Let those who ride decide....

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:58 am

For those that question. Twenty five years of motocross, eight years of road racing and four years of kart racing. Twelve concussions, four hospital stays for hard head hits. I have a scar from the bridge of my nose to my lower lip from a foot peg when I was fifteen. A fractured neck etc. Etc. I quit riding for ten years. I love my motorcycles. I love the feeling of speed, of racing, I love competition. I love my family, I will always wear gear and a helmet. I will not push myself ever, ever again. I will alway ride diligently safe!

A hundred times is an underestimate. Every time a person hits the ground and their head makes contact with anything without a helmet is potential for death. A hit to the head with a bat, it's over.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:10 am

77jester wrote:

For those that question. Twenty five years of motocross, eight years of road racing and four years of kart racing. Twelve concussions, four hospital stays for hard head hits. I have a scar from the bridge of my nose to my lower lip from a foot peg when I was fifteen. A fractured neck etc. Etc. I quit riding for ten years. I love my motorcycles. I love the feeling of speed, of racing, I love competition. I love my family, I will always wear gear and a helmet. I will not push myself ever, ever again. I will alway ride diligently safe!

A hundred times is an underestimate. Every time a person hits the ground and their head makes contact with anything without a helmet is potential for death. A hit to the head with a bat, it's over.

As far as racing goes. EVERY TIME I have raced in a car on the track. Yes I wear a Helmet and seat belts. It's the smart thing to do.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:57 am

CB1100F wrote:

Favorite brain injury PSA ever.

Link

That was priceless Glenn !!!!! Laughing

Twinstar Joined: Oct 09, 2008 Posts: 195 Location: Iowa

There's no helmet law here and most people don't wear one. In fact, quite a few of them seem to think it's cool to drive around one handed too. I wear all my gear and have never heard a word about it. I'd probably laugh if I did.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:16 am

Tattoo wrote:

As far as racing goes. EVERY TIME I have raced in a car on the track. Yes I wear a Helmet and seat belts. It's the smart thing to do.

Whats the difference between "Racing" and riding hard?...to me there is none, with the exeption that there is already a ambulance waiting at the race track..
Maybe "riding hard" on a HD is different...I don't know...don't really care either... Razz

If you push the limits even a little, without wearing protection when you cross the line(Note I did not say "if")...you are a fool...afterall "its the smart thing to do" Laughing

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:02 am

I find it hard to believe that people will still argue about wearing a seatbelt. Been law here for close to 40 years. Talk to the old time ambo's about what prangs were like before seatbelts and get lots of interesting detail about what happens to human bodies which exit cars via the windscreen, babies which have gone through the windscreen and hit the other car in the accident, or drivers with caved in chests due to steering column impact.

I guess the question you need to ask yourself is "does exercising my free will, free me from the laws of physics".

I have been to lots of MVA's and it is obvious as soon as you look at a patient whether they had a seat belt on or not. No seat belt, even in relatively low energy accidents = major injuries in most cases. Even in high speed, high energy accidents (think Lady Di and her fatal prang) seat belted occupants stand a very good chance of surviving, those without seat belts stand little chance of surviving.

This is not new, ground breaking research, the protection afforded by a seat belt has been well documented for 40+ years. Even in the late 60's, my father went to GM in the US for a dealers conference. At the conference they discussed the roll out of seat belt laws in Australia as the one factor that would save the lives of more vehicle occupants than any other road safety initiative.

In the South Australian report listed below they, give a figure of 97% compliance with seat belt laws and yet 37% of people killed in car crashes were unrestrained.
So 3% of people don't wear seat belts but of those killed in crashes 37% did not have them on. If seat belts were ineffective you would expect to see only 3% of people killed in crashes were unrestrained. For those not keen on seat belts, do the figures suggest anything to you?
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/casrpubfile/1076/CASR090.pdf

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:15 am

Another gem or two;

The United States National Highway
Administration reports that 3 out of
every 5 people killed in vehicle crashes
in the US - where seatbelt use is much
lower than in Australia - would have
survived their injuries had they been
strapped in.

