02 PM  

kiwimoogle84: mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.


You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.

I have actual data. It's called my husband dying in a motorcycle wreck without so much as a scratch on his brand new helmet. There wasn't any contact on his head or even above the shoulders. Had he not been wearing one, he would have died exactly the same way.

/sad story bro


No you don't.

One time I was hanging out with my friends when one of them called shotgun when we were getting into the car. I raised my arms skyward and yelled "Give me lightning for my fury!". Right at that moment a great peal of thunder shook the sky. Were I to follow your logic that would mean that there would be a good chance of that happening every time I did the same thing (or am Jewish Thor), when in reality it was just an unlikely confluence of events.

Tragic as it is, a single event is an anecdote and NOT data that public policy or informed safety decisions should be based on. Helmets make motorcycle riders demonstrably more safe by a significant margin AND reduce the costs that those who ride without them tend to impose on the rest of society. The link I just provided is based off of real data, thoroughly and professionally analyzed. Click the link if you're not afraid of informing yourself and replacing misinformation with facts.
 
2012-04-13 06:32:22 PM  

MorePeasPlease: mongbiohazard: One constant I've found over the years is that when people have the opportunity to pass the costs of their own behavior on to other people they are all for it.

To elaborate, in most of the conversations with folks I've had, even scenarios where they aren't on the hook for anything still aren't enough for them to curb their urge to legislate away other people's freedoms (as long as they remain unaffected, that is).

Trust me, I wish there was a logic to it.



Human nature has its ugly aspects.... Personally I couldn't give a shiat what other people want to do if it doesn't affect me, but not everyone is like that.
 
2012-04-13 06:35:37 PM  

mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Did not RTFA or RTFT, but I just came here to say three things...

1. You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck. The helmet doesn't help a damn thing in most cases.


You really should have, because right out of the gate you let loose a giant falsehood that has been factually refuted by numerous links to actual data in this thread.

If you'd like actual information a fellow Farker provided this excellent link (new window) upthread.

I have actual data. It's called my husband dying in a motorcycle wreck without so much as a scratch on his brand new helmet. There wasn't any contact on his head or even above the shoulders. Had he not been wearing one, he would have died exactly the same way.

/sad story bro

No you don't.

One time I was hanging out with my friends when one of them called shotgun when we were getting into the car. I raised my arms skyward and yelled "Give me lightning for my fury!". Right at that moment a great peal of thunder shook the sky. Were I to follow your logic that would mean that there would be a good chance of that happening every time I did the same thing (or am Jewish Thor), when in reality it was just an unlikely confluence of events.

Tragic as it is, a single event is an anecdote and NOT data that public policy or informed safety decisions should be based on. Helmets make motorcycle riders demonstrably more safe by a significant margin AND reduce the costs that those who ride without them tend to impose on the rest of society. The link I just provided is based off of real data, thoroughly and professionally analyzed. Click the link if you're not afraid of informing yourself and replacing misinformation with facts.


Ok, you clearly misunderstand me completely.

I NEVER SAID that a single event constituted 100% of occurrences. I said "You can have a perfectly good helmet and still die of blunt force trauma in a motorcycle wreck." I didn't say it happened every time.

Also, you seem to think I'm advocating no helmet law. That's completely absurd. I am all for helmets. My point is simply that you can die and the helmet vs not wearing a helmet isn't even a factor.

I've read all the studies. I've done my research. Believe me, were you ever in my shoes, you would know long nights hunched over studies and statistics and police reconstruction reports. I'm not speaking out of my arse.

I didn't even spout facts or statistics and everyone is acting like I did.

All I said is that you can't count on a helmet to save you when there are so many variables to how you can die in a wreck.
 
2012-04-13 06:39:18 PM  
Basically, the only thing I AM saying with 100% certainly is that there is no sure fire way to prevent dying in a motorcycle wreck besides not riding one at all. I want people to wear helmets. And I think they should wear riding jackets with reinforced titanium plates too. But every summer there's a jackass in a t shirt and shorts riding along.

If you ride, understand that no matter what there's a risk. I always wore a helmet and jacket and full jeans even in California summers. I've laid my bike down a time or two. I understood the risk I took. My rule of thumb is just be smart about it, helmet or no helmet.
 
2012-04-13 06:40:21 PM  
Shouldn't it have been the Organ Donation Act?

/I'll take a liver, thanks
//loud pipes are for douchebags and old fat guys with tiny dicks, they don't save lives.
 
2012-04-13 06:40:24 PM  
They tried to do this here in Nebraska last year, with an addition: higher insurance rates for all motorcyclists to offset the cost of adding vegetables to the healthcare system.

It didn't pass, namely because its a load of crap for my rates to spike even though I'll always wear a helmet (and jacket/pants/gloves/footwear).
 
2012-04-13 06:40:56 PM  
This interests me because I have a hard time seeing how this would make insurance rates GO UP.
If anything, I think this would make insurance rates go down.


-Motorcycle crashes result in injuries.
-Helmetless crashes result in more deaths than helmeted crashes (maybe).
-Funerals are cheaper than medical bills (and not necessarily covered by auto insurance).

So the main question is:

Does the increased severity of injury from helmetless crashes cross the threshold to result in death, or just greater medical need?

Another question is:

Does the absence of a helmet increase the likelihood of a crash, or is it irrelevant?


Now that I've stated my hypothesis, I'll get the data.
 
2012-04-13 06:42:12 PM  
The only problem I have with this law is that if I accidentally run your fool ass over and you splatter all over the pavement, you have a better chance of being seriously damaged or killed without a helmet. That means I can be in deeper shiat because of your stupidity.

Luckily, in Ohio, motorcyclists are only allowed to buy Harley's with no mufflers, so you can hear them from 2 counties away.

/why yes, that is sarcasm
 
2012-04-13 06:47:41 PM  

JBangworthy: This interests me because I have a hard time seeing how this would make insurance rates GO UP.
If anything, I think this would make insurance rates go down.


-Motorcycle crashes result in injuries.
-Helmetless crashes result in more deaths than helmeted crashes (maybe).
-Funerals are cheaper than medical bills (and not necessarily covered by auto insurance).



Can we get motorcyclists to wear some sort of device that guarantees death in the event of a serious crash? Some sort of collar made out of C-4 and razor blades?
 
2012-04-13 06:48:38 PM  

BigNumber12: JBangworthy: This interests me because I have a hard time seeing how this would make insurance rates GO UP.
If anything, I think this would make insurance rates go down.


-Motorcycle crashes result in injuries.
-Helmetless crashes result in more deaths than helmeted crashes (maybe).
-Funerals are cheaper than medical bills (and not necessarily covered by auto insurance).


Can we get motorcyclists to wear some sort of device that guarantees death in the event of a serious crash? Some sort of collar made out of C-4 and razor blades?


That's harsh. Truly. Often it's not their fault.
 
2012-04-13 06:57:32 PM  

maxheck: I'd say anyone who fights "wear a goddamn helmet" laws is someone who has never been in an accident with a car no matter who was at fault.


I've been in one and I still say riders should be able to choose to be stupid. This isn't something we need a law for.
 
2012-04-13 07:00:53 PM  
Better known as "Solving the Organ Donor shortage Act of 2012" .

/in the ER, they call helmetless motorbike riders organ donors
 
2012-04-13 07:09:43 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Also, you seem to think I'm advocating no helmet law. That's completely absurd. I am all for helmets. My point is simply that you can die and the helmet vs not wearing a helmet isn't even a factor.



