Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on August 22, 2009, 11:41:29 PM
-
So, my wife and I spent the last week checking out Jonesboro, AR, Huntsville and Decatur, AL, and Knoxville, TN, as well as other areas in between. This weeklong tour followed months of researching the areas online.
This morning we got on the interstate to head back home to Milwaukee. I noticed some motorcyclists, then noticed they were all wearing helmets. Every rider I could see was wearing a bucket. Same thing in TN.
I expect helmet laws in nanny states. But Alabama and Tennessee? It's especially galling considering the high temps and humidity in the summer.
Looks like I'll have to join another crusade once we're moved.
Grrrrrrrrrr.
-
This morning we got on the interstate to head back home to Milwaukee. I noticed some motorcyclists, then noticed they were all wearing helmets. Every rider I could see was wearing a bucket. Same thing in TN.
Maybe they just value their lives. subjective and inflammatory comment deleted
-
State by state helmet laws
http://www.usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html (http://www.usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html)
-
Maybe they just value their lives. I doubt most motorcycle riders in states without helmet laws are stupid enough not to.
Interesting statement for a guy with the handle of "freedom lover".
So I guess if someone enjoys a freedom that you disagree with then they are stupid?
I suggest you educate yourself on the issue before you start calling your fellow forum members stupid.
-
Interesting statement for a guy with the handle of "freedom lover".
So I guess if someone enjoys a freedom that you disagree with then they are stupid?
The hell? I wasn't calling the freedom stupid, just the action. I meant the word "maybe" to be understood as implying that they were doing it out of choice, not because of a law. I'm surprised you didn't get that.
I suggest you educate yourself on the issue before you start calling your fellow forum members stupid.
1) I doubt Monkeyleg is stupid.
2) How am I to know if he rides motorcycles or not? I would think he opposes helmet laws on principle.
3) Why the hell would any smart person ride without a helmet?
-
you ride? try it then give an informed opinion. i wear a helmet even in states where i don't have to. its a choice there. as it should be. funny thing back in the late 70's i got a ticket driving wifes corrolla without taking off my bike helmet when i picked it up. i was in a hurry to get somewhere and just didn't stop to take it off. the rationale for the ticket was the helmet would impede my hearing and peripheral vision, i started laughing. heck when the same reasons are used to explain not wanting to wear a hemet on my bike they are dismissed as specious.
-
you ride? try it then give an informed opinion.
I may do that someday, though I'd start on dirt to see if I have what it takes before buying something expensive.
-
thats a very smart way to learn smart and safer
-
3) Why the hell would any smart person ride without a helmet?
Probably because they want to. Why the hell would any smart person ride a motorcycle? Probably because they want to.
-
and heck you aren't required to be smart to vote have kids or drive
-
While recognizing it will never happen except in a Heinleinian fantasy, I have often thought that helmets and seat belts should be optional with the proviso that those who opt out are also opting out of public assistance should their choice prove wrong. A bit of an extra selective factor in the scheme of social Darwinism. (Is your insurance adequate to the task and paid up? =D)
On the seat belt side there is the problem that many vehicles, particularly the eighteen wheelers I drive, become very difficult to control on rough ground if the drive cannot stay in the driver's seat because he or she is not belted in. While an unhelmeted biker poses no threat to others on the road, an unbelted driver may. Given that I am alive to type this only because seat belts have twice prevented my nearly certain death, I will continue to use them and will not fight against laws requiring their use.
-
I had hoped that this wouldn't immediately devolve into a discussion about the virtues of wearing helmets or seat belts or not smoking or drinking or eating red meat or deep fried foods or fatty foods or having unprotected sex or having sex at all to doing anything that could potentially harm a person. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)
I'm just surprised that a state like AL would have a helmet law. Years ago I was shocked to find that Nevada had a helmet law. It just doesn't fit with the independent, conservative images of these states.
As for riding without a helmet being stupid, it is. It's also stupid to ride a motorcycle, considering the effects of being struck by a 3,000+ pound car or crashing into a tree. It's much smarter to drive a car with front and side air bags. It's even smarter to stay home and not risk a collision at all.
I'd just like to get one of the legiscritters who write these helmet laws to sit in heavy traffic in humid 90+ degree heat wearing a helmet, with no option to remove it.
