Sad, but appropriate.

[makenzie71]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-rider-...ry?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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Thats a total +1 Brother Spud.

[SpudRider]

Originally Posted by Barnone

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]

Originally Posted by Jim

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]

Originally Posted by makenzie71

...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.