Hmmnnn.... I wonder where I could have gotten that impression?


kiwimoogle84: Honestly without helmets I think riders might ride safer. But that's just my opinion.



And that it's "not a factor" is a demonstrably false statement. (new window) I would expect someone who had poured over the relevant statistics to know this.


How effective are helmets?
Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care. They are designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets cannot provide total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the incidence of both. NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.2 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.3 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.2 A recent literature review estimated that helmets are 42 percent effective at preventing death and 69 percent effective at preventing head injuries.4 While no real-world crash studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of novelty helmets, or helmets that do not meet federal performance standards for preventing injury or death, NHTSA laboratory tests suggest that head injuries are much more likely with these helmets than with ones certified to the U.S. Department of Transportation standard.5 A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of different styles of helmets, including half-coverage, open-face, and full-face.6 Crash-involved riders wearing half-coverage helmets were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than riders wearing open-face or full-face helmets.



It's most certainly a factor. One of the most important factors, in fact.
 
2012-04-13 07:10:10 PM  

Callous: Do the needful: Callous: Arctic Phoenix: 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

Same here. Considering all the stuff I hear bounce off my helmet I really don't like the idea of all that hitting me in the face.

So I was on my Goldwing this last weekend and it has a vent in the middle of the windshield. Well it's spring and the bugs are out in force. I hit something that evidently was orange inside, because it nailed the vent dead center. At 70mph a slotted hole is like a juicer, and this thing was huge. I basically got a bug gut shower. The worst part was the taste.

/Owns an evil sport bike as well.

Had a June bug hit me in the neck once(hurt like hell) on the highway and the guts were running down my chest. I keep my chin down now.


Those little farkers HURT! My own fault. It was such a beautiful day that I went out without the leathers, though I did wear a helmet.
 
2012-04-13 07:11:59 PM  
And since when is it anyone's business but my own whether I wear a helmet or not?

Your safety does not increase by a single percentage point if I wear the helmet; it does not decrease by a single percentage point if I do not.

The same holds true for seat belts, nobody's business but your own.

I concede: The Workers' Collective loses the value of your labor if you are in an accident, but the solution here is simple: Just abolish the Workers' Collective.

These fatass bureaucrats who have nothing better to do should all go out and get real jobs.
 
2012-04-13 07:12:05 PM  

Yaxe: Better known as "Solving the Organ Donor shortage Act of 2012" .

/in the ER, they call helmetless motorbike riders organ donors


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-13 07:13:47 PM  
My favorite is seeing some idiot child riding a crotch-rocket wearing shorts, sneakers and no helmet.

They'll learn, eventually. Probably with much sadness and P.T.
 
2012-04-13 07:14:42 PM  
Here in Austin, TX, helmets are required for bicycles but not for motorcycles.

I actually broke a bicycle helmet on a tree about a year ago, therefore I'm able to type this sentence instead of nourishing grass and trees.
 
2012-04-13 07:15:53 PM  

mongbiohazard: kiwimoogle84: Also, you seem to think I'm advocating no helmet law. That's completely absurd. I am all for helmets. My point is simply that you can die and the helmet vs not wearing a helmet isn't even a factor.


Hmmnnn.... I wonder where I could have gotten that impression?


kiwimoogle84: Honestly without helmets I think riders might ride safer. But that's just my opinion.


And that it's "not a factor" is a demonstrably false statement. (new window) I would expect someone who had poured over the relevant statistics to know this.


How effective are helmets?
Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care. They are designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets cannot provide total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the incidence of both. NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.2 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.3 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.2 A recent literature review estimated that helmets are 42 percent effective at preventing death and 69 percent effective at preventing head injuries.4 While no real-world crash studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of novelty helmets, or helmets that do not meet federal performance standards for preventing injury or death, NHTSA laboratory tests suggest that head injuries are much more likely with these helmets than with ones certified to the U.S. Department of Transportation standard.5 A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of different styles of helmets, including half-coverage, op ...


In some accidents, as I stated, the wearing of a helmet isn't a factor in how the person died. I'm not saying it happens often. What you seem to be doing is taking everything I say and making it a black or white statement. When I say "not a factor", I mean in those specific instances. Like my late husband's, and others I have researched. There IS no all or nothing. Dramatically reduce the likelihood, yes. Prevent it completely, no. So how about you stop antagonizing everything I say when I am clearly referring to very specific instances in which the helmet does absolutely nothing to prevent a fatality.
 
2012-04-13 07:16:14 PM  
They're called donorcycles for a reason. Brilliant way to increase the availability of organs.
 
2012-04-13 07:18:00 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.


While I haven't taken a huge bug to the face, I have taken smaller ones, and it hurts, but not enough to lose control. Rain pelting you at 60mph stings pretty bad too, so I bought a face shield that attaches to my half helmet for when I ride on the highways.
 
2012-04-13 07:24:37 PM  
olddinosaur:

And since when is it anyone's business but my own whether I wear a helmet or not?

How much insurance do you have, and do you have DNR tattooed on your chest?
 
2012-04-13 07:29:34 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.


That's because the Federal government doesn't bribe states with highway funds to pass helmet laws.
 
2012-04-13 07:38:36 PM  
Anyway. My only argument is that if your ribcage gets crushed or your leg gets ripped off, a helmet won't save you.

/exiting thread
 
2012-04-13 07:47:41 PM  
The only reason I'm in favor of helmet laws is so my dumbass friends and family (who I still love dearly) who take up motorcycling and squid it up like all new young riders do, are forced to at least wear that one piece of PPE.
 
2012-04-13 07:58:31 PM  
First of all it is not just rider responsibility, it is the taxpayers and insurance companies, that have to anti up more money to support those institutions that take care of riders dumb enough to ride without one.

However I have mixed feelings about the law. While the helmet laws do save lives and prevent more serious injuries, it protects those riders from serious injuries that would rather not wear them That is unfortunate since most of these riders are male, under 25 and think they are invincible. It is precisely these riders who should get the Darwin Award for being that stupid so that hopefully they will not be able to pass on their genes to future generations.

I also know off a sure cure for those that do not believe in helmets. Just have them stand witness in the ER when a helmet-less body comes in DOA with they head stopping at the top of their eyelids with whatever is left of their brain oozing out onto the stretcher.

At the same time visualize the coroner scraping up the parts of the brain and scull with a spatula into a plastic bag at the accident scene. Please take it from someone who has seen this. It is not a pretty sight having witnessed it in an ER when working as a medical technician.

So while those who feel that to wear or not wear a helmet should be one's choice and responsibility, that thought should also include the impact it has on others who have to clean up the mess you have left behind.
 
2012-04-13 07:58:51 PM  

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


If you ride on top of your car you don't need a seat belt.

Also, here in Illinois there are no helmet laws, but most people wear them anyhow. The only guy I know of that died from not wearing a helmet would have died with a full body armor plated vest as well. When you get the bike up to 80 mph and stand up on the seat every day not touching the handlebars after leaving work it will catch up to you at some point.
 
2012-04-13 07:59:52 PM  
It's like cars provide a magical barrier and never get in wrecks, much less have occupants with injuries. Are you people reading the shiat you are writing?
 
2012-04-13 08:01:15 PM  

Tumunga: If helmets save lives, and you think the government should make motorcycle riders wear helmets, should people driving/riding in cars be required to wear helmets as well? How many people die in car accidents due to some sort of head trauma?


