Honda VTX Forum banner

61 - 80 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
1. It is not always the riders fault when an accident occurs. There is no way I would blame someone who was hit - helmet or not. They should not have been hit and the choices made leading up to the accident are irrelevant.

A state's decision to mandate helmet use for riders isn't based on who's at fault for injuries, it's based on statistics that have proven that traumatic head injuries increase when riders don't wear helmets. To argue that someone who is aware that failure to wear safety gear proven to save lives and injury isn't to blame for a decision not to wear said gear when engaging in the dangerous activity the gear was designed for is to argue that blatant disregard for ones own safety is acceptable as long as their resultant injuries were the result of someone else's mistakes.



If we apply this logic to other situations, a mother who fails to seat-belt her family that is slaughtered in a car accident is blameless as long as she didn't cause the accident. Mothers with children killed because they didn't put babies into required child safety carrier devices are blameless if the accident was not their fault. Workers injured on the job due to lack of wearing required safety are blameless if someone else caused their injury. Really???? :roll:



In the event that there is some implied assumption that drivers have some basic "right" to 1) Ride on public roads, and 2) Ride without legally require safety gear I will point out that our "rights" are dictated by law, regardless of some individuals philosophy about it one way or another as it relates to "rights". Riding a motorcycle isn't a right and neither is riding one without required safety gear, be it a helmet or whatever else a state decides to require. If you want to debate the topic of someones right to disobey the law, that is another topic...

2. This lie about "you hurt other people!" is propagated by those with no life who want to tell you how to run yours.


You can choose to disregard facts, however states that have done studies on it have concluded that individuals who choose to risk their own lives by riding without a helmet do in fact hurt other people. This is how the mandatory helmet laws were justified and why they were voted in. I for one don't care to have my insurance rates skyrocket because you are brain injured due to your choosing to ride without a helmet. Sign a waver saying should you be brain injured the hospitals and insurance can let you die on the doorstep from brain swelling and I'll be OK with your "freedom" to be reckless, as it's not costing me a penny. Oh, but you'll also have to waver any state aid for your wife and kids when they no longer have a breadwinner and lose a home or whatever.



Why stop with helmets? We could outlaw smoking! and Drinking soda! And cell phones! Damn, why don't we just have a bunch of people with no lives tell us whats ok? I mean the concept of personal choice doesn't matter when some prissy person gets their panties in a twist. :roll:


Looking at the history of laws and lawmaking, the general trend regarding personal 'freedoms' has been to over-regulate them and over time the people fight the restrictions to get them relaxed. There is an entire book on said subject (see image). Like it or not our freedoms are restricted by laws and which ones are basic rights are not absolutes, but are by nature subjective and will forever be controversial.














3. It is no ones business how anyone else chooses to live their lives. If we were arguing about gender identity we would see a different tune from those that are worried and want to pass helmet laws. I don't care if you identify as an female albanian goat herder - you can ride with out a helmet and not be judged by me (but I will probably snicker about the female albanian goat herder part).

You appear to have false illusions regarding your interpretation of freedom, that appears to be based on an individuals choice towards lack of public responsibility. As soon as your behavior affects someone else, those behaviors become subject to restrictions. Gender identity is a perfect example of lack of freedom in that even the 'right' to consider yourself a male or a female isn't currently a basic right, but rather one that is being fought over in every regard where it affects others.



You dont like riding without a helmet? Don't. There is no excuse for anyone to impede someones right to ride without a helmet except their own.

The "excuse" to impede someone's "right" to do whatever has historically been based on whatever the majority will allow, regardless of perceived "rights". Saying something is a right doesn't make it so. In America what your right is happens to be whatever the law allows/protects, regardless of how an individual feels about it. Don't like it? Vote to change it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,428 Posts
A state's decision to mandate helmet use for riders isn't based on who's at fault for injuries, it's based on statistics that have proven that traumatic head injuries increase when riders don't wear helmets. To argue that someone who is aware that failure to wear safety gear proven to save lives and injury isn't to blame for a decision not to wear said gear when engaging in the dangerous activity the gear was designed for is to argue that blatant disregard for ones own safety is acceptable as long as their resultant injuries were the result of someone else's mistakes.



