Sad, but appropriate.

[makenzie71]

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

[2LZ]

Saw this today too. Somehow so ironic. Self-cleaning gene pool, perhaps?
I mean....what are the odds? I guess when it's your time, it's your time.

[FastDoc]

I like that CB750 in the file photo. 8)

While in MT and ID it was rare to see someone with a helmet. Even riding ATV's through town no helmet, shirt, and smoking a cigarette (no kidding). Gives me the willies.

I respect an individual's right to free choice with issues concerning (mostly) only themselves but as for me and my house, we will wear Snell.

It's all about risk management. We all take risks getting on a bike, or out of bed for that matter. Manageing that risk is where the IQ test begins.

[Jim]

There is a choice here in BC. You can wear a helmet, or not wear a helmet, legally. If you chose not to wear a helmet, simply leave the motorcycle at home. Done. It's not as if riding a motorcycle is a natural thing, it has been invented by our society, and our society has rules to follow when interacting with it's inventions. For example, when operating a chain saw, do not saw your foot to check if the chain is sharp.

[SpudRider]

As FastDoc correctly stated, motorcycle helmets are not mandatory for adult riders in Idaho. However, I always wear a helmet. I strongly encourage every motorcycle rider to wear a good helmet, every time he rides. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's the governments business to tell adult motorcycle riders they must wear helmets.

Spud :)

[Barnone]

As FastDoc correctly stated, motorcycle helmets are not mandatory for adult riders in Idaho. However, I always wear a helmet. I strongly encourage every motorcycle rider to wear a good helmet, every time he rides. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's the governments business to tell adult motorcycle riders they must wear helmets.

Spud :)
Spud,
Is it the government's responsibility to repair the broken head that might have been prevented by proper helmet wear?

Maybe the evil government should just say no helmet, no ER visit.

BTW, we are the government.

[Jim]

You know what Spud, maybe it shouldn't be but apparently they are stupid enough that the government indeed needs to tell them.

[makenzie71]

As FastDoc correctly stated, motorcycle helmets are not mandatory for adult riders in Idaho. However, I always wear a helmet. I strongly encourage every motorcycle rider to wear a good helmet, every time he rides. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's the governments business to tell adult motorcycle riders they must wear helmets.

Spud :)

I always have mixed emotions on that. On one hand, I do not think it's the gov's place to tell us to wear helmets. On the other hand, I know 9/10 of the idiots riding sans lids don't have insurance or money and that when they go down it will be my tax dollars caring for them. Usually I try to look at it like Barnone says...if they'd refuse coverage if the rider was an idiot then I'd feel a little better.

However, there is one thing that always brings me back to government's side...and I often enough find myself thinking there should be more regulation. Not long ago a local man was riding down a busy street and, after being hit in the face with some gravel from a car ahead, he lost control of his bike. He then hit a pedestrian. Eye protection alone probably would have saved everyone.

A lot of "no helmet law" supporters tend to look at helmet laws as nanny-state laws. The truth of it is that they are not. Nanny laws are laws designed to protect idiots from themselves and from burdening society. Like seat belt laws. Riding with no head or face protection, though, does not just endanger your life. It can endanger everyone around you.

[FastDoc]

As FastDoc correctly stated, motorcycle helmets are not mandatory for adult riders in Idaho. However, I always wear a helmet. I strongly encourage every motorcycle rider to wear a good helmet, every time he rides. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's the governments business to tell adult motorcycle riders they must wear helmets.

Spud :)

Thats a total +1 Brother Spud.

[SpudRider]

As FastDoc correctly stated, motorcycle helmets are not mandatory for adult riders in Idaho. However, I always wear a helmet. I strongly encourage every motorcycle rider to wear a good helmet, every time he rides. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's the governments business to tell adult motorcycle riders they must wear helmets.

Spud :)
Spud,
Is it the government's responsibility to repair the broken head that might have been prevented by proper helmet wear?

Maybe the evil government should just say no helmet, no ER visit.

