Irony takes a deadly turn.

JustinHEMI

Man dies while protesting helmet laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/upstate-ny-motorcyclist-dies-after-hitting-head-on-pavement-during-protest-against-helmet-laws/2011/07/03/AGEnpQwH_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews&fb_source=profile_oneline

Upstatemax

"When keeping it real goes wrong"...

exalted512

This is all over the motorcycle forums. Darwinism at it's best.
-Cody

WilliamM2

They (mostly Harley riders) are trying to eliminate the helmet laws here is Michigan again, and it looks like they will succeed this time. Thanks for making everyone's motorcycle insurance rates go up, so you can can look cool without your helmet. Morons.:rolleyes:

exalted512

A wise man once told me, 'If you think your head isn't valuable enough to protect, you're probably right'
-Cody

Joe08867

Being a H-D rider all I can say is Helmet Laws save lives.

I always ride with a helmet. I prefer my brain where it is not on the side of the road next to me..

PS Loud pipes save lives.

bobman1235

I wouldn't call it ironic. People against helmet laws dont' think their heads are invincible, they just apparently find it worth the risk. It's his head, he should be able to smash it on the pavement if he wants to.

bobman1235

Joe08867 wrote: »

I always ride with a helmet. I prefer my brain where it is not on the side of the road next to me..

You know you can wear a helmet without a law, right?

PS Loud pipes save lives.

No they don't. At the very least, the reason you douchebag Harley riders have loud pipes has nothing to do with safety, because if it did, you wouldn't all rev the s@#t out of the things riding up my residential neighborhood.

tonyb

bobman1235 wrote: »

You know you can wear a helmet without a law, right?

I tend to agree, and that doesn't happen often.

Does it make sense to wear a helmet ? Absolutely.
Do we need a law for it ? No, but it will give the insurance company a leg to stand on to not pay a claim,even if the accident wasn't the bikers fault.

byfthalone

bobman1235 wrote: »

You know you can wear a helmet without a law, right?


Let people decide...If I ride, I wear a helmet, but really? the government needs to tell us?

shack

Most roads are part of the public collective and "owned" by that collective (ie: local, state or federal governments). Therefore the governing body has the right to make the rules for the use of the road. A helmet law is no different from a speed limit or traffic signal law. The insurance companies also have every right to determine the conditions of coverage. If they want to make wearing a helmet a requisite for coverage...they should be able to do so.

inspiredsports

bobman1235 wrote: »

I wouldn't call it ironic. People against helmet laws dont' think their heads are invincible, they just apparently find it worth the risk. It's his head, he should be able to smash it on the pavement if he wants to.

I tend to agree, but a good point I never considered before was made that it raises motorcycle insurance rates for all riders.

The problem with this type of legislation is; where does it stop? Studies show riding without a helmet is dangerous, so they ban it. Studies also show cars are safer than motorcycles, so maybe 2-wheelers will be banned someday too?

Joe08867

bobman1235 wrote: »

You know you can wear a helmet without a law, right?



No they don't. At the very least, the reason you douchebag Harley riders have loud pipes has nothing to do with safety, because if it did, you wouldn't all rev the s@#t out of the things riding up my residential neighborhood.

Yes I know I can still wear a helmet and I do. Thanks :rolleyes:

And loud pipes do save lives. They have saved my arse many times on the highways of NJ. :cool:

PS did I pee in your cornflakes? What's all the hostility? I don't go banging the throttle every chance I get. I try to be nice in neighborhoods. Are there jerks out there? Yes but they are not me.. :mad:

PSS tell me what you really think about us Harley Douchebags. Maybe someday you'll get a real bike.

bobman1235

shack wrote: »

Most roads are part of the public collective and "owned" by that collective (ie: local, state or federal governments). Therefore the governing body has the right to make the rules for the use of the road. A helmet law is no different from a speed limit or traffic signal law. The insurance companies also have every right to determine the conditions of coverage. If they want to make wearing a helmet a requisite for coverage...they should be able to do so.

Being taht the governments are "of the people, for the people and by the people," WE are the ones making said rules, remember? So yes, as constituents WE have a right if not an obligation to voice our objections to these things. Speed limits directly affect the safety of other drivers. Some dude smashing his head on the pavement affects, at least from a safety perspective, no one but that one guy.

Completely agree on the second point. I would love to see a situation where insurance companies stipulated different levels of coverage for people who are in accidents without helmets, or without seat belts.

It's an individual choice with consequences, simple as that.

fishbones

I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for this, but....

I say if you want to ride without a helmet, you should be restricted to desert riding only, where the only things that have to deal with picking your brains off the pavement is the vultures. Why put EMT's and passerby's through that? 'Cause it's going to happen to people....it's only a matter of how many.