-
lots of times these type laws get pushed through on the heels of a tragedy that personalizes it for the legislators. one of their kids gets hurt. we had, might still have, a law in va where selling one qualude could get you 35 years. someones kid got killed while luded all the other legislators go to kids funeral and a law with disproportionate penalties gets rammed through
-
I'm not a "free market cures all" kinda guy, but I think in this case it might.
If life+health insurance companies denied benifits to someone not wearing a helmet, I bet it'd change a lot of behaviors.
Then again, many MC riders would probably push for a law to ban the practice...
-
Given that I am alive to type this only because seat belts have twice prevented my nearly certain death, I will continue to use them and will not fight against laws requiring their use.
There are many, many problems with seatbelt laws which I will not address here, except as to say that they may be nice in theory, but in practice they're problematic.
As for the Heinleinian fantasy, life without seatbelt laws is possible - after all, there existed an age before these laws, and some states still don't have them. I don't see why there can't be a time after.
-
I am all for personal freedom and small government, but in today's world, if a moron goes and seriously hurts himself due to lack of proper equipment, anyone around the event chances getting sucked into the legal whirlwind, sued and losing their homes in the process. I'd rather the law force those morons to be padded up, strapped in or whatever and diminish the liability for the rest.
-
I love NH....so seat belt law, no helmet law....ah, a free country...
Bear in mind, I wear my belt at ALL times, but because, in my opinion, it's the smart thing to do.
I don't ride, so I can't comment.
Freedom, I cherish the day when you can make one post that doesn't wreak of youthful ignorance, a pampered life, and something resembling an intelligent, well thought out post. Oh, and doesn't attack those that disagree with your views.
-
I had hoped that this wouldn't immediately devolve into a discussion about the virtues of wearing helmets or seat belts or not smoking or drinking or eating red meat or deep fried foods or fatty foods or having unprotected sex or having sex at all to doing anything that could potentially harm a person.
Well, yeah, but haven't all those been redefined as public health problems in dire need of government intervention?
I am all for personal freedom and small government, but in today's world, if a moron goes and seriously hurts himself due to lack of proper equipment, anyone around the event chances getting sucked into the legal whirlwind, sued and losing their homes in the process. I'd rather the law force those morons to be padded up, strapped in or whatever and diminish the liability for the rest.
No, you're not "for personal freedom and small government:" you're for living in fear of lawyers and law suits.
-
I wouldn't push my opinion on someone else but I do think that riding a motorcycle on main roads without a helmet is just asking for it.
Then again, it's the law here and I am used to all my biker mates wearing them happily, especially what with the occasional bit of mud and diesel on some of the roads round here.
-
Helmet and seat belt laws are indeed assinine. If a person wishes to not use them, it should be their choice alone.
-
Alright. I'm gonna wade into this one....
I'm not a rider, so I can't speak from firsthand experience as regards to the discomfort of a helmet on a hot muggy day in heavy traffic. However, I have worn helmets in the past, on go-carts, off roading, etc. So I can imagine that in heavy traffic, sucking someone's too-rich exhaust, on a hot muggy day, those things have to be a royal pain in the butt. Especially if you commute on your motorcycle.
Now, I have been on scenes of motorcycle accidents. With and without helmets/other protective gear. Personally, I would never ride a motorcycle in traffic without at least a full face helmet and probably leathers and good stout boots.
However, seatbelt and helmet laws reek of nanny-stateism. Personally, I think that it's your choice whether you ride with or without either... BUT. You had better be sure that you can afford to pay for not only emergency care, but possibly long term care, as well as sufficient disability insurance to provide for your family if you turn into a vegetable after wiping out without a helmet. Because I've seen that one. Primary income earner gets seriously injured, ends up in a vegetative state. Insurance pays up to the max of their requirements for coverage, which doesn't even cover the ICU stay. Family is financially wiped out, and they end up turning to the state for help. Would a helmet have prevented it from happening? Impossible to know for sure, but it sure would have improved the odds.
Oh, and these?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.helmetsetc.com%2Fimages%2Fhelmets%2Fdh%2Fdh-nov-eagle-Gloss-black.jpg&hash=3a459c1e79fb781c608b4f009857aaf333a96010)
There's a reason we call these "brain-buckets".
-
I have been a bicyclist for 38 years and a motorcyclist for 20. As far as I can remember, Washington has always had helmet laws. My thoughts on the matter have no doubt been colored by my experience as a paramedic. Even if it was not mandatory, I would still wear helmets on all the two-wheel vehicles. For the same reason that I wear high-viz: to stack the odds in my favor as much as possible.
