They passed the "no helmet law"

[joey450]

THAT is exactly the point that I have been trying to get across here!! Any one of you who are taking the stance of pro helmet laws BETTER understand this point because it applies to anything and EVERYTHING that you hold near and dear!! When one persons freedoms are successfully attacked ALL freedoms in in jeapordy!!

..

I totally 100% agree with Woodsy. After reading these post and seeing the way some people think about trying to force someone to do something (like wear a helmet)does not make sense to me. I am pro let me decide what I need to do. I do not want the Big Government telling me what I have to do to be safe (as long as it is within the law) Because once you lose one freedom you will not get it back. This is exactly why I gladly renew my NRA membership each year.

 

[woodsy]

del

 

[KTM Mike]

... I will use this platform to tell EVERYONE on this board that I think the usage of name calling like - Idiots, COO-COO or quadtards as not only immature but also incriminating as to the level that we, as adults, can and will default to..

From my first post on this thread:

"I respect your right to make choices, however if you choose to ride without a helmet, I DO NOT respect the choice you have made - bottom line is, in my opinion you are stupid idiot if you choose to ride without a helmet"

Woodsy - I hate to say it...but I stand by my original statement. That is MY opinion, I own it, its not going to change. I did not refer to anyone here as an idiot, I did however refer to my OPINION that someone riding with out a helmet is a stupid idiot.

Oh..and here is an interesting quote from you Woodsy that would bring to mind another comment from Woodsy "...the usage of name calling like - Idiots, COO-COO or quadtards as not only immature but also incriminating as to the level that we, as adults, can and will default to.. :
"....that involve death an they are predomintily overshadowed by IDIOTS that took a first sip and got themselves into the frame of mind that they killed someone else.."

What is that saying about a pot and a kettle and being black?

Also, in one of your posts here you asked "Sooooo,, gotta ask ya this Mike,, have you ever lost a real close friend or relative to a drunk driver or had a family members life shattered by alcoholism?? "

My answer - yes - I have had close friends and family KILLED by a drunk driver, and yes I personally have been impacted by alcoholism as my father was an alcoholic. Does not change my opinion on this helmet topic one iota. Two separate topics.

And one last time quoting myself for my parting thought:

I said it before, and I will say it again... I respect your right to choose to wear (or not wear) a helmet, however if you choose to not wear one, I do not respect the choice you have made.

 

[woodsy]

del

 

[woodsy]

by the way,, where the heck did Yzman go?? He started this debate and then split.. Ahhhhh,, that is a MAJOR no no unless he is pushing for the spot of Trouble Maker Number One?? If thats the case - FORGET IT DON - YT has that sewn up!!!!!!!

 

[Pushin50]

I am in favor of the law requiring helmet usage. I don't want to pay the costs for injured cyclists with my insurance and tax dollars. However if hemetless bikes pay the fee to get registered to ride without a helmet. Their insurance companies should be notified of their choice so the insurance companies can jack their rates for the increased cost of planting vegetables in a nursing home garden. I could totally live with this solution. If a helmetless biker is ticketed for not being registered to be "free" then their insurance company should be required to back bill them for the added cost back to the date of passage of the helmet law.

 

[woodsy]

del

 

[Pushin50]

Soooo,, from that standpoint can we count on your vote supporting legislation requiring all cars be fitted with a breathalzer that would disable the car if you have booze in your system??
Also,, if you crash on your dirtbike and need immediate medical attention I dont think you should have access to public supported transportation (like Lifeflight) because my tax dollars have supported that.. You can pay for that out of your own pockets instead - who cares what trauma your family suffers - they can suffer for the high risk sport you decided to participate in - why should I pay???

There is a law that does not allow me to drive drunk. Should I get into an accident driving while drunk my insurance will cover it, although my rates will go up. I had to pay for a Life Flight once because my insurance would not cover it. The government and its tax dollars did not come to my rescue. As for the rest I have insurance.
I don't want the no helmet law to pass but every year its passage becomes more likely. At some point we will be stuck with a no helmet law in Michigan. The financial responsibility for riding without a helmet should be covered by those to choose to ride without one. As for my self I ride with a helmet and I carry good insurance.