You mean like if the government were to make side-impact airbags a requirement? Like they're doing in 2013+ models? (new window)

In a car you have a government mandated headrest requirement, front impact airbag requirement, and now side airbag requirement. I don't think a helmet is required in that kind of environment.
 
2012-04-13 08:02:03 PM  
JesseL:

maxheck: I'd say anyone who fights "wear a goddamn helmet" laws is someone who has never been in an accident with a car no matter who was at fault.

I've been in one and I still say riders should be able to choose to be stupid. This isn't something we need a law for.


Stupidity isn't a crime, but it does cause damage sometimes. I laid out what *I* thought was a reasonable solution... Be an organ donor and have a signed Do Not Resuscitate.

As has been pointed out several times with NHTSA stats and anecdotes from anyone who has ever ridden bikes, bikers get farked up more often than most and helmets prevent some of the worst of it ranging from the slightly tetched like my friend A. to the full Terri Schiavo.

But here is where it affects me:

You show up at an emergency room without insurance and subsequently go full vegetable? That's on my dime.

Be a dear and get "Do Not Resuscitate" tattooed on your chest before indulging your "Born To Be Wild" crap.
 
2012-04-13 08:03:47 PM  
Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.
 
2012-04-13 08:04:08 PM  

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

If you ride on top of your car you don't need a seat belt.


Yeah, but what kind of dumbshiat would even entertain the idea of crawling around on the outside of a vehicle moving at a high rate of speed?
 
2012-04-13 08:04:44 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)


The study doesn't account for number of motorcyclists. Granted, the data they need isn't available via FARS. The motorcycle death rate per 10k vehicles means absolutely nothing with respect to helmets. Even if you look at pre law repeal and post law repeal. Because you don't know the total number of motorcyclists. If it had been death rate per 10k motorcycles, or death rate per 100000 licensed motorcyclists you'd be closer. But even then there are A LOT of motorcyclists who aren't licensed.
 
2012-04-13 08:07:56 PM  

I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.


You sir, are a douchebag. Lane filtering is legal in Cali. Also, what had you "finally had enough" of? Perhaps you should see a psychologist and get that road rage checked out.
 
2012-04-13 08:10:53 PM  
It always safer to wear a helmet. In the same way its always safer to wear a condom.
Ive been riding longer than I havnt and a helmet saved my life. Anyone who tells you that helmets are a menace doesnt know what they are talking about.

Loud pipes dont save lives but they sound awesome.
Helmets dont obscure vision but they remove one of the best parts of riding.
Going faster than traffic keeps you safer but opens you up to tickets.

The thing that comes often when people talk about riders is that crazy ass who came out of no where and cut them off. He probably didnt come from no where, the driver just never saw him until he passed by their fixed to the front stare.
 
2012-04-13 08:11:08 PM  

I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.


Dude, you're an asshole. Lane splitting like that is totally legal in California - especially during periods of heavy traffic. Even the California Highway Patrol's own webpage says it's cool. Link (new window)
 
2012-04-13 08:15:05 PM  
Fark on helmet laws: "The taxpayers and insurance payers don't want to have to pay for your stupidity! Wear a helmet already!"

Fark on drug testing welfare recipients: "Toke it up! We'll gladly pay for your ER visits via higher taxes when you have a panic/heart attack from that killer hydro/crack you smoked! We also don't care about the increased healthcare costs you cause, either!"

I bought a motorcycle helmet just because I facepalm so hard around here these days.
 
2012-04-13 08:17:48 PM  

FourBlackBars: Loud pipes dont save lives but they sound awesome.


To you maybe. Get yourself a pipe amplifier app for your iPhone and pump it into your own helmet, let everyone else enjoy their peace.
 
2012-04-13 08:21:52 PM  

MrSteve007: I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.

Dude, you're an asshole. Lane splitting like that is totally legal in California - especially during periods of heavy traffic. Even the California Highway Patrol's own webpage says it's cool. Link (new window)


Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.

Thats all fine and dandy, but these assholes were not by any means being safe and/or prudent about it. The guy that creamed out was one of the slow ones. Now if he was about half that speed, no problem. Everyone was stopped and bikes go screaming by at 30, 40mph, I got a problem with that. What if some half blind and deaf old lady decides to open her car door for some reason just as asshole is comming by, don't tell me they aren;t on the road, we all know they are.
 
2012-04-13 08:24:29 PM  
For anyone who is fiercely against helmets...

Have you ever seen what happens when someone lays a bike down? The head goes BONKBONKBONKBONK up and down.

Thankfully I've only seen that once and that person was.... wait for it... Wearing a helmet. And survived with a bit of road rash. And a limp.
 
2012-04-13 08:24:37 PM  
I'll just leave this here (pops, you tube, cool)
 
2012-04-13 08:24:44 PM  

I agree with you: MrSteve007: I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.

Dude, you're an asshole. Lane splitting like that is totally legal in California - especially during periods of heavy traffic. Even the California Highway Patrol's own webpage says it's cool. Link (new window)

Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.

Thats all fine and dandy, but these assholes were not by any means being safe and/or prudent about it. The guy that creamed out was one of the slow ones. Now if he was about half that speed, no problem. Everyone was stopped and bikes go screaming by at 30, 40mph, I got a problem with that. What if some half blind and deaf old lady decides to open her car door for some reason just as asshole is comming by, don't tell me they aren;t on the road, we all know they are.


You're either a troll or a complete dick with control issues. Either way, go fark yourself.
 
2012-04-13 08:33:19 PM  

rickycal78: I agree with you: MrSteve007: I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.

Dude, you're an asshole. Lane splitting like that is totally legal in California - especially during periods of heavy traffic. Even the California Highway Patrol's own webpage says it's cool. Link (new window)

Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.

Thats all fine and dandy, but these assholes were not by any means being safe and/or prudent about it. The guy that creamed out was one of the slow ones. Now if he was about half that speed, no problem. Everyone was stopped and bikes go screaming by at 30, 40mph, I got a problem with that. What if some half blind and deaf old lady decides to open her car door for some reason just as asshole is comming by, don't tell me they aren;t on the road, we all know they are.

You're either a troll or a complete dick with control issues. Either way, go fark yourself.


I'll take complete dick with control issues, and damn proud of it skippy.
 
2012-04-13 08:35:04 PM  
I love reinventing the wheel laws like this and 'stand your ground'.
 
2012-04-13 08:36:24 PM  
It will thin the herd and provide organs for sick people.
 
2012-04-13 08:37:21 PM  

I agree with you:

Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?



Yeah you okie dumbass, they can exactly do that. And when yr stopped in traffic and a bike goes by at 20 it looks like 40. You must be a real ugly and ignorant jerk off to try and kill a person because you dont approve of how they are driving.
 
2012-04-13 08:39:07 PM  
Astounding how many people in here don't care for their freedom.
 
2012-04-13 08:42:59 PM  

maxheck: For anyone who is fiercely against helmets...


You seem to be having a hard time grasping the difference between opposing helmets and opposing helmet laws.
 
2012-04-13 08:43:52 PM  

FourBlackBars: I agree with you:

Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?



Yeah you okie dumbass, they can exactly do that. And when yr stopped in traffic and a bike goes by at 20 it looks like 40. You must be a real ugly and ignorant jerk off to try and kill a person because you dont approve of how they are driving.


Welcome to Fark, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. And you are, an asshole. Just my opinion of course.
 
2012-04-13 08:56:03 PM  
We should make all motorcyclists wear pillows and body armor, honestly, they wont hurt anyone else if they die, not sure why fark forums is getting all butthurt over this.
 
