Helmet laws - for or against

[momule]

Requiring helmets interferes with Darwinism and Natural Selection. It just ain't natural...

[Aj Mick]

In general, for a simple helmet law for riding on the road.

The head is the most vulnerable part of the body and the road is hard, so wearing a skid lid is common sense. However keep but any law simple. Allow people some kind of judgement to wear what best suits their circumstances.

On the road I always wear a helmet, but I have never been able to get along with full face helmets. In heavy, relatively slow moving traffic I use a half helmet, which doesn't impede hearing or peripheral vision. On the open road I go for a 3/4 helmet, but still I am more likely to be found on byways than highways, and seldom reach 100 km/h / 60 mph. If I was into racing, or going to spend much time on high speed roads I would learn to like a full face helmet.

Off public roads, when working on farms, or toddling along trails, I don't wear a helmet. If going hard off road I put a helmet on; it makes sense.

[luckynap17]

My helmet saved my brain yes i recommend them highly. I live to ride another day.

[TRed]

Neutral. I'll never ride without a helmet, normally a full face. Never, not once, not ever, period. Concerning laws, helmet laws by themselves are innocuous, although they do open the door for government over-regulation of motorcycle riding, and I don't like that.

I agree with you. Difficult to find the proper line between casualty-decreasing measures and over-regulation. Over-regulation gives the government more reasons to mug bikers and drivers for more and more money. They think you have to pay some fine and find a reason quickly. It obviously makes all the riders nervous. I think nobody would like to be mugged by law-enforcement over and over again. On the other hand; some people need a little push to strive to do a more secure riding...

[Wrider]

I won't ride without mine.

That said, I'm against helmet laws. I figure if you don't find it necessary to protect your head, you're not using it much anyway.

[NorthernPete]

I don't think it's much different then seatbelt laws. The government hasn't storm trooped in after our keys. No really worried.

Helmets all the time.

[NorthernPete]

Shouldn't have to be a full face though if you don't want. Helmet is a helmet. If you're good with a goofy skull cap, good on ya.

[jstark47]

Neutral. I'll never ride without a helmet, normally a full face. Never, not once, not ever, period. Concerning laws, helmet laws by themselves are innocuous, although they do open the door for government over-regulation of motorcycle riding, and I don't like that.

I agree with you. Difficult to find the proper line between casualty-decreasing measures and over-regulation. Over-regulation gives the government more reasons to mug bikers and drivers for more and more money. They think you have to pay some fine and find a reason quickly. It obviously makes all the riders nervous. I think nobody would like to be mugged by law-enforcement over and over again. On the other hand; some people need a little push to strive to do a more secure riding...

Holy time machine, Batman! This person's quoting the jstark47 of 2007!

Funny thing is, I still agree with myself.

[NorthernPete]

That me was a smart man says me. Lol.

[faded sun]

This poll surprised me, and I will admit I did not read all the comments before posting this reply.

If you are going to question the opposing views, then it would be a good idea to read all the comments before you fire away.

But it surprised me to think that motorcyclists, who clearly represent folks who enjoy the freedom to do something that others consider too dangerous to do

That is a very strange way to look at motorcycling. So you enjoy motorcyling because others consider it too dangerous and that gives you a sense of freedom?

but in a free country it is not the proper role of the government to force me to do something for my own good.

So we should get rid of speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, double yellow lines, warning signs, guardrails, police, etc etc etc....

Sad that most responders to this poll don't understand what freedom really means.

Ok I'll bite, so I guess we don't; what is freedom then?

And statements about "being a burden on society" is a dangerous and foolish one since it could equally apply to justify banning motorcycles, guns, skiing, sky diving, football or eating meat, or fatty foods, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Your line of thinking is dangerous. It is the method one uses to try to justify anything that they believe in and using extreme examples that are never likely to happen (unless you live in Myanmar). It is the line of thinking that mistakenly takes a privilege and tries to justify it as a right. It is the line of thinking that thinks of only ME! ME! ME!.

You want to ride your bike on your private land without a helmet and you have the financial means to pay all medical costs if you have a massive head injury, then go ahead. If you are riding on a public road funded by the government and granted the privilege to use those roads with your motorcycle by the government via a motorcycle license then you are going to have to abide by their rules. To use a couple of your examples, if you go skiing, you are going to have to abide by the rules of the resort, if you don't your lift ticket will be taken away. If you play football, you are going to abide by the rules of the organization (and yes that includes wearing a helmet) or you are not going to play.

I would have thought that riders would be the last group of people to endorse the nanny state mentality of mandatory helmet laws.

Well it looks like you may have thought wrong.

Amen to that. Well said.

Jock