I grew up on motorcycles (dirt, then street). I've owned three. We have the no-helmet law here in Florida...and I think that it's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

bobman1235

Joe08867 wrote: »

PS did I pee in your cornflakes? What's all the hostility? I don't go banging the throttle every chance I get. I try to be nice in neighborhoods. Are there jerks out there? Yes but they are not me.. :mad:

Just playign the odds. Anytime someone says "loud pipes save lives"... usually just means they're looking for an excuse to be obnoxious, whether they'll admit it to themselves or not. I like loud noises too, doesn't mean I subject the world to them everywhere I go.

PSS tell me what you really think about us Harley Douchebags. Maybe someday you'll get a real bike.

Thanks for proving the point. I'll stick to a bike that is comfortable, and actually starts every morning, as opposed to one that comes with a sense of superiority and costs 3x as much because someone slapped the Harley name on it.

exalted512

inspiredsports wrote: »

I tend to agree, but a good point I never considered before was made that it raises motorcycle insurance rates for all riders.

You know, I've heard this before, but after really thinking about it, I don't see how it really effects motorcycle rates. It might affect hit&run coverage slightly, but that's about it.
-Cody

shack

Make your objections all you want...in the end it is the responsibility of the elected officals to make the rules. Like everything else...don't like the rules they make vote against them. I am in favor of seat belt laws, helmet laws, airbag laws....etc. Lots of people are. I don't know if it is 50/50 or whatever...but I know lots of people are in favor of these kinds of safety laws. It's nothing new. Again the "right" to use public roads comes with rules...and it is the various governments that make and enforce the rules...like it or not.

nspindel

I live in CT, one of the states where no-helmet riding is legal. I don't ride a motorcycle, so my perspective is that of the automobile driver sharing the roads with the helmetless bikers. My problem with the law really doesn't have much to do with biker safety. It has to do with my safety.

I'm sick and tired of my state being a destination for bikers, purely for the purpose of riding helmetless. Every weekend in the summertime, we get throngs of bikers riding in large packs, coming to CT to joy-ride our roads and highways without having to wear helmets. I often deal with packs of hundreds of motorcyclists riding helmetless. I'm sick of it. It's downright scary knowing that anyone on the highway making the slightest wrong move could start a chain reaction at high speed that could start throwing bodies all over the highway, for no reason other than bikers from other states wanting to come and take advantage of my state's stupid law.

To me, forcing bikers to wear a helmet ought to fall under the same category as forcing me, the automobile driver, to wear a seatbelt. Sure, a helmet on a bike is different, it has a profound impact on the enjoyment of the ride. I drive a convertible. I get it. But the if law has a right to legislate my safety by forcing me to wear a seatbelt (not that I wouldn't otherwise) then why shouldn't it be equally obliged to legislate the safety of motorcyclists by forcing them to wear helmets.

There are other perspectives at play here besides the purely self-serving interests of those who continue to lobby in favor of no-helmet laws.

inspiredsports

shack wrote: »

Most roads are part of the public collective and "owned" by that collective (ie: local, state or federal governments). Therefore the governing body has the right to make the rules for the use of the road. A helmet law is no different from a speed limit or traffic signal law. The insurance companies also have every right to determine the conditions of coverage. If they want to make wearing a helmet a requisite for coverage...they should be able to do so.

I guess I wonder why your "collective" doesn't just go all the way and dictate that you can only a drive a few certain models of modern cars deemed to be safe on these roads?

vc69

*yawn*

inspiredsports

exalted512 wrote: »

You know, I've heard this before, but after really thinking about it, I don't see how it really effects motorcycle rates. It might affect hit&run coverage slightly, but that's about it.
-Cody

Don't get me wrong, I'm always on the side of leaving it to individuals to decide for themselves.

I'd just never considered that helmets cut down on injuries that take more time and money to treat, and by and large insurance companies are dishing out a lot of that money.

Insurance companies give discounts for airbags/alarms/etc. It might make sense for them to offer discounts to those who ride with a helmet. I've always ridden with one both on and off-road, but I'd prefer the choice to be mine and not legislated.

bobman1235

shack wrote: »

Make your objections all you want...in the end it is the responsibility of the elected officals to make the rules. Like everything else...don't like the rules they make vote against them. I am in favor of seat belt laws, helmet laws, airbag laws....etc. Lots of people are. I don't know if it is 50/50 or whatever...but I know lots of people are in favor of these kinds of safety laws. It's nothing new. Again the "right" to use public roads comes with rules...and it is the various governments that make and enforce the rules...like it or not.

I really think everyone understands this. I just hope you recognize that it's a lot easier to be so nonchalant when it's something you agree with.

Obviously society comes with rules. I and a few others disagree with one or a few of those rules, it doesn't mean we're so dumb that we don't understand that safety rules in general are necessary.

Joe08867

bobman1235 wrote: »

Just playign the odds. Anytime someone says "loud pipes save lives"... usually just means they're looking for an excuse to be obnoxious, whether they'll admit it to themselves or not. I like loud noises too, doesn't mean I subject the world to them everywhere I go.

Thanks for proving the point. I'll stick to a bike that is comfortable, and actually starts every morning, as opposed to one that comes with a sense of superiority and costs 3x as much because someone slapped the Harley name on it.