I am neutral as to if there should be mandatory laws on the subject. In Washington, one of the big 'selling points' was to reduce public health costs in welfare expenditures on persons sustaining a serious head injury from not wearing a helmet. I have not looked for any recent data to see if substantial savings have been realized. There are anecdotal comments that the number of available organ donors have decreased with the rise of mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.
I myself don't ride the motorcycles when it gets over 90 degrees since wearing all my armored gear and helmet just gets too hot. This is especially true on my maxi-scooter for work commuting, since I am wearing a suit under all the gear.
-
SC famously (and perhaps stupidly) has no helmet laws.
I've thought the simple way to handle the problem is to let insurance companies write two level policies. One line of coverage when a helmet is used and a different line when no helmet is used.
-
I wear a full face with my cruiser. First, I'm just getting out of my first year of riding. Second, with my glasses I want the visor.
Oh, and the safety class impressed upon me the difference between DOT certification and SNELL certification.
I'm now the alternate motorcycle safety rep for my unit. Why do we have motorcycle safety reps at all? Because it's the leading cause of motor vehicle deaths in the military, and motor vehicles are the leading cause of death period. I've seen pictures of accidents where the driver's use of a helmet didn't save him, but I've also seen more where one would have. The guy who rammed the back of a trailer doing an estimated 150mph, not so much. The guy who hit a pothole - probably would have converted a funeral into a short hospital stay.
Waitone - the only problem with that is that you might find that non-helmet policies that don't cover funeral might actually be cheaper than the helmet ones. One of the big things about anti-smoking laws is that despite all the expenses of caring for smokers, non-smokers end up living so much longer on average their medical expenses are actually higher over their life.
-
I never ride my Harley sans helmet.
Of course, the military always made sure I rode with a helmet, so I am a tad biased.
If I wreck seriously enough, I'm sure it'll be a good place to get a dental ID or DNA sample, but I also never drive without my seatbelt.
I had hoped that this wouldn't immediately devolve into a discussion about the virtues of wearing helmets or seat belts
Just looking at the thread title and the tone of the OP, I knew that was going to happen, no matter what. I know I was born at night, but not last night. =D
Throw in a post or three from our resident humor-challenged high school icon, and away we go...
It's an emotionally-charged issue, that much is for certain.
Let's keep the discussion on an even keel, regardless.
Attack the argument, but not the arguer, ok?
-
I think it is interesting that AD, the current EMS person, and I, the former EMS person, have much the same opinion. This is not coincidence. There is nothing quite like trying to intubate someone whose face is so smashed that you cannot find the anatomic landmarks.
-
True.
However, I've responded to crash scenes where the helmet merely provided aforementioned dental records.
My own risk management model has me wearing my helmet.
YMMV, of course.
-
Texas doesn't seem to have helmet laws. It's a pretty common sight to see an older guy (late 40s, 50s, etc) running around on one with a bandanna, vest, and sneakers (usually with a full beard, too, FWIW). They outnumber the younger riders by far... and the younger riders are pretty much always in helmet/jacket/boots.
-
I don't mean to sound melodramatic when I say that I wouldn't ride a motorcycle if I weren't willing to die. Riding one increases your odds of death or injury substantially. Helmets obviate some of that risk. However, a helmet alone is no substitute for experience, skill and sobriety. Roughly 30% of motorcycle accident fatalities are alcohol-related.
As for insurance companies and helmets, for a while (it may still be the case) Sturm Ruger's health insurance wouldn't pay for treatment for injuries from a motorcycle accident if the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. However, other behaviors were covered. Drive drunk and get into an accident? You're covered. Get squashed while riding your bicycle the wrong way on the interstate? You're covered. Point a gun at your head and accidentally pull the trigger? No problem. Just don't ride a motorcycle without a helmet (which is legal in MA).
lots of times these type laws get pushed through on the heels of a tragedy that personalizes it for the legislators. one of their kids gets hurt
Perhaps. But mandatory helmet laws are mostly the result of states having to knuckle under to the feds to get highway funds. I think it's criminal that the feds take tax money from residents of a state and then threaten to withhold highway money to the state unless certain laws are enacted. The procedure enables congresscritters from one state to effectively enact legislation in another state. I would think this has been challenged at the SC level at one time or another.