BTW, we are the government.
Indeed, we are the government, and no, we, (the government) should not be responsible for repairing a reckless individual's broken head. That's exactly my point, Vince. :)

Spud :)

[SpudRider]

You know what Spud, maybe it shouldn't be but apparently they are stupid enough that the government indeed needs to tell them.
I believe the government has the prerogative to tell minors they must wear a motorcycle helmet. However, I believe the government should not meddle in the personal affairs of consenting adults. ;)

I don't think the government should be intruding into people's bedrooms. I don't think the government should be telling people what they can eat, drink, smoke, or ingest in any manner. I don't think the government should be able to tell people they can't be overweight, et cetera. ;)

During the Jimmy Carter administration, NHTSA Director, Joan Claybrook, was very anti-motorcycle. She is reported to have stated she believed motorcycles were too dangerous for anyone to ride, and she would have them outlawed if she could do so. Fortunately for us, Joan Claybrook was not appointed Queen of the United States of America. ;) Nevertheless, the Carter Administration still imposed the national, 55 mph speed limit and the 85 mph speedometer on all our motor vehicles. :roll:

As we all know, riding a motorcycle is inherently more dangerous than driving an automobile, which is a very dangerous activity itself. 8O However, if a legal adult chooses to ride a motorcycle, it's not the government's business to tell him he can't. I believe if a legal adult is stupid enough to ride without a motorcycle helmet, be sexually promiscuous, or be excessively overweight, the government still doesn't have a right to intrude into his personal life under the pretext it doesn't want to pay his medical bills.

Spud :)

[SpudRider]

As FastDoc correctly stated, motorcycle helmets are not mandatory for adult riders in Idaho. However, I always wear a helmet. I strongly encourage every motorcycle rider to wear a good helmet, every time he rides. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's the governments business to tell adult motorcycle riders they must wear helmets.

Spud :)
...Not long ago a local man was riding down a busy street and, after being hit in the face with some gravel from a car ahead, he lost control of his bike. He then hit a pedestrian. Eye protection alone probably would have saved everyone.

A lot of "no helmet law" supporters tend to look at helmet laws as nanny-state laws. The truth of it is that they are not. Nanny laws are laws designed to protect idiots from themselves and from burdening society. Like seat belt laws. Riding with no head or face protection, though, does not just endanger your life. It can endanger everyone around you.
I understand your point, and I am sympathetic to your opinion. However, the accident you reported is extremely rare, and somewhat incredible. 8O Rather than surrender more individual rights to the government, in this instance I think the government had a greater responsibility to keep the streets safely navigable. ;)

Many people are killed, and seriously injured every day by drunk drivers. It is well established that even a single drink impairs a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle. If people injure others while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, I think they should be severely punished. However, it's not the government's business to tell people they can't drink alcohol. We had the legal prohibition of alcohol in the United States during the 1920's, and this government intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens was a disaster. Organized crime flourished during this period, but people didn't stop drinking alcohol.

Personally, I never drink alcohol, just as I never ride a motorcycle without wearing my helmet. ;) However, I don't think it's the governments business to tell consenting adults they can't drink alcohol. If people choose to drink, and drive, they should be held personally responsible for any injuries they cause to themselves, or others. If an obese person suffers a heart attack while driving, and kills a pedestrian, I don't think the government has the right to outlaw obesity under the pretext it saves lives, and/or medical expenses for other taxpayers. If someone wishes to be morbidly obese, I think it's idiotic, and dangerous; however, I also think it's none of the government's business. ;)

Spud :)

[davidsonsgccc]

freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. not curfews, babysitters, and hall monitors..

i agree we should have the freedom to make our own choices. also we should have to live with the consequences of them. i wear a helmet but in the pursuit of freedom bad choices are made and that should be our right.

no one has the right to protect me from my self.

[makenzie71]

However, the accident you reported is extremely rare, and somewhat incredible.

If I only had one example, I wouldn't feel the way I do.

[Jim]

How is it that you don't want the government meddling in your motorcycle riding, but you want them to take care of the roads for you? You ride on your own private property, and do as you please.

[2LZ]

I work for a government agency that wants to control your outdoor actions and your hobbies, probably more than anyone.....and it's all being dictated by "People with Emotional Agendas in Power"....writing law and bringing the law down on you with your own tax dollars you pay without your consent, working against you and what you want to do as a free tax payer and entrepeneur, trying to create wealth and jobs.

They have groups in power who are lobbying to, end result, remove the human being from every single section of the outdoors....unless you walk in complete lockstep and are totally controlled. If you think I'm paranoid and crazy?....come live in the PRK for a while and be an outdoorsmaan or farmer in Nor Cal...trying to bring mass food to the world.....and listen to the conversations I hear daily.

It thoroughly disgusts me what I hear and see every day that our tax dollars are going toward.....and I have to keep my mouth shut for the selfish need of hopefully an eventual promotion.

I don't agree with any law that stops choice for an adult, be it helmet or abortion.....but be aware that your actions can come back to bite. Unfortunately, there are way to many safety nets for the moron, paid for by the common sense people. There lies the problem.

Sorry to get off on a tangent.......just struck a 'daily nerve'. :?

