helmet or no helmet

I learned to ride in Chicago. No helmet law in IL. Never had a helmet. I rode city streets summer and winter on a dual purpose. Later, I got another bike in GA while I was in the Army. Helmets are mandatory in GA and so I got use to it. After I left the service, I moved back to Chicago. The temptation to ride without a helmet was great. Every year I'd start with the helmet, but summer weather and a nagging GF and the helmet came off again.

12 years ago I moved to CA with helmet law. Now, I can't imagine riding without one. In fact, I cringe whenever I’m back in Chicago and I see riders without them--and I was one of them.

Moral of the story: I think helmet should be mandatory. If you ride enough with one, you wouldn't want to be without. If you don't ride with one, you'll wish you did when you have an accident.

Side note: My brother lives in FL (no helmet law) and rides a Harley. He dons his helmet everyday--rain, shine, or humidity.

 

Reasonable is subjective of course. One could make the case that selling a person a sportbike without gear or riding instruction is assisted suicide. We have laws on the books preventing assisted suicide. Some folks would consider this perfectly reasonable, but we here not so much. No motorcycling is not specifically covered in the constitution. That's what courts do, interpret. The underlying right is what underpins such interpretations

 

Reasonable is not as subjective as you think:

In constitutional law, a reasonable person is a judge or legislator who, as a legal fiction, pretends to see through the eyes of another and, in view of the facts of a particular situation, endeavors to remove every unnecessary human trait and unworkable idea, as a balancing test.

My point is bear that no reasonable person would argue its a constitutional right to not wear a MC helmet.

Its a choice and any attempt to stretch it to the constitution as a right is nothing short of blasphemy of the principles our country was founded on.

BZ

 

Point taken, BZ, In constitutional law, there is a definition of what reasonable means. Choices are underpinned by rights. I am not making the case that not wearing a helmet is a right. But under the definiton of reasonable, my choice is. So, when making the attempt to see through the eyes of another, whose eyes do I chose to look through?

 

Damn bear you gave me an easy one! Whose eyes do you look thru? The reasonable motorcyclists eyes, that's who!

The reasonable motorcyclist understand and accepts the risks riding entails, thus the donning of full gear visiably shows the value they place on their personal well being in case of an incident. The reasonable motorcyclist accepts the risks fully involved in riding and continues honing their riding skills thru either practice, training and/or the purchase of various motorcycles for street and dirt riding. In addition, they know that a persons judgement and skill level are intertwined and not to be separated, for just because "I am as fast and skilled as Valentino Rossi, I do not employ such skills on the street". For the reasonable motorcyclist knows the street environment is unpredictable at any given moment and they cannot manage the action of others, only evade them if possible. Thus its their judgement that saves them first for not being placed into a bad situation, not their skill.

Thru the above eyes, the reasonable motocyclist would have to seriously question the motives of a rider who does not choose to wear personal protective gear since its obviously a mark they do not take take the risk of riding seriously.

LOL! Having fun bear

 

Ah, you only think I gave you an easy one. You took the long sweeper instead of the nasty off camber. Of course, if motorcylists ruled the world, which they should, things would be perfect. All roads would be twisty and kept properly groomed. Unfortunately when these issues are interpreted, its not just those of us that think this way that are given a voice, which, actually is also how it should be. Lets cut to the chase, this issue, like so may others, is about the greater good. When viewed that way, it seems pointless to argue for anything but mandatory helmet laws. But we Americans have always had our cowboy streak, and its what makes us what we are, good or bad. I never want to lose that, and putting up with the consequences is a small price. Oh, and I wear my helmet, and so should you.

Methinks that perhaps BZ has had some legal training, and you are not as fast as Valentino Rossi, no one is. Having fun BZ!

 

Just the thought of being hit by a rock or wayward bee at 75mph makes me always want to wear a helmet. I can't see how being hit by inanimate objects at a high rate of speed can be called fun. Plus, flesh and concrete (asphalt, blacktop, whatever) dont mix very well. To say it's your "right" to not wear a helmet shows a lack of understanding why the law is there in the first place.