-
I'm an advocate of helmets. Mainly for the same reasons that Gewehr mentioned. The military won't cover a person if they aren't wearing a helmet. They made it a regulation, regardless of the state laws.
HOWEVER.....
I think it's asinine that a state require seatbelts and NOT helmets. I only wish that they'd allow a person to choose or make them ALL mandatory for all drivers/riders. I don't like hypocrisy.
-
You had better be sure that you can afford to pay for not only emergency care, but possibly long term care, as well as sufficient disability insurance to provide for your family if you turn into a vegetable after wiping out without a helmet.
fixed
-
I'll abuse a George Carlin idea right about now:
Folks who take risks I am not willing to = stupid, crazy, irresponsible, etc.
Folks who don't take risks I am willing to = fearful, square, boring, lifeless, etc.
FTR, I wouldn't ride a MC w/o a helmet. My kids, while they are under 18YO, living under my roof, or having their way/education paid for by me, can ride a MC anywhere they want-with a helmet-, as long as it is not on the street.
My BIL is 85%-90% recovered from a MC wreck that kills 5/6 who experience it: frontal lobe smacking into and scraping along the pavement at 30+MPH. No helmet, of course. No insurance, as he has always been healthy & unemployed. Probably cost in the millions to get him back this far, ~18months after the fact. He is alive due to teh grace of God and the fact he wrecked 5 minutes from a level 2 trauma center.
-
Interesting statement for a guy with the handle of "freedom lover".
So I guess if someone enjoys a freedom that you disagree with then they are stupid?
I suggest you educate yourself on the issue before you start calling your fellow forum members stupid.
OK, I'll take the bait WRT the bolded part.
Yes, in many cases they can be stupid. Part of having freedom is being free to do stupid things...and being able to call folks stupid for doing stupid things.
"I suggest you educate yourself on the issue..." of freedom. It is a two-way street.
FTR, I find helmet laws & seatbelt laws hateful.
-
Damn.
I had hoped people wouldn't take the bait, honestly. =|
-
Damn.
I had hoped people wouldn't take the bait, honestly. =|
G98:
My post was not a primer on how to act, given freedom, just a reminder that the freedom to do/risk as one pleases does not shield one from others exercising their freedom to criticize it.
FTR*, calling folks stupid and using the term "stupid" is not something I would suggest. There are better terms and means one could choose that are less likely to alienate and more likely to persuade.
Anyways, does anyone have a link to a good primer on the DOT vs SNELL cert? I'd like to relieve myself of ignorance on that account.
* Why does this thread seem to make everyone want to include a disclaimer? "FTR, though I would never slather myself down with Crisco, run naked through the shopping mall and dare mall security to catch & wrestle me, I support the right of willing adults to "Crisco wrestle" if the property owners do not object."
-
Jfruser, DOT certification means almost nothing. The manufacturer simply has to tell the DOT that the helmet meets DOT standards. Helmets that are Snell certified must be submitted for testing and evaluation by the Snell foundation.
We can debate the merits of motorcycle helmets, seat belts or sugar-free drinks all day long. What I find interesting is how accepting people--and certainly not just people on this forum--have become of mandatory-anything laws.
Proponents of said laws have framed the argument in terms expressed on this thread: the cost to society, or to those enrolled in health insurance plans, the increased likelihood of death or severe injury, and the "stupidity" of not accepting the mandate.
Unless you live alone on top of a mountain in Idaho, and never leave that mountain, something you do is going to have an impact on those around you, whether it's riding without a helmet or methane from a fart.
Insurance companies are in the business of assessing the costs of behaviors, spreading the various costs across their pool of insured, and then arriving at a price that still provides them with a profit. You may not ride a motorcycle, but something else you do is costing the company more money than the "perfect" person.
We prattle on and on about "freedom," but many of us are quick to throw another's freedom under the bus if it doesn't directly impact us. Many, if not most, members of this forum came from TheHighRoad, and have been lamenting the loss of 2A freedoms for decades. During that time, though, we've had other freedoms quietly taken from us without protest.
The frog has been simmering for a long time, but it's only in the last few months that we've seen demonstrations by ordinary people about government overreaching. These folks aren't upset that government is taking over their lives, as that's been going on for a long time. Rather, they're shocked at the pace at which the Obama administration is moving. He just turned up the heat too quickly and the people noticed.