Spud for President. :D

[SpudRider]

How is it that you don't want the government meddling in your motorcycle riding, but you want them to take care of the roads for you? You ride on your own private property, and do as you please.
I pay taxes to have the government maintain the roads. 8O However, I never asked the government to meddle in my private affairs, neither do I pay taxes to have the government meddle in my private affairs. :roll: I also don't think the government has the inherent right to meddle in the private affairs of others.

I wear a motorcycle helmet all the time. If you want to wear a motorcycle helmet, wear one. Good for you; I encourage you to do so. How is it that you want the government to enforce your opinion on others?

Spud

[SpudRider]

However, the accident you reported is extremely rare, and somewhat incredible.
If I only had one example, I wouldn't feel the way I do.
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to sound flippant. I just never heard of an incident like that before. The example you cited is the only instance I have ever heard where a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet injured another person. :?

Spud :)

[Jim]

The government maintains the roads, the road system is a system they have built and has associated rules with it's use.

Helmet safety is not an opinion it is a statistically proven fact...

Should the government not interfere with speeders? Drunk drivers? Vehicle safety inspections? The trucking industry?

Should people be able to sell whatever they want into the food system? Should the bankers be allowed to go on unchecked?

We live in a society and we live by certain rules to live within that society.

This isn't about freedom. The fact that my city has a bylaw that says I cannot use blasphemous language is far more offensive to freedoms then saying you need to wear a helmet to operate a vehicle licensed by the government on a government owned, maintained, and regulated highway.

And to think that it only impacts the person who chooses not to wear it isn't a fair argument. What about the fire fighters, police, and paramedics who have to hose your brain off the pavement? Your friends, and family? The ER staff? And what if you don't kill yourself, what if you just disable yourself for life and then require others to look after you?

(And yes I know you wear a helmet, I am just using the word you to describe the person not wearing the helmet).

Helmets are required in BC, and I don't see any major threat to my freedoms from it.


I reread your last post, I think my point is that when you are operating you're motorcycle on the roads, the public roads, it is not a private affair. You are using public infrastructure.

[SpudRider]

As I have stated several times, I always wear a motorcycle helmet myself, and I strongly encourage every other rider to wear one. I have also stated that drunk drivers should be severely punished. Indeed, anyone who recklessly endangers the lives, or the property of others should be regulated. :roll:
...This isn't about freedom...
You’re missing the point; this is entirely about freedom. :roll: It is well proven that riding a motorcycle is far more dangerous than driving an automobile. What would be a minor collision between automobiles frequently results in major injury, or even death, when the collision occurs between a motorcycle and an automobile. Also, motorcyclists are frequently involved in non-collision accidents where the bike loses traction, and crashs when an automobile would not. What about the fire fighters, police, and paramedics who have to clean up the mess after you have an accident on your motorcycle, even if you were wearing a helmet? What if you disable yourself for life while riding a motorcycle, and then require others to look after you? According to this logic, motorcycles themselves should be outlawed, because you might injure yourself, and become a burden to society. Indeed, mountain climbing, sky diving, hang gliding, et cetera, should also be outlawed for the same reasons. In fact, any dangerous activity should be outlawed, because you might injure yourself, and you shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision.

It’s not the business of the government to infringe upon the personal liberties of its citizens. It’s also not the business of the government to protect people from themselves. If one doesn’t want to ride a motorcycle because he recognizes it is dangerous, he shouldn’t be forced to do so. However, if one decides motorcycles are unsafe for everyone, and no one else should be allowed to ride, he is unjustly infringing upon the liberties of others. As I stated in an earlier post, former NHTSA Director, Joan Claybrook, is reported to have wanted to outlaw motorcycles altogether. Should she have had the right to employ the government to enforce her opinion upon others? After all, many motorcyclists get injured, and some become a burden to society. :roll:

Once again, I will repeat my position for the record. Although Idaho law does not require it, I always wear my motorcycle helmet, and I strongly encourage every other rider to do the same. However, I don't agree with mandatory helmet laws for adults.

Spud

[Barnone]

However, the accident you reported is extremely rare, and somewhat incredible.
If I only had one example, I wouldn't feel the way I do.
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to sound flippant. I just never heard of an incident like that before. The example you cited is the only instance I have ever heard where a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet injured another person. :?

Spud :)
Spud,
Original post:
"Not long ago a local man was riding down a busy street and, after being hit in the face with some gravel from a car ahead, he lost control of his bike. He then hit a pedestrian. Eye protection alone probably would have saved everyone. "
No mention of helmet just eye protection which is also required by law in most states.
Do you think the government should require bikers to wear eye protection when riding?
How about car seats for infants/toddlers?
The list can go on and on.

