- Admin
- #1
FZ1inTX
Adminstrator
Read this in today's local rag... I am OK with this because I always wear a helmet.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the Yamaha FZ1 Forums. Member registration disables ads and allows you to post and share. Register Here.
Feds requiring helmet law.
- Thread starter FZ1inTX
- Start date
Dustin
Moderator
It's about time they changed that stone-aged law! Your doctors and nurses will thank you 
I'm sure someone out there will complain about their 'rights' being violated. Up here, my local MC constituency is trying to lobby for stricter helmet laws to outlaw those stupid beanie helmets
I'm sure someone out there will complain about their 'rights' being violated. Up here, my local MC constituency is trying to lobby for stricter helmet laws to outlaw those stupid beanie helmets
Last edited:
jwhelan65
Well-Known Member
It's about time they changed that stone-aged law! Your doctors and nurses will thank you
I'm sure someone out there will complain about their 'rights' being violated. Up here, my local MC constituency is trying to lobby for stricter helmet laws to outlaw those stupid beanie helmets
Only those with the letters HD painted on their tanks...Always been shocked we have seat belt laws but no helmet laws??? Makes no sense...
Oldschool
Moderator
It's about time they changed that stone-aged law! Your doctors and nurses will thank you
I'm sure someone out there will complain about their 'rights' being violated. Up here, my local MC constituency is trying to lobby for stricter helmet laws to outlaw those stupid beanie helmets
The privelage of riding on a public road has to be earned, thus the drivers test and the requirement to abide by the rules (Laws). This is a privilege that we all pay for via fees and taxes, and it is one that can be lost by failure to comply by those said rules (or failure to pay the fees). All too many drivers & riders consider it (driving / riding) to be a right. Rules a regulations change, or evolve constantly because of experience (of the rule makers) and circumstance. If the experience over time says that proper gear, including proper helmets will save lives and lower associated costs than so be it. We all live by other's rules every day, why does this one seem so hard for some to grasp?
You can pick and choose which rules that you will abide by, but eventually you will have to "pay the piper" . When we speed we are choosing to ignore a rule that we know and understand is there to protect the masses, and the mature ones expect that it may cost them as a result. Should a federal law mandating DOT helmets be brought in (we already have a law here requiring DOT approved helmets up here) and people choose to go without, then they should expect to pay. Hopefully for most riders, that will only be money. All of that money should be put into health care (in a perfect system).
If some riders are unhappy about it, but it saves some lives, I for one think that is a fair trade off. I'm sure there would be many grieving families that would agree.:2cents:
Earlzach
Wizard
I think it should be a Law.
IMO, if someone choses not to wear a helmet then they already have proven to me a law needs to be in place.
Chosing to not wear makes no sence.
And passengers who have absolutly no controll should never have the option.
They are at the mercey of the driver.
Why should they get convinced its ok to be without a hat while riding on back?:2cents:
IMO, if someone choses not to wear a helmet then they already have proven to me a law needs to be in place.
Chosing to not wear makes no sence.
And passengers who have absolutly no controll should never have the option.
They are at the mercey of the driver.
Why should they get convinced its ok to be without a hat while riding on back?:2cents:
Polestar
Wizard
I couldn't disagree more. But, this is one of the problems with National Health Care. If we're all footing the bill, then we have a financial interest and therefore an implyed right to control what you do with your life. I find helmet and seat belt laws obnoxious. Personally, I wear both and encourage others to do so. I do lots of things to minimize risk, but I don't want the nany state telling me to "do what we think is smart....or else."
Hail
Moderator
.... I know that will happen here. They will try to convince you that the next step is censoring the books you read. It is a huge government conspiracy.
If you are curious what the law is in your area of the states:
State-by-state motorcycle laws
In Texas the state will not provide any health care benefits if you have an accident without a helmet. (may be a bit more complex than that but you get the jist.)
