Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Maybe reasonable for you, but apparently not for all. there are still alot of states that don't have helmet laws and I understand that michigan is repealing theirs so maybe they don't agree with you. as far as the rest of your post about sex with minors and what not. well .. going just a bit overboard don't you think? But time will tell and what is reasonable changes like the wind. I've got maybe 15 more good years of riding left. You people who have 30 or 40 years left will see changes that probably won't be so much fun. Good luck.

No laws should require you to do anything that falls under personal responsibility. That includes seatbelt and helmet laws.

Since theres a lot of argument over adolescents being able to make sound judgements, lets just call it at... age 18. At this point, no more req's for seatbelts etc...

Having said that, I do not care if it's 100 degrees outside with no traffic, the helmet goes on and so does the gear.

Chris8187 wrote:Yup, New Jersey does have a helmet law, and it says you are suppose to have 4 square inches of reflective tape on the back and sides of the helmet. I think that is a pretty mentally challenged rule, and no one follows it anyway. There are the few that do of course.

Anyone who takes their riding test at a state DMV station had better have that tape, or they won't pass.

this is a very complex issue. i agree that personal freedom is the roxorz! but people riding without helmets and other protective gear give me a bad and unsafe name. i think that incidents like what happened will lead to situations like this:

[housewife looking for something to whine about:] wow, i just read in the paper that the motorcycle that football guy was riding can go 186mph. thats too fast for public roads, they should not be allowed to make bikes that go that fast.
[common sense:] but he wasnt going that fast? the top speed of the bike had nothing to do with that accident?
[housewife:] we should lobby congress to pass laws restricing those dangerous things.
**common sense surrenders**

fuel to the fire of anti-bike-people.

in closing,
if you dont wear a helmet when you ride your a stupid squid but do i think there should be a law requiring you to wear one? i dont know?

i think about the possibility of giving up one freedom to protect other freedoms (i was going to wear a helmet anyway so i personally would not be loosing anything)? makes my brain hurt.

Deciding my stance on laws that mandate behavior that I would do voluntarily 100% of the time anyway is a problem. For the record, I'm happy to publicly state I will never ride a motorcycle anywhere without wearing a full-face helmet. Period. My personal choice.

I'm well along (50 years old) in my evolution to an official Ornery Old Cuss. I don't like government rules and regulations. But Jefferson was optimistic, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." In practice, some of the people don't discipline themselves. So the question becomes, will the burden of the bad behavior of some become so onerous that it justifies curtailing the liberty of all? A hard question.

By a slight margin, I'm coming down on the side of personal liberty. I will not advocate for helmet laws in jurisdictions that don't have them. (But neither do I feel very compelled to work for the repeal of existing laws.) I will support (including giving $$$) campaigns advocating voluntary use of helmets conducted by private organizations, not by governments. Individuals are always free to join or not join private organizations, or to ignore or heed their advice. The preservation of personal choice outweighs (by a small margin in this case) the need to protect society at large from the burden of stupid behavior by some.

However, I also reserve the right to insult the intelligence of anyone who refuses to wear a helmet, then complains about the consequences of their choice. Expect no mercy from me!

good lord, i go for lunch and already some debates.

Anyhow, I know I always rag on about bike politics and such but I don't mean to troll. You see I cannot afford car insurance so I'm stuck with a bike and now I'm hooked and can't go anywhere without missing it and so far it is my main mode of traveling more than 25 miles from home. Hell there was a bill made to prevent us from using federal funded roads in the US.

That said, there's a Manufacturers agreement on the 300KPh limit bikes can go so there'll be less political involvement and also so that a bike is still insurable. The new Kaw ZZR-1400 can actually do 225 without the computer restrictions (so they say). Too bad the general public only focuses on the squids.

Well said

jstark47 wrote:Anyone who takes their riding test at a state DMV station had better have that tape, or they won't pass.

I think it depends who you get. I didn't have the tape on, and the guy still let me take the test, and I passed.

Gadjet wrote:If you're going to wear a helmet anyway, what's wrong with having a law about it?

These laws don't mean anything to me because I don't drive without wearing a seatbelt, nor do I ride without wearing a helmet. I always wore my seatbelt, even before they be required by law. It's going to help save your life in the event of an accident, so it's just common sense to wear them.

in my opinion people who choose not to wear helmets or seatbelts have nothing to lose.

Ok, step away from the selfish mode. What you fail to see is...it's not just about YOU. If you want to wear your safety equipment, that is your choice. If it's not a law and you choose to wear it, it's your choice. Not everyone feels the same as you. Other adults should have the right to CHOOSE the path of their life. Therefore, what's wrong with having a law is the fact not everyone will wear their helmet or seatbelt if there isn't one. It's all about freedom of choice.

earwig wrote:

Scott58 wrote:That's where it starts. Where do you draw the line?

Hrm, so you are suggesting no laws... anarchy? No gun laws? Hell, why have laws regarding sex with minors... who are they to tell someone what they can and can't do because of age? Maybe no leash laws so some thug's pitbull can come up and rip your throat out, how dare they tell you that fido has to be on a leash when you know he is a good dog? Where do YOU draw the line? Helmet and seatbelt laws are resonable, telling someone they can not ride at all is NOT resonable... get it? The majority of law makers would agree with me... that is why the seatbelt and helmet laws ARE resonable.

Wow, what a reasonable leap in logic, earwig...

Here's the difference: laws should be in place to prevent people from hurting others, not themselves. It's against the law to have sex with minors because it is generally accepted that a minor cannot make that decision and therefore participates under duress. My not wearing a helmet hurts no one but me.

I can't believe I live in a country where abortion is legal yet every day people get their panties in a bunch when someone rides a motorcycle with less than full gear. Hypocrisy thy name is Society.

BigChickenStrips wrote:if you dont wear a helmet when you ride your a stupid squid

And you're a condescending elitist. There, I can throw labels around, too. To me, the word "squid" describes a behavior (i.e. stoppies in traffic, riding wheelies on the freeway, etc.) not a choice of clothing. While it's true that some squids ride around in shorts and flip-flops, plenty ride around fully dressed. What they're wearing, therefore, is a red herring.

Of course, I could just start calling you a squid because the gear you do wear is not top-shelf race-quality stuff, and it's just stupid and idiotic to ride around with sub-standard protection. But then again, for a lot of people (need I link to the newspaper articles of a couple months ago?) you're an idiot for riding a bike in the first place.