NTSB calls for motorcycle helmet laws

[charismaticmegafauna]

...Again, it's not a right to drive and if you can't afford the price of decent training then how will you afford to repair my vehicle or my body when you run me over.

I'd bet that if there were a referendum to vote on whether to make driving an actual, constitutional ammendment, RIGHT to drive -- it'd pass with flying colors. Given the deplorable state of public/commuter transportation in (most of) the USA -- folks have to drive personal vehicles (that's the current state of U.S. public transportation).

Instead of improving skills, the market is going the other way with more-and-more electronic 'nannies' on vehicles -- ABS, Traction Control, Electronic Vehicle Stabilization, Radar Proximity Detection, etc. (and the public just loves all that stuff...).

Now they can smoke, drink (use their many cup-holders), eat, and talk on their electronic toys while driving their, off-road designed, S.U.V.s/trucks without worrying...

And:

...as long as they can provide for their own medical care

For motorcyclists living in "no fault" states, that may be a real problem? :dribble:

 

[Grumpy]

No helmet = natural selection at work. Leave it alone. If you have something worth protecting wear a helmet. Otherwise........

 

[Pepperell]

I remember a time when cars didn't have:

• outside rearview mirrors
  
• Padded dashboards
  
• dual braking systems
  
• mounting points for seatbelts
  
• seatbelts
  
• backup lights
  
• etc.
  

All of which were gummint mandated in the early sixties. Folks, those '50s cars were death traps.

When John Q. Dewragg turns himself into a veggie, YOU pay for his care through increased insurance rates and increased taxes for medicadeaid (oops, sounds like a drink; "Here, Johnny, drink yer Medicade!) and other public programs.

Oh yeah, I remember when NH plates said "SCENIC" instead of "LIVE FREE AND DIE".

Ultimately I see safety rules as saving ME money to pursue my interests.

 

[SouthernCruizer]

Motorcycles have no seatbelts, no roll bars, no airbags, no back up lights, no safety cage at all to protect the rider. Motorcycles have NO business on roads with 2 ton machines. BAN MOTORCYCLES.

coming soon to a town near you.

 

[ionbeam]

Goldwing has an airbag available. What an unfortunate color for a bag this shape. This Forum has previously skewered this fault when the air bag was first advertised.

Dainese makes an airbag suit.

So far nobody makes a helmet that self deploys when an accident is initiated.

 

[Crash Cash]

Folks, those '50s cars were death traps.

You say that like it's a bad thing! I know people that drive ****** and know it, but continue to drive ****** "because their car is a safe car, and it'll keep 'em from getting killed"

One reason I don't have a car is the obscene amount of electronic safety crap on them that I can't fix/test/maintain myself, and I don't trust car dealership mechanics any more than I trust motorcycle dealership mechanics. I've already had a sensor in the ABS/power brakes on my Camaro fail and put me into a guardrail. One that I couldn't get Courtesy Chevrolet to fix. No thanks.

I don't really have a problem with helmet laws, since I wear one regardless, but I fear the next step is mandated ABS brakes, airbags, knee guards, traction/wheelie control, etc.

 

[Fred W]

Actually, I've heard that "driving is a priviledge" stuff almost forever, and I have never have understood the logic of it. Why is driving unlike any other activity we are free to participate in' only a priviledge? Which part of the constitution make it so?

I have to side with Jay (southerncruiser) and would vastly prefer to pay higher insurance rates, even though I am intelligent enough to always wear a good helmet, than to have some gubmint agency tell me I have to protect myself.

This is not a situation where the law is trying to protect the public from the helmetless rider. The only valid reason for requiring people to protect themselves is a shared financial one and that is where the slippery slope comes in.

 

[RaYzerman19]

If you wear the bare minimum you pay X. However if you wear more substantial equipment, IE a Snell approved helmet then you save Y.

My thoughts exactly. I shouldn't have to pay higher rates for some other guy who made a choice and now wants his insurance to pay for it. If that guys wants to pay higher rates so he has that choice, so be it. But it shouldn't rest on the shoulders of those that wear the proper PPE.

I also agree it isn't the government's job to protect us from ourselves... if you want to ride without a helmet and sign a waiver, you can't hold anyone responsible but at least you have that freedom.

The problem is insurance rates are based on risk areas and claim histories, plus there may be tax dollars spent on behalf of accident victims or long term recovery. I agree with freedom of choice, but don't like paying for others. I would rather my insurance rates and taxes stayed lower or went to a higher priority need.

Edit - For those of us old enough to remember, seat belts were legislated in the US for motorcycles back in the late 60's/early 70's, and almost made it, but somehow the legislators were educated in common sense at last minute and the law was pulled. Whew!