Even at low speed, not wearing a seat
belt can cause serious injury and death.
A crash at 40km/h is like falling from a
two storey building onto concrete. (ed. wouldn't that sting)

Source;
http://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/publications/corporate/seat_belts_fs.pdf

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:20 am

I think you guys are really missing the point about helmet laws. Its very similar to the theory about guns laws, any rights given away will open the door to more rights taken away. Does anyone believe that helmet laws are not insurance industry driven? I would say they are responsible for a great many of our laws, protecting ourselves from ourselves.

Thank you goverment and thank you insurance company. But havent they also been clamoring about "Ninja bikes" that go in excess of 100 mph for years? Think of how many videos of stunts gone wrong, on the street, they could show in your local legislator? How might they save our poor souls? Limit bikes power maybe? Why would anyone in their right mind need a 4 cylinder motorcycle? Thats what most CARS have? Thats crazy! Ooops, ducatis go fast too, we better limit horse power too.

Maybe they shouldnt be allowed to ride at night. Passengers often are more seriously hurt than the rider, maybe ban two up riding? Rain? Maybe they should only be allowed to ride on dry roads. Incase you havent noticed there are airbags suits ready for market, maybe we should all HAVE to purchase and wear one no matter what the cost, temperture, or short distance we are going? Might as well make bikers pay way more than a car has to for insurance. Shoot, that will be easy to pass. While we're at it, lets do a cash for clunkers and get rid of every bike that doesnt have ABS. That will now be manditory.

Its all about saving lives right? Fuck it is. Do you think our lobby has any chance against big insurance? The only reason helmet laws have been repealed in so many states is because of one little word called freedom. Thats it. I personally think its irresponsible for a motorcyclist to not embrace the CHOICE to ride with or without a helmet. Give away that choice and you open the door to shit you never even dreamed of.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:26 am

do you buckle up your seat belt when you get into your car ???? most do because its the law and has been proven to save lives...putting on a helmet before you ride is a similar action...it's called SAFETY EQUIPMENT...your choice...I chose to were one

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:56 am

http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-rider-dies-protesting-motorcycle-helmet-law/story?id=13993417

I like the last line the best

"The decision on when to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle should remain with each responsible adult rider."

How ironic though protesting the helmet law but dies because he was not wearing one.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:40 am

There is no doubt that wearing seatbelts and helmets saves lives. That’s why I always wear both. Anyone that thinks it should be the law is full of crap! If you really believe these type of laws are about saving lives then you have bought the lies from the politicians hook line and sinker as they say. When the government steps in you can rest assured it has never been about saving lives, it has always been about making money. If it was really about saving lives, then why not start with the things that cause the highest amount of deaths first? How many people die or get injured every year due to alcohol? How many innocent people are killed or injured due to someone else drinking alcohol? I bet those are a lot higher than the amount from motorcycle accidents. So should we outlaw alcohol? Oh no, there would be too much outcry from the public and money to be lost by corporations. What about cigarettes, unhealthy foods, ect… should they all be outlawed? Again I say if it’s about lives let’s use the statics and start with the highest kill rates, but that will never happen as long as it creates money flow. Yes it is about freedoms, and I don’t want anyone taking away my freedoms. We fought to get them and we should fight to keep them!
If it really was about saving lives, then it would open a door for the government to regulate just about everything and rest assured they would. Laws like: every home must have a fire sprinkler and fire extinguisher, obesity would be illegal, smoking would be illegal, you must have and use excercise equipment,and the list would go on and on. Everything you could imagine that is a safety or health issue that we would all have if we could afford it, would now be mandatory by the law. These types of laws will always be controlled by who has the most money to lose, for example: insurance companies verses alcohol manufacturers. Just follow the money trail and you will see it all leads to Washington.

As long as we refuse to start with the highest kill and injury items, I never want to hear about how it saves lives or money for us individuals. Again Just my ever not so humble opinion!

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:02 pm

Seat belts and Helmets save lives, are unobtrusive and easy to use ,and help limit senseless medical costs from severe injuries that occur when they aren't used.

Helmets are the equivalent of seat belt use.

One's personal freedom ends when it impacts other people.

Severe injuries and their cost to society is that impact.

Battles are worth fighting for issues that mean something.