Do-gooders and control freaks have been stripping us of our freedoms for decades, and precious few have yelled "stop!". It's only now, when we see the potential for government to not only control our lives but our deaths, that the people are upset. If Obamacare withers on the vine, I have no doubt that we'll return to the simmering water.
-
FTR*, calling folks stupid and using the term "stupid" is not something I would suggest. There are better terms and means one could choose that are less likely to alienate and more likely to persuade.
This was well said and bears repeating for consideration as the thread progresses. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
-
As a fairly new rider (about 2k miles under my belt) I'm going to chime in here as well. I personally will not ride without a full face helmet on. I like my life more than I like not being sweaty. I can speak of being sweaty with great experience after sitting in stop-and-go traffic on 95 many a times on rather hot, humid days on my black motorcycle with my black jacket and black helmet on. Now, that being said, there's nothing stopping me from opening my visor, and I've found that lets in some wind which is a huge relief. The thought of taking my helmet off never went through my mind, but I have a full-face with quite a few vents on it.
I don't think that those who choose to ride without helmets, or even those who ride in shorts and tee-shirts, are stupid. It's their choice to make, and it doesn't affect me, so I don't get upset about it. What I despise is seeing people ride without regard to others. Those who weave in and out of traffic, split lanes, pull wheelies, and just race down the roads are the stupid ones, IMO. I've ridden in states that don't require helmets, and my helmet stays on the whole time. To me, it's just not worth the risk, but to others it may be.
The reason I don't have a problem with the law requiring that all wear helmets is the number of people that are affected by the aftermath of an accident. Police, EMS, hospital staff, families, and even the people driving by are hugely impacted. I for one don't want my kids to see someone's brains spread across 50 feet of the road. I also think a rider without a helmet IS a hazard to others. I've heard rocks bounce off my helmet a few times, and they did nothing more than surprise me. Now, had that rock hit me in the eyes, shattering my sunglasses, what could have been no more than a simple "thunk" is now an impaired rider, with a much greater possibility of going down. Now, if this happens in moderate traffic, cars are going to swerve as the rider goes down, and could cause secondary accidents, affecting even more lives. Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
-
The reason I don't have a problem with the law requiring that all wear helmets is the number of people that are affected by the aftermath of an accident. Police, EMS, hospital staff, families, and even the people driving by are hugely impacted. I for one don't want my kids to see someone's brains spread across 50 feet of the road. I also think a rider without a helmet IS a hazard to others. I've heard rocks bounce off my helmet a few times, and they did nothing more than surprise me. Now, had that rock hit me in the eyes, shattering my sunglasses, what could have been no more than a simple "thunk" is now an impaired rider, with a much greater possibility of going down. Now, if this happens in moderate traffic, cars are going to swerve as the rider goes down, and could cause secondary accidents, affecting even more lives. Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
I've been riding since 1966 and have put on hundreds of thousands of miles. In that time I've seen one motorcycle accident. I've seen untold numbers of auto accidents caused by all manner of factors, but I can't think of any new laws that would have prevented the accidents. The fact that something might cause drivers to have secondary accidents seems like a stretch.
-
I don't own a motorcycle (yet), but when I do, bet your ass I will be wearing full face helmet and good protective clothing. I managed to go down once when I was riding my moped. Got a few scrapes from that one...
-
I've been riding since 1966 and have put on hundreds of thousands of miles. In that time I've seen one motorcycle accident.
Dude, next time I hit the road on my bike, I'm riding with you. I've only been riding since about 1989, and in my assignments all over the USA and the world, I'veve seen many motorcycle accidents ranging from scratched chrome to fire trucks hosing off the pavement. You're charmed, IMHO.
-
You're charmed, IMHO.
Why thank you. Oh, wait. You said "charmed," not "charming." ;)
Yeah, maybe I am. I hope my point wasn't diluted by that.
This is starting to feel like a dead horse.
-
Charming, charmed, same same. =D
It just struck me as odd that somebody keeping the rubber side down for 40+ years had witnessed only one motorcycle accident.
Speaking of data points, I've only had one equestrian accident, myself.
Luckily, the K-Mart employee ran out and unplugged the ride before I hurt myself too badly. ;)
-
I've been riding since 1966 and have put on hundreds of thousands of miles. In that time I've seen one motorcycle accident. I've seen untold numbers of auto accidents caused by all manner of factors, but I can't think of any new laws that would have prevented the accidents. The fact that something might cause drivers to have secondary accidents seems like a stretch.