2012-04-13 09:05:58 PM  
I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.
 
2012-04-13 09:16:50 PM  
I see the end result of a lot of motorcycle fatalities. Helmets don't seem to help much. The words "internal hemorrhaging" and "blunt force trauma" seem to come up often.
 
2012-04-13 09:21:19 PM  

Do the needful: I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.


99% of the time what I observe is drivers of larger vehicles, pickups, SUVs will actually get off the lane lines when they see a motorcycle approaching from the rear to make room to allow for safe filtering. Locals and long time residents to CA are so used to motorcycles filtering traffic that it's a non-issue that nobody really gets bent about it any more. You'd have to be some inbread gap-toothed sister-farking hillbilly from some tornado-State to get all wharrgarbl and neckveined about motorcyclists in CA lanesharing.
 
2012-04-13 09:24:13 PM  
Wearing a helmet is actually a bad thing and more likely to get you killed:
1. In a certain amount of accidents a helmet will help you. In a certain amount of accidents a helmet will hurt you. In a certain amount of accidents a helmet makes no differance,

We all know people who's life was saved by wearing a helmet, including myself so this needs no further arguement

How does a helmet hurt you? Here is 3 ways but there are others. The bouncing affect of your brain striking both sides of your skull as the helmet causes your head to bounce. Instead of one trauma to the brain you have multiple trauma's. The hangmans noose effect. The full face helmets so many wear snap your spine when the lower front strikes and pushes your head up and back. The injury is worsened by the helmet removal after an accident.

When does a helmet make no differance? When the accident was such that you where going to walk away or die due to the nature of the accident. 90 mph into an oak tree, die. Gravel on road where the bike slides out from under you and your head doesnt hit anything as you slide, walk away.

Now taking into account that 90% of all posted statistics on the internet came straight out of the posters ass...here is the math. 25% of the time a helmet will help. 25% of the time a helmet will hurt. 50% of the time a helmet makes no differance.

so

Someone who wants to wear a helmet can say 75% of the time wearing a helmet will help or not hurt... At the same time someone who doesn't want to wear a helmet can say 75% of the time wearing a helmet will hurt you or make no differance.

2. Wearing a helmet will make it more likely that you will be in an accident.

Helmets increase the size of your head, think lollipop. This causes it to act like a sail as you ride down the road. The faster you ride the larger the sail affect. This puts strain on your neck causing fatigue. To make it worse when you look left or right while riding down the road the sail dimensions increase. This is like someone pushing on your head each time you turn to check for traffic. Those of you who ride can confirm this. What happens aside from fatigue which is enough to increase your chance of an accident. You also start to rely on your mirrors more and more. At the start of a ride your turning your head to check for traffic a lot more than once your on the road for awhile. Less turning your head means more chance of an accident.

Helmets make it hard to hear. You can't hear trouble with your bike. You can't hear sirens and horns. You can't hear traffic squels and cars trumpeting towards you. The more protective the helmet the harder it is to hear. This makes it more likely to get into an accident.

Helmets make it hard to see. Your side vision is reduced, You have to turn your head to take in what you would normally be able to see while looking straight. The more protective the helmet the harder it is to see. This makes it more likely to get into an accident.

For all these reason it is illigal to wear a helmet in a car on public roads in most states.... OMG you didn't know that huh. If helmets are so safe why not require car operators to wear them... The reason is because your more likely to get into an accident, due to the reason I listed. Why do they require professionals racing to wear a helmet then?... Because those are closed courses where everyone is going in the same direction. You don't have to watch out for bouncing balls with kids chasing them into the street. You dont have to watch out for cop sirens, etc...

For those of you who like to compare helmet laws to seatbelt laws. Wearing a seatbelt does not make it more likely to get in an accident. Wearing a helmet does.

Prior to the helmet law passage in california. Motercycles deaths where on there way down due to motercycle training and efforts to increase auto driver awareness of motercycle riders. This was with an increase of new motercycle registrations. After the laws passage motorcycle sales decline, aka less new riders on the road and the death toll did not decrease

sorry for the long post
 
2012-04-13 09:26:19 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.




Libs have never been able to understand or value freedom and individuality. (or economics, as they prove so often)

But I'm sure being a weak minded ultra conformist is right for you.
 
2012-04-13 09:27:10 PM  

Do the needful: I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.


Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you were there.
 
2012-04-13 09:29:11 PM  

sokalis: Helmets make it hard to see. Your side vision is reduced, You have to turn your head to take in what you would normally be able to see while looking straight. The more protective the helmet the harder it is to see. This makes it more likely to get into an accident.


That line right there is what confirmed what I already suspected from the start of your post. Either your post was a pile of shiat and you don't know what you're talking about, or you wear/have worn improperly fitted or poorly made helmets.
 
2012-04-13 09:34:09 PM  

moike: Do the needful: I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.

You'd have to be some inbread gap-toothed sister-farking hillbilly from some tornado-State to get all wharrgarbl and neckveined about motorcyclists in CA lanesharing.


I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNA2HATZ6pg&feature=youtube_gdata_play e r
 
2012-04-13 09:39:16 PM  

rickycal78: sokalis: Helmets make it hard to see. Your side vision is reduced, You have to turn your head to take in what you would normally be able to see while looking straight. The more protective the helmet the harder it is to see. This makes it more likely to get into an accident.

That line right there is what confirmed what I already suspected from the start of your post. Either your post was a pile of shiat and you don't know what you're talking about, or you wear/have worn improperly fitted or poorly made helmets.


Put a dot on a wall in front of your desk and look straight at it. Without moving your eyes or turning your head how much of whats beside you can you see. Now put on a full face helmet and look at the same dot. without turning your head or eyes how much of the side can you see.... If you say the same then I guess I'm done with you because your a liar..
 
2012-04-13 09:41:05 PM  

I agree with you: Do the needful: I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you were there.


I will bet I was there. I do have a video on youtube (same name). The thing about this is, if it makes you so upset having to sit in traffic (which is like being pissed because the sun rises) in California, then get your own motorcycle and hit the road. It's an open club, everyone is invited. But to come on and brag about attempting murder just isn't cool.
 
2012-04-13 09:41:28 PM  

I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.



So according to your own recount all the motorcyclists were passing by just fine without any collisions except for the one you deliberately set up to crash into innocent motorist.

Well struck, Dog!

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-13 09:42:11 PM  

I agree with you: moike: Do the needful: I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.

You'd have to be some inbread gap-toothed sister-farking hillbilly from some tornado-State to get all wharrgarbl and neckveined about motorcyclists in CA lanesharing.

I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNA2HATZ6pg&feature=youtube_gdata_play e r


So you decided to be a total ass and actively try to injure someone that was already being stupid. We got that part already. You can try to justify being a jackass all you want, but you're still a prick that's just as much of a danger to others as folks riding dangerously.

Seriously, what kind of farked up tard has a mind that says, "Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?
 
2012-04-13 09:45:10 PM  

sokalis: rickycal78: sokalis: Helmets make it hard to see. Your side vision is reduced, You have to turn your head to take in what you would normally be able to see while looking straight. The more protective the helmet the harder it is to see. This makes it more likely to get into an accident.

That line right there is what confirmed what I already suspected from the start of your post. Either your post was a pile of shiat and you don't know what you're talking about, or you wear/have worn improperly fitted or poorly made helmets.

Put a dot on a wall in front of your desk and look straight at it. Without moving your eyes or turning your head how much of whats beside you can you see. Now put on a full face helmet and look at the same dot. without turning your head or eyes how much of the side can you see.... If you say the same then I guess I'm done with you because your a liar..


