lawgator1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 75,259
- Likes
- 44,568
I don't mean to express this at an inappropriate time, but I never will understand the appeal of riding a motorcycle on a street full of one ton vehicles.
Unfortunately, the people behind repealing these requirements think only of themselves and not those who will be injured or killed. Often, when they get a bad head injury or survive, they can cost the taxpayers millions just lying in a nursing home for decades.
The irony is that, if you talk to ardent motorcycle enthusiasts, they will tell you that it is almost always not the motorcyclist making a mistake that causes an accident. Its the guy in the SUV who doesn't see them that is the one at fault.
As though that is going to be a whole lot of comfort when they scrape you off the fround: B ut it wasn't my fault!
I wonder if the families of bikers that die in accidents where a helmet may have saved their life are upholding the concept of intrusion. Obviously allowing discretion to persons commiting the act is a mistake because they have no knowledge. If you're willing to bet your bottom dollar based on the familiararity of the rider with motorcycles you have no knowledge of tells me you aren't playing with a full deck logically. Any normal adult who prizes their right to endanger their own life by riding without a helmet on a motorcycle over obvious warnings otherwise causes me to wonder about their native intelligence. By the way, I bought a brand new Harley Davidson Super Glide in November 1974 and rode it until 1988. Never got onto it without a helmet on.Law, your post is well intentioned, but the concept is intrusive to riders. They need to allow discretion to the person committing the act, and their knowledge.
Would a helmet have saved this young mans life? Perhaps.
But i'll also bet my bottom dollar that he was unfamiliar with motorcycles, and a general novice to riding, especially at speed.
I wonder if the families of bikers that die in accidents where a helmet may have saved their life are upholding the concept of intrusion. Obviously allowing discretion to persons commiting the act is a mistake because they have no knowledge. If you're willing to bet your bottom dollar based on the familiararity of the rider with motorcycles you have no knowledge of tells me you aren't playing with a full deck logically. Any normal adult who prizes their right to endanger their own life by riding without a helmet on a motorcycle over obvious warnings otherwise causes me to wonder about their native intelligence. By the way, I bought a brand new Harley Davidson Super Glide in November 1974 and rode it until 1988. Never got onto it without a helmet on.
I just don't feel they should be mandated by the government, as it is not the laws job to protect me from myself.
