| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
All I ask is, where do you stop? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
fyi: I do wear armored gear 99% of the time. FF helmet, armored: pants, jacket, gloves & boots. So, you understand the importance of safety equipment and wear it, but somehow have a problem if what you already admit to wearing becomes a required part of your riding privilege? This is precisely what I don't understand about many of the arguments I hear- is it really a matter of "I'll do it, but don't tell me to do it"? All I ask is, where do you stop? Full coverage safety equipment (like most people here already wear). It's very simple, and I don't quite understand why so many people keep asking- I have not mentioned anything but full coverage safety gear in this thread. I ask, why do so many people have a problem with being required to wear safety equipment? It seems most here understand and accept that it's the right thing to do, and even admit they wear it. However, for some reason (which alludes me entirely) when the prospect of having to wear what they already wear becomes required- they resort to folded arms, foot-stomping and pouty "no". What about the riders who don't know enough to dress properly- do you really believe it's their "right" to find out the hard way that it's stupid to ride unprotected? It's time to grow up. You either know you need to protect yourself, or someone needs to educate you- either way, if you want the privilege of operating a motorcycle on public roads then you should have no problem with being required to do it properly. | ||
| Twowheeldream |
Until I am provided with the "good reason" to not wear safety equipment I maintain that there is not one. You've never gone for a ride without gear have you? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone should ride without safety gear, but it should be a personal choice. The level of freedom you feel being able to ride your motorcycle is only compounded when your not encapsulated. Actually being able to feel the wind completely surround you, not being disconnected from it. Not sure how to describe the feeling. I hate to use the old cliche "If I had to explain it you wouldn't get it" I believe in safety gear, I know what its there for. You dress for the fall, not for the ride. I've been in accidents where my helmet was destroyed, and I've been in an accident wearing a pair of khaki's and a button up shirt... no helmet, no gloves.... It scared me into wearing a helmet every time, although I still get the itch to go out without. The accident without gear scared the crap outta me, but not any more than the accidents with gear. None of the safety gear on the market can stop you from getting into an accident, or even reduce your chances. I would rather see the requirement of a riding/safety course before getting your license rather than the requirement of gear. Being aware of the "other guy", and practicing good riding habits will go much farther in preventing injury than making every Tom, Dick and Mary wear a helmet, handing them the keys to a bike and giving them a slap on the back saying "this lever is the clutch this ones the brake, twist this to make it go, and don't worry you won't get to hurt too bad, you got that helmet and jacket." Given that, all motorcyclists should be required (as part of the privilege of operating a motorcycle on public roads) to wear full protective safety equipment. It starts to feel like less of a privilege, when you force people to do something that takes away from the overall exp. This isn't a question of freedom, it's about safety, responsibility, maturity, humility, intelligence, and the bigger picture. It's sad when so many refuse to consider anything outside of their own mental comfort zone- where the seeds of tragedy germinate. Your final sentence seems to negate everything I've tried to say, and to an extent I agree. It is about safety, responsibility, maturity, humility, and intelligence, but these are all personal choices. If your safety conscious, responsible, mature, humble, and smart enough to wear a helmet, you don't need a law to tell you that you have to every time. I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes the spice of life is throwing caution to the wind, not taking yourself so seriously, letting the kid in you take the reigns, and being smart enough to know that freaking out about being safe tends to squeeze all the fun out of anything. | ||
| Crackhead |
I think you are looking at possible safety gear requirements the wrong way. When you work on construction sites, you are required to wear helmet, boots, long pants and long sleeves + OSHA requirements. This saves the worker from injury and prevents time off due to injury. Requiring riding gear would would prevent riding injures allow for more riders to be on the road. Making all of us more visible due to safety in numbers. Also think back to the seat belt laws and the difference it made driving a car with vinyl bench seats. It allowed you to take the turns that much faster with out siding over the the passenger side. When you have full leathers on don't you go faster and lean farther then when you have jeans on? If there is requirements for riding gear then their would be developments in testing of abrasion, tear and impact resistance on the gear. That helmets already have. It would cause the end of the HD brand because what pirate want to be caught wearing a ff helmets and gear?.....Sounds like Buell riders would all for eliminating the FAGS. | ||
| Crackhead |