Then you're done with me.
 
2012-04-13 09:46:19 PM  

moike: Do the needful: I agree with you - I will agree with the others that you and your wife are a total pair of douches. The only thing that makes me think you are totally full of shiat is that I split lanes for years in CA and never hit a single car. A dumbass like you would have only moved me to the other lane. Guys who split lanes don't just run into cars because someone has pulled over.

99% of the time what I observe is drivers of larger vehicles, pickups, SUVs will actually get off the lane lines when they see a motorcycle approaching from the rear to make room to allow for safe filtering. Locals and long time residents to CA are so used to motorcycles filtering traffic that it's a non-issue that nobody really gets bent about it any more. You'd have to be some inbread gap-toothed sister-farking hillbilly from some tornado-State to get all wharrgarbl and neckveined about motorcyclists in CA lanesharing.


In the years that I split lanes only once did I ever have someone try something like this, and it was a pair of cars who I saw motion to each other as I approached. As I got close they pulled together to box me in. I stopped and looked over at the driver next to me. He was laughing. I however got the last laugh as a minute later the traffic started moving, and we started to go. His window was down, and I scooted over a little closer to his car pulled in the clutch and bounced my engine off the redline. My exhaust was on the same side of the bike as his open window. Other cars were giving me thumbs up as I pulled away.
 
2012-04-13 09:56:45 PM  

rickycal78: I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

"Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?


------------------------------------
Well I'm glad you finally see things my way, there isn't that better now.
 
2012-04-13 09:58:52 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 Governor in question:


i909.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-13 09:59:53 PM  

I agree with you: rickycal78: I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

"Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?

------------------------------------
Well I'm glad you finally see things my way, there isn't that better now.


So trolling, got it. Don't you feel all cool now that you finally got people to respond to you on the internet the way mommy and daddy never did?
 
2012-04-13 10:09:02 PM  

rickycal78: I agree with you: rickycal78: I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

"Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?

------------------------------------
Well I'm glad you finally see things my way, there isn't that better now.

So trolling, got it. Don't you feel all cool now that you finally got people to respond to you on the internet the way mommy and daddy never did?


shiat, no trolling. This is honestly how I feel about this.
If a biker was on trial for something stupid, oh lets say weaving in and out of traffic, and caused an accident (and killed someone) because of it, I would not side with the biker. Just because they can change lanes rapidely or share lanes.
 
2012-04-13 10:11:30 PM  

I agree with you: rickycal78: I agree with you: rickycal78: I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

"Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?

------------------------------------
Well I'm glad you finally see things my way, there isn't that better now.

So trolling, got it. Don't you feel all cool now that you finally got people to respond to you on the internet the way mommy and daddy never did?

shiat, no trolling. This is honestly how I feel about this.
If a biker was on trial for something stupid, oh lets say weaving in and out of traffic, and caused an accident (and killed someone) because of it, I would not side with the biker. Just because they can change lanes rapidely or share lanes.


Bait's been nibbled off the line bub. All you got left is a hook in the water.
 
2012-04-13 10:31:28 PM  

I agree with you:
I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNA2HATZ6pg&feature=youtube_gdata_play e r


You ever think that maybe what you consider 'dangerous and unsafe' is someone else's 'milk run' pace because they've developed the skill set and situational awareness that comes from practice and practical experience?

I can toss a full blown F1 rig into a corner on the track at 170 miles per hour... sideways... while totally relaxed and singing Wu Tang songs in my helmet. Can everybody do this? No, but I've developed the skills to be able to do so with lots and lots of practice and practical experience. Most people would think the shiat I'm able to make vehicles do beyond the laws of physics, but it's all just experience and training.

A good lanesharing motorcyclist can read vehicles like a surfer reads waves, knows where the danger spots are when lanesharing, and can do so at what you most likely consider an 'insane' pace. My 20 years of practical lanesharing experience in California without incident backs that statement up.

And that video is of an idiot in Russia driving a good 50 to 100 miles per hour faster than surrounding traffic and is in no way representative of the '20+ miles per hour' you originally stated in your post that motorcycles were passing you at. So that video just goes to prove you're full of shiat.

Now get back to the moonshine still in your tornado bunker you fat unwashed hill scoggin before I kick you in the farking chin circumcising your father in the process.
 
2012-04-13 10:47:49 PM  

I agree with you: rickycal78: I agree with you: rickycal78: I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

"Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?

------------------------------------
Well I'm glad you finally see things my way, there isn't that better now.

So trolling, got it. Don't you feel all cool now that you finally got people to respond to you on the internet the way mommy and daddy never did?

shiat, no trolling. This is honestly how I feel about this.
If a biker was on trial for something stupid, oh lets say weaving in and out of traffic, and caused an accident (and killed someone) because of it, I would not side with the biker. Just because they can change lanes rapidely or share lanes.


The lease believable part of your story is the part about you being married.
 
2012-04-13 10:49:03 PM  

BigNumber12: 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.


So much this. I love people who are more eloquent than I am.


I absolutely agree with both statements. Natural selection is not being allowed to work properly. I mean this in a non-snarky way. We keep saving people and other animals that are not smart enough to make it on their own.
 
2012-04-13 11:08:51 PM  

djh0101010: 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.


How much can you really harvest from from a headless meth ravished corpse anyway? I still
Approve of the decision though. Less bikers is less bikers.
 
2012-04-13 11:24:33 PM  

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

If you ride on top of your car you don't need a seat belt.

Yeah, but what kind of dumbshiat would even entertain the idea of crawling around on the outside of a vehicle moving at a high rate of speed?



i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-04-13 11:40:09 PM  
The problem with 21 or over riders is that an officer won't know by looking if someone is 21 or over. They could fix this with special colored licence plates maybe, but the bigger problem is that motorcycle injuries often leave people with huge medical bills that we all end up paying, so, require that any bike with the special plates needs to carry a special insurance rider to cover the potential of that.

People get to ride without helmets. We don't have to pay for it. Win-Win.
 
2012-04-13 11:46:10 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.


Lmao, you wish moron. This is liberal thinking.
 
2012-04-14 12:53:00 AM  

moike: I agree with you:
I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNA2HATZ6pg&feature=youtube_gdata_play e r

You ever think that maybe what you consider 'dangerous and unsafe' is someone else's 'milk run' pace because they've developed the skill set and situational awareness that comes from practice and practical experience?

I can toss a full blown F1 rig into a corner on the track at 170 miles per hour... sideways... while totally relaxed and singing Wu Tang songs in my helmet. Can everybody do this? No, but I've developed the skills to be able to do so with lots and lots of practice and practical experience. Most people would think the shiat I'm able to make vehicles do beyond the laws of physics, but it's all just experience and training.

A good lanesharing motorcyclist can read vehicles like a surfer reads waves, knows where the danger spots are when lanesharing, and can do so at what you most likely consider an 'insane' pace. My 20 years of practical lanesharing experience in California without incident backs that statement up.

And that video is of an idiot in Russia driving a good 50 to 100 miles per hour faster than surrounding traffic and is in no way representative of the '20+ miles per hour' you originally stated in your post that motorcycles were passing you at. So that video just goes to prove you're full of shiat.

Now get back to the moonshine still in your tornado bunker you fat unwashed hill scoggin before I kick you in the farking chin circumcising your father in the process.


