Think I'll write to my State Rep & the Editor...

[OmniGLH]

In thinking this over, I guess the thing that ticks me off is not the "choice" issue, but a leader misrepresenting the value of helmets!  Oh yes, helmets are much worse than bare skin.  And, no, when you wear the proper gear, you won't necessarily get hurt at 80 mph.  That's just silly.  

And in MY opinion - there is no reason you shouldn't write in to try to correct him on those points.

The general idea campaigned by people who don't wear a helmet - that an 80mph crash will kill you, helmet or no helmet - is absurd.  I don't think I've crashed my bike yet where I was doing LESS than 80mph!  ;)  Helmets DO save lives.  Nobody on this board needs to be told that - I think we've all experienced it at one point in time  ;)  

Wearing a helmet is undoubtedly a good idea.  I just don't see it as a reason to enforce a helmet law.  

[cornercamping]

I just don't see it as a reason to enforce a helmet law.  

Public Reason= No justifible reason.
Government Reason=   $$$$$$

Who looses if the law gets made.  Public.  Why, because we lost our choice.  

[OmniGLH]

If someone dies that is indigent, the county (AKA, taxpayers) ends up paying for the costs.  Adding into that expense is storing the body while everyone figures out who's going (or not going ) to pay.

That I did not know.  Though the taxpayers aren't going to hold a whole funeral procession, buy a burial plot, etc.. for some John Doe either, will they?  If they do I think it's ridiculous.

Though I think corner brings up a good point.  If the gov't forks out the cash to cover funerals for people who can't afford it... I'm *sure* there are more crack head and gangbanger deaths in a year than there are motorcycle deaths.

So it costs me a few bucks more a year to cover the funeral of some broke bastard who chose not to wear a helmet - fine.  I'd rather keep that additional right of choice.

[cornercamping]

So it costs me a few bucks more a year to cover the funeral of some broke bastard who chose not to wear a helmet - fine.  I'd rather keep that additional right of choice.

Bah... that's a crock of crap.   Imagine the MILLIONS of people that live in one given county or regulated area.  Then, take one indigent bastard that costs the county lest say $4000.00 to put in the grave.  Divide $4000.00   into several million people.  You talking about less then a penny per person in the county.  Your more likely to pay a full dollar to cover plowing the streets when it snows.  The impact of indigent people dying regardless of how they die is virtually nil compared to other ways you pay for things.

For instance, in Wayne County where I live, there are 2,061,162 people as of the last census.  Take that and divide a single death cost of $4,000.00 and that is going high because the state isn't giving you more than a simple wood box and a burial in a state owned cemetary that maybe has a tiny $50.00 headstone made by a bunch of prisoners in the State prison.

$4,000.00 / 2,061,162 people = $0.0019406 per person in the county.  

Now, each person in the county where I lived pays almost a full dollar for the friggin mayor's mansion in Wayne County PER MONTH !  >:(

[cornercamping]

Omni... when I said crock or crap, I didn't mean your comment.  I mean the amount you referenced as a "few bucks" as what it would cost per person burried.

How much would a no helmet ticket cost?  $100.00

Now, how much does a burial cost again?


Government = Greedy Bastards

 >:(

[RAY_HYMER]

My position of the topic is that although I wear a helmet, and I ridicule sportbike riders that do not wear one, I do not feel there should be a mandatory helmet law.  There are consequences for almost every action, and it is impossible to regulate bad luck, poor decisions, financial planning, etc.  
I understand other's views concerning the hurt and grief friends and relatives have associated with a loss of life.  But smoking, drugs, obesity (that would be me!), etc, cause more premature deaths than helmetless crash victims.  I wouldn't even know where to begin to pass laws concerning those problems!!

[cornercamping]

Here's another thing to think about:

Comparing Motorcycle Death's Nationwide:

What type of motorcycles cause more deaths?

1. Cruiser Types (i.e. HD)
2. Sportbike Types (GSXR and the likes)

Statistically, I'd bet it was Sportbike Types. That being said, how long before they (government) put and end to sportbikes?  Where does that leave us (trackday/racers).

Don't think they could/would do it?  Remember 3-Wheelers?  Is a 3-Wheeler safer than a 4-Wheeler with the same jackass behind the throttle?

When does it end?

[OmniGLH]

Here's another thing to think about:

Comparing Motorcycle Death's Nationwide:

What type of motorcycles cause more deaths?

1. Cruiser Types (i.e. HD)
2. Sportbike Types (GSXR and the likes)

Does that statistic exist somewhere?  I'm really curious to see the result on that.

Sure, sportbikes definitely have an advantage when it comes to killing somebody based simply on the power.

But there are LOTS of idiots out there on cruisers, too.  Overconfidence and overall bad riders aren't just confined to the sportbike crowd.  In fact, the worst riders I've ridden with on the street were on cruisers - NOT sportbikes (and I've met a lot of bad sportbike riders!)

How long will it be before motorcycles in general are banned?  How long before motorcycle RACING is banned?  I'm surely more likely to get seriously injured while racing my bike than I am by riding it down some country road.  What about my family's feelings when I get hurt from racing?  And what about the children?  THE CHILDREN!!!

LOL

[Dawn]

Dan....

Ease up on the language please.....

Thanks

Dawn   :)

[cornercamping]

Right, but this is what it comes down to:

A politician attempts to instate a law that bans sportibkes.
He references all these deaths and such, and then calls it a "proposal" like "proposal A."  Then, they launch a crap load of commericals showing guys flying down the e-way pulling wheelies at 100 mph and doing stoppies.  Non-cyclists see this and remember: "hey, remember when we were driving down X, and the guy passed us a 200 mph?"   So, then the vote YES on proposal A comes out a month before vote time, and nobody remembers what the hell proposal A was, so they vote yes anyways or something.  
During all the commericals, they don't show a guy on an HD, they show a GSXR and such.  The motorcycle "jackass' that people see on the news isn't riding a HD type of cruiser.  He's riding a sportbike.  How many times have you seen an HD on the news when it's related to death or accident compared to sportbikes?  How many times have you seen an article about dangerous bikers and they're referring to a crusier?  You don't.  You see those things with sportbikes involved.  
It could really hit the fan really quick if the wrong politican gets into office that isn't "sport bike frendly."  The general public view of sportbikes is seen as what compared to how they see the HD's and such?  That's all that counts.  
This is why we should all be paying supporting memebers of the AMA.  They are the only chance we have.  

[cornercamping]

Dan....

Ease up on the language please.....

Thanks

Dawn   :)

Will do.  Sorry.  I'm kinda irritated on this subject in general.

 :)

[cornercamping]

Does that statistic exist somewhere?  I'm really curious to see the result on that.

I'm sure it does.  And you know who'd I bet has it.  THE INSURANCE COMAPNIES.

Think about this.  When setting an insurance rate, what is more likely be have a higher insurance cost:

A. A 2005 Harley worth $30K
B. A 2005 GSXR1000

Let's assume it's the exact same rider.  Why do you think AAA won't insure a GSXR but they will insure a Harley?