Being free to ride a motorcycle is an issue like that. That doesn't mean it is necessary to fight each step along the way. What's next ? Freedom to ride barefoot? Just as stupid, with a lesser downside than helmet use.

A helmet is a common sense piece of safety equipment that prevents injuries.

Other posts have made many good points here.

Until the costs of that "personal decision" are borne exclusively by that rider, other people shouldn't have to share that unnecessary burden.

Since it is immoral to let them die or restrict treatment, that means wearing a helmet.

The key is unnecessary, preventable risk.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:06 pm

Quote:

LarryG quote - I think you guys are really missing the point about helmet laws. Its very similar to the theory about guns laws, any rights given away will open the door to more rights taken away

No truer words have been spoken in the hundreds of thousands of posts here.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:59 pm

f4fast wrote:

Seat belts and Helmets save lives, are unobtrusive and easy to use ,and help limit senseless medical costs from severe injuries that occur when they aren't used.

Helmets are the equivalent of seat belt use.

One's personal freedom ends when it impacts other people.

Severe injuries and their cost to society is that impact.

Battles are worth fighting for issues that mean something.

Being free to ride a motorcycle is an issue like that. That doesn't mean it is necessary to fight each step along the way. What's next ? Freedom to ride barefoot? Just as stupid, with a lesser downside than helmet use.

A helmet is a common sense piece of safety equipment that prevents injuries.

Other posts have made many good points here.

Until the costs of that "personal decision" are borne exclusively by that rider, other people shouldn't have to share that unnecessary burden.

Since it is immoral to let them die or restrict treatment, that means wearing a helmet.

The key is unnecessary, preventable risk.

http://www.cb1100f.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=63439

So in F4 bizzaro world,, The idiot in the car bears no financial responsibility for medical expenses of the rider because the rider didn't have a helmet on? Shocked

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:10 pm

cbxdog wrote:

f4fast wrote:

Seat belts and Helmets save lives, are unobtrusive and easy to use ,and help limit senseless medical costs from severe injuries that occur when they aren't used.

Helmets are the equivalent of seat belt use.

One's personal freedom ends when it impacts other people.

Severe injuries and their cost to society is that impact.

Battles are worth fighting for issues that mean something.

Being free to ride a motorcycle is an issue like that. That doesn't mean it is necessary to fight each step along the way. What's next ? Freedom to ride barefoot? Just as stupid, with a lesser downside than helmet use.

A helmet is a common sense piece of safety equipment that prevents injuries.

Other posts have made many good points here.

Until the costs of that "personal decision" are borne exclusively by that rider, other people shouldn't have to share that unnecessary burden.

Since it is immoral to let them die or restrict treatment, that means wearing a helmet.

The key is unnecessary, preventable risk.

http://www.cb1100f.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=63439

So in F4 bizzaro world,, The idiot in the car bears no financial responsibility for medical expenses of the rider because the rider didn't have a helmet on? Shocked

I don't want to get involved with your nonsense.

That's not what that says ..learn to read.

Stick to the parts sale section of the site. You do your best work there.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:15 pm

CowTownBiomed wrote:

Tattoo wrote:

As far as racing goes. EVERY TIME I have raced in a car on the track. Yes I wear a Helmet and seat belts. It's the smart thing to do.

Whats the difference between "Racing" and riding hard?...to me there is none, with the exeption that there is already a ambulance waiting at the race track..
Maybe "riding hard" on a HD is different...I don't know...don't really care either... Razz

If you push the limits even a little, without wearing protection when you cross the line(Note I did not say "if")...you are a fool...afterall "its the smart thing to do" Laughing

I find that I ride harder and faster when I wear a helmet. Is that because I know I won't die if I'm wearing a Helmet. At least that what it sounds like your basing your argument on??? Your gonna die when it's your time Helmet or not.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:22 pm

basmn wrote:

do you buckle up your seat belt when you get into your car ????

I do EVERY time I get in a car. Did before it was the LAW. What I want to know is if they save lives why don't school buses have seat belts in them?????

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:48 pm

f4fast wrote:

cbxdog wrote:

f4fast wrote:

Seat belts and Helmets save lives, are unobtrusive and easy to use ,and help limit senseless medical costs from severe injuries that occur when they aren't used.

Helmets are the equivalent of seat belt use.