If we apply this logic to other situations, a mother who fails to seat-belt her family that is slaughtered in a car accident is blameless as long as she didn't cause the accident. Mothers with children killed because they didn't put babies into required child safety carrier devices are blameless if the accident was not their fault. Workers injured on the job due to lack of wearing required safety are blameless if someone else caused their injury. Really???? :roll:



In the event that there is some implied assumption that drivers have some basic "right" to 1) Ride on public roads, and 2) Ride without legally require safety gear I will point out that our "rights" are dictated by law, regardless of some individuals philosophy about it one way or another as it relates to "rights". Riding a motorcycle isn't a right and neither is riding one without required safety gear, be it a helmet or whatever else a state decides to require. If you want to debate the topic of someones right to disobey the law, that is another topic...




You can choose to disregard facts, however states that have done studies on it have concluded that individuals who choose to risk their own lives by riding without a helmet do in fact hurt other people. This is how the mandatory helmet laws were justified and why they were voted in. I for one don't care to have my insurance rates skyrocket because you are brain injured due to your choosing to ride without a helmet. Sign a waver saying should you be brain injured the hospitals and insurance can let you die on the doorstep from brain swelling and I'll be OK with your "freedom" to be reckless, as it's not costing me a penny. Oh, but you'll also have to waver any state aid for your wife and kids when they no longer have a breadwinner and lose a home or whatever.






Looking at the history of laws and lawmaking, the general trend regarding personal 'freedoms' has been to over-regulate them and over time the people fight the restrictions to get them relaxed. There is an entire book on said subject (see image). Like it or not our freedoms are restricted by laws and which ones are basic rights are not absolutes, but are by nature subjective and will forever be controversial.

















You appear to have false illusions regarding your interpretation of freedom, that appears to be based on an individuals choice towards lack of public responsibility. As soon as your behavior affects someone else, those behaviors become subject to restrictions. Gender identity is a perfect example of lack of freedom in that even the 'right' to consider yourself a male or a female isn't currently a basic right, but rather one that is being fought over in every regard where it affects others.






The "excuse" to impede someone's "right" to do whatever has historically been based on whatever the majority will allow, regardless of perceived "rights". Saying something is a right doesn't make it so. In America what your right is happens to be whatever the law allows/protects, regardless of how an individual feels about it. Don't like it? Vote to change it.
you could have just admitted you were incorrect - it would have saved a ton of typing. :dontknow:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
I know a guy put on his roller blades, fell backwards before he could get his helmet on and died as a result of the head injury a day later. It doesn't take much sometimes, he was standing still and lost his balance. That's why legislation is so silly. You can't legislate helmets 100% of the time so where's the line? People should be responsible for themselves. Not everyone that rides without a helmet will get hurt, and not everyone that does wear a helmet will survive. It's up to you to mitigate risk to your comfort point.

The false assumption in the above statement is that people in general are smart enough to know when to wear safety gear and when not to. History has proven this false and costly to the public at large. Motorcycle safety studies like the HURT report indicate that given the choice to not wear a helmet, people will make the wrong choices and deaths and serious injuries (traumatic head injuries) increase. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property (guess who pays?). Young, inexperienced riders are over-represented in the majority of accidents, and assuming they have the wisdom to decide when helmet use is warranted has been proven a false assumption.


Anyone who argues that people in general are smart enough to make the right choices regarding driving safety must be oblivious to drivers and cell phone use. History has proven that people have to be motivated with legal punishment to do the right/safe thing when it comes to driving. Seat belt use is one fine example and next I would cite driving and drinking laws.