 

I still like the saying "If you've got a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet"
That said, I bought a $9.99 brand new helmet off ebay a couple months ago. "Max" brand. Surprisingly, its not bad. DOT rated, light as hell, excellent venting, nice style. Fruity design and coloring but you won't be missed on the road.



I'll wear it around town and to work but not on back road runs or trips.

I have two identical AGVs I bought for me and the wife a few years ago

Great helmets. Kind of expensive and heavy but if you hit the ground you know you got a helmet on you noggin.

 

My views on helmet wear are well known on this site. To recap for those not familiar with my brand of vitriol, I NEVER & will NEVER ride without a helmet, period end of story.

To further this, I think anyone who actually chooses to not wear a helmet is a, ready, here it comes: A GREAT BIG FREAKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. Ask the gents present at BZ's little BBQ, I have zero problem telling someone what I think. Everyone else should be this passionate about our chosen sport. All responsible riders need to start weeding out the idiots. I actively go out of my way to insult those that do not wear helmets. Will this ever make a difference? I doubt it. Is there a chance that I can change a single person's mind? Yes. To me, that one person is worth the "fight" since they can spread the wisdom in turn. All of us need to start targeting the idiot, yesterday.

KC-10 FE out...
lane: :usa2:

 

Well, I kind of have legal training. I am a labor law officer, but most of my so-called training comes from reading. Also battling scumbag attorneys too! And trust me, most attorneys are scumbags hence my name for them. But we need to dedicate another thread to that subject later.
And I am defiantly not as fast as Valentino, but I dream…

Let’s get back to the topic at hand.

I am not coming at the issue of mandatory MC helmet laws from a utilitarian, means to ends viewpoint. This issue is not about the greater good because one of the problems with utilitarianism is that everybody's interests should be considered equally when making decisions. Immediately, I think anybody can see not everyone’s interests can be represented and besides, with the issue we are discussing, there are some pretty big retards trying to convey the message that MC helmet laws are anti-freedom?

The reasonable motorcyclist (which I’ve already defined and many on this site appear to match much if not all of the description) already cry foul at that logic. However, I’d say they are afraid to shout out loud ‘foul’ because of fear the government may take that as a sign of support for mandatory helmet laws. It’s the juxtaposition the responsible motorcyclist faces! Do I openly rail against Delaware’s ABATE chapter for spreading fear and lies to government officials (who don’t ride) about wearing helmets, or do I join in the chant of “Let those who ride decide” when I know that personal protective gear is a vital part of motorcycling? I mean lets face it; most motorcyclists share the common theme of relying on their self-preservation to survive. To acquiesce to government regulations on our beloved sport is hard pill to swallow. But I think as we peel back the layers of “retardedness” on this issue we can start to see that the fear of mandatory helmet laws are unfounded. I hear things like helmet laws are the beginning of socialism! Really? Socialism is a philosophy that tries to explain a broad set of economic principles, mostly about the means of production and the difference between the have’s and have not’s, so please explain how a mandatory helmet law is socialism. No answer. Or I will occasionally hear its socialism because “they do it in Europe!” Well damn, since Europe is made up of a number of Countries, and not all are socialist, who the hell are you using as an example? Uh, I was told that by my friends. Yeah, I’m sure you were. These are the same friends that ride bar to bar on Saturday, have the loudest pipes possible, or ride in traffic like mad men and most importantly of all, don’t wear DOT helmets. And that I think is the truth of this issue. We have a very large segment of people who own motorcycles that congregate together, raise money to lobby their local government officials to stay completely retarded in their thinking while we motorcyclists are left to try an explain the actions of the majority; which in turn leads me to my ultimate conclusion on this matter.

To me it appears this majority suffers from the postmodern problem of moral relativism; which is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical, or personal circumstances.