Missyl1713
Wizard
I'm sorry, I disagree. I religiously wear my helmet, and wouldn't ride without it, but that's my personal choice, and although I feel that everyone should, I take issue with a continual government effort to protect us from ourselves. If one chooses to ride without, they know the risks. And make that choice. And I feel they should be allowed to. I see a growing trend that many seem to be missing. Soon we will regulate ourselves right out of every choice we want to make. It's one thing to pass regulations protecting our personal rights from others violating it, but it's a slow and sure process that is rolling now that can take away many of our OWN personal rights and choices. When we allow things like this, how do
we know where it will stop? Motorcycles account for a
Large amount of fatalities, we could avoid that all together by banning them. Its not like they are necessary. But we all make a choice to ride. While helmets may seem like a good idea to most of us like seatbelts, airbags, etc, how far are we willing to let regulations effecting our personal choices go? My wearing a helmet only protects me, not the public. It's just something to think about before we ask the government to protect us from ourselves.
we know where it will stop? Motorcycles account for a
Large amount of fatalities, we could avoid that all together by banning them. Its not like they are necessary. But we all make a choice to ride. While helmets may seem like a good idea to most of us like seatbelts, airbags, etc, how far are we willing to let regulations effecting our personal choices go? My wearing a helmet only protects me, not the public. It's just something to think about before we ask the government to protect us from ourselves.
Missyl1713
Wizard
And Hail, it isn't a conspiracy. It's simply a warning that caution needs to be exercised. It can happen, and has been happening for a long time. It's simply a reminder that sometimes, you need to think for yourself, and not just go with whatever someone states is a "study" or what officials tell you is the truth, and be cautious in what we ask the government to do.
Phil_RC_1
Well-Known Member
I think it's pretty stupid, not to wear a helmet when riding BUT, as stated previously, it should be my choice. And yes, I believe it is a slow encroachment on my (OUR) rights. In Europe (Germany I believe) it's rumored that thier government is already talking about banning Motorcycles because of thier inherent danger. How long will it take for that mentallity to infect our overseers?
IMHO: From the beginning of our great country, our goverment was designed to be our REPRESENTATIVES (ideally) NOT our Overseers or Providers!!
IMHO: From the beginning of our great country, our goverment was designed to be our REPRESENTATIVES (ideally) NOT our Overseers or Providers!!
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #11
FZ1inTX
Adminstrator
My opinion... no helmet, no insurance (Go Texas!) AND automatically an organ donor.
I agree with Lee because we have a privilege here and it isn't a right. I'd have no issue with it being law because as David said, choosing not to wear one makes no sense!
I agree with Lee because we have a privilege here and it isn't a right. I'd have no issue with it being law because as David said, choosing not to wear one makes no sense!
Hail
Moderator
I did not say it was. That was simply speculation on what paranoid govenrment conspiracy Texas types might think.
I personally like the way Texas does it. Required under 21. Option above 21 but no government assistance for your brain damaged a$$ if you chose not to wear it.
Missyl1713
Wizard
I did not say it was. That was simply speculation on what paranoid govenrment conspiracy Texas types might think.
I personally like the way Texas does it. Required under 21. Option above 21 but no government assistance for your brain damaged a$$ if you chose not to wear it.
Agreed, i like that also!
Oldschool
Moderator
Both very good points, that I agree with to some extent. As a parent I make choices for my kids because they are not yet mature or experienced enough to make the right choices yet. Sometimes as much as I dislike the "Nanny State" mentality, it amounts to the same thing. Until the state requires MUCH better education and training for potential drivers (and riders) some will need laws like this to protect them from their own poor choices.
IF a drivers licence included proper training, with a much more involved education and practical instruction. It should include for riders some education about how and why protective gear works (and the results of not wearing it). Then perhaps we would start turning out real Riders and drivers, that start out better prepared, skilled and enlightened. Then let them make the choices on their own. The fatality numbers would (I believe) reflect the change in approach.
NightTrain
Well-Known Member
Sounds like Texas has it pretty spot-on.
I'm on the fence about it, but heres my deal- give this scenario a shot...
Accidents at slow speed happen all the time, people make mistakes. I know a guy that lost his life going pretty slow on his chopper when a car started to pull out of a parking lot and clipped his rear tire. It wasn't the speed so much as the angle at which his head hit, only around 30-35 mph but his head smacked the ground and it was enough to be fatal. Had he been in a car, no worries. Had he worn a proper helmet, again survival was very likely. But his head split and he died shortly thereafter. The driver made an error in a heavy traffic situation, not sure what caused them to make the error but it happened. I try to put myself into that drivers position.... "Ok I made a mistake, and now I have to live with the guilt of knowing that I basically killed someone for the rest of my life". Accidents happen. And regardless of who's at fault, the outcome could have been drastically changed by wearing a helmet.
