Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2073531)

Toooooooooooo Long.

:duck:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2073531)

Toooooooooooo Long.

:duck:

Originally Posted by Mrprez (Post 2073561)

A few paragraphs would be nice. I read the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Jeffery M (Post 2073522)

You are correct. I absolutely do have a very difficult time with paying some of the nonsensical taxes we have to pay. A certain group of people also had a problem with taxation in the 1770's. I understand paying taxes for defense and police , etc. I have no issue with that. And exactly what is wrong with someone saying that they don't want the nanny government telling them what to do all the time when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves? I am not part of the flock of sheeple that is willing to bend to the governments intrusive, and many times constitutionally illegal regulations. Do you not have a limit to how much the government tells you what to do, or do you just blindly follow anything they tell you to do no matter how imposing it is on your personal freedom and rights? I comply with seat belt laws and would do the same with helmet laws if I were in a state that requires you wear them. I would wear one on my own anyway. I advocate wearing motorcycle helmets. Since there is no requirement in Florida to wear motorcycle helmets there is no law being broken and I'm in agreement with that. So you see I personally have no problem with the regulation in Florida as it is. The problem I have is when these agitators against current legal laws say that there should be a decree demanding that helmets should be mandated because they feel having the freedom of personal choice of not wearing a helmet raises healthcare insurance costs. And again so does obesity, lung cancer from smoking, driving fast cars. Freedom costs! I keep repeating that and somehow my comments are misinterpreted as those of being a contrarian scofflaw, when actually the law says you are not required to wear helmets. That fact seems to be lost to some. So who is being the contrarian here? I rode motorcycles many years and wore a helmet. I wear seatbelts every time I drive or ride in a car. I am in favor of wearing them and would not think of traveling without doing so. I am just not in favor of the government telling me I have to wear them when it only endangers me. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand when it is plainly explained in detail? What would you think if the government said you had to be in bed by 9pm every night because that is better for your health and will keep the costs of healthcare insurance down? What if they mandated wearing helmets in golf carts. I just so happened to have attended a golf cart safety seminar yesterday and a guest sheriff's deputy said many people in golf cart accidents are ejected from the golf carts and are seriously injured or killed. I don't hear anybody advocating wearing helmets while riding in golf carts. If they did come up with a rule saying that you had to wear a motorcycle helmet in a golf cart how would that impact your peripheral vision? It's hard enough to see from inside a golf cart with all the blind spots. Would that be a good idea? How many regulations are enough, especially when it does not impact the safety and the heath of others? There are people advocating censorship of speech now for "the good and safety of society". Does not personal liberty, free choice, or the Constitution mean anything anymore? Apparently not to far too many people nowadays.

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2073648)

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.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2073767)

As a "taxpayer" I would rather be "burdened" with the legitimately injured than with welfare recipients or invaders from across the border. Interesting that someone mentions being burdened by a very small group of motorcycle traffic accident victims in comparison to auto accident victims. But, a lot of folks that are too scared to ride or just never had the inclination to ride a motorcycle, just parrot what others say because it sounds plausible.
Personally, I ride with a helmet but I don't give a thought to those that do not. It's their choice and I don't want to be someone else's keeper and make rules for them to live by. I wouldn't even have seat belt laws, even though I feel it is a good idea to wear them if available. But then again, I am one that believes in each individual being responsible for themselves. Ban motorcycles at the same time you ban automobiles. Although, I believe that the amount of horses required for transportation of a population this large would surely create more air pollution with their flatulence than combustion engines.
Just seems like there are way more important issues to warrant scrutiny than a few motorcycles on the hwy. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62 (Post 2073800)

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.

Originally Posted by Mrprez (Post 2073801)

Said someone who has never sat at a red light in 100* heat hoping your brain doesn’t boil over.

Originally Posted by Davonu (Post 2073847)

Exaggerate much?

Originally Posted by Mrprez (Post 2073857)

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

Originally Posted by Davonu (Post 2073867)

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

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2073648)

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.

Originally Posted by Davonu (Post 2073847)

Exaggerate much?

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 2073869)

Riders without helmets are referred to as organ donors.

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 2073898)

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.

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62 (Post 2073800)

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.

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2073648)

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.

Originally Posted by jdulej (Post 2073953)

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

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2074052)

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.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2074052)

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.

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2074060)

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

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2074057)

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.

Originally Posted by Michael G. (Post 2072505)

Could this someday be coming Florida or TV?
At our age, I doubt we will see the day.

MSN

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2073648)

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.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2073942)

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.

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62 (Post 2074084)

Not in new york...bodily injury protection is excluded to Mc riders and their paasenger. My guess allot of other states follow suit.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2074069)

Thank you for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by jdulej (Post 2074101)

Can someone name one of these states? It seems like a really lousy risk for the ins company since only people who don't plan on wearing a helmet would buy the extra coverage

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2074108)

I own 2 motorcycles. My motorcycle insurance is absolutely higher due to non-helmet crashing riders. Florida vehicle insurance is also much higher due to so many non-licensed and uninsured illegal aliens.

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2074105)

Stupid as in you believe it would be stupid.

I'm a rugged individualist and understand what government overreach is. But I also understand that rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES. I'm all for a person to be free to not wear a helmet, but that I also that person should be responsible for his injuries.

Seems like you want the rights, then demand I pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

As I posted earlier, let em go without helmets as long as they have insurance to cover that choice.

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62 (Post 2074100)

I believe most responding posters write with answers that are very comprehensive, they get right to the point and are very succinct. But yet again the same person, who btw complains don't shove rules down my throat," tries endlessly to say how wrong all of our responses are, nonstop shoving his opinion down our throat. This is done repeatedly on all his post.

Things that make you go hummm????

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2074118)

I don't believe I said anything about being irresponsible.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2074116)

I don't consider my $75 as being very high for motorcycle insurance. I believe it was higher in my last state, but I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2072900)

IMO Harley owners will never buy electric motorcycle. HD has unique sound.

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 2073869)

Riders without helmets are referred to as organ donors.

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2074132)

Sure you did. You want people to have the right to ride helmetless without having the responsibility to pay for their injuries. How is that not irresponsible?

Hopefully you do not see this issue as 100% one way or the other. Life is not like that. There is nuance to most of life's concerns, and where we draw the line moves from time to time. It is perfectly reasonable to expect riders who stupidly ride without head protection to pay more insurance. The State of Florida seems to agree.