LC 1683 (mandatory helmet use by motorcyclists) is in the works...might wanna take some time and let your elected officials know how you feel.

I do ride and helmets are a pain. But I watched someone get hit by a car and bounced on his head like a tennis ball. The helmet saved his life. I guess they're wanting to protect people from themselves. But then I also think they should add "no shorts, flip flops, and long sleeves mandatory" Where does it end?

to me its not an issue of whether helmets help or not, sometimes they do sometimes they dont, the bigger issue here is freedom of choice...like you said, where does it end?

Helmets when worn properly do limit injuries...no dispute with that.
Freedom of choice is fine but when that person suffers his or her head injury and need long medical, rehab, nursing home treatment, who pays, yeah thats right the taxpayer. I would say that the public has an interest as well in this discussion. You won't be just harming yourselves.

AHA...so the fat police should be at the store and anyone overweight should be limited in the food they can buy to eat. After all obesity is a multi million dollar health care issue in the US. There are too many to count who get disability just because they're so overweight they can't work. They get all the bennies including riding scooters to get around paid by the taxpayers. So...as I said before..where does it end?

This is getting as bad as the metal bats vs. wood bats.

No, its not...the issue is not whether helmets help or not, the issue is government denying adults their freedom of choice. Like Kacey stated, once it starts there what is next? No matter your stand on the issue, I think we all need to be concerned about protecting our rite to choose.

I choose the Byzantine Rite, myself.

If THIS is the issue that brings out the civil libertarian in a person, then the republic is pretty much tango-uniform.

The solution is simple, all overweight people should be required to wear helmets, with lockable front face gear... that should be unlocked (by the gov. of course) for only fifteen minutes a day.

Once the gov. stipulated desired (age and height corrected) weight is reached, the person can then feel free to ride his/her scooter without a said helmet.

I have a hypothetical question about not wearing a motorcycle helmet. What happens if someone who is not wearing a motorcycle helmet is in an accident where the other person is clearly at fault? The other person should pay for the motorcyclist's medical bills, but should that person be responsible for all the medical bills, or just the medical bills that would have been accrued if the motorcyclist had been wearing a helmet? I mean, if you have the right to choose not to wear a helmet, shouldn't you take responsibility for that choice and pay the extra medical expenses that were required because you chose not to wear a helmet? Or does your choice not to wear a helmet screw over the person who accidently ran a stoplight.

I like the Japanese Governmemt solution. If your defense in an accident is "I didn't see them" it's a jail sentence. You obviously were impared... It is a choice issue. I wear a helmet, but know it wont protect me from the majority of injuries I would recieve in an accident. Personally, I think we should outlaw smoking and drinking. And overeating. And driving. And riding horses. And..... Life is dangerous... no one gets out alive!

It would be simpler to outlaw government.

I remember some years back when an eastern seaboard town was trying to make bulletproof vests mandatory wear for it's police force.The proposal was shelved when the cops said they'd quit if this became policy.The cops said the vests were "hot and cumbersome","limited their mobility"and above all"infringed on their freeedoms".They stated that it since it was all about the officer's personal safety,the choice should be their's to make.Exactly---just like helmet useage.
Dan-embarassing question,but exactly WHO do I contact in Helena to let my views be known?

The only thing a motorcycle helmet is good for is keeping the mess all in one place.

I would like to hear from organized groups (motorcycles or otherwise) who are taking a stand and/or action on this issue.

Please Contact me at
KXGN-TV5
Emilie Boyles
406-377-3377
406-939-3378

http://www.comedyrobot.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26

Ken-
I think that www.leg.mt.gov/session.htm will get you all the elected officials and who they represent - btw my black sporty is for sale if you know anyone looking

On occasion I leave my helmet off to cool off while riding. Most of the time I'd rather be a safe hot head though. I had a rear tire blow out at 60 MPH and I'm glad I had my helmet on, the back of it was almost worn through the fiberglass from sliding on the asphalt.

