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 said: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!!
..
woodsy said:... 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..
woodsy said: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???
woodsy said: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!!!!!!!
:rotfl: I can only imagine!!INCA said:Bring on the --- ----sheriff, he's been here before and left scratching his head.
Trouble Maker - for sure
And we all thought the CA fires were bad... we ain't seen noth'n yet...INCA said:Time to head for the garage and "break" another DuPage County law by heating some tar on my homemade stove.
bbarel said:And we all thought the CA fires were bad... we ain't seen noth'n yet...
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of Florida’s repeal of its all-rider motorcycle helmet use law are similar to those seen in the other States that have repealed such laws in recent years.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.
Pushin50 said: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.
mkelly04 said: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 said:I KNEW there was something different about that Algore
people talking on cell phones while driving?
mkelly04 said: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.
Pushin50 said: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.
woodsy said: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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?