Where do we "draw the line" regarding legislated behaviors? Case by case. The case for mandated helmet use is well documented if anyone cares to put bias aside and read the science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
The false assumption in the above statement is that people in general are smart enough to know when to wear safety gear and when not to. History has proven this false and costly to the public at large. Motorcycle safety studies like the HURT report indicate that given the choice to not wear a helmet, people will make the wrong choices and deaths and serious injuries (traumatic head injuries) increase. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property (guess who pays?). Young, inexperienced riders are over-represented in the majority of accidents, and assuming they have the wisdom to decide when helmet use is warranted has been proven a false assumption.


Anyone who argues that people in general are smart enough to make the right choices regarding driving safety must be oblivious to drivers and cell phone use. History has proven that people have to be motivated with legal punishment to do the right/safe thing when it comes to driving. Seat belt use is one fine example and next I would cite driving and drinking laws.



Where do we "draw the line" regarding legislated behaviors? Case by case. The case for mandated helmet use is well documented if anyone cares to put bias aside and read the science.
Right. There should be no assumption that people know when. What you say is true. Whether or not it should be legislated will always be up for debate. This is why it is such a contentious issue. Even taking these things on a case by case basis we find legislative "creep". This is when the boundaries of legislation is constantly being tested and bad laws are enacted because things are taken too far. Often people who know nothing of motorcycling are making rules regarding their use. My opposition is to the state legislating personal safety.


We have helmet laws here in Canada and I do and likely always will wear a helmet. I, personally have no problem with the law, per se, my problem is with over legislation in general. "Where's the line" was a gross oversimplification of a very deep and multi-faceted process that is constantly in danger of, and sometimes does, limit personal liberties better left alone. I suppose the risk is that the more civil liberties are limited by legislation, the more it becomes normalized. Looking far enough ahead, the risk is a nanny state where everything needs permission or compliance.


I know you are pro choice. More babies are killed every year ... by a large margin ... that those injured in motorcycle accidents due to riding helmetless. Those seeking abortions often require counseling, and followup medical care. Families suffer these decisions as well. How about we legislate fines for irresponsible sexual activity that results in aborted pregnancy? Of course that could never happen. I'm making a ridiculous argument to illustrate what applying similar logic to a different situation results in.


Helmet laws are, in and of themselves, probably a good thing. The fact that it is a liberty that is legislated against is my concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,825 Posts
I never ride full AGATT as I have 7 helmets but all are half....don't ask.

I do have one full face helmet but it's only for my wife or daughter who are more comfortable wearing them. Me? I can't stand the claustrophobic feel and decreased visibility.

I always wear jeans and riding boots and I have several mesh with padding/heavy leather jackets but only t-shirts in the Summer with 90's temps and high humidity. I have heavy riding gloves but go fingerless gloves in the Summer too.

Whatever floats your boat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
I think most would agree we don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity or carelessness. People living in disaster prone areas with billions in destruction, we don't want to pay for that if we are not living there. So how do we have freedom to do what we want given that fact? Waivers? I like that idea on the surface. I do have a problem with "science" or "statistics" where lobbyists can guide the results of the "studies". Are we sure the studies on helmets doesn't have BIG HELMET pouring bucks into the results? I don't know.

Sure feels good riding with just earbuds! Just a whisper of the wind, drone of the motor, and tunes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,428 Posts
Man I hope summer gets here soon.

Its been crappy weather for three weeks and everyone is already dragging out the tired old topics that lead to bitching.