To sum it up with moral relativism, its all about “me” and what “I” think is right in my personal circumstances. Well Mr. “I” and “Me” your thinking is flat out wrong and it’s costing the motorcycling community its image big time because you fail to understand the importance of the risk involved with the ride. This is turn adds the bonfire of crap ideas about who and what motorcyclists are really about!
People have forgotten that sometimes under our “rule of law” system, it’s possible for the ‘few’ to be right on an issue, such as the mandatory helmet laws, when the riding populous doesn’t agree. The few push for what is reasonable because the riding populous has completely turned a blind eye, for whatever reason, to the real issue at stake. Government has a vested interest in protecting its citizens when they seem incapable of doing it themselves. After all do we not have basic laws that limit gun ownership and our free speech? It’s not a ‘free for all’ with those two cherished rights and reasonable people do not challenge the idea of convicted felons and mentally ill being barred from having firearms and freedom of speech does not mean you can yell fire “in a crowded theater”. Why do we try to extend the free for all thinking to something that is not constitutionally guaranteed? I truly don’t get it. I truly don’t understand why reasonable motorcyclists do not get behind legislation to make wearing a helmet mandatory.

Bear, I can't accept the price its costing us motorcyclists. Therefor, I believe in backing laws that make sence, not ones that don't.

OK, the cat’s out of the bag, Bubba Zanetti doesn’t mind mandatory helmet laws. In fact, I support them and I can’t wait till Delaware re-enacts theirs…

Although fictional, doesn’t anybody else find it ironic that the bad guys in “Mad Max” all wear gear? Here’s a whole group of riders who despise authority, rape and pillage the locals, but put their gear on LOL!

Just an odd observation at the end of my long ass post.

BZ

 

Isn't it great to know that a government worker has the time at his job to write such a loooooooooooooong post? I'm sure the tax payers of Delaware would be proud!!!

On a more serious note... pretty impressive BZ, maybe you SHOULD be an attorney, although then I guess you'd have to be a scumbag.

 

Don't be busting on this Government worker LOL! I'll eat your birds!

Just kidding chicky.

People have said to me "Why don't you go to law school"?

Easy, I am not going into massive debt and having 3 years of my life stolen for a profession which I have very little respect. Besides, my dreams of being a Federal judge are long gone; just wasn't my calling. God had other plans; which I am greatful for:bounce:

I have friends who are scumbag attorneys. I love being at parties with attornys and my favorite time was I didn't know the whole party, except my wife and I where scumbags in training. So I'm talking to John, attorney friend, and he asks what Ive been up to and I informed him I am a labor officer so we are chatting and I said 'Yeah, I have this one case and you should hear the scumbag attorneys arguments..." Now John laughs because he knows how I feel, but damn you could hear a pin drop. Bubba Zanetti had to take on alot of scumbag attorneys that night LOL!

I may start a winter thread about why I do not like unethical attorneys.

BZ

 

I knew we had something in common, I have been a union official for two differnt unions during my work life. I've often had to deal with the paradox of working in that environment with my sometimes differing personal viewpoints. Excellent response, and I have noticed the irony of Mad Max thugs, and I loved it. And "layers of retardedness"? Priceless. I


As motorcycling grows, and more people hit the roads, I suspect that we will see more fatalities and a renewed call for mandatory helmet laws.


As for guns laws, thank God we have a constitutional amendment that specifically mentions arms. That subject would take just too long for us to cover on any discussion board.

You and I will probably always disagree that the government always know best when it comes to protecting us from ourselves, and I feel if that were really given its free reign, none of us would be allowed to ride motorcycles at all, they're just too inherently dangerous.

Since I only have about a half hour to give to this today, and I suspect that the good folks here may be a little tired of our back and forth, please allow me to give your long epistle further thought and maybe pm you.

Just the whole idea of moral relativism takes me an entire evening sometimes.

And we share your opinion of attorneys.

LOL love it bro!
LOL love it brother!

 

BZ, I totally agree with you on your opinion of lawyers. My skin literally crawls whenever I'm near one, and I literally get a bit nauseous. I guess there must be some lawyers out there who aren't scumbags, but my instincts tell me it's not true, that there are just some who may be lesser scumbags than others.

Despite your truly elegant and persuasive presentation, I still have a visceral dislike of mandates such as helmet laws. I may be impractical and a bit idealistic (even at my age), but I'm of the school that says a person needs to be willing to live with the consequences of their actions. And that means being stripped of the support they would have had if they had acted as a "prudent man." e.g., No insurance recoveries, no welfare, no food stamps, no worker's comp, no unemployment, etc., etc. In other words, no access to any and all of the social safety nets meant for those truly in need due to no fault of their own, and no access to those amenities intended to assist responsible persons. If you decide to willfully do something you know is not prudent (or in other words, outright stupid), you should be totally on your own.

