Originally Posted by BluesStringer

Wait. What do his injuries have to do with helmet laws? That's all I'm opposing here. The vast majority, in fact all if I'm not mistaken, of helmet law legislation has as its foundation the phony "public burden" justification for removing one's choice to decide for him/herself. Do you know of any burden the public suffered because of Busey's accident? He was already an Oscar nominee by the time the accident happened. I seriously doubt that anyone but he picked up the bill, so his specific injuries are meaningless to the crux of this discussion.

Honestly, I don't think I'm missing anything. The point I'm arguing isn't that helmets never have a positive effect, in Busey's case specifically, I'm arguing that it was his own lack of experience riding and his penchant for being a show-off that caused the accident, proven by the fact that only he and his vehicle were involved. What if the same accident had caused his death due to a ruptured spleen instead of rupturing what was left of his brain after a severe cocaine addiction? Lots of riders (and cage drivers too) die from internal injuries suffered during a crash. Why aren't we mandating body armor for bikers? Many times more cage drivers die every year in vehicle crashes than bikers, so obviously seat belt laws just aren't enough. Isn't it some moral imperative that society legislate the safety of everyone regardless of the type of vehicle they choose to drive? Why do only bikers cause this mythical "public burden?"



Clearly it is you who is missing something.



Really? Let's test this theory. What piece of safety equipment has the most potential to lessen the chances of someone pulling out in front of you from a two-way stop intersection where the motorcyclist has no obligation to stop?

a) A helmet
b) Good brakes
c) Working headlight
d) Working horn
e) b, c & d
f) Absolutely anything BUT a)

Create any hypothetical scenario you wish, and helmet laws only even have the potential to reduce injury after the real most essential safety gear on a bike have failed to prevent the crash. The overwhelming majority of those same crashes could be ameliorated or fully prevented with more cage and bike drivers' education. Helmets have the potential to contribute to a crash because of reduced visibility and hearing. Education has no such potential. Helmets are hardly the "most essential safety gear on a bike." The assertion is ludicrous on its face.



It's been 35 or 40 years since I had any right or reason to claim I looked "cool," but that aside, seat belt laws absolutely do put clamp-downs on individual liberty. I don't have to "argue" that point, because it's beyond self-evident. Be that as it may though, there is very little that's analogous between what's known about the effectiveness of seat belt usage (not laws, but usage) and helmet usage. I alluded to it in my previous post, studies regarding helmet usage are few and far between, while studies involving cages and seat belts, air bags etc. are voluminous and conducted by both government and independent, private research companies. A seat belt that lays relatively comfortably across one's torso and shoulders is hardly analogous in degree of imposition to a four or five pound, visibility and hearing-reducing helmet putting constant downward pressure on your spinal column. But yes, I do indeed still resent the government forcing my safety procedures on me whether we're talking helmet laws or seat belt laws or about a thousand other things I believe the government has no business meddling in my personal affairs about.



I thought we were talking about saving lives and/or reducing injuries to the head though. You mean someone in a car can't turn their neck far enough to get a fairly clear view of what's around them, but somehow motorcyclists magically can? And the biker has the wind constantly fighting his ability to comfortably move his head around, the adverse effects of which are magnified by adding more space and mass pushing through the wind with a helmet, while the cager has no wind and less clothing restricting their movements inside the cage. Windows and pillars don't make a car's blind spots any more obstructed just because of the headgear the driver is wearing. That doesn't even make sense. Clearly, it is the headgear itself that reduces range of motion that is to blame for reduced visibility.



I don't know why you're having such a hard time following this, but I'm not talking about voluntary activities governed by industry standards and not by the government. I'm talking only about laws that limit an individual's freedom to choose how best to protect him/herself on a motorcycle while riding on public roads and highways, or how he/she wishes to equip their bike. If I use my free will to choose to enter onto private property for the purposes of racing, I'm bound by the rules the private property owner and/or his/her authorized agents set. On public property I'm bound only by my obligation not to harm anyone else, either physically or financially, if we're taking into consideration that we all like to tout the meme that we "live in a free country," which clearly not all bikers do take into consideration where helmet laws and ridiculously restrictive "loud" pipes laws are concerned.



I have no idea who you are replying to here. I haven't used the word "secondary" and don't believe I implied any other kind of injury than a neck injury is likely during an accident by a helmeted rider on a bike.

And the accusation that the neck trauma argument is "false," is proven false itself by numerous studies, including this one, which is replete with methodology description, bibliography, footnotes, appendixes and addendum, all concluding unequivocally that the risk of neck injuries due to helmet laws increases in every jurisdiction as a trade-off for lower head trauma injuries. Bikers are left with the choice of reducing the incidence of death or debilitating head/brain injury, or increasing the potential for a paralyzing neck injury. Well, bikers who actually try to understand the issues involved are left with that choice anyway. Bikers who believe that somehow the imposition of laws taking that choice away from the individual have "NOTHING to do with freedom," not so much.



That someone who said earlier that helmet laws have "NOTHING to do with freedom" might be telling me how best to exercise my freedom is laughable.



Umm...no. Choosing to go on a hike when you'd rather ride your scooter, but can't because you can't tolerate all the over-regulation and government intrusions into your personal decision-making processes has NOTHING to do with freedom.



Some anti-nudity laws are ridiculous, so if we were talking about them specifically, then yes, I would express my opposition to keeping them on the books. Others I can support for various reasons that aren't pertinent to anything being discussed in this thread. I would simply ask that you don't post a picture of yourself in the nude to make some nebulous "point" about helmet laws or loud pipes laws. Please.

Blues

Originally Posted by Deuuuce

...... The Government paid for the roads, maintains the roads, surveys the roads, and therefore rules apply to those roads, including safety equipment and gear requirements. Don't like it? Move somewhere else.

Originally Posted by oldguyalso

I and ALL that have had their money taken,TAXES, paid for ALL the infrastructure of this land...You sound like that sorry POS in the whitehouse "you didn't build your Business on your own"....

Originally Posted by Sierra977

Self-identifying statist thread.

Originally Posted by AnotherBlackSG

So... you're complaining about the noise laws/ordinances?? I applaud them! I don't know if they save lives or not (waiting for proof of that), but I DO know that I HATE riding next to someone with loud pipes. I can only imagine how annoying it is to the general public.

Originally Posted by Deuuuce

Your knowledge of helmets is laughable, and so is quoting an easily contested paper from 1986. A helmet is over the top? LMAO find someone on the track that thinks so. How idiotic. Gear and equipment are terms used separately. Seatbelts can cause injuries as well, but like helmets, the overwhelming benefit outweighs the potential for injury from the safety device itself. Hardly a helmet exists that weighs over 4.5lbs and many are less: http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcyc...et-weights.htm

The neck injury is entirely dependent upon the type of collision. If belted in a car without at HANS device, you MIGHT have point. The Government paid for the roads, maintains the roads, surveys the roads, and therefore rules apply to those roads, including safety equipment and gear requirements. Don't like it? Move somewhere else.