The PSS was a joke, but your so full of your own personal angst that you couldn't tell. I have owned many bikes, in all forms and manufacture I like my Hog just as you like yours. I have no ill will toward any bike or biker out there. I don't know where you ride but we a pretty civil in the Garden State.

Ride in NJ, imho the texting capitol of the world and let me know how it goes. Keeping people alert is a job in itself nowadays. So I will say it again. Loud Pipes save lives. But that has nothing to do with this thread. It was a phrase in passing.

As far as hating H-D, get that all over yourself.. That is you opinion and I have mine. By the way my bikes starts first try everytime. They call that maintenance.

shack

bobman1235 wrote:

I really think everyone understands this. I just hope you recognize that it's a lot easier to be so nonchalant when it's something you agree with.

I am not being "nonchalant" about anything. I think it is VERY IMPORTANT that these sort of safety laws be enacted and enforced.

exalted512

inspiredsports wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm always on the side of leaving it to individuals to decide for themselves.

I'd just never considered that helmets cut down on injuries that take more time and money to treat, and by and large insurance companies are dishing out a lot of that money.

Yea, but your motorcycle insurance doesn't pay for your injuries...unless it's a hit & run accident.

So is it really affecting your insurance?
-Cody

bobman1235

Joe08867 wrote: »

The PSS was a joke, but your so full of your own personal angst that you couldn't tell. I have owned many bikes, in all forms and manufacture I like my Hog just as you like yours. I have no ill will toward any bike or biker out there. I don't know where you ride but we a pretty civil in the Garden State.

Ride in NJ, imho the texting capitol of the world and let me know how it goes. Keeping people alert is a job in itself nowadays. So I will say it again. Loud Pipes save lives. But that has nothing to do with this thread. It was a phrase in passing.

As far as hating H-D, get that all over yourself.. That is you opinion and I have mine. By the way my bikes starts first try everytime. They call that maintenance.

Look, isn't the Harley vs. other guys thing a pretty well-established thing? I make fun of you guys breaking down, you call me a **** with a fake bike, and we all laugh about it? Stupid Internet always makes these things turn "real."

I do think pipes are obnoxious though. If I'm in my car, I never hear loud pipes when they're behind me on the highway, only when they're in front of me, so I don't know how they're "saving" anyone, nor do I know how you can say "they've saved my life a million times." Did someone almost crash into you, swerve out of the way at the last second, and then yell out "thank god for those pipes!"? cuz it seems at least as likely they just happened to glance in their mirror at the right time.

Personally, I prefer to stay off the highway altogether unless absolutely necessary. It's not fun and it's like 900x more dangerous. If I lived in that part of Jersey where it's basically the turnpike or nothing, I don't think I'd even bother owning a bike.

steveinaz

It should be a rider choice. I think the "safety Sally's" have sucked enough fun out of activites as it is. Are there going to be accidents? Sure, so why don't we just ban motorcycles? When does it end? Don't we have enough "nannying" going on now?

One thing leads to another--it's proven over and over again. Pretty soon a given activity is so g'damn restricted that nobody even wants to bother anymore, because the enjoyment factor is GONE.

I wear a helmet, but I would rally against a mandatory helmet law.

As far as the insurance issue---you can blame yourself for opening the door on that. Insurance companies LOVE when the general public points out an issue that should be "nannied" because it gives them justification to raise ALL of our rates. Congratulations. Mandatory helmet laws could be approved nation wide tommorrow---and your rates won't drop a bloody cent. FACT.

cfrizz

Any state that is stupid enough not to have a helmet law, then the following should happen. Both motor & life insurance should be denied to all motorcyclists. If it is found by an insurance company that the deceased died in a motorcyle accident and didn't have a helmet all claims should automatically be denied.

No one is stopping anyone from having fun, all that is being asked is to be responsible. You all who are alarmists and give out scenarios that will never happen, aren't doing yourselves any favors either.

You want to be stupid & risk your life, go right ahead, but you/family should be denied any and all financial benefit for being stupid.

bobman1235

cfrizz wrote: »

Any state that is stupid enough not to have a helmet law, then the following should happen. Both motor & life insurance should be denied to all motorcyclists. If it is found by an insurance company that the deceased died in a motorcyle accident and didn't have a helmet all claims should automatically be denied.

You want to be stupid & risk your life, go right ahead, but you/family should be denied any and all financial benefit for being stupid.

This post makes no sense at all. All motorcyclists should be punished because some chose not to be safe? You live in a scary, small world.

steveinaz

Plus, the insurance industry wouldn't make much money if they denied 55% of their customers service, now would they? It's easy to create blanket/simple solutions when you don't even participate in the hobby.

Sorry Cathy, but we are from 2 different worlds, and I like my world a lot better. Actions have potential consequences, let the PEOPLE decide. Shall we require automobile drivers to wear helmets? How about convertable owners?

Regulation = freedom lost + tax money to enforce - loss in revenue because people lose interest in the activity + justification to hike insurance rates.

How did we ever survive the 60's and 70's without the Safety Sally's?