[Jim]

Should the government not be involved at all in the way an adult lives in our society then?

You are not free to do whatever you want in our society, there are rules. There are also basic human rights and freedoms. Helmet laws don't violate those as far as I can see. My cities bylaw regarding speech, does violate the intent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms though(in my opinion)...

As Barnone said, the list goes on and on, if the government shouldn't be making this rule (about how you use one of their systems in a public enviornment), then what else shouldn't they make rules about?

And again, I tried to be clear in my last post, I know you wear a helmet, and I know you encourage others to do so. I am not trying to personally attack you. I am just stating that arguing that helmet laws violate inherent freedoms is not something that I agree about. I think it's hard to assume that there is inherent freedoms with unnatural invented aspects of society. Motorcycling isn't something that exists naturally, I find it only natural that we have a set of rules to go with our inventions.

What do you think about drugs? Should I be allowed to smoke pot, take meth, cocaine, etc? In my own home? In public (like motorcycling)?

[SpudRider]

However, the accident you reported is extremely rare, and somewhat incredible.
If I only had one example, I wouldn't feel the way I do.
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to sound flippant. I just never heard of an incident like that before. The example you cited is the only instance I have ever heard where a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet injured another person. :?

Spud :)
Spud,
Original post:
"Not long ago a local man was riding down a busy street and, after being hit in the face with some gravel from a car ahead, he lost control of his bike. He then hit a pedestrian. Eye protection alone probably would have saved everyone. "
No mention of helmet just eye protection which is also required by law in most states.
Do you think the government should require bikers to wear eye protection when riding?
How about car seats for infants/toddlers?
The list can go on and on.
As I said in my earlier post, I never heard of an incident like that before. The example cited is the only instance I have ever heard where a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet injured another person. I would certainly be interested if others could provide a number of documented examples where this type of accident has occurred. I have never before heard anyone make the argument that motorcycle helmet laws are designed to protect anyone other than the motorcycle rider himself.

My point, which I have made repeatedly, is the government has no right to limit a citizen's individual freedom, or to force people to protect themselves, under the threat of punishment. I certainly believe the government has the right, and the duty, to protect the innocent from harm by others. Children should be protected from ignorant, or negligent adults who would endanger them. Therefore, I don't disagree with laws requiring car seats for infants/toddlers. However, I certainly disagree with mandatory helmet laws for adults who ride motorcycles.

Spud

[SpudRider]

Should the government not be involved at all in the way an adult lives in our society then?...You are not free to do whatever you want in our society, there are rules...
I have repeatedly answered this question, Jim. ;) I certainly believe the government has the right, and the duty, to protect the innocent from harm by others. My point is the government has no right to limit a citizen's individual freedom, or to force people to protect themselves, under the threat of punishment.
...There are also basic human rights and freedoms. Helmet laws don't violate those as far as I can see…
Then we can agree to disagree on this subject. ;) However, just because you don’t feel your freedom is infringed by mandatory helmet laws, it doesn’t mean the feelings of others who disagree with you should be ignored. The mandatory helmet laws themselves are minor transgressions compared to the precedent they reinforce regarding the government’s perceived right to intrude itself into our personal lives.
...My cities bylaw regarding speech, does violate the intent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms though(in my opinion)...
I agree with you completely regarding this matter. If you aren’t harming someone else, the government has no business restricting your free speech! :evil: If you falsely slander someone, or create a public panic by crying “fire!” in a crowded theatre, that’s an entirely different matter. However, I don’t blame you at all for resenting this government infringement upon your freedom of speech. ;) Is it proper that others don’t care about your rights in this instance, just because they personally disagree with you? Should the government be allowed to infringe upon the liberties of others, just as long as a majority of the populace believes its acceptable in any particular instance?
...As Barnone said, the list goes on and on, if the government shouldn't be making this rule (about how you use one of their systems in a public enviornment), then what else shouldn't they make rules about?

What do you think about drugs? Should I be allowed to smoke pot, take meth, cocaine, etc? In my own home? In public (like motorcycling)?
Once again, I have repeatedly answered this question, Jim. ;) I certainly believe the government has the right, and the duty, to protect the innocent from harm by others. My point is the government has no right to limit a citizen's individual freedom, or to force people to protect themselves, under the threat of punishment. I have answered all your questions; I would appreciate it if you would address at least some of mine. ;)

Spud

[katoranger]

Just because there may not be a law against something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I don't need a law to tell me that I need to wear a helmet. I know that I need to wear a helmet so I do.

Same goes for the seatbelt.

Using foul language in public. I know that is not appropriate. No law needed to tell me not to do it.

