• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Why I Think Helmet Laws Are Stupid

http://www.savemolives.com/programs/documents/UCLAHelmetLawStudy.pdf

Helmet laws save lives and tax payer money-period. In my 20 years of investigating traffic collisions, I have never investigated a motorcycle accident where the rider/passenger died of road rash, broken/loss of limb, or even a missing face. Every rider or passenger that hit their head on the ground without a helmet (or a faked DOT skull cap) ended up dead or suffered a traumatic brain injury. While wearing a helmet may not prevent a head injury 100% of the time, traumatic head injuries WILL occur 100% of the time if your head hits the ground without a helmet. Well, there's always that one guy who escapes unscathed, but I haven't met him yet.
 
Last edited:
See..? No helmet..! :p

<---- :sniper
InNoHurry said:
Agreed! Stupid socialist government. If an adult man signs up to serve in a war that isn't, the government shouldn't put tax payers' money towards helmets, bullet proof vests, etc. Obama is destroying this country!
Click to expand...
 
aram said:
Go ride a big bike like a Goldwing or something. On those you don't need a helmet for comfort. Probably more comfortable without one actually. Not every bike is a sportbile. :party
Click to expand...

This. It's one of the reasons I'm on the cusp of purchasing a 3/4 helmet. I don't get the airflow on my RT like I did with my Triumph. But that's because I'm not supposed to. It's designed that way. In the summer, it's been miserable at times with a full face. I've leaned my head out around the windshield just to get some air more than a few times.
 
It should be up to the rider like in texas over 25 if u dont want to wear it dont
Itd required in ca cause in the 70's they wer gonna loose fed funding for the chp so they needed a bullshit reason to keep it and as usual they screw the gen public
Dot dont mean shit they dont inspect helmets it is up to the mfg of the helmet to say yes it is or no its not. Unless it has snell on it they do inspect certain buckets
All my wrecks have in large part been caused by the helmet blocking my view left n right

1/2 helmets r better but provide almost no protection
If u land on the top of ur head ur gonna snap u neck so oh well
I prefer no helmet period i ride better cause im more alert to whats going on around me not in a false security helmets give

Y u think most soldiers dont keep their cover provides no real protection just a boost in confidence

Just how i feel got 20 years on bikes and prefer no brain bucket
 
ALANRIDER7 said:
The problem with your logic is you might not die. You could suffer a catastrophic brain injury, turn into a chef salad and stay that way for the next 45 years.

Who the fuck is supposed to pay for that?
Click to expand...

No one. I would like the plug pulled. I'd rather be dead than a burden on my friends, family, or society.

But that's besides the point. I could turn into a vegetable with or without a helmet in a crash; it all depends on the crash. In fact, I'd be more likely to suffer a fatal blow without a helmet, which implies (although doesn't guarantee) that I'm more likely to be a vegetable if I crash with a helmet on.
 
Last edited:
Yo!Joe!!! said:
Don't worry. ObamaCare will make you wear a helmet when you ride moto, ski, snowboard, jet ski, skydive, rock climb, skate and ride a bicycle. Or face a hefty fine, I mean tax, no, fine. Shit. Which is it..? :loco

:laughing :twofinger
Click to expand...
I could not find the words "helmet" or "motorcycle" in the text of the bill passed by Congress. Is this something that you heard on FoxNews, or elsewhere? Or perhaps just made it up because having a good reason to hate the bill is difficult to come by?
 
Carlo_Guzzi said:
I could not find the words "helmet" or "motorcycle" in the text of the bill passed by Congress. Is this something that you heard on FoxNews, or elsewhere? Or perhaps just made it up because having a good reason to hate the bill is difficult to come by?
Click to expand...

You mean. You read all 2,700 pages..? :wow
 
Win-Win

assmodeus said:
ohhh yeah- certainly possible..at best it would be broken jaw/nose and a frigging mess of blood and teeth everywhere
Click to expand...

Truer words have never been spoken.

For those that don't agree with the helmet law and knowing that the Gov't prefers money over anything else. Let's vote in a law that states no helmet is required if rider were to put up a 5 million dollar bond.

I'd vote for that!
 
Last edited:
eddiet204 said:
http://www.savemolives.com/programs/documents/UCLAHelmetLawStudy.pdf

Helmet laws save lives and tax payer money-period.
Click to expand...

Not everything that saves lives or tax payer money should be mandated by the government. For Instance:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/09/news/la-heb-bathroom-injuries-20110609

234,094 injuries in and around the bathtub; do we ban showers or demand folks who shower wear safety gear?

I almost never ride w/o a helmet, but I'm tired of hearing "because it saves lives and taxpayer dollars" as the battle-cry for another liberty lost.
 
Carlo_Guzzi said:
I didn't read them, I searched them. I actually put a little effort into my assertation. And you?
Click to expand...

Shhh!! :shhh My favorite TV show on FoxNews is about to start..! :boobies :thumbup
 
jdhu said:
The only good reason I see for helmet laws is the "free-riding" and medical insurance. If a non-helmeted rider is severely injured and lacks sufficient coverage, we all pay his/her medical costs.

It is true that lacking other gear could also lead to free-riding, but well, that just provides our lawmakers a reason to require gear as well.
Click to expand...

Another bogus reason to restrict our freedoms. The rationale was used for seatbelts, headrests and airbags as well. The nanny State is in full force here in the US.

I have an idea! No "free riding!" a concept that is not politically correct, I know.:twofinger
 
mrmarklin said:
Another bogus reason to restrict our freedoms. The rationale was used for seatbelts, headrests and airbags as well. The nanny State is in full force here in the US.
Click to expand...
Agreed! And speed limits suck too. 20 mph on a school zone?!?! WTF!
 
InNoHurry said:
Agreed! And speed limits suck too. 20 mph on a school zone?!?! WTF!
Click to expand...

Not sure if sarcastic...

Personally, I don't like mowing down 5-year-olds running into the street after a stray ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top