 

[Wolf Child]

by the way,, where the heck did Yzman go?? He started this debate and then split.. Ahhhhh,, that is a MAJOR no no unless he is pushing for the spot of Trouble Maker Number One?? If thats the case - FORGET IT DON - YT has that sewn up!!!!!!!

he decided he was in over his head sometime after the first few posts and bailed :rotfl:

 

[INCA]

As long as we live in a democracy, there are two things that can be done about laws. One is to work through the system to change what you feel is wrongfully affecting you and the other is to figure out a way around it. I have been doing the latter for many years and get along just fine.
Life itself is a risk no matter what. What counts is the degree involved. Live life and laugh at those that merely exist in life not wanting to risk anything.
Time to head for the garage and "break" another DuPage County law by heating some tar on my homemade stove. Bring on the --- ----sheriff, he's been here before and left scratching his head.

Trouble Maker - for sure

 

[Wolverine423]

Bring on the --- ----sheriff, he's been here before and left scratching his head.

Trouble Maker - for sure

:rotfl: I can only imagine!!

 

[bbarel]

Time to head for the garage and "break" another DuPage County law by heating some tar on my homemade stove.

And we all thought the CA fires were bad... we ain't seen noth'n yet...

 

[woodsy]

del

 

[BadgerMan]

And we all thought the CA fires were bad... we ain't seen noth'n yet...

Here's another log for the fire:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inj...le/FlaMCReport/images/FloridaMCReportscr1.pdf

If nothing else, just read the summary:

Summary
The effects of Florida’s repeal of its all-rider motorcycle helmet use law are similar to those seen in the other States that have repealed such laws in recent years. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that the following are likely outcomes in a State considering elimination of an all-rider helmet law:

1. Helmet use will decline markedly, from virtually full daytime compliance to voluntary use by about 50 percent of riders;

2. Helmet use likely will decline among all riders regardless of restrictions remaining in the law (use required by young riders, those without insurance) because of enforceability factors.

3. Motorcycle registrations will increase. This, in turn, will contribute to an increase in motorcycle crashes of all degrees of severity.

4. Motorcyclist fatalities will increase significantly, typically by 50 to 100 percent comparing the years following the law change with the years immediately before repeal. The fatality rate per registered motorcycle will also increase.

The Florida results also showed that non-fatal serious injuries increase more than lesser injuries following law repeal. Injured motorcyclists’ hospital admissions increased by 40 percent following the law change. Admissions for head-brain-skull injuries increased by more than 80 percent following the law change. Total gross treatment costs for these cases more than doubled and the cost per case also increased substantially. Fewer than 25 percent of hospital admitted motorcyclists for head-brain-skull injuries had treatment costs under $10,000, indicating that the law’s medical insurance provision is largely inadequate to cover the costs incurred. Only about two-thirds of admitted motorcyclists have medical insurance.

The Florida law continues to require helmet use by riders under the age of 21. The data indicate that this provision is not being observed. The number of under age 21 motorcyclists killed in Florida in the two years after the law change nearly tripled, compared to the two years before the change. Almost one-half of the post law change victims were not helmeted compared to about 26 percent before the law change, an increase of 188 percent. The number of young motorcyclists involved in crashes of lesser severity increased by about 47 percent.

Hey Woodsy.......how do you like my new signature.......a tribute to the recent Nobel Prize winner?

 

[mkelly04]

I am in favor of the law requiring helmet usage. I don't want to pay the costs for injured cyclists with my insurance and tax dollars. However if hemetless bikes pay the fee to get registered to ride without a helmet. Their insurance companies should be notified of their choice so the insurance companies can jack their rates for the increased cost of planting vegetables in a nursing home garden. I could totally live with this solution. If a helmetless biker is ticketed for not being registered to be "free" then their insurance company should be required to back bill them for the added cost back to the date of passage of the helmet law.

Do you feel the same way about obesity? Overweight people and related health problems cost you much more then motorcyclists who dont wear helmets. Should we jack up insurance rates for fatties? Should we ban unhealthy food? After all, they made the choice to be fat.

How about smokers and drinkers? The health problems from both activities cost a lot of money.

 

[woodsy]

del

 

[BadgerMan]

Do you feel the same way about obesity? Overweight people and related health problems cost you much more then motorcyclists who dont wear helmets. Should we jack up insurance rates for fatties? Should we ban unhealthy food? After all, they made the choice to be fat.

How about smokers and drinkers? The health problems from both activities cost a lot of money.

Um......definitely maybe? :laugh:

I think we’re missing something here, at least from a logic standpoint. They (the legislature) are proposing more freedom, not less. They want to make the laws less stringent, not more stringent. They are granting more “freedoms” rather than taking them away. As I said above, a valid comparison may be a lowering of the legal drinking age.

