|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 12, 2007 12:48:30 GMT -5
This isn't really an argument over whether or not safety equipment is a good idea, it's an argument over how much authority do we allow the government to have over us. I don't need a law to get me into a helmet while riding a motorcycle because it is foolish to ride without one. With that in mind it looks to me like education would go so much farther than making laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by frayne56 on May 12, 2007 16:46:41 GMT -5
This isn't really an argument over whether or not safety equipment is a good idea, it's an argument over how much authority do we allow the government to have over us. I don't need a law to get me into a helmet while riding a motorcycle because it is foolish to ride without one. With that in mind it looks to me like education would go so much farther than making laws. JT, you are using logic, which in this debate, will not work. |
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 12, 2007 18:34:42 GMT -5
How much education does one need to understand that operating a motor with a helmet on is safer than operating a motor without a helmet?
There comes a point when attempting to educate the truly ignorant becomes moot.
Find me one anti-helmet law person who can say it is safer to ride without a helmet?
We have reached mootness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2007 18:56:14 GMT -5
Apples and oranges.
Safety and 'permission'.
|
|
|
|
Post by footylicious on May 12, 2007 20:36:37 GMT -5
The risk of serious injury from a motorcycle accident where the rider was not wearing a helmet are much higher than that from using a lawn mower or weed eater. I don't know which happen the most often, but people can be blinded. Weed eaters are causes of the injuries that I've seen. Blindness is bad. Death is worse. Both are alot less expensive than injuries resulting in life support, coma, etc. That's what puts the two types of injuries on different levels. FWIW: Workman's comp does not cover eye injuries when the employee chooses not to wear the provided protective eyewear, which totally makes sense. |
|
rebelgrunt
Full Member
Wheres my wrench???
Posts: 374
|
Post by rebelgrunt on May 12, 2007 20:37:15 GMT -5
Really it doesn't matter if you wear a donorcycle helmet or not...the very first wreck I responded to when I became an EMT was a car v. motorcycle...the car won...the cycle driver ran a red, broadsided a toyota corolla(sp) and went for a 30 ft face plant into homeplate...the guy was wearing a real helmet (not a skullcap) and the streak where he made contact with the pavement started 6 ft from the car...in short he had no face left...I responded to another wreck where the guy wasn't wearing a helmet and the only injury he had was a burn where his leg hit his engine...so really it's just big brother telling us how to live our lives again...
|
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 12, 2007 23:25:10 GMT -5
Crash, somewhere in my father's basement, I have video tapes. The guy at Daytona, his body went over 900 feet. Because of where he had the blowout, they estimate that he was doing between 180 and 185, and it was not a controlled skid. It threw him off, and the first time his bike his his body, he was unconscious.
I also have a video of the race where Rodney Fee ran over himself, and managed not to crash. (Yep, you read it right.)
|
|
AHPO
Regular
Posts: 49
|
Post by AHPO on May 13, 2007 23:26:35 GMT -5
Really it doesn't matter if you wear a donorcycle helmet or not...the very first wreck I responded to when I became an EMT was a car v. motorcycle...the car won...the cycle driver ran a red, broadsided a toyota corolla(sp) and went for a 30 ft face plant into homeplate...the guy was wearing a real helmet (not a skullcap) and the streak where he made contact with the pavement started 6 ft from the car...in short he had no face left...I responded to another wreck where the guy wasn't wearing a helmet and the only injury he had was a burn where his leg hit his engine...so really it's just big brother telling us how to live our lives again... I also have responded to a wreck involving a motorcycle. A head with no helmet vs. asphalt street at 30 mph. splits like a melon. I have scene this myself. |
|
|
|
Post by stray on May 13, 2007 23:35:21 GMT -5
Either way...a helmet isn't going to keep your soft little body from going *splat* and your brittle bones from breaking when so much inertia takes effect...but it will assist in keeping your brains in your head from a straight impact. (though you might still break your neck..but hey...)
When I rode, I always wore a helmet...and if I ever ride again, I'll wear a helmet...no matter what the laws are...but I also know that it's not a magical full suit of body armor.
|
|
RuneDeer
Senior Forumite
I look pretty young, but I'm just back-dated.
Posts: 2,937
|
Post by RuneDeer on May 14, 2007 4:59:27 GMT -5
How much education does one need to understand that operating a motor with a helmet on is safer than operating a motor without a helmet? There comes a point when attempting to educate the truly ignorant becomes moot. True. Which means that if someone is operating a motorcycle without a helmet, the law can assume that their judgment is impaired. And if they don't have a doctor's statement and school records confirming that they have an organic mental impairment, then the law can also assume that their impaired judgment is caused by substance abuse, and if they survive, they can be charged with DUI. All of the above would only be applicable in the case of an injury accident. If the fool gets from point A to point B intact, he's lived to be stupid another day. Notice I didn't say " he or she." There's a reason. |
|