It really comes down to education.

[makenzie71]

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to sound flippant. I just never heard of an incident like that before. The example you cited is the only instance I have ever heard where a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet injured another person. :?

Spud :)

I didn't take it as flippant...I was merely pointing it out. It even happened to me back when I would regularly ride without proper gear. I was once hit by a bird and ended up in a ditch before I could regain control of my bike. Of course I was out in the country on an isolated road and no one was hurt...but had it happened a mile ahead or before I would have been traffic and near pedestrians and things could have been catastrophic. Had I been wearing a helmet I wouldn't have even felt the thing hit me.

It seems obscure to a lot of people, but the truth of the matter is that a person is never in control of a motorcycle. There is only the illusion of control and the line between even that and injury is extremely thin and even fuzzy. It doesn't take something so aggressive as gravel in the eyes or a bird to the head to disperse the illusion. A little dust in a crosswind can be just as dangerous.

The only reason I tolerate the government trying to step in with helmet laws is that I understand just how easily a motorcycle can become a 500lb piece of scrap traveling at 70mph toward whatever happens to be there.

[Weldangrind]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/watchdrama8jm.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/image/popcorn eating smiley/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/watchdrama8jm.gif?o=0)

[SpudRider]

...I was once hit by a bird and ended up in a ditch before I could regain control of my bike. Of course I was out in the country on an isolated road and no one was hurt...but had it happened a mile ahead or before I would have been traffic and near pedestrians and things could have been catastrophic. Had I been wearing a helmet I wouldn't have even felt the thing hit me...
You have some unusual things happen in your area, Mak. 8O I once had a bird flutter into my chest while riding a motorcycle, but it didn't hurt at all, and it didn't cause me to wreck. How big was this bird? :?:

If you can, please provide a link to the news article concerning the pedestrian who was killed by a motorcycle rider not wearing eye protection. Indeed, if you ever hear a report of a similar nature, I hope you, and others, will notify me, and provide a link to the news source. ;)

P.S. I am a big fan, so I hope Scooby Doo wasn't involved in the pedestrian's death. :lol:

http://chinariders.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12492

Spud :)

[Jim]

Spud I only saw this question
"Is it proper that others don’t care about your rights in this instance, just because they personally disagree with you? Should the government be allowed to infringe upon the liberties of others, just as long as a majority of the populace believes its acceptable in any particular instance? "

Others don't have to care about my rights. They are free to care about whatever they like. I don't think government should be interfering with liberties no.

I think the big part where we are differing on opinions is not the helmet law itself, but on the roads. (again, I am not trying to specifically target you with my comments, and I'm drifting back to opinion here) People tend to think the road is their own playground, it's not, it is a public asset maintained and regulated by the government for the people. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[SpudRider]

Thank you for your reply, Jim. :) I agree; many drivers and motorcycle riders treat the roads as a playground, and this reckless behavior is completely unacceptable. :(

Spud :)

[Barnone]

Here is a helmet for you "government ain't gonna tell me what to do " guys.
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x85/Skeekah/crazy-motorcycle-helmets11.jpg

[Jim]

Not about helmets, it's about speeding, but it relates...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al25O1MW8dM

People need to be responsible on the roads. They aren't private land, they are public, and regulated by the government of the people, for the people. My cousin was driving in a trip we took a month or so ago, and he insisted on driving like a lunatic. It is pretty asinine if you ask me to do that, with other people in the vehicle. I believe he was trying to impress his new girlfriend, who also seemed to not like driving responsibly (her license was revoked for a dui). He was doing over 40km/h over the speed limit and making erratic lane changes and tailgating. He would even get mad (at his excessive speed no less), that the person he was tailgating wasn't getting out of his way, only to notice after his bad lane change that there was a few cars directly in front of the one he was tailgating (something I was already aware of from the back seat).

People don't like complaints from their passengers though. People don't like me as a passenger I don't think. I try not to agitate them too badly. Even though they are trying to kill me. What I did tell him was that he should at least keep it below 40km/h over the speed limit, because that is excessive and they can (have to?) suspend your license on the spot. He went on some rant about how that's BS and the cops should be doing more important things then harassing him, and they would have to take his car at gunpoint because he wouldn't voluntarily give it to them. I'm not sure on his logic, usually he is rather intelligent, but what a moron. He was saying they have more important things like fighting gang violence and real criminals.

I brought up how there was far more driving related deaths then homicides so that his stance seemed invalid.

I looked it up, in Canada in 2009 there was apparently 209 homicides, and 2209 traffic fatalities (among hundreds of thousands of injuries).