Maybe I should have picked "master" instead of "chia"? some of the words I write around here and the offbeat responses are just like playing Yankee Noodle Dandy!

 

Had an accident with my non-DOT "novelty" helmet. There was a gash in the helmet but not my fore-head. Also, did not get whip lash or any secondary injury because of a heavy object strapped to my head straining my neck. I heard that a helmet can be so heavy that it can actually break you neck in an accident.

Here in Michigan we have helmet laws but since the courts never agreed on what an "Approved" helmet was, beanies usually work. My insurance guy only asked that I cut the straps off the beanie after the accident (guess that's standard protocol), and he also paid for a new one.

The only difference I see with the beanies and most DOT's are 1/2" vs 1" of padding around the rim. I'm not talking about the risk of 1/2 helmet vs full face but the novelty beanies vs DOT versions.

Remember, not all helmets are tested, only "types" are sumitted and then the designs are DOT approved if the type submitted passed a 15 mph impact. Not every iteration of every model is tested and I don't even know the sample size.

What I do know is if reducing the foam around the rim from 1" to 1/2" makes a difference at 15 mph impact but both fail at a 35 mph impact why force me to where one type over the other?

 

The answer to that question is NO. We do not live (here in the USA) in a Democracy. We live in a Representive Republic. In such a state, the laws that may be passed by our elected officials are restricted (supposedly) by that most trappled upon document called the US Constitution.

Under such a government, the rights of INDIVIDUALS are not affected by the abuses of other INDIVIDUALS. In other words, your crimes and trespasses are not SUPPOSSED to cause me to suffer any ill effects or restrictions of MY rights.

Sadly, like many of the ideals that our Founding Fathers held so dear, the rights of the individual are being pissed on at an ever increasing rate...[&:]

 

I just want to add this:
According to John Locke, “‘… [law is] not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom.’ George Washington called this, “ordered liberty.’”(Nakaya) To have a society where people are free and do not have to walk in fear, acts are needed. A law which would punish a murder or rapist protects society and allows people to be free (Nakaya). According to Nakaya, “a test of law, then, is this: does it honor or degrade liberty? Does it enhance or diminish freedom?”

I think restrictive laws to protect ourselves from ourselves dimminish freedom.

 

Well we all know why threads like this die. One individual seezes the opportunity to take to the pulpit in a misguidedattempt to convince all the free thinking people that they should fall in lock step withhis opinion. Until that is, everyone gets disgusted and leaves.

HD Attitude, you've expressed your opinions. Not much point in continuing to beat a dead horse.

Thank God for freedom and our right of Choice, at least what's left of it.

 

Might as well give up on the 'free country' thinking as this country stopped being free a while back. While we still have some rights, and much more than some other countries, we have lost many civil liberties since 2000 and stand to lose many more in the upcoming years.

HD Attitude is right.

 

I don't need any lectures on why or why not I need to wear a helmet. If I have to wear a helmet I will comply just tell me which helmet is correct so I am not sitting on the side of the road stranded because my legal helmet in one state is illegal in another state.

But I don't think the insurance companies have any concern either. Their main concern is the mighty dollar and what their profits are. All they are concerned with is what they pay out in claims and what they can get away with not paying out. They are set up in in a perfect world because they can always deny a claim because you are not wearing a helmet in a state that has a helmet law. Problem is with the one in NC because it is kinda vaigue as to what is the legal helmet and what is not, If you are in an accident and your helmet does not comply with that states laws then they can deny your claim. It has nothing to do with your own personal safety or they would push to have one type of helmet approval process and mandate that all helmets be approved to that standard to elliminate confusion. If you don't believe this look at how they dodged the claims from Katrina victems by just rewording the policy claims from water damage to flood damage and the government backed them up. In truth the insurance industry in whole is based on risk and getting the cards on their side. In other words they want to play blackjack with only kings and aces. Just my .02