I had to go with limited. I'm very much in favor of helmets themselves, but not at all in favor of having governments legislate our personal choices. I had to go with "limited" because of riders that are under the age of majority. Once you are old enough to be personally responsible for making your own decisions in the eyes of the law, that should be the end of it.
I already have a mother and she doesn't need the help of politicians.
The CA legislature seems to be very eager to regulate their citizens lives this year. They propose to force you to drive the cars they prefer, mandate how your child should be disciplined and even what type of lightbulb you should use. Don't these nannies have any real work to do? I just hope it doesn't spread over the border to AZ.
grymlocke wrote:As a class A driver and a motorcyclist my idea was to have a medical/waiver card (similar to a CDL medical) required for all riders over 21 (under 21, helmet required, period) good for 2 years stating the rider understands the danger and waives wearing a helmet. BUT by carrying this card, Hospital doesn't have to take extraordinary measures to keep you alive AND it waives the hospital/city/county/state/fed from lawsuits by relatives for your death and they ( hospital/city/county/state/fed) also have no responsibility to maintain your life (ie, hire someone to wipe your arse and feed you) should you become a eggplant BECUASE of your choice not to wear a helmut.
Signed by both doctor and rider ofcourse, this gives the doctor the chance to show/convince rider the error of his/her choice...AND if stopped by LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) and not having a CURRENT card will carry hefty fines....
this way, you can choose or not....choice carries responsibility.
MHI (My Humble Idea)
Damn, that's a complicated system.
Actually, I like that. I think grymlocke's onto something there.
grymlocke wrote:As a class A driver and a motorcyclist my idea was to have a medical/waiver card (similar to a CDL medical) required for all riders over 21 (under 21, helmet required, period) good for 2 years stating the rider understands the danger and waives wearing a helmet. BUT by carrying this card, Hospital doesn't have to take extraordinary measures to keep you alive AND it waives the hospital/city/county/state/fed from lawsuits by relatives for your death and they ( hospital/city/county/state/fed) also have no responsibility to maintain your life (ie, hire someone to wipe your arse and feed you) should you become a eggplant BECUASE of your choice not to wear a helmut.
Signed by both doctor and rider ofcourse, this gives the doctor the chance to show/convince rider the error of his/her choice...AND if stopped by LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) and not having a CURRENT card will carry hefty fines....
this way, you can choose or not....choice carries responsibility.
MHI (My Humble Idea)
Damn, that's a complicated system.
I like how it is now. DOT helmet or you get a ticket. Plain and simple.
not really, its just a medically endorsed waiver card.
...be glad you don't have to keep a log of your hours/milage of riding like truckers do for drivinig..
the 'trick' is to allow the 'powers that be' to think they are in control, by whining and demanding an 'all or nothing' reguarding helmet laws all you the protesters do is come across like bratty kids that won't eat their veggies (if any of you are parents, you know what i mean...).
ok, then change the 2 years to same time as license renewal....
grymlocke wrote:As a class A driver and a motorcyclist my idea was to have a medical/waiver card (similar to a CDL medical) required for all riders over 21 (under 21, helmet required, period) good for 2 years stating the rider understands the danger and waives wearing a helmet. BUT by carrying this card, Hospital doesn't have to take extraordinary measures to keep you alive AND it waives the hospital/city/county/state/fed from lawsuits by relatives for your death and they ( hospital/city/county/state/fed) also have no responsibility to maintain your life (ie, hire someone to wipe your arse and feed you) should you become a eggplant BECUASE of your choice not to wear a helmut.
Signed by both doctor and rider ofcourse, this gives the doctor the chance to show/convince rider the error of his/her choice...AND if stopped by LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) and not having a CURRENT card will carry hefty fines....
this way, you can choose or not....choice carries responsibility.
MHI (My Humble Idea)
Damn, that's a complicated system.
Actually, I like that. I think grymlocke's onto something there.
thank you, but it just seemed so obvious i'm surprised no one else had a similar idea...feel free to pass it on if you want, its cool with me...
I've ridden helmet-less a couple times, and damn, I love it! But, I've got things in the rest of my life more important than riding without a helmet. A lid is a real smart choice, but should remain a choice.
A dog had his chain reduced one link at a time, every few days, until his chain was so short he could barely move. He never resisted because he was conditioned to the loss of his freedom slowly, over time. Are we in this country becoming like the dog?
t_bonee wrote:I voted limited. Keep the choice with the rider.
I've ridden helmet-less a couple times, and damn, I love it! But, I've got things in the rest of my life more important than riding without a helmet. A lid is a real smart choice, but should remain a choice.
Hey, if you want to scramble your grey matter in a up-close and personal with the pavement..be my guest
the argument the 'powers-that-be' ALWAYS uses 'is your choice costs the rest of $$$ in medical care, therefore we have the right to dictate to you...' (more or less, thats their reasoning)....my idea was simply a way to head-off that arguement and shift the burden back to the rider to take reasonable care of him/herself without burdening the rest of us because of his/her shoice. I live and work in the belly of the beast, I now how they think.
I wasn't trying to bash your plan or anything. It's not a bad idea really. I just was saying, in my experience, the couple times I've ridden without a helmet I found very enjoyable. I can see why people want to ride without one. Let them have the choice.
Personally, the couple times I've ridden without a lid have been low risk situations. My wife rode the bike up to a parking lot a couple blocks away to practice and didn't want to ride it home. I didn't have my lid cause I followed in the car with the kids. I rode home 3 blocks without one. Other times folks have asked for a ride. I'll scoot around the block with them and not put it on. It's residential side streets. Could something happen going around the block? Sure, but very low risk. And I could Choose to go without for a 2 minute ride.
A dog had his chain reduced one link at a time, every few days, until his chain was so short he could barely move. He never resisted because he was conditioned to the loss of his freedom slowly, over time. Are we in this country becoming like the dog?
grymlocke wrote:
the argument the 'powers-that-be' ALWAYS uses 'is your choice costs the rest of $$$ in medical care, therefore we have the right to dictate to you...' (more or less, thats their reasoning
That's not really a valid argument. Just an excuse (and not a very good one).
Injured bareheaded motorcyclists don't even show up on the radar when looking at overall health care expenditures. If they were sincere, they would be dictating your eating habits, tobacco use and sexual practices.
I like helmet laws, but also agree that the choice should be with the rider. I know that if I hadn't been wearing my helmet when I went down, I wouldn't have a face. Almost ALL the damage to my helmet was on the front from the top of the visor to the chin (visor was actually shredded into little pieces).
I like the laws because they sorta force you into habits that you may take for granted until they save your "O Ring".
SV650 K6 <---Suuper Awsome bike
[quote="V4underme"]
If I didn't feel like a monkey &*$%ing a football when I sat on a sporty, I'd probably own one.[/quote]
grymlocke wrote:
the argument the 'powers-that-be' ALWAYS uses 'is your choice costs the rest of $$$ in medical care, therefore we have the right to dictate to you...' (more or less, thats their reasoning
That's not really a valid argument. Just an excuse (and not a very good one).
Injured bareheaded motorcyclists don't even show up on the radar when looking at overall health care expenditures. If they were sincere, they would be dictating your eating habits, tobacco use and sexual practices.
its not MY excuse, its what always keeps being swung around like a club everytime the argument pop up...personally, people can go ahead and ride with out and let nature take its course..maybe I'll catch your story on darwin awards..
you don't live in CA do you?..they ARE trying to dicates eating habits, sex and a smoke....