Moike, FWIW, apparently this guy posted the same video as me, however my post was in favor of neither side. I have seen your videos and I personally am jealous of your skills in riding/racing a motorcycle (not sure what to call your rig, F1?). My post was shown to me by a Russian engineer (maybe 25yrs.old) at work. He races his M/C on the weekend and I said the guy in the video had a death wish that is obvious to everyone. When I was 17yrs. old I purchased a Ninja 750 by faking my dad's signature in the parking lot (known by the salesman). I promptly (Nov.1991, 3 weeks later) smashed a guardrail on the eve of Thanksgiving, a couple of weeks after I learned how to drive that thing like yourself ;). I wound up in the hospital (turned 18 in there) for at least 3 monthinto a bed and i was unable to walk for six months roughly. I went through 3-4 major operations, I don't remember most of them, but my father told me later that the ER doctor was planning on cutting off my right leg a little below my hip as my femur was busted/shattered in 15-16 places, cracked my hip... I was told I wouldn't be able to walk again after the first 8-9 hour surgery. Long story shorter, I am walking today at 41yrs.old. I have a lot of pain in my leg, hip, and lower back (hit a 90deg guardrail doing around 90-100 mph That being said, I am one lucky SOB and I know it! ANYWAY, I am sorry if posting the link to the Russian video makes you mad but I thought he has pretty darn good skills mixed with a LOT of luck. BOL, Mark.
 
2012-04-14 01:24:59 AM  
LivefromGA,
Here's the situation. There are people out there that see lane splitting and have a knee jerk reaction. They immediately write this off as something only a madman would do. I have a lane splitting video on youtube which has quite a few hits (from my perspective) and while I am doing nothing even close to the guy in Russia I have had people post in the comments that someone should have opened a door and killed me. Now I was merely driving home using a legal and accepted mode of transportation. Yet people feel the need to post wishing harm upon someone they don't even know. I am a family man heading home from work. Like I posted above, this isn't an exclusive club. If they are so outraged by us passing traffic, grow a pair, buy a bike and join us. I lane split for nearly 10 years in Los Angeles and sure there were close calls, stories to tell about later, etc. But I had close calls, stories to tell about commuting in my car as well. This whole thread, and all of the other helmet threads always end up like this. A bunch of people throwing out wild ideas about how much more their insurance will rise, etc. I don't know who all of these indigent motorcycle riders are with poor coordination, but I have my own vehicle, health and life insurance. If something happens to me, I have it covered. Fark you and your special color license plates, donor cards, and all the other bullshiat ideas tossed about. These same people who get so upset about paying to put someone on life support will not even blink an eye when a president (and I don't care which one you prefer) fires up a couple of 747's and other support aircraft and spend millions an hour flying around. I would really like to know who all of these people are that are getting this free life support from anyway. My Mom broke her leg in a fall walking on level ground, is retired with insurance and has basically gone broke paying for her own care. And if she hadn't paid, they were just kicking her ass out. Where is all of this free money? Paying for fictitious life support evidently.

Moike, it would be a pleasure to cheat death riding with you. But you aren't getting me on the sidecar. That's farking nuts!!
 
2012-04-14 01:27:19 AM  

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

If you ride on top of your car you don't need a seat belt.

Yeah, but what kind of dumbshiat would even entertain the idea of crawling around on the outside of a vehicle moving at a high rate of speed?


[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x673]


I was more making a reference to what I do for 'fun' on the weekends...

www.badcatracing.com

www.badcatracing.com
 
2012-04-14 01:58:26 AM  
o5iiawah 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?


Awww, is the evil Nazi Muslim Marxist Usurper gubberment oppressing you by putting a gun to your head so you will be foully forced to choose the glass of clean water over the glass of gutter water that YOU wanted to FreedomDrinkTM?
 
2012-04-14 02:13:59 AM  

I agree with you: Went to California a few years back and my wife was driving. We got caught up in a massive backup of cars on the hyway, sitting there for several minutes a motorcycle goes by riding the center line, missing vehicles by about 18in on eiether side. After about 20 or 30 min of sitting there going nowhere, except to creep3ft at a time, and watching these bikes blast by, I finally had enough and told my wife to ease over and ride the center line. Our F-250 diesel with the mirrors pulled out for towing did the job, the next bike that came blaring by at around 20mph+ was forced into the vehicle next to us trying to avoid the mirror. He was flipped around a bit, exchanged info with the guy he hit and went on his way,,,,,asshole took off faster than a bullet when he left, I don't know how he made it home alive.


You just admitted to purposely causing an accident just because you didn't like it that motorcycles CAN LEGALLY CUT LANES. Fark you, asshole. You're going to do that to a biker who won't passively ride off, one day. When I read about your subsequent ass-kicking, I will laugh.
 
2012-04-14 02:21:34 AM  

nunpunter: I agree with you: rickycal78: I agree with you: rickycal78: I understand lanesharing but what these assholes were doing was way too fast. just like this guy in traffic

"Hey, these guys are riding dangerously, and I don't like it so I'm going to try and make sure one gets injured. That'll show 'em."?

------------------------------------
Well I'm glad you finally see things my way, there isn't that better now.

So trolling, got it. Don't you feel all cool now that you finally got people to respond to you on the internet the way mommy and daddy never did?

shiat, no trolling. This is honestly how I feel about this.
If a biker was on trial for something stupid, oh lets say weaving in and out of traffic, and caused an accident (and killed someone) because of it, I would not side with the biker. Just because they can change lanes rapidely or share lanes.

The lease believable part of your story is the part about you being married.


He met his wife at a family reunion.
 
2012-04-14 02:26:27 AM  
Yeah OK so I lametrolled o5iiawah.

Derp.

i213.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-14 03:23:29 AM  
As a foreigner, it never ceases to amaze me at what an amazingly good job was done by the US propaganda machine in putting the fear of COMMUNISM into the populace.

People will defend the most batshiat retarded things in the name of 'freedom', not to mention using the same word as the justification for killing furriners and stealing their stuff.

I somehow doubt the Founding Fathers, when confronted with the nonsense peddled in their names, would refer to contemporary conservatives as 'patriots'.

'Assholes' is probably a fair bit closer to the mark.
 
2012-04-14 04:35:11 AM  
Lotta derp in here. I ride. I wear my helmet (even when not required). I understand the risks I take and take them because it is my choice. Also an organ donor.

Do I think the government should regulate my decision regarding my personal safety? No

Do i try to ride safely and responsibly? Yes.

Does shiat happen? Yes.

/carry on

//oh, I also have a DNR in place.
 
2012-04-14 05:47:54 AM  

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


no helmet = brain dead = organ donor = win
 
2012-04-14 06:42:29 AM  
Reading this thread, I would like to ask a question.

Since when did "you're not the boss of me!" become a logical way for adults to think?

Are the people who whine and b*tch about doing something they should be doing anyway doing so because the evil government is making them do it, so they'll just stamp their feet like three year olds?

There seems to be a core of that type of thinking in this whole argument, that the only reason you shouldn't do something is because someone else asked you not to, even though doing what they asked you to do would actually be to your advantage.
Wearing seat belts, for example. When I learned to drive back in the 80's many states still did not have seat belt laws, including the state where I got my license.

Yet I put my belt on every time, because I realized how powerful the machine was that I had under my control and how fragile I was inside of it. Almost 30 years later I still put the belt on, even before I start the car, and ask anyone that rides with me to do the same. Buckle up or GTFO. Even had to leave a date at her front door because she wouldn't put it on... said it would "mess up her dress". Never saw her again. I'd rather miss out on the pussy than take the chance of seeing her head go through the windshield.