What we need now is a gold old fashioned oil thread. And then a dark side thread after it for good measure. That should keep us using midol for at least 3 months. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,640 Posts
I’ve always been one to dress for the ride and not the crash. Not saying I ride wearing shorts and flip flops with a cigarette hanging outta my mouth. I can only imagine a cigarette ash cherry in your eye! Or better yet your foot ground off as you stab it to the road in panic trying not to go down as you turn thru an intersection just in time for the empty potato chip bag to slip under your front wheel. That will make you s**t your pants! Birds hitting your arm and chest hurts a whole bunch as well. All the armor still won’t stop a steel bar from spearing you either!! With all this said I do not know how people can ride without a helmet. I’ve had rocks, sticks, ice cubes, cigarettes, and tire carcasses hit me in the head at speed along with the constant dust. If I wasn’t wearing a helmet I’d probably be dead. So please wear a helmet when you ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
No man is an island

I know you are pro choice. More babies are killed every year ... by a large margin ... that those injured in motorcycle accidents due to riding helmetless. Those seeking abortions often require counseling, and followup medical care. Families suffer these decisions as well. How about we legislate fines for irresponsible sexual activity that results in aborted pregnancy? Of course that could never happen. I'm making a ridiculous argument to illustrate what applying similar logic to a different situation results in.

Helmet laws are, in and of themselves, probably a good thing. The fact that it is a liberty that is legislated against is my concern.
Your reasoning is flawed with your abortion example because it is based on a false/unproven premise, as there isn't a universal agreement that "babies are killed". The cost factors with pros/cons of pro-life vs. pro-choice are another entire topic thread that I'm betting nobody wants to revisit.


As far as concerns of legislating liberty go, consider than without legislation of liberty our society would be in utter chaos and lawless anarchy without laws that protect us from somebody else's expressions of freedom as it relates to disregard for others. The frontier days when whatever a man did was his own concern are long gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
I think most would agree we don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity or carelessness. People living in disaster prone areas with billions in destruction, we don't want to pay for that if we are not living there. So how do we have freedom to do what we want given that fact? Waivers? I like that idea on the surface. I do have a problem with "science" or "statistics" where lobbyists can guide the results of the "studies". Are we sure the studies on helmets doesn't have BIG HELMET pouring bucks into the results? I don't know.

Sure feels good riding with just earbuds! Just a whisper of the wind, drone of the motor, and tunes.

Thanks for the BIG LAUGHS from the above post. Having had a friend who is now dead just from falling off a skateboard and hitting his head, I couldn't help but laugh at your "thinking" that perhaps there is no real science behind helmet safety studies, but rather corporate conspiracies are at play. ROTFL!!!


:thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
Your reasoning is flawed with your abortion example because it is based on a false/unproven premise, as there isn't a universal agreement that "babies are killed". The cost factors with pros/cons of pro-life vs. pro-choice are another entire topic thread that I'm betting nobody wants to revisit.


As far as concerns of legislating liberty go, consider than without legislation of liberty our society would be in utter chaos and lawless anarchy without laws that protect us from somebody else's expressions of freedom as it relates to disregard for others. The frontier days when whatever a man did was his own concern are long gone.
Aside from the former, and if one premise is flawed then both sides are subject to the same flaws, it is agreed that almost every bit of legislation in some way legislates some freedom or liberty away. That is the point, I think you missed (that is the point that I agree with that). Of course legislation is necessary, it is indeed where it becomes unnecessarily restrictive. When it legislates away ones own freedom to choose their own personal safety, while on their own dime, then it is excessive IMO. You can argue that it is not on one's own dime, but then almost nothing is. It is important to maintain a perspective whereby entering over regulation of daily lives becomes claustrophobic. It normalizes further legislation whereby eventually we are not allowed do what is taken for granted today. All of this bearing in mind that some legislation that restricts freedoms and liberties in the interest of chaos mitigation does not by any means mean that more legislation is better. On that your premise is flawed, The line, as you mentioned earlier needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. You can have whatever opinion you want about that, however it is my opinion that helmet use is a good thing, it should not be legislated. Your opinion can be otherwise, but nothing you can say about it being correct to legislate it, makes it anything other than your opinion. I'm not attempting to change your opinion, we all know that isn't going to happen. I doubt anyone has ever changed your opinion. You certainly won't change my opinion on this either as different people see different tipping points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
You can have whatever opinion you want about that, however it is my opinion that helmet use is a good thing, it should not be legislated. Your opinion can be otherwise, but nothing you can say about it being correct to legislate it, makes it anything other than your opinion. I'm not attempting to change your opinion, we all know that isn't going to happen. I doubt anyone has ever changed your opinion. You certainly won't change my opinion on this either as different people see different tipping points.