One's personal freedom ends when it impacts other people.

Severe injuries and their cost to society is that impact.

Battles are worth fighting for issues that mean something.

Being free to ride a motorcycle is an issue like that. That doesn't mean it is necessary to fight each step along the way. What's next ? Freedom to ride barefoot? Just as stupid, with a lesser downside than helmet use.

A helmet is a common sense piece of safety equipment that prevents injuries.

Other posts have made many good points here.

Until the costs of that "personal decision" are borne exclusively by that rider, other people shouldn't have to share that unnecessary burden.

Since it is immoral to let them die or restrict treatment, that means wearing a helmet.

The key is unnecessary, preventable risk.

http://www.cb1100f.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=63439

So in F4 bizzaro world,, The idiot in the car bears no financial responsibility for medical expenses of the rider because the rider didn't have a helmet on? Shocked

I don't want to get involved with your nonsense.

That's not what that says ..learn to read.

Stick to the parts sale section of the site. You do your best work there.

I read your words very clearly

Quote:

YOUR QUOTE F4-- Until the costs of that "personal decision" are borne exclusively by that rider, other people shouldn't have to share that unnecessary burden.

Your words, as skewed a view as they are they are YOUR WORDS -

So what part of --""are borne exclusively by that rider"' Didn't you understand when you typed it?

Learn to think an idea through before you type F4

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:46 pm

Tattoo wrote:

What I want to know is if they save lives why don't school buses have seat belts in them?????

They do. There's just no requirement that the students wear them. And there's good reason for that.

Link

Our buses hold up to 72 children. It takes three minutes or more for them to exit the bus under regular circumstances when we drop them off at school. Now imagine a bunch of elementary school students panicking as a fire starts, and they all have seatbelts on.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:00 pm

GTO6T6 wrote:

In fact, quite a few of them seem to think it's cool to drive around one handed too.

So what do you think of this picture?

Hey, I had a helmet, armored jacket, and boots on. roflmao

Far more safety equipment than required by law.

f4fast wrote:

The key is unnecessary, preventable risk.

Riding a motorcycle is an "unnecessary, preventable risk", yet you, and everyone else here, still does it. Motorcycles are nothing more than dangerous toys.

Now where have I heard someone say that an inanimate object, that is nothing more than a dangerous toy, should be highly regulated (if not downright outlawed) by the federal government? Shocked

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:28 pm

It's a means of transportation. Transportation is necessary.

Couldn't the same logic be used to prohibit PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC on side walks of public roads meant for vehicle traffic?

Motorcycles have a legitimate function as a means of transportation.

The fact that other means of transportation have statistically safer records doesn't matter.

Non Helmet users make a choice that potentially effects others, at great expense.

Peter's explanation summed it up nicely

PGSmick wrote:

To those of you who don't believe in seat belt laws, helmet laws, or the requirement to purchase health insurance, I'm now quite curious about just what DO you think should happen to those people who opt for what we all seem to agree is the stupid thing, then get into trouble and don't have the money to fix themselves up. How and when will you collect from them the cost they incur so that the rest of us don't have to pay for it? And if they are judgement proof, then what?

Should the hospital be allowed to satisfy itself of your ability to pay before they lift a finger? And let you die while they wait for their answer? Or let you die if it looks like you won't be able to pay? And how would they know ahead of time what sort of costs you might incur? No, perhaps you say. The hospital should treat, and then seek recovery later through whatever means might be necessary including litigation. As if litigqation were efficient. And if the hospital can't recover its costs, should the hospital bear the burden? (Even if it means they have to cut obstetric services just in time for your the arrival of someone else's new bundle of joy?). Should they be allowed to fail if they are working close to the edge and some numbskull's stupidity put them over? Or should they be bailed out by the government? Of course it's not just hospitals I'm talking about, and not just one numbskull. That's just an example of something that costs significant money to get the guy out of the forest.

Statistically speaking (and don't go making the singularly obtuse argument that safety statistics do not support wearing a helmet--that's been hacked to death here already), would it not be better to simply accept a law requiring helmet use so that we don't as often get into these heart wrenching ethical questions? All to permit, in the name of "liberty", someone's making decisions none of us would make for ourselves because we agree they are stupid decisions.

