Is it nannyism, or self protection!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Lets examine helmet laws.

In Florida if you drive a motorcycle, you must wear a helmet, unless you carry a $200,000 bodily injury insurance policy.

I am for this law... on its face it appears to be a nanny law designed to protect the idiot who chooses to drive a motorcycle without a helmet.


Its not and I support the law.

People often have head trauma in motorcycle accidents. Hospitals and ER's were loosing lots of money because they were treating people with traumatic head injury who had no insurance. This practice was costing all taxpayers and all healthcare consumers money to make up for the losses! Id require more than the $200,000 but I am for the law....

Anyone feel differently?
 
:cof1:

Hospitals and ER's were loosing lots of money because they were treating people with traumatic head injury who had no insurance. This practice was costing all taxpayers and all healthcare consumers money to make up for the losses!

Too bad the nanny states don't enforce the immigration laws and kick out all those illegals that are sucking the states dry on providing health care to them. Maybe they might not make as many nanny laws and keep the fuck out of my life.
 
Fascism thinly veiled as nannyism. Helmet laws weren't on the table in most states until the explosion of 1%er culture in the 70's, which also coincided with the first use of RICO (originally conceived to fight the mob). It's simply a gateway law to keep bikers off the road, like seat belt laws allow police to search your car.
 
Jarod said:
Lets examine helmet laws.

In Florida if you drive a motorcycle, you must wear a helmet, unless you carry a $200,000 bodily injury insurance policy.

I am for this law... on its face it appears to be a nanny law designed to protect the idiot who chooses to drive a motorcycle without a helmet.


Its not and I support the law.

People often have head trauma in motorcycle accidents. Hospitals and ER's were loosing lots of money because they were treating people with traumatic head injury who had no insurance. This practice was costing all taxpayers and all healthcare consumers money to make up for the losses! Id require more than the $200,000 but I am for the law....

Anyone feel differently?
Click to expand...
What? I thought people without insurance were left to die? If not, why the rush for government plan of bankruptcy?
 
Jarod said:
Lets examine helmet laws.

In Florida if you drive a motorcycle, you must wear a helmet, unless you carry a $200,000 bodily injury insurance policy.

I am for this law... on its face it appears to be a nanny law designed to protect the idiot who chooses to drive a motorcycle without a helmet.


Its not and I support the law.

People often have head trauma in motorcycle accidents. Hospitals and ER's were loosing lots of money because they were treating people with traumatic head injury who had no insurance. This practice was costing all taxpayers and all healthcare consumers money to make up for the losses! Id require more than the $200,000 but I am for the law....

Anyone feel differently?
Click to expand...


Are you even aware of what happens to a person's spine, when the back edge of that solid plastic helmet makes sudden contact with your vertabrae during an accident. :palm:
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Fascism thinly veiled as nannyism. Helmet laws weren't on the table in most states until the explosion of 1%er culture in the 70's, which also coincided with the first use of RICO (originally conceived to fight the mob). It's simply a gateway law to keep bikers off the road, like seat belt laws allow police to search your car.
Click to expand...

yep....

and i have no doubt if we ever get universal h/c those laws will ever come off the books
 
I rode for years in a helmet law state and always with a full face Bell helmet. If there was no law I might not have worn one. Although I never had an accident, I appreciated the extra comfort and safety that it afforded. I didn't feel like it restricted my freedom.

Is it a nanny law? Probably, but in theory it should reduce insurance costs for all motorists. It also protects inexperienced riders from themselves.

Its roughly analogous to seat belt laws. I didn't wear one until it was required, now that I've done so for a long time it's not such a big deal. And a seat belt saved my wife and son, then unborn.

I also wear a helmet skiing, have so for the past 5 years, and that's probably kept me out of the hospital at least once. Two years ago a friend fell hard with a helmet and even so he had a concussion that effected him for months; he'd probably be permanently injured or dead otherwise. In fact last night a friend of mine fell hard and hit his head hard enough to black out for a few seconds, and he's lucky he was wearing one. And both these guys are much better skiers than I am.
 
Southern Man said:
I rode for years in a helmet law state and always with a full face Bell helmet. If there was no law I might not have worn one. Although I never had an accident, I appreciated the extra comfort and safety that it afforded. I didn't feel like it restricted my freedom.

Is it a nanny law? Probably, but in theory it should reduce insurance costs for all motorists. It also protects inexperienced riders from themselves.

Its roughly analogous to seat belt laws. I didn't wear one until it was required, now that I've done so for a long time it's not such a big deal. And a seat belt saved my wife and son, then unborn.

I also wear a helmet skiing, have so for the past 5 years, and that's probably kept me out of the hospital at least once. Two years ago a friend fell hard with a helmet and even so he had a concussion that effected him for months; he'd probably be permanently injured or dead otherwise. In fact last night a friend of mine fell hard and hit his head hard enough to black out for a few seconds, and he's lucky he was wearing one. And both these guys are much better skiers than I am.
Click to expand...

Glad your experiences with them have been positive and non-fatal. As far as seat belts go, I've seen them kill several people is several different instances. There are plenty of good reasons NOT to wear a helmet while riding. Wind shear, reduced hearing and visibility, uncomfortable chin straps that distract you from riding, etc. Not to mention the whole 'freedom to live my life as I please' thing.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Glad your experiences with them have been positive and non-fatal. As far as seat belts go, I've seen them kill several people is several different instances. There are plenty of good reasons NOT to wear a helmet while riding. Wind shear, reduced hearing and visibility, uncomfortable chin straps that distract you from riding, etc. Not to mention the whole 'freedom to live my life as I please' thing.
Click to expand...

No safety device is perfect, but the chances of injury or death are greater without them than with them.

I could hear fine with the Bell. It had removable ear pads that I kept in a box so the sound levels were reduced, my guess, only by about half. Plus there wasn't any buffeting noise to distract me.

Visibility wasn't a problem either except perhaps if I wanted to look at the gas tank. My peripheral was past the range of my 70's style aviator glasses. Drop the lexan visor down (which was nearly scratch-proof, lasting several years before requiring replacement) and no bugs to get in my eyes and do major damage.

I never heard the wind shear argument. I suppose my head has a smaller cross section than the helmet, but its exceedingly less streamlined.

I understand the "its your life" issue completely and for me it's the most compelling.
 
Yeah, its nannyism. And since driving a motorcycle at all is suicidal, we could definitely be suffering from a more severe case of nannyism over the matter.
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, its nannyism. And since driving a motorcycle at all is suicidal, we could definitely be suffering from a more severe case of nannyism over the matter.
Click to expand...

Actually due to its handling characteristics a motorcycle would be one of the safest vehicles on the road if in capable hands, and if there was no other traffic.
 
As long as a person has enough insurance I am happy for them to do what they want to themselves.
 
If one does not have insurance and will become dependent on the state should he fall ill, I am okay with regulating some high risk activities.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you even aware of what happens to a person's spine, when the back edge of that solid plastic helmet makes sudden contact with your vertabrae during an accident. :palm:
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but I'll bet you're gonna tell us its MUCH WORSE than when a rider's exposed FACE meets the solid asphalt PAVEMENT and what happens after friction between the two has taken it's toll.:palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top