You don't think a bike going down at 70+ MPH on the interstate in traffic wouldn't cause other drivers to nail their brakes, swerve, or anything along those lines? Then clearly you've not ridden/driven around MD/VA, because around here I think if you sneeze too loudly in the car it could cause an accident. Drivers around here are HORRIBLE. All it takes is for the weatherman on the radio to just say the word "Rain" and traffic comes to a dead halt during rush hour.
-
thats why i quit riding i live in fredericksburg and at the time i hung up my helmet i worked in alexandria
-
Now, I have been on scenes of motorcycle accidents. With and without helmets/other protective gear. Personally, I would never ride a motorcycle in traffic without at least a full face helmet and probably leathers and good stout boots.
However, seatbelt and helmet laws reek of nanny-stateism. Personally, I think that it's your choice whether you ride with or without either... BUT. You had better be sure that you can afford to pay for not only emergency care, but possibly long term care, as well as sufficient disability insurance to provide for your family if you turn into a vegetable after wiping out without a helmet. Because I've seen that one. Primary income earner gets seriously injured, ends up in a vegetative state. Insurance pays up to the max of their requirements for coverage, which doesn't even cover the ICU stay. Family is financially wiped out, and they end up turning to the state for help. Would a helmet have prevented it from happening? Impossible to know for sure, but it sure would have improved the odds.
This sums up my feelings quite nicely.
I'm debating getting my motorcycle license. I'm not a fan of motorcycles per se, but I'm tempted to learn. If only for the sake of the knowledge itself. I'd probably not ever go without a helmet, protective gear, et al. That said, safety gear is not magic. Old friend of mine that I met up with in Vegas, she managed to get two compound fractures (both of her bones in her forearm) when she spilled her motorcycle. Folks wonder why I keep a tourniquet in my medical kit...
Helmets and safety gear are good ideas. Increasing state power to regulate 'good ideas' is not so good. Life is dangerous. If it wasn't, it would not be worth living. I've done stupidly dangerous activities. Playing with a couple hundred pounds of C4, making wind chimes out of mortar rounds, allegedly attempting to train bears to eat officers, getting drunk at mafia establishments in Eastern Europe, rock climbing, sky diving, dating a redheaded Irish chick, etc. All very risky, dangerous, life threatening activities. But it's the stuff that makes life worth living. I wouldn't trade my memories for anything in the world.
Should it be illegal, for my own good and safety? The greatest evil is when a collective proclaims: "We are taking from you (whatever). For your own good, because We know better than you do."
-
Back to the OP. So you have to wear a helmet in those states? Big deal- you can still marry you're 15 year old first- cousin and have her pick up smokes and booze for you at the local 711. :laugh:
As far as helmets go -I have always worn one (mom and dad made me starting in 1970), and always will . I feel naked without one. Besides, there seems to be a target right between my eyes for sparrow sized bugs. Now, I need just need a windshield washer and a uni-wiper.
-
"...For your own good, because We know better than you do."
Isn't that what they told the tom cat just before the Big Snip?
Returning to the OP
I expect helmet laws in nanny states. But Alabama and Tennessee?
Just another example of stereotyping Bubbaland, nu? =D
-
[Yoda]Strong with fascism this thread is.[/Yoda]
-
GW98, I've seen crashes after the fact (during cleanup), but only one up close right after it had happened. I had an accident myself in '66, but fortunately I was just banged up a bit.
Paragon, I haven't ridden in the Maryland area, but IMO San Francisco drivers are even worse than Chicago. There's no lack of places to get run over.
-
I wear a helmet always by choice, I don't have to, but I prefer to.
There is a lot of talk on this thread about penalizing motorcylists for not wearing helmets, unfortunately it leaves the behavior of the cagers on the road out of the equation. Should the person on the cycle be penalized for not wearing a helmet when the guy int he SUV is driving 2' off the back wheel of the cyclist at 75 MPH? What about the woman who is drinking her frappchino, yapping on the cell phone and swerving over the divider lines? How about the guy who makes a left turn or pulls away from the curb in front of you and didn't bother looking first? All of these situations could cause an accident with a 4-wheel vehicle as well, but the cause has little to do with helmets/seatbelts and everything to do with aggressive or inattentive drivers.
-
I wear a helmet always by choice, I don't have to, but I prefer to.