THX's idea of collecting a fee up front for anyone who admits they will not be wearing a helmet this year seems destined for failure. I don't know too many people who are that honest. I suppose you could take the position that the first time you were observed not wearing a helmet it could be taken as your admission that you do not wear a helmet generally, and you could be stopped and assessed that huge, once per year no-helmet fee of $1500 or so, but it is hard to see how that differs very much from having a helmet law.

Don't get me wrong, I am willing to bear a share of the societal cost of treating people who can't pay, but it seems only fair for everyone to be required to do their part in keeping those costs to a minimum by wearing a helmet.
_________________

Twinstar Joined: Oct 09, 2008 Posts: 195 Location: Iowa

Outback_Jon wrote:

So what do you think of this picture?

har...

what? Twisted Evil

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:41 pm

PGSmick wrote:

To those of you who don't believe in seat belt laws, helmet laws, or the requirement to purchase health insurance, I'm now quite curious about just what DO you think should happen to those people who opt for what we all seem to agree is the stupid thing, then get into trouble and don't have the money to fix themselves up. How and when will you collect from them the cost they incur so that the rest of us don't have to pay for it? And if they are judgement proof, then what?

Should the hospital be allowed to satisfy itself of your ability to pay before they lift a finger? And let you die while they wait for their answer? Or let you die if it looks like you won't be able to pay? And how would they know ahead of time what sort of costs you might incur? No, perhaps you say. The hospital should treat, and then seek recovery later through whatever means might be necessary including litigation. As if litigqation were efficient. And if the hospital can't recover its costs, should the hospital bear the burden? (Even if it means they have to cut obstetric services just in time for your the arrival of someone else's new bundle of joy?). Should they be allowed to fail if they are working close to the edge and some numbskull's stupidity put them over? Or should they be bailed out by the government? Of course it's not just hospitals I'm talking about, and not just one numbskull. That's just an example of something that costs significant money to get the guy out of the forest.

Statistically speaking (and don't go making the singularly obtuse argument that safety statistics do not support wearing a helmet--that's been hacked to death here already), would it not be better to simply accept a law requiring helmet use so that we don't as often get into these heart wrenching ethical questions? All to permit, in the name of "liberty", someone's making decisions none of us would make for ourselves because we agree they are stupid decisions.

THX's idea of collecting a fee up front for anyone who admits they will not be wearing a helmet this year seems destined for failure. I don't know too many people who are that honest. I suppose you could take the position that the first time you were observed not wearing a helmet it could be taken as your admission that you do not wear a helmet generally, and you could be stopped and assessed that huge, once per year no-helmet fee of $1500 or so, but it is hard to see how that differs very much from having a helmet law.

Don't get me wrong, I am willing to bear a share of the societal cost of treating people who can't pay, but it seems only fair for everyone to be required to do their part in keeping those costs to a minimum by wearing a helmet.

Your logic is all fine and good,, but if it is good to have a fee for no helmet, maybe I am NOT OK with paying for other people choices which put them at higher risk for expensive prolonged medical care which I choose to not pay my share of,,

Cigarettes - $1500 a year smoker fee
beer/ alcohol use - $1500 a year alcohol fee
motorcycles over 500 cc $1500 a year fee - hell motorcycle period $1500 a year
performance car over 2 liters - $1500 a year fee
any competitive sport - soft ball mini marathons, marathons, triathlons,
God forbid you rock climb, sky dive, bungee jump, open water diver or any one of a hundred life endangering hobby - past time.

We really want to encourage politicians to asses more taxes fine and fees to our daily life??

Once it starts,, Where will it end ???

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:36 pm

GTO6T6 wrote:

Outback_Jon wrote:

So what do you think of this picture?

har...

what? Twisted Evil

It was just about as comfortable. That trunk had a pretty cushy passenger backrest. And we were only doing about 75~80mph. Twisted Evil

I've actually slept on my (parked) Concours in nearly the same position. Although I put my feet up on the handlebars.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:53 pm

I don't have any more time for this thread. Wear em if you want em. But IF any of you offer my kids a ride on your bike without one I will use my 5.99 Harbor Freight 16 ounce ball peen on your skull- starting from the toes up