Look at how much more it cost's the tax payer's to deal with accidents involving riders not wearing helmets vs. those that do. The extra expense that occurs in the hospital to deal with a rider that sustained massive head trauma from not wearing a helmet.
Yes, rights matter. I own a few firearms and beleive I have the right to as a law-abiding citizen. But when I go to legally shoot my gun, there are proper guidlines... ear protection, eye protection, the way in which the weapon is handled, all things that need to happen. I (?) hate to say it but if helmet laws become the norm across all 50, it's just not going to bother me too much. And as stated, driving on public roads is not a right. Not trying to stir the pot, just giving an angle on the discussion.
I'm on the fence about it, but heres my deal- give this scenario a shot...
Accidents at slow speed happen all the time, people make mistakes. I know a guy that lost his life going pretty slow on his chopper when a car started to pull out of a parking lot and clipped his rear tire. It wasn't the speed so much as the angle at which his head hit, only around 30-35 mph but his head smacked the ground and it was enough to be fatal. Had he been in a car, no worries. Had he worn a proper helmet, again survival was very likely. But his head split and he died shortly thereafter. The driver made an error in a heavy traffic situation, not sure what caused them to make the error but it happened. I try to put myself into that drivers position.... "Ok I made a mistake, and now I have to live with the guilt of knowing that I basically killed someone for the rest of my life". Accidents happen. And regardless of who's at fault, the outcome could have been drastically changed by wearing a helmet.
Look at how much more it cost's the tax payer's to deal with accidents involving riders not wearing helmets vs. those that do. The extra expense that occurs in the hospital to deal with a rider that sustained massive head trauma from not wearing a helmet.
Yes, rights matter. I own a few firearms and beleive I have the right to as a law-abiding citizen. But when I go to legally shoot my gun, there are proper guidlines... ear protection, eye protection, the way in which the weapon is handled, all things that need to happen. I (?) hate to say it but if helmet laws become the norm across all 50, it's just not going to bother me too much. And as stated, driving on public roads is not a right. Not trying to stir the pot, just giving an angle on the discussion.
joker80
Well-Known Member
Let me first say that I always have mine on and hound my friends to do the same. But I do not think any law that takes away our freedom to wear or not wear what we want is wrong. If some DA wants to go out and take the chance of splattering his head on the road well I say just call it gods way of sorting them out. I'm all for denying people insurance/health care coverage if they make the desicion to put themselves at this kind of risk. But we should aways have the FREEDOM to make our own choices as long as they do not harm other people.
Adrenaline Junkie
Well-Known Member
I wear a helmet every time I ride. I wear an armored jacket at least 99% of the time. I still think the law is wrong. I also think we make a pretty big leap to get from "helmets save lives" to "helmets save money in medical expenses". I do not deny that helmets save lives but no study that I am aware of has really proven that helmets save money. When someone dies because they were not wearing a helmet, there is the cost of burial, emergency responders, ambulance, etc., but then it is over. The cost of caring for a person who wears a helmet and has a major head impact can easily mean decades of providing care for someone who is paralyzed from the neck down. Which do you think cost more? I have not seen any study that went in depth enough to say "This person died because they were not wearing a helmet, but, he/she also had a busted neck so it is cheaper that this one died". The only time a helmet can save significant money is when the rider incurs serious head/brain trauma WITHOUT getting serious neck/spinal cord trauma. Maybe this happens more often than I know about. If you know of such a study please provide a link. I'd love to read it. I know this is a gruesome way to look at things but if you want to bring out the "saving everybody else money" argument then you need to be brutally honest. If forcing all riders to wear helmets for some period of time doesn't make a significant reduction in accident related medical expenses then big brother will have to take more drastic measures.....to save money of course.
I assume I haven't made any friends with this spew, but I'm tired of getting fed crap and told its potatoes.
I assume I haven't made any friends with this spew, but I'm tired of getting fed crap and told its potatoes.
B
Buildercher
Guest
Sorry to chime in, but i can't believe you don't have to wear a helmet. It law here that even the cyclist wear helmets.
Dustin
Moderator
Adrenaline Junkie:
Your point stands but the facts can be twisted in lots of different ways.
Sure, in an extreme crash, a person without a helmet will be less of a 'burden' on the medical system because they'll probably just die right away vs. needing long-term care--but what about the people who have minor spills and are completely saved because of wearing a helmet? What might result in a minor concussion (at worst) with a helmet will probably result in someone requiring a lifetime of care without one.
