Total Motorcycle Community Forums

earwig wrote:
let me explain... if you get into an accident and lose control of your car because you don't have your seatbelt on and smash into me or my wife... OR get hit by a rock or a bird in the head while riding your motorcycle and you lose control and hit into me... who's life or safety should I be concerned with? It seems like you just ignored everything I wrote... the point is you are putting OTHERS in danger when you don't wear a seatbelt or helmet also.

And you have proof of this? Is it a fact that a person not wearing a helmet or seatbelt will lose control of their vehicle if they get hit?

A person can lose, and many have lost control of a vehicle, even when they were wearing a seatbelt and helmet. Wearing either one on either vehicle is not proven to be safer for other drivers on the road. Therefore, that's an irrelevant rebuttal.

If a person wearing a seatbelt has the window down and is struck in the head by a big object, will they maintain better control because they wear the belt? NO. They will simply fall over if knocked unconscious with or without a belt on. The seatbelt law is provided for the DRIVER's life to be saved...PERIOD as well as a helmet law.

Now, once again, it's not up to the governenment to dictate how we should live our lives unless it involves hurting another person. And your rebuttal of putting others in danger if not wearing is ludicrous.

BigChickenStrips wrote: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.

A good point which I have often wondered about. Why in the hell do they make vehicles which are capable of exceeding extreme speeds if they can't go over the speed limits anyway. This is stupid and ignorant. The authorities complain about the safety of vehicles, the risk of police chases, the equipment required to make cars safer, etc. etc. yet, they continue to produce vehicles which are designed for racing. SOmeone needs to wake the hell up and start with the number one resoltuion to traffic safety...and that of course is limit the top speed.

There is an agreement among moto manufacturers on 300 KPh (186) but none for cars. There are some places in the world that have sections with no speed limit. Here in the U.S. some states started moving the limit towards 80 MPH while there are talks about adding a computer to any vehicle that is set for the speed limit. Of course if we limit one vehicle to a certain speed then you must limit all vehicles to that speed unlike Sweden where a bikes have lower speed limit than a car, of course that was in the cards, I don't know if they passed it.

Again helmet laws will give those politicians and soccer moms to reconsider other possibilities for fatal accidents as reports such as HURT and MAIDS aren't taken seriously by any of them. Hell they don't even care about the bill board flashing "SHARE THE ROAD.... WATCH FOR MOTORCYCLISTS."

Freedom is good but we need to give ignorant people less ammo just like loud pipes. I like Florida's law on having more than $100,000 in insurance to ride without a helmet.

Meanie wrote:

And you have proof of this? Is it a fact that a person not wearing a helmet or seatbelt will lose control of their vehicle if they get hit?

Yes, I got hit in the face so hard by a bug last week that I swerved into another lane when reflexes made me reach to my face... I normally wear a full face but only had on my 1/2 helmet... this was last week. That is just personal proof and only 1 instance! If you don't see the benefit of seatbelt and helmet laws something is wrong. Don't be so closed minded and do a google search and read both sides arguments for seatbelt and helmet laws, you might learn something.

earwig wrote:

Meanie wrote:

And you have proof of this? Is it a fact that a person not wearing a helmet or seatbelt will lose control of their vehicle if they get hit?

Yes, I got hit in the face so hard by a bug last week that I swerved into another lane when reflexes made me reach to my face... I normally wear a full face but only had on my 1/2 helmet... this was last week. That is just personal proof and only 1 instance! If you don't see the benefit of seatbelt and helmet laws something is wrong. Don't be so closed minded and do a google search and read both sides arguments for seatbelt and helmet laws, you might learn something.

That's not statistical proof, it's only your experience and a possible chance you aren't totally capable of handling the bike when small objects hit you. That doesn't mean it resorts to the entire bike riding population. Since you may not be able to handle situations like that, then you should, as any mature adult should, then decide to wear the proper gear required.

Don't talk about "closed minded" so soon. You think an entire population should be told what to do because YOU failed to handle the situation properly. That's far from an open mind, son. It doesn't revolve around you...comprende'?

Now, you go do that search in Google and let me know if you find any "statistical" proof of wearing a seatbelt or helmet provides better control of a vehicle. Then perhaps, you might learn something more.

BTW, I've been hit in the face many times with many size bugs and never had a problem. Each person differs. Time to realize that.

earwig wrote:I got hit in the face so hard by a bug last week that I swerved into another lane when reflexes made me reach to my face.

Sell your bike. It's the only prudent and ethical thing to do.

Meanie wrote: BTW, I've been hit in the face many times with many size bugs and never had a problem. Each person differs. Time to realize that.

I've been hit in the eye by a small bug while wearing a full helmet and I couldn't see out of that eye for a few miles. They should pass a law requiring that face shields stay closed when the bike is in motion, or that all motorcycles have a windshield. Sounds sort of like that other kind of vehicle... what's it called... oh yeah a car.

There are basically three valid reasons for passing a safety law.

The first is to protect minors, this is the reason for things like child carrier laws.

The second is to protect others from your mistakes. This is why we discourage people from building bombs in their garages.

The third is to reduce the cost society must bear for your actions. There is a pretty strong argument that helmet laws fall under this one. The Hurt report tells us that wearing a helmet reduces head injuries by 80%. Head injuries tend to be about the worst as far as incuring long term medical expenses go. And since those expenses end up coming out of our (societies) pockets once the insurance runs out it is a valid societal concern. The law suits against the cigarette industry to recoup medical expenses by the states are an example of this kind of reasoning. I cannot cite a study tracking state medical expenses as related to helmet laws, so I don't know how solid this argument is for helmet laws.

The fouth (and weakest) reason to pass a safety law is to protect idiots from their own mistakes. This is a slippery slope. I approve of mandatory firealarms for example. OTOH I'd rather see mandatory firearms training than another damm gun law.

I used to think that helmet laws were great, but then I had a revelation! *insert gospel background organ* No helmet laws help to remove the idiots of the world! I also push for the removal of all warning labels!

Jim: Hey, I wonder what arsenic tastes like?
Bob: I dunno Jim, let's make some arsenic milkshakes then go f**k our sisters!
Jim: Ok, brother!

If we were to just let the idiots remove themselves from our world then it might become a better place!

Evidently the guy knew the possible ramifications of not wearing a helmet, choosing not to wear one because it wasn't dictated by law, and "it feels more free" to go without.

I see no reason to feel sympathetic toward him--he accepted the risk, and by doing so tacitly approved any possible outcome of his action.