There is a lot of talk on this thread about penalizing motorcylists for not wearing helmets, unfortunately it leaves the behavior of the cagers on the road out of the equation. Should the person on the cycle be penalized for not wearing a helmet when the guy int he SUV is driving 2' off the back wheel of the cyclist at 75 MPH? What about the woman who is drinking her frappchino, yapping on the cell phone and swerving over the divider lines? How about the guy who makes a left turn or pulls away from the curb in front of you and didn't bother looking first? All of these situations could cause an accident with a 4-wheel vehicle as well, but the cause has little to do with helmets/seatbelts and everything to do with aggressive or inattentive drivers.
Don't forget the biker who is lane splitting, weaving in and out of traffic, doing stunts, and tailgating "cagers"? I've seen all of those behaviors on I66 during rush hour in Northern Virginia.
Chris
-
Don't forget the biker who is lane splitting, weaving in and out of traffic, doing stunts, and tailgating "cagers"? I've seen all of those behaviors on I66 during rush hour in Northern Virginia.
Ayup. I've seen some really idiotic crap on 2 wheels as well. Cutting people off in multiple lane changes, wheelies on the freeway, weaving through traffic at 110 mph,tailgating, etc. The difference is that the Darwin is far more likely to claim one of these monkeys than anyone they might get in an accident with.
-
You may see idiots on bikes, but that's anecdotal evidence to support any mandatory helmet laws. More than 75% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of automobile drivers. If we're going to mandate helmet laws, how about mandatory prison sentences for automobile drivers who cause motorcycle accidents? Why punish the victims and let the perps go free?
I've seen some really stupid riders, but I've seen and dodged far more idiotic car drivers. (When I know the situation is back in my control, I sometimes like to continue approaching their vehicles with a look of terror on my face as though I'm going to crash into them. It really scares the crap out of them).
-
Who said anything about passing a helmet law because of stupid riders?
And it isn't just stupid riders, it's riders doing stunts and other crap that would have an automobile driver staring down the barrel of a gun if caught.
I've seen some really stupid riders, but I've seen and dodged far more idiotic car drivers.
Simple numbers issue. There are far more automobiles than bikes on the highways.
At the end of the day, I don't care if a motorcyclist wears a helmet or not, but I do care about drivers and riders doing stupid things that could hurt my family. Stunting and lane splitting (I'm looking for you in the other lane, not 3" from my side) are hardly careful and controlled operation.
Chris
-
(When I know the situation is back in my control, I sometimes like to continue approaching their vehicles with a look of terror on my face as though I'm going to crash into them. It really scares the crap out of them).
Except the situation is never in your control (or mine for that matter). There are always variables you can't control and your little stunt could cause that scared driver to do something unexpected.
Maybe it's having kids, or being the primary earner, or living in NoVa where traffic is a nightmare, but I go out of my way to avoid dangerous drivers/riders when I see them. I'll leave the lesson teaching to those with less to lose.
Chris
-
There is nothing dangerous about lane splitting. Lots of studies show that it's safer for everyone.
-
And that's why it's only legal in Kalifornia. (At the behest of the CHP, who wanted the capability for their motorcycle cops...)
-
Ok, nobody knows if it's actually safer. I just think it is, personally.
-
There is nothing dangerous about lane splitting. Lots of studies show that it's safer for everyone.
Yeah, it's safer to find a motorcycle 3" off your side or between two vehicles rather than in the lane where you'd expect to find your fellow travelers.
Of course, if a motorcyclist gets squished between two cars while lane splitting, it's obviously the fault of the drivers who didn't endeavor to create a third lane out of two.
Chris
-
Freedom, I cherish the day when you can make one post that doesn't wreak of youthful ignorance, a pampered life, and something resembling an intelligent, well thought out post. Oh, and doesn't attack those that disagree with your views.
1) My life has not been pampered.
2) I believe that many of my posts are intelligent and well thought out.
3) I didn't attack Monkeyleg or his views. I was suggesting that the riders he saw may have simply been safety conscious. I'm not against repealing helmet laws.
And that's why it's only legal in Kalifornia. (At the behest of the CHP, who wanted the capability for their motorcycle cops...)
It's legal in New York.
-
Freedom, I cherish the day when you can make one post that doesn't wreak of youthful ignorance, a pampered life, and something resembling an intelligent, well thought out post. Oh, and doesn't attack those that disagree with your views.
Many of Freedom Lover's posts are intelligent and well thought-out, although often he does come out a bit... unfriendly.
