Freedom to wear a helmet or not From Eric Dondero at LR:
The White House and the Transportation Safety Administration has a full ban on riding a motorcycle without a helmet on its legislative agenda for 2011.
From KLTV - Tyler, TX:
TYLER, TX (KLTV)- Motorcycle riders across the country may soon be forced to wear a helmet if a proposed federal law passes. Right now, in Texas, anyone over the age of 21 is exempt from wearing a helmet. But that may change if the National Transportation Safety Board gets their way.One rider interviewed by KLTV suggested that requiring helmets could be a safety hazard. Continuing:
The NTSB says motorcycles make up only three percent of vehicles on the road, but 13 percent of all fatal crashes.
For 35 years, Bubba Parker has hit the highway with nothing but a bandana on his head. That's how he likes to ride.
"I'm out in the wide open kind of like your old cowboy days they had the big gray horses and we got these old iron horses and it's just the freedom of it," said Parker.
And the freedom to wear a helmet, or not. Soon, bikers may not have that choice. Parker says confining his head to a helmet kills his biking experience.
"For me, I like to be able to hear what my motor is doing," said Parker. "I can judge my speed. I can listen to what's going on around me, and with a helmet I just feel like I'm all caged up."
Thank you for reading this blog.
16 comments:
Interstate commerce...
I believe this national mandatory helmet law should be enforced because this is for the safety of motorists. I've heard of deathly accidents due to motorcycle riding and loss of life could have been at least prevented when the rider wore a helmet.
Mark:
You are wrong on a couple counts. Other motorists safety won't be increased by making motorcyclists wear helmets. The vast majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by motorists, meaning car drivers.
Two, there is no national helmet law to enforce.
I want to state for the record, I ride a motorcycle. I also wear a helmet. That being said I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they wish to wear a helmet or not. Human beings do a lot of activities that are dangerous and can cause injury or death. Should the government get involved to prevent such activities or modify them to ensure safety? I don't think so, as a general statement. You'd have to prove that such activities infringe on the rights of others. You haven't.
If you like, we can put our citizens in a straight jacket and keep them locked in their homes with a government trained aid to feed them and wipe their asses. Then nothing could go wrong, right?
Chuck:
Yeah, the nanny staters like to use that clause for all sorts of things. It's about time we kicked it back.
LIBERAL LUNACY!
Thanks for posting!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Well, if it's good enough for Gary Busey...
Stupid is as stupid does. Never said you shouldn't wear one, just that it should be up to the individual. If he had been wearing one, he would have got up and said, WTF?
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
God Bless and Happy Thanksgiving!
Landshark and Chris:
Thanks for the well wishes. Same to you and yours
TRG
Question: if you are involved in an accident with a biker with no helmet (and the accident was your fault), do you have to pay for damages? if so, I could understand a mandatory helmet law... Not that is the best option, though.
That presumes that a helmet will prevent all injuries. It doesn't. As far as fault goes, 100% fault is impossible. Just being there gets you in the game. In fact, part of the premium I pay covers uninsured motorists. If they have no insurance and sue me, I will be covered to the amount the policy covers, In my case it's 500K on each vehicle with an umbrella with the home. If they have insurance, they have to max out their coverage first and then go after mine. Then there can be subrogation. If his insurance pays his bills and it's my fault, and then he settles with me, his insurance company can go after him to get reimbursed.
That said, in Iowa, there is no mandatory helmet law. It doesn't matter.
No, but the helmet can certainly reduce the risk of death or serious injury to the brain... I think that, while it is my right not to wear a helmet while I'm riding a bike, I'm not sure it is my right to increase your expenses (or put my death in your conscience) if we are involved in an accident...
Riding a motorcycle is an inherently dangerous activity. When you ride you take risks. The same goes for driving a car, except there is more protection, but it's far less than failsafe.
As far as helmets go, you can be just as dead from a blunt force trauma to the body as a head injury. In fact, it happens just as often in Bike accidents. I could wrap myself in bubble wrap with the best helmet and still die.
The only argument I can find that would make due for helmets is getting hit with debris. Cars have to have windshields. Even a bug can blind you at 60mph. If you lose control, then what?
What I would rather see is a rational approach where people make up their own minds. In the case of the helmets, if you use your mind, you'll come to the conclusion it's a good idea to wear one, and not just a beanie.
I think it would better comport with public safety concerns if the law required motersickle drivers to cover their eyes while piloting their contraptions down the highway. A guy with a smushed head don't cost much. A squinty, half-blind motersickler can be a menace.
Well, it's only fair right? Car drivers talk on the cell, text, put on makeup, read the paper and work on a laptop. Might as well spread the blindness around.
Post a Comment