Let's agree to disagree. I'll keep my opinion that mandatory helmet laws are good for people like me who don't care to foot the bills of the proven costs incurred by helmet-less riders on their state. You can keep your opinion that said costs are OK by you and that imposing those costs on those who don't agree with you is your idea of freedom.




:thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Thanks for the BIG LAUGHS from the above post. Having had a friend who is now dead just from falling off a skateboard and hitting his head, I couldn't help but laugh at your "thinking" that perhaps there is no real science behind helmet safety studies, but rather corporate conspiracies are at play. ROTFL!!!


:thumbup:
You know how many gazillions of people have fallen off skateboards and are not dead!! I am one. Note I said I did not know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,428 Posts
You know how many gazillions of people have fallen off skateboards and are not dead!! I am one. Note I said I did not know.
Thats the whole problem with hops arguments.

me...me....me..... if he thinks its good it is. self centered thinking like that is what gets us into trouble. Its as if hop is presented with the bill. gesh...

If we are going to start whining about wasted money we will end up in the hot box. I can name probably a thousand more useless things than someone who has an accident without a helmet. what hop and his type miss is this - the constitution is there to protect the minority from bullies like them that roll over people with the majority rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
Thats the whole problem with hops arguments.

me...me....me..... if he thinks its good it is. self centered thinking like that is what gets us into trouble. Its as if hop is presented with the bill. gesh...

If we are going to start whining about wasted money we will end up in the hot box. I can name probably a thousand more useless things than someone who has an accident without a helmet. what hop and his type miss is this - the constitution is there to protect the minority from bullies like them that roll over people with the majority rules.



So it's self-centered if I think an idea is a good one, but if you think the the same it somehow is not self-centered. Use double-standards much? :thumbup:



The constitution isn't there to protect anyone's right to engage in any form of reckless behavior that costs the public at large. Helmet laws are not Federally enforced, so your state will decide what is fair, even if it isn't in the minorities mind.



Just for arguments sake we'll say your motivations for anti-helmet laws are unselfish and mine are selfish. I selfishly don't want to see youth too dumb to know better end their lives or ruin it unnecessary by having the freedom to ride sans helmet. I selfishly don't think it's right that a minority (pro-anti helmet riders) impose their will on a majority (all others) when it will cost that majority increased insurance rates or state aid for long term disabled head injury cases, not to mention cost burdens on the injured parties own family.



A sensible compromise would be letting riders ride without a helmet if they also are required to pay added insurance for the 'freedom' so others don't have to foot the bill. Also to be considered is added costs for hospital care where the injured may sue for head injuries that could be largely due to their choice not to wear a helmet. Heaven help any one of use who might be found at fault for head injuries of a rider who didn't wear a helmet, and might have otherwise walked away from the accident. :surprise:



Here is a good article on the topic

http://bulletin.facs.org/2013/09/mandating-the-use-of-motorcycle-helmets/


A quote from the above link that makes my point:

Those who oppose helmet laws imply that only the individual is penalized for failing to wear a helmet. If this is the case, then these individuals should be ordered by the court not to expect others to pay the bill for the consequences of that choice, regardless of fault in the accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
A sensible compromise would be letting riders ride without a helmet if they also are required to pay added insurance for the 'freedom' so others don't have to foot the bill.
People who ride dangerous motorcycles should pay "added insurance" so regular people who drive in safer cars don't have to foot the bill. The helmet isn't the issue.. the dangerous motorcycle is!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,428 Posts
So it's self-centered if I think an idea is a good one, but if you think the the same it somehow is not self-centered. Use double-standards much? :thumbup:
not at all. your ideas are selfish because you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints. You see your viewpoint as morally superior. That is why you are self centered. I see this with a lot of young people today. They simply were not raised to be respectful of other opinions.

