Total Motorcycle Community Forums

i always wear my seatbelt no question.
helmet depends on my mood and driving conditions. in my state its not required(only eye protection).

but it can go any ways, helmets and seatbelts save can save your life but also take it. i read all the time about people killing by their seatbelt or one time i herd a story of a guy on a bike with a helmet dropped his bike and was sliding along the ground and the helmet got caught on something and ripped his head off with it. then i knew a guy that was in a very bad car accident, he didnt have the belt on and was ejected from the car right before it hit a semi truck crushing the car. had he been in the car(due to the belt) hed been dead for sure.

id say take all the caution you can with safety and dont hope to be one of those odd storys that goes against the odds.

haha, our government must've thought of everything then. coz if there are belts in your bus, its against the law not to use them.
oh and with the seat belts harming people, i'd say on thw whole they are a good thing. its the air bags you might wanna watch out for, especially if you have kids. coz they're shorter, if they sit in a car that has front airbags, because of their shorter legs and shorter body, they tend to sit towards the front of the seat more, and at the bottom edge of the airbag when it deploys. i think there was some massive law suit in the US where this lady had here kid die or something form a broken neck due to the airbag. damn thats awful...

To answer your question, yes..I believe it's similar. The concept is the government involvement to save lives. Why states have a seat belt law and not a helmet law is beyond reasoning. But afterall, this is the government we are talking about. A bunch of hypocritical greedy bigots who think they know what's best for everyone else without fully investigating cause of idiocy opposed to those really needed. What they do rarely makes sense. As for both laws, neither one should exist since we, as adults, should have the right to decide how we want to live our lives. Mandate laws for those who cannot make rational decisions for themselves such as the mentally handicapped and children.

I have a car with auto seatbelt and a truck without. I do not wear the belt in the truck and if it weren't auto in my car, I wouldn't wear one in it either. As for a helmet, my state has a law which is currently in the process of a possible appeal. Will I still wear a helmet it it weren't the law, for the most part, yes, but I know there will be times I will not. Bottom line...it's my choice and no government should tell me how to choose unless it involves or hurts another, Period!

Well, it does involve others. Seat belts have been proven to reduce injuries in car accidents. It's a lot easier for taxpayers, who foot the bill on your medical costs if you're in an accident (God forbid), to pay for a couple broken bokes and whatnot versus you being ejected from the vehicle and have an impressive case of raod rash.

(I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, I think we should have a choice, too )

zarakand wrote: Why are motorcycles considerd different?

Here in the States, maybe elsewhere too, motor vehicle laws are generated by the insurance companies. When these companies get the idea they can save a buck on policy claims, they'll hound the lawmakers to make it so. Obviously they're only paying out paltry sums for riders' claims against the companies' auto policies. That is, with the current setup.
Then, too, the lawmakers aren't getting much pressure from their constituents. I think the root of this is the general public's widely held belief that in any accident involving a bike it absolutely has to be the rider's fault. So the best that we can currently hope for is apathy. Witness this news story from USA Today:

Trooper suspended for remark during 911 call
LISBON, Conn. (AP) — A state trooper was suspended for 15 days without pay after he was recorded on a 911 tape saying "too bad" to a caller seeking help for a man injured in a motorcycle accident.

State police said the dismissive answer by Trooper Robert Peasley did not affect the response time to the accident involving Justin Sawyer, 21, who died of a severe head injury a week after the crash last August. Peasley was suspended on Monday.

Russell Shepard, a friend of Sawyer's, called 911, which was routed to the state police barracks in Montville. When he reported the accident, Peasley said, "Yeah ... too bad," and hung up, according to a tape obtained by WTNH-TV.

Shepard said he was shocked, believing he reached a wrong number.

Another friend made a second call. "Yeah," the officer responded. "Help will get there. Shouldn't be playing games."

A third emergency call was answered by a different dispatcher, who asked about Sawyer's condition and advised those nearby to not touch him.

"I am absolutely outraged every time I hear that 'too bad' and then click," said Sawyer's father, Jim Sawyer. "I only know that I would have felt a whole lot more comfortable if I had heard people responding on the end of that 911 call with some heart and caring."

State police said the comments by Peasley, an 18-year-veteran, were unprofessional, and the agency apologized if "our actions added to the family's pain."

So, if a rider gets injured or killed, the public commentary goes something like this, "Another biker bit the dust, eh? Well, he asked for it. Too bad."

Thing is, each of us has the power to make a little bit of difference. But it's so hard not to twist it!

Skier wrote:Well, it does involve others. Seat belts have been proven to reduce injuries in car accidents. It's a lot easier for taxpayers, who foot the bill on your medical costs if you're in an accident (God forbid), to pay for a couple broken bokes and whatnot versus you being ejected from the vehicle and have an impressive case of raod rash.

(I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, I think we should have a choice, too )

The involvement is not a direct effect of injury or death. We are involved with paying for the comfort of prisoners also, as well as welfare and other rediculous tax spending mandated by our well organized government. Remove the welfare and prison support and I'm willing to bet the cost drops by half or more. At any rate, they can also mandate specifications involving the freedom to choose such as the driver/rider must have medical coverage. But that's too easy for our power hungry politicians. They would rather flex their muscles and prove their way is the best.

Well, it does involve others. Seat belts have been proven to reduce injuries in car accidents. It's a lot easier for taxpayers, who foot the bill on your medical costs if you're in an accident (God forbid), to pay for a couple broken bokes and whatnot versus you being ejected from the vehicle and have an impressive case of raod rash.

(I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, I think we should have a choice, too )
_________________

If that is their reasoning then cigarettes and other tobacco products should be banned ...they are one of the most costly medical care problems!

Lonewolf

If that is their reasoning then cigarettes and other tobacco products should be banned ...they are one of the most costly medical care problems!

Lonewolf

Couldn't agree more.

the_first_lonewolf wrote:If that is their reasoning then cigarettes and other tobacco products should be banned ...they are one of the most costly medical care problems!

Lonewolf

Well, it is why my state has a 129% tax on all tobacco products. I hate it.

Probably ought to ban alcohol, too. And maybe cell phones, because so many people talk and drive at the same time. Must be just about as dangerous as drinking and driving.... actually, roadside driving IQ tests should be given to weed out some of the obvious morons we encounter every day, who cause accidents but somehow miraculously escape them. Better yet, a bounty on them, with the taking of the moron's operator's license as proof of the "kill."