[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by Davonu

Exaggerate much?

Have you ever ridden a motorcycle? With full gear on? I’ve been riding since 1967. No, I’m not exaggerating.

[Davonu]

Originally Posted by Mrprez

Have you ever ridden a motorcycle? With full gear on? I’ve been riding since 1967. No, I’m not exaggerating.

Yes I have. And the post you replied to was talking about helmets, not full gear. My statement stands.

[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by Davonu

Yes I have. And the post you replied to was talking about helmets, not full gear. My statement stands.

So does mine.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by spd2918

Some states have common sense helmet laws. They require extra insurance for those that ride without helmets. This should cover the extra cost of diapers, etc, without burdening the taxpayer.

Riders without helmets are referred to as organ donors.

[Happydaz]

Originally Posted by Davonu

Exaggerate much?

Wearing a full face helmet in 95 degree summer heat becomes immediately unbearable when the airflow ceases as you stop at a red light. If I don’t open up the face shield it can become intolerable. I try never to ride after noon in the summer, and if I do, I avoid traffic and stop lights. That being said, I wear a helmet all the time, but I can understand why some people may opt to go without. This conversation on helmets is about a very small group of people. The impact on the healthcare system is extremely small when compared to the the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on obese and sedentary Americans. The obesity rate in the USA is extremely high. Why focus on this small group of motorcycle riders when there is this unbelievable healthcare crisis in the USA. A better topic would be banning eating out too often in The Villages due to all the high fat, calorie dense foods you get at local restaurants. Focus on the big problems, leave the motorcyclists and bicyclists alone.

[Michael G.]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Riders without helmets are referred to as organ donors.

As some WITH helmets!

[Michael G.]

Originally Posted by Happydaz

A better topic would be banning eating out too often in The Villages due to all the high fat, calorie dense foods you get at local restaurants.

You mean actually COOKING in our own house?????

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62

For the love of G__, must this go on and on. Wearing a helmet will not take away from your "ride". I still wish helmets to be a law.....do I care if you won't wear one and you end up with your skull in one place and your body elsewhere on the pavement...not really. I'd just think...idiot.
And too bad for his wife.

Some folks do not comprehend comments posted or maybe folks like myself just do not comment plain enough for comprehension.
I don't believe that I have ever said anything remotely suggestive that wearing a helmet will "take away from your ride." This is about banning motorcycles. I am against banning motorcycles and I am against restrictive laws that seem to be made/endorsed by folks that have no inkling or experience with the issue. I wear a helmet. I am against helmet mandates. I am also against seat belt mandates. I do not care whether or not they save lives. That should be up to those that wish for their lives to be saved. I suggest that folks ought to be able to chose for themselves the amount of protection or assistance they wish.
I believe that most folks that wish to make rules or laws regarding the issues related to motorcycle riding, are folks that have no experience with motorcycle operation or those that have had a bad incident while riding. I believe there are a lot of folks that just insist they know what is better for someone else than you. I find that presumptuous and arrogant.
If one wishes to ban motorcycles because of accidents, then they should also ban automobiles due to much more accident injuries. Maybe everyone should be required to use buses and trains for transportation, as they are safer.

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by spd2918

Some states have common sense helmet laws. They require extra insurance for those that ride without helmets. This should cover the extra cost of diapers, etc, without burdening the taxpayer.

That seems somewhat reasonable to support those who insist on being stupid in defense of some ‘right’ they think they have
If a 20 something biker is paralyzed for life vs not because of no helmet, how many millions will it cost to keep his diapers fresh for 50 years

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jdulej

That seems somewhat reasonable to support those who insist on being stupid in defense of some ‘right’ they think they have
If a 20 something biker is paralyzed for life vs not because of no helmet, how many millions will it cost to keep his diapers fresh for 50 years

Redundant and moot point. Might as well be arguing about cutting trees down and the fantasy result or consequences. Might as well be speaking of the cost of welfare to all of us. Might as well be talking about allowing seniors live past 60 and the cost to the taxpayers. All redundant and moot.

[Byte1]

According to the CDC:
"In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet,.."
That means that 88% of those that died in a motorcycle accident that were wearing helmets would have died regardless of wearing or not wearing a helmet.
On the other hand, other than racing fatalities, almost 100% of all automobile fatalities were were not wearing helmets.

I do not endorse the idea of NOT wearing a helmet. I am against mandating the wearing of a helmet.
Don't give me that garbage about how much it costs the taxpayer when someone is injured needlessly. Complain about how many billions every year we waste of the taxpayer money by giving it to other countries, including our enemies.

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by Byte1

According to the CDC:
"In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet,.."
That means that 88% of those that died in a motorcycle accident that were wearing helmets would have died regardless of wearing or not wearing a helmet.

You have a bit of a problem with that logic since you don't know what percentage of those states' riders rider without helmets.

I will exaggerate things for clarity. Let's say of those states with mandatory helmets laws 739 riders did not wear helmets. Since 739 died that means 100% of helmet-less riders died.

I would bet helmets use is very high is states with those laws, so your numbers will be skewed.

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Don't give me that garbage about how much it costs the taxpayer when someone is injured needlessly. Complain about how many billions every year we waste of the taxpayer money by giving it to other countries, including our enemies.

So you are saying since there are other stupid expenditures then we should ignore this stupid expenditure?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by spd2918

So you are saying since there are other stupid expenditures then we should ignore this stupid expenditure?

Thank you for pointing that out. It really IS stupid to consider motorcycle injuries and the cost to the taxpayer and not compare the cost with automobile (car) injury costs which are much higher over all. If we outlawed all accidents, we would have no use for insurance. Yes, sometimes folks are facetious when attempting to make a point of the foolishness of believing that everyone that does not agree with them MUST need a nanny or law to guide them through life.
Perhaps we should start a thread listing stupid unnecessary laws and how much it costs the taxpayer to enforce those stupid laws. Of course, EVERY law has someone that endorses it.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by spd2918

You have a bit of a problem with that logic since you don't know what percentage of those states' riders rider without helmets.

I will exaggerate things for clarity. Let's say of those states with mandatory helmets laws 739 riders did not wear helmets. Since 739 died that means 100% of helmet-less riders died.

I would bet helmets use is very high is states with those laws, so your numbers will be skewed.

Right! And we don't know what color helmets they were wearing and whether or not that had any contribution to their accident or accident prevention. If I was to go further into the CDC research, I could have also pasted the information on percentage of those were wearing full helmets, half helmets, etc. It was there but I just provided what seemed relevant.