The constitution isn't there to protect anyone's right to engage in any form of reckless behavior that costs the public at large. Helmet laws are not Federally enforced, so your state will decide what is fair, even if it isn't in the minorities mind.
This is hot box territory, but I will simply respond with this - the constitution is there to limit government. Period.


Just for arguments sake we'll say your motivations for anti-helmet laws are unselfish and mine are selfish. I selfishly don't want to see youth too dumb to know better end their lives or ruin it unnecessary by having the freedom to ride sans helmet. I selfishly don't think it's right that a minority (pro-anti helmet riders) impose their will on a majority (all others) when it will cost that majority increased insurance rates or state aid for long term disabled head injury cases, not to mention cost burdens on the injured parties own family.
Boo hoo. you are using a classic faulted logic argument that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few. I quite frankly don't care if people think I am somehow a burden. There are a billion burdens I dont like. Planned parent hood, legalized drugs, gambling, and the list goes on. If we are worried about parasites on society there are plenty of target rich environments to go after first. This is another way that the selfish impose what they think correct on the unwilling.


you want to wear a helmet? go ahead. You want your kid to wear a helmet? Make them. You want your passengers to wear a helmet? Good. You want me to wear a helmet? Go to h*ll. I wear one because I choose too, not because some sanctimonious pin head who has never rode a bike was convinced by a bunch of people with no lives that we should.

A sensible compromise would be letting riders ride without a helmet if they also are required to pay added insurance for the 'freedom' so others don't have to foot the bill. Also to be considered is added costs for hospital care where the injured may sue for head injuries that could be largely due to their choice not to wear a helmet. Heaven help any one of use who might be found at fault for head injuries of a rider who didn't wear a helmet, and might have otherwise walked away from the accident. :surprise:



Here is a good article on the topic

http://bulletin.facs.org/2013/09/mandating-the-use-of-motorcycle-helmets/


A quote from the above link that makes my point:

So lets be crystal clear here - you want to be able to outlaw torts because we could have done more to avoid them? This is your argument? Madness...


Shifting the blame to the blameless is insanity. Under your mindset we would first look at the agrieved to see if they did everything possible to stop the tort. We literally would make it so that with enough money you could kill someone and not take the blame. Madness......

You want to wear a helmet? go ahead. As for me I will steadfastly hold to ones right to live as they see fit with minimal interference from those with no life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,929 Posts
People who ride dangerous motorcycles should pay "added insurance" so regular people who drive in safer cars don't have to foot the bill. The helmet isn't the issue.. the dangerous motorcycle is!

If studies showed that riding motorcycles and rider accidents caused a burden on the insurance industry, you better believe they would be lobbying to up the rates for all riders. At one time I was trying to get insurance on a Kawasaki 1000 cc engine motorcycle and was told that bike was 'blacklisted' and my insurance at the time wouldn't cover it—no matter how stellar my driving record was. I was told that too many kids were killing themselves on the KZ 1000 Ninja, and I only got my insurance after explaining that my bike was an ZL1000, an entirely different bike.



My point: Insurance already charges more for a given model bike if studies show it is crashed more often or even if it's stolen more. Your 'freedom' to do something that costs someone else often justified in some form of 'punishment'. In the real world (the one where everything isn't fair) people who show themselves to be reckless, careless, and/or irresponsible pass on ill consequences to us who may not exhibit those attributes.



I don't expect someone else to pay for my voluntary exposures to unnecessary danger, so if studies showed my riding a bike was raising other peoples rates, I'd be fine with paying my fair share.
 
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Top