One fairly recent debate that comes to mind was that surrounding the shall issue law (CCW) that passed several years ago. There were a lot of similar concerns about people being hurt and whether individuals should be trusted with such freedoms. The difference is that there was and still is overwhelming evidence that shall issue laws have saved lives wherever they have been instituted.

Unfortunately, I have not seen such stats regarding helmetless riding. In fact, what I see is quite the opposite. So I remain torn between what my mind is telling concerning the dangers and what my heart is saying about freedom to choose.

I KNEW there was something different about that Algore

Hey buddy.......want some interesting reading? Just Google that fellar’s name (the quoted dude). And to think that Algore was almost elected president!

 

[bbarel]

The FL report indicated medical costs rose from 21M to 50M with about 10M covered by MedicAid, so I figure it was about 4M before, or 6M increase.

Averaged head injury costs rose from about $40 to about $60 per rider per year.

Seems like the costs could be managed by a reasonable surcharge (under $100) per rider who don't wear helmets.

ALSO #riders increased after the new law from around 4.1M to around 4.9M. I'd love to know how much of the increased accidents and injuries and costs are atributed to these these new yahoos.

 

[Wolverine423]

Hey seeings how A to Z is getting aired out how about people talking on cell phones while driving?..... :laugh:

 

[BadgerMan]

people talking on cell phones while driving?

Under the constitution, the right to be an AZZHOLE protects that freedom! :laugh:

 

[Pushin50]

Do you feel the same way about obesity? Overweight people and related health problems cost you much more then motorcyclists who dont wear helmets. Should we jack up insurance rates for fatties? Should we ban unhealthy food? After all, they made the choice to be fat.

How about smokers and drinkers? The health problems from both activities cost a lot of money.

Smokers, fatties and drinkers as you say already jack up the insurance rates for all of us. Many insurance companies are now offering discounts to plan members who follow a health management plan and do not smoke. I think this is a great idea. Riders who wear helmet should get insurance discounts just like drivers who wear set belts.

 

[Pushin50]

I worry if this law is passed how trail riding in Michigan will be effected. Two years ago I took the kids to Florida on spring break. We rode in the Ocala National Forest. It was like riding at a flat Silver Lake. Sand in every direction for miles and miles. I was told that off road riding requires a helmet (I may be wrong as I got the info from a clueless park ranger). I saw plenty quad and dirtbike riders zipping around without helmets. I have not seen this in Michigan. I worry riders here will get lax when it comes to safety and start running trails without helmets if they are not required to use them on the road. This would give the greenies more ammo to use to close trails. Florida has seen lots of land closed to orv use in the last 20 years.

 

[Wolf Child]

I worry if this law is passed how trail riding in Michigan will be effected. Two years ago I took the kids to Florida on spring break. We rode in the Ocala National Forest. It was like riding at a flat Silver Lake. Sand in every direction for miles and miles. I was told that off road riding requires a helmet (I may be wrong as I got the info from a clueless park ranger). I saw plenty quad and dirtbike riders zipping around without helmets. I have not seen this in Michigan. I worry riders here will get lax when it comes to safety and start running trails without helmets if they are not required to use them on the road. This would give the greenies more ammo to use to close trails. Florida has seen lots of land closed to orv use in the last 20 years.

true, but thats for a completely different reason.

ONF is a great example of why things are being closed. riding out there out side of a group is dangerous. the locals have lay in wait to ambush people, rob them and then beat them half to death and leave 'em for dead. and it's such an expansive area with no real marked trails to think of, if someone finds you it's pure dumb luck. there are so many documented cases like this and will full destruction of property ( cars parked in staging areas completly destroyed) that the US forestry service started shutting down more and more sections of the forest to the public, a few years back they had to place a ban on all nighttime activity in the forest because of vandles. It really boiled down to a lack of man power to patrol the area that lead to the majority of closures.

 

[YZMAN400]

Bloody coward is what he is.... He is probably sitting in his cubicle at work right now drinking coffee and reading this thread,,, shaking in his boots thinking,, what have a done - what have I done... I have lost all my friends,, what have I done... :) Woodsy

Nah I havent given up. Im just sitting back enjoying the chaos I have started. This is the most entertaining thing to happen to this forum in quite a while. I was getting really tired of reading all the enduro chatter :|

Ill just poke my head in once in a while and throw another log on the fire :rotfl:

Toublemaker in training :yikes:

 

[TCTrailrider]

Temps dropped alot today. I just went up a size on the Pilot Jet.