""If you think the government will be any worse than the Insurance industry, you are very wrong." Insurance companies can only raise my rates, cancel my policy, or refuse to cover me. The government can take my money, property, freedom, and life. No comparison." No insurance = no tags = no riding, so think again. | ||
| Twowheeldream |
Developments and advancements in safety gear wouldn't be a result of requiring people to wear it. Those advances usually come from racing and the requirements that those extreme conditions provide. The technology then trickles down to the average joe, who usually uses the safety equipment as a false sense of security and ends up pushing his riding ability beyond street legal constraints. I don't want to get off track... I'm all for advancements in safety equipment... in an effort to make it a more attractive option to someone who might otherwise not wear it. I just feel that more "safety" results would be achieved by teaching people to ride better, and to be more aware.... ride like "they" are out to get you, and if they aren't, they didn't see you. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
I do not consider my ability to ride or drive a vehicle a "privilege". The choices I make about what gear to wear before going on a ride are mine. Maybe you should get together with Blake (TT) and compile notes. My gear has never prevented any accidents. (except for my neon vest) In my opinion... you should only be required to wear neon clothing/gear. Being seen is more likely to save your ass. | ||
| Alchemy |
Redbuell, some good points made and an interesting discussion. "This is precisely what I don't understand about many of the arguments I hear- is it really a matter of "I'll do it, but don't tell me to do it"? This is getting close to the point. The emotions invoked by the nanny state and the slippery slope point to the loss of responsibility. The state removes your personal responsibility and even more the state restricts your liberty. I carefully use the word liberty here and not freedom. Freedom is something that can never be taken away, only forgotten in most cases. It is a state of mind (see a movie like "V" and Evie's transition from captive to free person while imprisoned). Liberty, on the other hand, can be taken away by the state in that you cannot do as you please. We trade our liberty as we are more regulated. I think there are subtle consequences of losing our liberty in exchange for safety. At some point we feel the loss of liberty as the loss of our ability. We might think we are less able than we really are. This is the troubling part that touches emotions. I prefer to make helmets optional but require education. Enrich our thinking with education and facts and our liberty and freedom both benefit. I think helmet law is an interesting junction of philosophy, government, personal responsibility, individuality, freedom and liberty. Surely more than enough to argue about<grin>. A state of free citizens can be different from a state of citizens with liberty. The state can allow you liberty (about your choices) but cannot give you freedom (a state of mind). Nevertheless it seems freedom and liberty are close cousins. | ||
| Chellem |
I would argue that it would be much safer if all pedestrians, particularly in NYC, wore flourescent, reflective orange vests. Increased visibility is quite safe, it's a passive tactic, and I'm sure some study somewhere would support statistics that it woud reduce pedestrian injury. A lot of people fall out of bed. I think mandatory bedrails would also save some lives. Why should MY insurance go up because some other guy can't stay safely in bed? Bedrails required for all would save everyone money. And WHAT is with these KIDS riding their BIKES on the ROADS?? JEEZ that's dangerous, helmet or not! I think we should require all municipalities to install bike routes, separate from the sidewalks, along all public roads. Hey, if it saves a life, it's worth it, right? I know, those things sound silly. But it uses the same logic as that stated above, if it's safe, and better for the "greater good", then let's mandate it. It's just easier to mandate safety to a small group, say, motorcycle enthusiasts, than it would be to get throngs of people to wear day-glo orange safety vests. They don't bother with that, even though it might be safer, because they'd catch too much crap. But what's a biker gonna do? Guess just accept what Daddy says to do and wear the gear. It's time to grow up. You either know you need to protect yourself, or someone needs to educate you- either way, if you want the privilege of operating a motorcycle on public roads then you should have no problem with being required to do it properly. I have grown up, thank you, and as a grown-up, a responsible adult, I will make my own choices. Not you, not the government, not anyone else. It's MY responsibility to educate myself about the options, just like with everything else. Then I make an educated choice. The more the government takes care of people, the less inclined they are to take care of themselves. The more they EXPECT to be told what to do, and the less they think for themselves. It shifts the responsibility to some un-sue-able government agency, and takes it away from citizens. Just LEAVE ME ALONE and let me make my own choices, yes, even about safety. YOU think wearing gear is the safe thing to do, YOU should absolutely wear it every single time. But don't push your choice on me. I'd like to make my own please. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I am just waiting for them to outlaw motorcycles all together because of the dangerous levels of lead, volitile containers of gas and the EPA impact of the exhaust.... Oh wait they are already trying those. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
What about the riders who don't know enough to dress properly- do you really believe it's their "right" to find out the hard way that it's stupid to ride unprotected? Yes. The is a free country, pursuit of happiness and all. I think YOU or anyone like YOU mandating to me what I wear is bullshit. Period. Stay out of my life and I will stay out of yours. I cannot stand safety freaks. Life is dangerous, what do you want next? Full body suits to get laid? Please, pump you smoke up someone else's back side. The error being made here is confusing the safety equipment argument with the "slippery slope" fallacy. Until I am provided with the "good reason" to not wear safety equipment I maintain that there is not one. If you are so much in the Fallacy argument, then I will happily show you to the St Thomas Aquinas argument. It is not a fallacy to simply say it is what I "believe", so therefore I "believe" I can determine if the reason is good enough to wear gear or not. Depending on the conditions and the riding I am doing, I "believe" I will pick what is appropriate for me and you and others like you can pick for yourselves and leave me to "believe" as I wish. There ya go. (Message edited by liquorwhere on December 01, 2009) | ||
| Crackhead |
geez, i wounder what you guys think of seat belts, airbags and crumple zones. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I think Darwin would work better if the Government stayed out of things. But thats just me | ||
| Bobbuell1961 |
cityslicker, you could'nt say it any better | ||
| Dwardo |
The greater good would best be served by not allowing people to ride motorcycles at all, given the obviously dangerous nature of such an activity. It seems to me that once we allow ourselves to be told "how" to ride, it is only a short step to being told "whether". | ||
| Aesquire |
Seat belts? I helped my dad install them when I was a kid, before they were put in cars by the manufacturer. Yeah, I'm that old. I also live in the Imperial State, New York, where Helmet use & seat belts are required by law. ( other places, squids are organ doners, here, skin graft recipients ) I'm all for mandatory use of both for minors. I've worked in glass shops, and watched as identical cars were brought in, head on collision & the ONLY difference in damage was the windshield & blood all ve the inside. One had a driver who wore his belt, the other a self inflicted victim. Airbags? Love them. Sure they were pushed into production a little early in their development cycle, and it took a lot of people dying to get the govt. regulations changed so they could be made safer, but all in all a good thing. My complaint about airbags is not that they became mandatory gear & increased the price of cars, it's that when the NHTSA became the decider of specs, it never revisited them until several people had died. That's the problem with govt. safety rules, once written they are hard to change. It's like requiring Kapok life vests for years after closed cell foam came out. It took a lot of industry pressure to change the rules. Crumple zones? Republic Aircraft later Fairchild were way ahead of the car industry on that one. Good design is good design. ( though the high waisted look on new cars as a result of side impact rules is a bit ugly ) Bad design however is still bad design. many people have been killed by govt. entities deciding bumper height rules without better thought. ) So what is the difference between behavior regulations that you approve of & behavior regulations you don't? In the case of helmet laws, ( and a libertarian should grasp this ) elected representatives of the people voted to make a law. If enough people are "ego" stupid enough to want it changed, and enough people tell their representatives, it could change. In the case of the hypothetical start of this thread, a committee of people appointed to make regulations ( with the force of law ) could, and often do, make arbitrary decisions without possibility of meaningful feedback from the people. I wear a FF helmet. I also wear a modular, and keep an old open face for passengers that won't wear a FF lid. ( never used it, but better than nothing ) While I agree that a FF lid is better for most purposes than an open face, and indeed, am a bit of a safety nazi myself, ( referee/equipment inspection in a couple of full contact martial arts ) I have to ask where do they stop? Will a DOT helmet be ok? Snell? Which year? When does textile ( not leather, PETA would object ) full race suits become required? Why not make helmets mandatory in cars? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
And the angry egos make an appearance. Let's try to put this in simpler terms. Do you know of any professional athletes who have a problem with their required safety equipment? Is there widespread dissent among football players, or baseball, hockey, motor sport, lacrosse, cycling, (the list goes on) for not being able to "choose" whether or not they have to protect themselves. In their world, if you want to compete you have to abide by the rules- or you don't get on the field. Part of the privilege of playing is following the rules, and the most basic of these rules is safety. Just how far do you think you'd get with the "you can't make me" argument?... directly into the stands as a spectator with a smile and a "have a nice day...". It's no different with operating a motorcycle- most people understand why safety equipment is needed, but most choose not to wear it. This is basic safety, there should be no "choice" involved- you want to ride, you wear safety gear. Period. I'm still waiting for the "good reason" not to wear proper safety equipment. And I'm continually amazed with the "I know I should, but you can't make me" argument. What's even more amusing is the leap from motorcycle safety gear to pedestrians, beds, bare feet, sex(?), fun in general (?!!)... why does it always end up getting ridiculous? In life there are choices, with these choices come consequences, and sometimes these consequences come in the form of penalties. Most human endeavors involve rules, and most sets of rules include penalties when broken. We have the privilege of being able, through passing competency tests, to operate motorcycles on public roads. There is no question that wearing full coverage safety equipment is the best way for riders to physically protect themselves from injury. Since basic safety is the foundation upon which all riding is based, it should be a required prerequisite for the granting of privilege. You may not like it, but you can't argue the veracity of the antecedent. Now, for all of those intent on showing everyone "you can't make me", nothing is keeping you from disregarding every basic safety rule out there. Feel free, in fact- knock yourself out. There is a consequence, however. The consequences of breaking motor vehicle rules are penalties. These penalties are varied, and provide both an incentive not to break the rules and a punishment for when you do. There should be a penalty for riders not wearing safety equipment- it's a good incentive for those who understand the importance, and an appropriate punishment for those who refuse due to some personal issue. The bottom line is that riding should start with safety, the rules should reflect this, there should be penalties for ignoring the rules, and in the end the consequences for breaking the rules will always pale in comparison to the consequences of not having the rules in the first place. It really is a no-brainer. Oh, and as for the call to require helmet use in cars... have you ever driven a car while wearing a helmet? That would ensure catastrophic epic failure on every road in this country. What a bone-headed idea.  | ||
| Mmmi_grad |
Most riders in Indiana prefer to NOT wear a helmet. Those that actually OWN one do not use it on a reg. basis. This includes MOST f16 jap bike riders and all other makes, models, class and creed. The peoples choice is NO MANDATORY helmets. Its clearly seen everywhere, im not making it up either. | ||
| Chellem |
Oh, and as for the call to require helmet use in cars... have you ever driven a car while wearing a helmet? That would ensure catastrophic epic failure on every road in this country. What a bone-headed idea. Don't people in race cars wear helmets? I mean, is it only a good idea if you're going REALLY REALLY fast, but boneheaded if you're only going, say, 80 or so? What speed does it move from bone-headed to a good idea? Because THAT is what I meant when I said what I said about other "safety" ideas. People playing football wear safety equipment. Yes, it's mandated by the club or association you join, mostly to ensure a lack of a lawsuit. Not sure a refusal to wear safety equipment in a football game ever resulted in a loss of license. Very soon, it's going to become VERY dangerous to eat french fries and drink soda. It's bad for your health - in fact, I think heart disease and cholesterol kill MANY more people a year and costs MILLIONS more dollars than a few "boneheaded" folks who don't want to wear full leathers while riding. And yet, we are permitted to abuse ourselves with this unsafe behavior. You don't see, or don't CHOOSE to see, the correlation I'm drawing. ONCE you mandate what is "approved" and "safe" and allow the government to tell you what you're allowed to do and how you're allowed to do it, you give them the right to decide for everything. In a free society, you don't need a "good reason" to leave something alone, you need a "good reason" to OUTLAW something. And if you decide to OUTLAW riding without certain gear, even though it may make it safer, then by the same logic, you can outlaw ANYTHING that some beaurocrat thinks isn't safe. Think of the children! Think of the kids who would be saved by outlawing horseback riding by anyone under 18! Don't get me started on skiing! Going 60 miles an hour with nothing for protection but goggles?? Are these people crazy? If ever there should be a helmet law, THIS should be it! http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,188 6115,00.html Interesting read. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
RBJ, ..Do you know the saying... "If you have to ask....." I believe your thoughts on saftey indeed should apply to everyone under 18 or 21 years of age, but thats where is should...and ultimately will end. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Don't people in race cars wear helmets? I mean, is it only a good idea if you're going REALLY REALLY fast, but boneheaded if you're only going, say, 80 or so? Woosh! The sound when it goes directly over one's head. Even race car drivers admit how damn hard it is to drive while wearing a helmet- and they are paying about 1000% more attention to the task at hand than the average driver on the street. You don't see, or don't CHOOSE to see, the correlation I'm drawing. Not at all- the difference is that most sports, eating, parenting, horseback riding and skiing are not a privilege bestowed by the state and don't require a license. So, we find ourselves back at step number one. The first thing you are told, before even placing your foot on a peg for the first time, is how to dress properly to avoid injury. The second step is how to operate a motorcycle. Why would anyone with a properly functioning brain support allowing licensed operation based on step two while completely ignoring step one? "Because that's how its always been" and " cause ain't nobody telling me what to do" is pathetic, cowardly, and ignorant. Why are so many afraid of doing the right thing? | ||
| Chellem |
Not at all- the difference is that most sports, eating, parenting, horseback riding and skiing are not a privilege bestowed by the state and don't require a license. Good point. Maybe they should be. I think ANYTHING so dangerous as to cause potentially life-threatening injuries SHOULD be mandated by the state. If that woman from my link above had been properly educated and licensed by the state instead of just jumping in on those bunny slopes, she'd be alive today. It's a damn tragedy. Should go back to "step 1" and learn proper safety. In fact, her family should probably sue the state for NOT stepping in and mandating the proper safety equipment and training for a sport that hits such excessive speeds. PLUS if you don't properly learn to operate your horse, or your skis, or whatever, you could cause injury to others! Do you know that you don't even need a license to operate a jet ski? Do you know how FAST those things go? And do THEY wear helmets? Not that I've seen. These boneheads are costing ALL of us money with their risky, unsafe hobbies. They must ALL be idiots. Dangerous idiots that obviously need someone to look out for them and help them "grow up". I can't believe this government would allow such things. It's criminal. | ||
| Chellem |
Woosh! The sound when it goes directly over one's head. Even race car drivers admit how damn hard it is to drive while wearing a helmet- and they are paying about 1000% more attention to the task at hand than the average driver on the street. And yet, despite the fact that they complain, it's still the rule, right? Even though an uncomfortable helmet could possibly CAUSE an accident because of "how damn hard" it is to drive with one? You're losing me with THAT one. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
And yet, despite the fact that they complain, it's still the rule, right? Even though an uncomfortable helmet could possibly CAUSE an accident because of "how damn hard" it is to drive with one? Umm, yeah... they're not complaining, just stating a fact, and none of them would consider racing without a helmet. It's the no-brainer situation again. I think ANYTHING so dangerous as to cause potentially life-threatening injuries SHOULD be mandated by the state. And we're back to the ludicrous argument again... Give me something new, people. | ||
| Dbird29 |
 Here's one for you Redbuelljunkie. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I figure anything I will do that would get me in real trouble, I will just appeal to a mental defiecency and cry that I am a victim, and beg for clemency, or get some board to do it for me.... but I am wearing my tin foil hat right now  | ||
| Crackhead |
"Do you know that you don't even need a license to operate a jet ski? Do you know how FAST those things go? And do THEY wear helmets? Not that I've seen." Many states require a Boater Safety Course and in that course they tell you about the dangers of operating a jet ski/ boat and the requirements. The Coast Guard can write you a citation for not complying with the laws of operating a jet ski. They can also terminate your voyage. The laws for operating a jet ski/ boat vary from state to sate until you are out of state waters and on to the open seas. | ||
| Chellem |
Many states require a Boater Safety Course and in that course they tell you about the dangers of operating a jet ski/ boat and the requirements. The Coast Guard can write you a citation for not complying with the laws of operating a jet ski. They can also terminate your voyage. Do they have to wear a helmet then? | ||
| Chellem |
And we're back to the ludicrous argument again... Give me something new, people. I think YOUR arguments are ludicrous, but at least I'm trying to have a conversation instead of just shooting things down. Please, explain to me why riding a motorcycle should be mandated by the state with licensing and official safety rules, but none of the other sports that go fast and are dangerous? I know, I'm just some boneheaded idiot because I disagree with you, and obviously I'm "pathetic, cowardly, and ignorant" but, please, dim it down for me. Why do other people get to dictate my life for me again? You haven't given us ANYTHING new to argue either. Just over and over, safety is better and you're stupid if you don't do what the government says to do to stay safe. So, I disagree with that. Ya got anything else? Short of name calling that is? I know you could come up with more colorful adjectives and insults, but, I mean, ya got any substance? | ||
| Crackhead |
The laws for operating Personal Water Craft, PWC, (boats, jet ski, canoe, kayak, anything used for movement on water) vary from state to state but federal law (state life vest laws trumps federal in this case) requires Personal Flotation Devise for everyone onboard, fire extinguisher (size and qty determined by size of vessel), sound producing device (whistle), flares, and at night or times of reduced visibility require appropriate lights. Read NavRules and have fun. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/download.h tm Helmets are not required but appropriate Personal Protective Equipment, PPE, is required. For PWC most fatalities involve drowning, there for appropriate PPE is to prevent drowning not to prevent brain damage. |