Point is that instead of kneejerking in opposition to everything anyone tells you, maybe you should STFU, sit the fark down, and think about what you've just been told. Then make a decision about it not based on whether it was your idea or not, but whether their suggestion might help you in the long term. If more people did this, maybe state legislatures wouldn't have to waste their time writing things like helmet and seat belt laws, because people would already be using them as this is the smart thing to do.

Acting like a petulant preschooler is no way to go through life, son.
 
2012-04-14 07:10:36 AM  

the_end_is_rear: 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


Some other activities which should result in the same lack of care: Football injuries, drug overdose, suicide attempts...

I could keep going but just fill in the blanks until you realize that being concerned with the welfare of all means including those who make decisions you disagree with.
 
2012-04-14 08:22:34 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: 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?


I bet you don't like Seat Belt laws either.
 
2012-04-14 08:24:58 AM  

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


It still baffles me that Illinois has more RELAXED laws about wearing a helmet than Missouri.
 
2012-04-14 08:27:46 AM  

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.


Meh that's nothing. Here in MO, they passed legislation that'll allow me to bring a gun onto a bus.

I can only imagine that ending well.
 
2012-04-14 08:57:40 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I bet you don't like Seat Belt laws either.


Gee, ya think?
 
2012-04-14 10:13:59 AM  
This could go too far.
Next they will require you to put a helmet on your crawling baby.


Wait....
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-04-14 10:51:07 AM  
What if the motorcyclists wore hemp helmets?


/that is all
 
2012-04-14 11:47:29 AM  

rewind2846: Reading this thread, I would like to ask a question.

Since when did "you're not the boss of me!" become a logical way for adults to think?

Are the people who whine and b*tch about doing something they should be doing anyway doing so because the evil government is making them do it, so they'll just stamp their feet like three year olds?

There seems to be a core of that type of thinking in this whole argument, that the only reason you shouldn't do something is because someone else asked you not to, even though doing what they asked you to do would actually be to your advantage.
Wearing seat belts, for example. When I learned to drive back in the 80's many states still did not have seat belt laws, including the state where I got my license.

Yet I put my belt on every time, because I realized how powerful the machine was that I had under my control and how fragile I was inside of it. Almost 30 years later I still put the belt on, even before I start the car, and ask anyone that rides with me to do the same. Buckle up or GTFO. Even had to leave a date at her front door because she wouldn't put it on... said it would "mess up her dress". Never saw her again. I'd rather miss out on the pussy than take the chance of seeing her head go through the windshield.

Point is that instead of kneejerking in opposition to everything anyone tells you, maybe you should STFU, sit the fark down, and think about what you've just been told. Then make a decision about it not based on whether it was your idea or not, but whether their suggestion might help you in the long term. If more people did this, maybe state legislatures wouldn't have to waste their time writing things like helmet and seat belt laws, because people would already be using them as this is the smart thing to do.

Acting like a petulant preschooler is no way to go through life, son.



STFU and buy me a TF membership.

If you don't, it's because you're a petulant child that just doesn't like being told what to do.
 
2012-04-14 02:16:30 PM  

JesseL:

Acting like a petulant preschooler is no way to go through life, son.


STFU and buy me a TF membership.

If you don't, it's because you're a petulant child that just doesn't like being told what to do.


Let me think about that for a moment.
Q. What advantage is there to me in spending $5 on a TF membership for someone I do not know?
A. None.

Q. Is there an upside in not buying said membership?
A. Yes, it might just piss the potential recipient off for a fleeting moment or two.

Q. Is there a downside in not buying said membership?
A. None at all.

Sorry, you gotta come up with your own lunch money dood.
 
2012-04-14 03:57:05 PM  

cegorach: I somehow doubt the Founding Fathers, when confronted with the nonsense peddled in their names, would refer to contemporary conservatives as 'patriots'.



Yes, because if there was one idea that this country was founded upon, it was that of the Government forcing itself into people's lives and legislatively mandating "good idea" behaviors "for their own good."

I'd expect it from the British, but I thought that you Australians were a more independent folk than that. Don't go down that path; we really like you guys just the way you are, and I don't think that you want that many CCTV cameras in your country.

I'm personally very surprised that the Left didn't learn their lesson during the Bush years about enthusiastically giving the government more and more power to reach into their lives. Chalk it up to "my party can do no wrong" and "the other, bad party will never be in power again," I guess.
 
2012-04-14 04:35:06 PM  

MrSteve007: Tumunga: If helmets save lives, and you think the government should make motorcycle riders wear helmets, should people driving/riding in cars be required to wear helmets as well? How many people die in car accidents due to some sort of head trauma?

You mean like if the government were to make side-impact airbags a requirement? Like they're doing in 2013+ models? (new window)

In a car you have a government mandated headrest requirement, front impact airbag requirement, and now side airbag requirement. I don't think a helmet is required in that kind of environment.


All that is great, but if you're wearing a helmet with all these gadgets you mention, you will be protected even more so. Let's get to legislatin'!
 
2012-04-14 05:24:05 PM  
If you are stupid enough to not wear a helmet, I don't think we should be required to pay for your emergency care if you get hurt. Sign that waiver and go do whatever. As long as we would have to pay for your indigent ass if you become a road smear, I think we should be able to tell you to wear a helmet.

\could give a shiat about the wind in your hair.
\\bald
 
2012-04-14 05:44:12 PM  

rewind2846: JesseL:

Acting like a petulant preschooler is no way to go through life, son.


STFU and buy me a TF membership.

If you don't, it's because you're a petulant child that just doesn't like being told what to do.

Let me think about that for a moment.
Q. What advantage is there to me in spending $5 on a TF membership for someone I do not know?
A. None.

Q. Is there an upside in not buying said membership?
A. Yes, it might just piss the potential recipient off for a fleeting moment or two.

Q. Is there a downside in not buying said membership?
A. None at all.

Sorry, you gotta come up with your own lunch money dood.


Wow, coming up with answer that suits you by virtue of your own ability to reason. That shows promise. Good for you.

Now pretend I've got the power to fine you or throw you in jail for not doing what I tell you regardless of of what you think you ought to do. Might that rub you the wrong way a bit?
 
2012-04-14 05:47:18 PM  

plewis: If you are stupid enough to not wear a helmet, I don't think we should be required to pay for your emergency care if you get hurt. Sign that waiver and go do whatever. As long as we would have to pay for your indigent ass if you become a road smear, I think we should be able to tell you to wear a helmet.

\could give a shiat about the wind in your hair.
\\bald


Doesn't it seem a bit farked up that anyone would be automatically obligated to save an idiot if the idiot doesn't sign a waiver? Shouldn't the natural default be to have zero obligations unless people specifically opt-in?
 
2012-04-14 09:17:25 PM  

JesseL:
Now pretend I've got the power to fine you or throw you in jail for not doing what I tell you regardless of of what you think you ought to do. Might that rub you the wrong way a bit?


No, and if you can't see the difference I will explain it to you. I'll even use small words.
In my analysis of why I would not spend $5 on a TF membership for someone I didn't know, I saw no benefit to me for doing so, and a downside of the loss of $5 from my pocket.

The benefits of wearing a helmet while hanging onto a moving vehicle which could weigh upwards of 1000 pounds and is easily capable of speeds in the triple digits far outweigh the "wind in your hair" bullsh*t I see repeated on this board again and again and again.
One look at the crooked skull and even more crooked thought patterns of someone like Gary Busey (his farking eyes aren't even on the same LEVEL anymore) should be more than enough to convince anyone that helmets are a very very VERY good idea.