-
It's legal in New York.
source? don't look here
Section 1252 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law:
§ 1252. Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.
(a) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle or motorcycle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. However, this subsection shall not be construed to prevent motorcycles from being operated two abreast in a single lane.
(b) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.
(c) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.
(d) Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two abreast in a single lane.
(e) Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to police officers in the performance of their official duties.
-
All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle or motorcycle shall be driven in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. However, this subsection shall not be construed to prevent motorcycles from being operated two abreast in a single lane.
I know this sounds weird. It seems it would prohibit someone from pulling next to a motorcycle that was in the middle of a lane.
However it also says "this subsection shall not be construed to prevent motorcycles from being operated two abreast in a single lane." Isn't that the definition of lane splitting? The NY drivers manual specifically says that is allowed.
-
Two motorcycles side-by-side, yes.
Car and motorcycle, or motorcycle between two cars in adjacent lanes, no.
I just knew true lane-splitting was legal in California, since I rode motorcycle there for about 10 years, and a CHP buddy of mine explained the reasoning. YMMV in other states, obviously.
-
There are indeed studies that claim lane-splitting is safer. In some (civilized) countries it is legal, in others it is not. I have not the slightest clue who is right, but there is definitely a room for a valid difference of opinion on this.
-
but there is definitely a room for a valid difference of opinion on this.
A room, eh?
A padded room?
MB reminds me of the Israeli Mossad agent (Ziva) on NCIS. =D
-
I don't own a motorcycle (yet), but when I do, bet your ass I will be wearing full face helmet and good protective clothing. I managed to go down once when I was riding my moped. Got a few scrapes from that one...
Having managed to have 4 semi-serious accidents on my bicycle as a teenager, I hope I have those out of the way. By semi-serious:
1. Trip to doctor's for stiches to my forehead. Bicycle helmet would have prevented. Due to hard head, otherwise fine.
2. Ambulance response, followed by trip to doctor's for stitches. Stiches(this time) in area helmet would not of prevented, but cup might have. :O
3. Ruined new jeans. Hard to feel sorry for them, while picturing if it had been my skin. Parents agree
4. Ruined clothing, used helmet. Hole worn through protective shell. Really, Really glad wearing helmet.
Yeah, I'm wearing a helmet and other protective equipment on my motorcycle.
On the other hand, I have to agree that I don't want to see laws mandating it. Perhaps something about insurance rates, but I haven't seen any discounts for helmet use.
-
I can't for the life of me understand how putting an exposed rider on a motorcycle in a narrow space between two cars is safer than giving that same rider an entire lane. As a cyclist (pedals, not engine), I do not like being confined in that manner.
Chris
-
I've split lanes a few times when I was in heavy traffic in hot weather and in mandatory helmet states. I've had auto drivers move to obstruct me, or open their doors. You have to be really vigilant.
Once I rode a section of highway in SE Colorado that another rider had recommended. The highway was two lanes in each direction, and wound gracefully up the mountain. Unfortunately there was a constant parade of RV's crawling up the slope. Finally I got frustrated and got on the double yellow and took the turns at a good speed. It worked fine, but scared the hell out of the RV drivers. I don't think the AMA recommends that kind of lane splitting. ;)
-
I can't for the life of me understand how putting an exposed rider on a motorcycle in a narrow space between two cars is safer than giving that same rider an entire lane. As a cyclist (pedals, not engine), I do not like being confined in that manner.
Chris
+ eleventy billion to this, speaking as a driver, bicyclist and motorcyclist. Perhaps if I was in a jurisdiction in which I was familiar with lane-splitting, I would have a higher comfort level with it.
PS: it gives me the heebie-jeebies enough to be riding my road bicycle adjacent to a line of parked cars. I like to keep at least three feet away to avoid being hit by an opened door, but sometimes traffic does not permit this.
-
+ eleventy billion to this, speaking as a driver, bicyclist and motorcyclist. Perhaps if I was in a jurisdiction in which I was familiar with lane-splitting, I would have a higher comfort level with it.
PS: it gives me the heebie-jeebies enough to be riding my road bicycle adjacent to a line of parked cars. I like to keep at least three feet away to avoid being hit by an opened door, but sometimes traffic does not permit this.
I am not a bit shy about taking the lane & riding smack down the middle. I might get mike foxtrotted by drivers behind me, but I avoid the mess described above.