But I am open minded enough to give this some more thought, and I thank you for providing some intelligent fuel.

 

Brother bear! I need to clarify something in my previous post.

When I said government has a vested interest in protecting its citizens who don’t protect themselves I did not mean the government always knows best when it comes to our safety. My apologies for not clarifying that statement. I should have provided an example because I knew when I wrote it it may be misinterpreted. But don’t worry I am about to!

What I meant was under our system of a democratic republic we elect individuals to govern us. Now generally we elect people who share our beliefs of how government should be operated or try to elect them to those positions. When these individuals get into office many of the people who voted them in fail to realize that the very person they voted in may have to make a decision that is for the best of the citizens, nation, etc. that goes against what the people want. And that is the mark of the true leader! They are voted in or chosen to ‘govern’ those who put them in the position. And sometimes that means coming up with a common sense solution, that is not really intrusive and still within the spirit of the principles of what we were founded upon, and applying it to the law code.

I used the 2nd Amendment as an example because like many, if not all of you, on this site believe in the individuals sovereign right to own firearms. However, I don’t think anybody here considers it unconstitutional that convicted felons and the mentally ill are barred from their ownership. Why? Because reasonable people understand they should not have them. It’s not even a debate. And again this is a guaranteed right unlike riding.

I know this may be weird comparison but motorcycling and firearms have something in common. Although they are designed for different purposes; they are extremely dangerous when treated with anything but the utmost respect and they both require training and exercise to get proficient with them.

We do not balk at government regulations saying “no guns” to certain people, why do we balk at “put a helmet on”???

Finally, I want to revisit the individual who’s voted in and makes a very good, but unpopular decision for the greater good. One of the biggest examples of this in our history is our Civil War. I know the war had some ancillary reasons why we fought it, but the main and most important reason was Lincoln knew that if he let the Southern States succeed from the Union this great “experiment”, this great country, was over. He saw that the 10th Amendment (States right to be a State) would always be carried to the extreme. Once the Supreme Court would say to a State: “Nope, the Feds are right”. Then that State would say screw you! We’ll become our own sovereign nation. Hell, the State in question may not even what for a ruling to bail out. Despite what many think, the war was not popular at first. Lincoln had a hard sell for it; he had to defend his ideas. I’m glad he did, I’m glad the Union invaded because it saved this nation from peril. Unpopular idea, but the leader in question had the foresight to know what was right outside of popular opinion.

Lincoln is one of my conservative herosJ!
So what they hell does Lincoln have to do with mandatory helmet laws? Not much really, I’m just making the point that sometimes…SOMETIMES the leaders we elect are exactly that, leaders, and they do know better despite what we are told.

BZ

 

Knife:

I love our system of government and do not believe there is necessarily a better one. However, I do believe that we have too many scumbag attorneys that get their ridiculous and asinine arguments heard in our courtrooms and in my profession. I’ve dealt with very few that are professional, courteous and intelligent in the true sense of the word. Therefore, I make it known my feelings towards them, especially when they try to craft an argument that is completely ridiculous when you boil it down to its base philosophy. And this is how you discredit the retarded attorney.

And I enjoy your statements on the ‘prudent man’. We share more in common than it may appear. Same with bear, that’s why he got another long response.

May we meet up and talk sometime.

BZ

 

Always have, always will wear a full-face helmet! I believe in the saying you dress for the crash, not the ride.

I believe Midias & 46Alpha said it best. Ouch!

Theresa

 

Thanks Knife, I was beginning to feel all alone out here.

I had this weird dream last night with Bubba on one side of me seducing me with his elegant arguments and eerie sense that we're brothers from different mothers, and KC-10Fe on the other side going all Full Metal Jacket on me telling me I was a FREAKIN RETARD...MAGGOT heeheeeheee

 

Oh bear, Let me give you a hug!

 

"sniff" Thanks Bubba