But then again you seem to be in the "you're not the boss of me" camp, so there's no convincing you that when you live in a society with other human beings you cannot do everything and anything you want any time you want any where you want. In return you get a support system which lets you live your life in comparative ease versus someone who lives by themselves in the woods in a cabin fighting wolves for their meals. That's how societies work, and why humans chose to form them in the first place.

Point is, if people didn't try their damndest to do the most stupid things possible (and mistakenly call it freedom) we would never have invented laws in the first place.

Doesn't it seem a bit farked up that anyone would be automatically obligated to save an idiot if the idiot doesn't sign a waiver? Shouldn't the natural default be to have zero obligations unless people specifically opt-in?

No. That's not how societies work. See above.
 
2012-04-14 10:18:07 PM  

rewind2846: JesseL:
Now pretend I've got the power to fine you or throw you in jail for not doing what I tell you regardless of of what you think you ought to do. Might that rub you the wrong way a bit?

No, and if you can't see the difference I will explain it to you. I'll even use small words.
In my analysis of why I would not spend $5 on a TF membership for someone I didn't know, I saw no benefit to me for doing so, and a downside of the loss of $5 from my pocket.

The benefits of wearing a helmet while hanging onto a moving vehicle which could weigh upwards of 1000 pounds and is easily capable of speeds in the triple digits far outweigh the "wind in your hair" bullsh*t I see repeated on this board again and again and again.
One look at the crooked skull and even more crooked thought patterns of someone like Gary Busey (his farking eyes aren't even on the same LEVEL anymore) should be more than enough to convince anyone that helmets are a very very VERY good idea.

But then again you seem to be in the "you're not the boss of me" camp, so there's no convincing you that when you live in a society with other human beings you cannot do everything and anything you want any time you want any where you want. In return you get a support system which lets you live your life in comparative ease versus someone who lives by themselves in the woods in a cabin fighting wolves for their meals. That's how societies work, and why humans chose to form them in the first place.

Point is, if people didn't try their damndest to do the most stupid things possible (and mistakenly call it freedom) we would never have invented laws in the first place.

Doesn't it seem a bit farked up that anyone would be automatically obligated to save an idiot if the idiot doesn't sign a waiver? Shouldn't the natural default be to have zero obligations unless people specifically opt-in?

No. That's not how societies work. See above.


You don't need to convince me that helmets are a good idea. I know that. And I don't need anyone making threats to force me to wear one.

How far are you willing to go to make sure that every good idea is acted upon by 100% of the population? Does personal choice ever out weigh societal benefits?

There's certainly a point where I'll take the woods and the wolves over your distopia.
 
2012-04-14 10:53:09 PM  
I think if you required everyone driving a car to wear a helmet, you would probably save a lot of lives due to head trauma in normal car accidents.

If you passed a law saying that everyone on a bicycle needed to wear a helmet you would save a lot of lives too.

I know a guy who tripped over his cat last year and broke his neck on his stairs and died. I almost tripped on my cat on the stairs yesterday. Do we outlaw cats? Do we outlaw stairs? Do we make people who own both stairs and cats wear neck braces?

Maybe we should just outlaw motorcycles?

I definitely think that riding a motorcycle with no helmet is pretty stupid, I even think that riding a motorcycle at all is kinda dumb. However, where does it end?
 
2012-04-14 11:54:13 PM  

JesseL: There's certainly a point where I'll take the woods and the wolves over your distopia


Then enjoy those wolves. Most of us who enjoy living among others in a marginally civilized society realize that there are compromises to be made by the "me" in favor of the "us". There are always limits to how far those compromises can be taken, hence we have documents like the declaration of independence and the constitution.

But you have to be smart enough to pick your fights.

Upholding something like the first amendment, which guarantees no government interference in what you write, what you read, what god you pray to (or not) and what you say, is a good fight, as this amendment is one of the very cornerstones of our society.

Wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, something that anyone with at least two working brain cells can tell you is a good thing, is not that type of fight.

As I said before, if people didn't purposely go out and try to do the most stupid things imaginable, we wouldn't need laws.

Or would you rather have a society without laws, since we all know what humans and human nature is capable of?
 
2012-04-15 12:13:20 AM  

rewind2846: Upholding something like the first amendment, which guarantees no government interference in what you write, what you read, what god you pray to (or not) and what you say, is a good fight, as this amendment is one of the very cornerstones of our society.


So how do you feel about the amendment after that one?

rewind2846: But you have to be smart enough to pick your fights.


Fortunately, this isn't a fight I need to pick. My state (and a majority of the others in fact) have perfectly acceptable helmet laws.

I'm curious though, where do you stand on liberty vs societal good on issues like gay marriage and drug policy? Supporters of the status quo on those issues certainly like to claim that any swing toward a more pro-liberty stance will destroy us all.

rewind2846: As I said before, if people didn't purposely go out and try to do the most stupid things imaginable, we wouldn't need laws.


And how are all those laws working out so far? What percentage of our population is in prison now? And how close are we to wiping out stupidity? It past time to take a step back and reexamine a few of your premises that have gotten us here.
 
2012-04-16 07:54:51 PM  

JesseL: rewind2846: Upholding something like the first amendment, which guarantees no government interference in what you write, what you read, what god you pray to (or not) and what you say, is a good fight, as this amendment is one of the very cornerstones of our society.

So how do you feel about the amendment after that one?


Don't really care about the 2nd amendment. To me there's a difference between the right to publicly express your ideas and believe (or not believe) in a god, and the right to own a piece of metal and plastic. One is an idea, the other is a thing, and I for one believe that ideas will always be more important than things. If all the guns disappeared from the planet at midnight tonight, I'd shrug and get another cup of tea... but if we could no longer pray as we liked, speak as we liked, or read what we wanted... that might be worth noticing.

And no, the second amendment does not protect the others. If the other guy who wants to take the other amendments away from you had no guns either, he couldn't do it.


I'm curious though, where do you stand on liberty vs societal good on issues like gay marriage and drug policy? Supporters of the status quo on those issues certainly like to claim that any swing toward a more pro-liberty stance will destroy us all.

Depends on what you think "liberty" is vs "societal good". For instance, I think that if gays could get married that would be a societal good, because the cessation of any form of discrimination is good for society. Segregation is bad for society, as it divides people into "us" and "them" when what is needed is more "we". Problem here is that "liberty" is being defined as "doing anything I want" versus "taking advantage of my rights and responsibilities as a member of this group". Can't have it both ways.

rewind2846: As I said before, if people didn't purposely go out and try to do the most stupid things imaginable, we wouldn't need laws.

And how are all those laws working out so far? What percentage of our population is in prison now? And how close are we to wiping out stupidity? It past time to take a step back and reexamine a few of your premises that have gotten us here.


Too many people are in prison not because they went and did something stupid (like smoke weed), but because they did something someone else didn't like (like smoke weed). Most drugs are not inherently dangerous in limited amounts, and it's not a stupid thing to partake once in awhile. Where we cross into the stupid territory is if you take too much, if you sell it to kids, if you drive or operate heavy machinery under the influence, that type of thing. Some drugs are just plain stupid from the start (like crack or meth), due to their addictive qualities.

Unfortunately the human race will never completely wipe out stupidity. There's probably a gene for it somewhere. That is why we will always need laws and people to enforce them, because at least that keeps the stupidity reasonably contained. If you live with other people it can't always be all about "me".
 
Displayed 467 of 467 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report