It's the same point you were trying to make, only reversed--that's the problem with discussions like this one, anyone can substantiate their point in one way or another.
I've discussed this with a friend recently and he's changed my point of view. While I think not wearing a helmet is just simply moronic, the fact is that people have the right to live at risk if they are not endangering another person doing so. Motorcycling is a dangerous activity but the reality is that not wearing a helmet won't present a risk to anyone but yourself.
Like OldSchool, I think the money and attention would be better spent on encouraging motorcycle safety courses--I'd go as far to say that I think they should be mandatory and regulated heavily to ensure that every rider out there has the skills and knowledge necessary to make the right decision.
I guess my initial reaction was a bit of a knee-jerk one, but if you really sit down and think about it; people should have the right to do what they want if they are not endangering the safety of others, this applies to helmet laws too I guess.
That's another interesting one. Apparently statistics have shown that it's actually better for the general population to not have a cycle helmet law. Reason being is because with a helmet law in place, a lot less people will cycle and this results in a big decline in the health of the population, creating a burden on the healthcare system. A population that bicycles is a healthier, fitter population that will cost a lot less money in the long run. Supposedly, serious crash statistics on bicycles are a very low percentage and don't even warrant a helmet law.
This is information I've heard through another person, but it's food for thought nonetheless.
Your point stands but the facts can be twisted in lots of different ways.
Sure, in an extreme crash, a person without a helmet will be less of a 'burden' on the medical system because they'll probably just die right away vs. needing long-term care--but what about the people who have minor spills and are completely saved because of wearing a helmet? What might result in a minor concussion (at worst) with a helmet will probably result in someone requiring a lifetime of care without one.
It's the same point you were trying to make, only reversed--that's the problem with discussions like this one, anyone can substantiate their point in one way or another.
I've discussed this with a friend recently and he's changed my point of view. While I think not wearing a helmet is just simply moronic, the fact is that people have the right to live at risk if they are not endangering another person doing so. Motorcycling is a dangerous activity but the reality is that not wearing a helmet won't present a risk to anyone but yourself.
Like OldSchool, I think the money and attention would be better spent on encouraging motorcycle safety courses--I'd go as far to say that I think they should be mandatory and regulated heavily to ensure that every rider out there has the skills and knowledge necessary to make the right decision.
I guess my initial reaction was a bit of a knee-jerk one, but if you really sit down and think about it; people should have the right to do what they want if they are not endangering the safety of others, this applies to helmet laws too I guess.
That's another interesting one. Apparently statistics have shown that it's actually better for the general population to not have a cycle helmet law. Reason being is because with a helmet law in place, a lot less people will cycle and this results in a big decline in the health of the population, creating a burden on the healthcare system. A population that bicycles is a healthier, fitter population that will cost a lot less money in the long run. Supposedly, serious crash statistics on bicycles are a very low percentage and don't even warrant a helmet law.
This is information I've heard through another person, but it's food for thought nonetheless.
Last edited:
Adrenaline Junkie
Well-Known Member
Dustin,
I agree with you 100%. There has been no data presented to prove my point of view just as there has been no data presented to prove the other point of view. That is why I said show me some data that supports one direction or the other. The only thing that was quoted from the article in the original post was that head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle accidents. From there this thread went down hill to generally say that the gov't has the right to require helmets because it saves the tax payers money. I never saw any data to get us from saving lives to saving money.
Edit: And goodness sakes yes, lets spend the money on motorcycle education. I'm also in favor of a graduated scale for motorcycle endorsements. Start on a small bike and work your way up as you log hours and re-test to show more advanced abilities. You could even require helmets at the lower levels but once you reach the top level, if you still want to ride without a helmet it should be your choice.
I agree with you 100%. There has been no data presented to prove my point of view just as there has been no data presented to prove the other point of view. That is why I said show me some data that supports one direction or the other. The only thing that was quoted from the article in the original post was that head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle accidents. From there this thread went down hill to generally say that the gov't has the right to require helmets because it saves the tax payers money. I never saw any data to get us from saving lives to saving money.
Edit: And goodness sakes yes, lets spend the money on motorcycle education. I'm also in favor of a graduated scale for motorcycle endorsements. Start on a small bike and work your way up as you log hours and re-test to show more advanced abilities. You could even require helmets at the lower levels but once you reach the top level, if you still want to ride without a helmet it should be your choice.
Last edited: