When searching for follow-up to the naked rider story, I came across an editorial explaining the repeal in a bit more detail. Seems everyone but old people and under-21s can ride sans a skull bucket.
29 thoughts on “PA Helmet Law Follow-up”
Comments are closed.
I never thought I’d agree with a guy named Jim-bob.
P.S. what does “Jackbooted” mean?
Its the DEA, BATF and any other “above the law” syndicate of the Gov.
The helmet law should be in effect. When people get in a wreck without a helmet, we have to pay for it with our tax money. Riders who are paralyzed for life will always be taxing the system financially. There are reasons why we have government and laws, the most important being it makes life in general much better. Do people think we live in a vacuum and whatever “free choice” we make does not affect other people? Idiots who don’t want to wear helmets unfortunately need someone to tell them to put one on. It’s sad, but true.
bitches.
I personally don’t think the Gov. should impose a helmet law, the week are supposed to die you know! HOWEVER, I agree with most in that I don’t want to pay for someone else’s stupidity. Ins. companies should have a clause, if you wreck and are not protecting yourself to the best of your ability, helmet, pants and good shoes they will not cover you, thus removing some of the burden from our ins premiums. That still does not address the hospital bills, I would say let them bleed, but that’s why I’m not in a position to make the rules, I am not a bleeding heart! Our Gov is here to protect our borders. Not to protect us from ourselves! You cannot legislate brains, common sense and morality. You just can’t. Republicans and Dem’s both fall victim to cow towing to the week. Too many rules and you wind up having a Socialist State and socialism/communism does not work.
I never said putting on a helmet was a “big deal”, but what one considers a “big deal” is entirely subjective. My point was, does anyone think it’s a good idea to have MORE intrusive government? If you think banning smoking, boozing, buffeting and other health-endangering activities is wrong, how do you differentiate helmet-wearing? I don’t want to pay for vegetated bikers (whom you assumed all don’t have health coverage) any more than I want to pay for smokers who knew the risk of 3 packs a day. As Duane said, of course you can’t legislate common sense.
Did any state that passed a helmet law also mandate that insurance rates had to go down accordingly?
Texas IS a vegetative state. Non-helmet wearers should pay for the privilege of not protecting themselves–higher insurance, higher (like MUCH higher) vehicle registration and licensing fees, and WAY higher fines for moving violations (especially if they register as helmet-wearers and are stopped without a helmet) to offset the cost of retraining helmetless fuckups how to hold a spoon. Fuck all you “slippery slope” nincompoops: just because you have to wear a helmet when you ride does NOT mean that jackbooted thugs are coming to take your Tec-9s or your porno mags. Sheesh, some of you use the common sense/Contitutionality argument the way a whore or a drunk uses a lamp post: more for support than illumination.
no FU, I meant vegetable state. And if you can’t catch my sarcasm, then your the idiot. I’m from Texas, lived in Austin for 9 years actually.
-C.
There was a real interesting article I read several months ago in a British Motorcycle mag, I think it was called British Biker, but could be wrong on the name.
The article took 4 professional motorcycle racers, 3 men, on woman, on a race track they were all very familiar with.
They did a time trial with each racer fully geared up in race leathers, gloves, boots, and helmet.
Next they did a time trial with each rider wearing nothing but their skimpy undies.
The difference was significant. Each rider was quoted saying how much more confident they rode fully geared up. And each rider couldn’t believe how much slower their time trial was on the naked trial.
Thought the study was very interesting.
I have but one thing to say, “LIVE FREE OR DIE”. Here in NH we don’t have helmet laws and we don’t have seatbelt laws and it works for me. Let the dumbasses who refuse to wear helmets scatter their brains on the pavement… it helps to regulate the population. They only hurt THEMSELVES by not wearing protection… What’s next, laws that force you to wear a rubber?
Tracie posted both of those from my account, are you talking shit about my beautiful pregnant wife? I’ll kick your ass. I haven’t read it yet. My theory is that there shouldn’t be a helmet law, because it makes it easier to tell good riders from jackoffs who shouldn’t be anywhere near a bike. And people that don’t wear them should pay six times as much for insurance, and those that do, should pay half.
Do you mean a vegetative state? Idiot…
only scooterists could argue this much over something we agree about.
There’s a big difference between leaving it as an individual’s choice to choose ride helmetless (and pay a different fine/insurance rate, whatever) v. allowing the government decide it’s a crime.
Grace: forgive my asking this, but what’s the fucking difference between mandating higher coverage and personal indemnification against personal injury and mandating personal protection against injury? (Can you order a car without seatbelts, or are seatbelts a DOT requirement?) I mean, aren’t we just taking the notion of individuals’ rights vis-a-vis responsibilities to a higher level? Riding a motorcycle is a choice and, above all, a privilege NOT a RIGHT. Your responsibility for enjoying this privilege is to wear a helmet. Semantically defensible argument. God Bless Amerika! Besides (permit me to engage in conjecture here), most of the bare-hair crew probably won’t go for all those additional responsibilities. I can see it now: The helmetless advocacy groups calling on all REAL ‘Mericans to oppose higher fees and fines for freedom loving cyclists who want to feel the wind rattling around inside their skulls. “Join me, Gary Busey, NOW! Help motorcyclists right the greatest wrong since Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus in 1862…. Washington and Jefferson never wore a helmet…”. Besides, some would say you DO have a choice: if you don’t want to wear a helmet, don’t ride a motorcycle. As a former crime blotter writer, my passion runs hot on this issue; I’ve spoken to too many EMT people who have responded to motorcycle and moped accidents not to have an opinion.
And exactly where are all these bikers living in permanent vegetative states, sapping the taxpayer’s money? There’s a HELL of a lot of documentation detailing national financial and productivity loss because of health problems due to smoking, alcohol abuse and obesity. Really, when the government outlaws cigarettes, beer and making a pig of yourself on McDonald’s, you can talk to me about helmet laws.
I was just about to pull away today sans helmet and i grabbed it at the last second. Thinking, maybe today is the day…damn I hate it.
I knew this would provoke a lively discussion.
Wait until you see my “Harleys are for pussies” rant.
Jim-Bob: I have the feeling we agree on basic personal responsibility. I have never been on the “it’s my God-given right to ride without a helmet” kick.
To me, when you decide to ride a motorcycle/scooter, you do so acknowledging that there are inherent risks involved. If we were 100% about safety, we’d all be in Lincoln Navigators. It’s then up to you to decide how best to minimize those risks ie, helmets, additional safety gear, rider’s school.
I used the comparison of smoking, drinking, and unhealthy eating because I see those as a valid comparison: choices one makes knowing full well the risks/consequences. If we’re talking *purely* on a personal responsibility level, how do they differ? More people have probably died from smoking in the last year than in the whole history of motorcycling. Do you believe the goverment should outlaw cigarettes? How about BMI’s over 40%? Getting drunk? Ack, scooter rallies as we know them would be over!
So you’ve talked to EMT’s, big deal. You’re talking to a nurse’s daughter. I’ve heard more about 300-lb. chainsmokers who wonder why their organs shut down at age 50.
You play, you pay. None of them warrant being labeled a CRIMINAL ACT in the eyes of our government in my opinion. Oh, and you CAN order a car without seatbelts. It’s called a school bus. Dig the irony in that.
Don’t know what to say about this piece of propaganda you posted, beeb.. I believe a helmet is a damn good thing and everyone should have one and probably should be wearing one, but I also believe that you shouldn’t be forced to.
Brooke you know with a helmet on you can’t talk on the cell phone while scootin don’t you?
I know. I have to pull over to answer it and sometimes I miss a call from one of my bitches.
I’m with Bb. I don’t think there should be a helmet law. Makes it easier for me to see who to avoid.
My favorite is the jack asses who ride with their helmet locked to the side of their bike. 1) that ruins the helmet 2) it probably scratches the paint on your bike 3) why bring it if you don’t wear it.
Nah, let ’em ride without a helmet.
-Christian
There are a lot of ex-bikers in vegetative states/ wheelchairs etc. here in TX. There was a story in Austin about a biker who got in a wreck and lost the use of his legs. He built a sidecar for his wheelchair so he can still ride his bike. On the news story he still wasn’t wearing a helmet(!)
Do you really think it’s as hard for a person to put on a helmet as it is to quit smoking or being an alcoholic or pigging out? Putting on a helmet is not that big of a deal.
Whatever… I’m just sick of paranoid people thinking the government is taking away their “freedoms.”
Well, if you are speaking about Texas, I say nobody there should be allowed to wear a helmet, just so there are better chances of killing of Texans, or at least landing them in a vegetable state, like our “Texan” president!
Oddly enough, there is one set of seatbelts in a school bus – for the driver.I’ve decided that licensing requirements are an unreasonable infringement on my “right” to operate a motor vehicle. Therefore, I’m never going to get my license renewed.The fact is, driving is a privilige granted by the state, not a right granted by birth. As such, the state can demand all sorts of dumb things from us before they’ll issue a license, such as that you wear your seatbelt and/or healmet. The state has determined that it isn’t your choice, but rather, your responsibility.I guess my point is you DO have a choice if you don’t want to use your seatbelt or wear a helmet–you can walk.
Misogynist pig.
How does everyone feel about abortion, school prayer, war in the middle east, and campaign finance reform? I wore my helmet today for the first time in a while. God do I hate it. But I do feel more confident when I wear a helmet, and shoes (rather than sandals), pants (rather than shorts), and a shirt (rather than displaying my man breasts for all to admire). But I often go with out many of those knee down confidence embiggening items listed above (except the shirt. I bet I have one of the best farmer tans around). Now why don’t you all go back to studying up on your html tags for blog comment sections.