I had a friend beside me once, we were side by side on our crotch rockets counter-steering through a nice tight on-ramp in Santa Cruz when his rear end pitched out on him. He and his bike slid until they wedged under the guardrail; his right leg was bent at the knee so his foot was against his rib cage. His helmet hit the guardrail and cracked in two. He did not walk away from the accident, but he did recover and still has all his wits about him. He does have a bit of a gait in his stride.

Personally, I think helmets should be required. If they didn't work racers wouldn't wear them. Any parent who rides always puts one on their kid- anyone who says they let their kids ride without is a liar; we all know better.

Chad, I agree that they work and are effective in most instances. What I don't agree with is another law taking place of common sense. You can't legislate morality or intelligence. The most effective use would be rider education and, dare I say it, driver awarness education.

I don't believe anyone's arguing the fact that helmets don't "work",Chad. It's the idea of taking away one's choice in the matter that I don't agree with.I guess the government could mandate that the motorcycle manufactors install governors limiting top speeds to 75 mph,also.This would certainly save lives also.Actually,everyone should just stay home-think of the lives that would be saved[for a few days,anyway]

Ken - that idea isnt so far fetched...

http://www.helmethairblog.com/entries/government-planning-to-cut-the-power-on-speeders-by-satellite/

Bruce,

I know you and you have absolutely no common sense whatsoever. Do you think that for a minute and would trust you to wear a helmet while riding a Harley with a turbo charger on it. Hah! I know better and so does big brother.

Actually , I'm just messing with you. However, I see a lot of idiots out riding (on Hogs and crotch rockets) with some honey on the back in a miniskirt and a tube top, no helmet, and the dumb driver is pulling wheelies and the stoplight, or dragging the gearbox through a turn. You've been to Sturgis, you've seen some of the "fun" that goes on there.

Yes, I defer to common sense, but I know there are people that have absolutely none of it. I think it comes down to society desiring to protect lives and keep a lid on the costs of health care.

I am an old car buff, I fully oppose the junker laws that give pollution credits for smashing old cars because the don't run clean. Do I think cars should be made obsolete after a few years to encourage cleaner more efficient cars? No way- it takes far more energy to make the new ones than the old ones will ever burn up.

On helmets- I say wear them.

Ouch! You got me there! I do understand the motivation about keeping health care costs down... But that is a completely different 'can of worms' that I could annoy people with given my views.
For me, it comes down to personal rights and liberty. We have lost so many now "for the greater good" its frightening. Again, its where do you draw the line. Also, I distrust statistics gathered by any group that has a vested interest in the result. Think IIHS (insurance institute for highway safety), NHTSA ( national highway traffic safety agency), and Consumers Union (Consumers Report). Remember how 5mph bumpers were suppost to save on collision repair costs and therefore insurance premiums? Costs went up due to the complexity and added parts... also premiums. Incomplete information and misguided good intentions can blind us to more accurate remedies.

Really, the "health care cost" argument could be used to restrict just about any type of behavior you could think of.

Bruce,

I suppose we should just leave driving speed up to drivers then, too? Right? The problem is that there's always some knot head in his Corvette or Camaro that thinks he knows how to drive (fast) and he tries to keep up with me in my Porsche. Just because he's got a fast car doesn't mean he can (read knows how to) drive fast.

I believe I am a capable driver and my Porsche is capable of going 150 MPH safely. But Joe Schmoe in his pickup probably should not try to beat me to Billings.

It kind of falls back on Montana's (now deceased) Reasonable and Prudent Law- thank God that one was finally tossed out by the State Supreme Court. I don't know a single patrol officer that thought me going 100 (in my Porsche on a vacant road between Circle and Glendive) was reasonable or prudent.

The helmet thing is kind of the same- you may get hit, you never know when you will spill a bike, and we don't always ride like the guy that escorts funerals. A helmet is a sensible thing, even when it's 110 degrees outside on a sunny summer afternoon.

Helmets are heavy, hot, distracting, and you can't hear your bike like you should. And they also take away some vision too. And nobody ever tells you that the helmet may save your life, but the weight of the helmet may also break your neck. I wear a helmet in states that require a helmet, but do my best to avoid those states completely. On the other hand, I blew my rear tire at about 80 mph in Mississippi a few years ago, and was glad I had it on. I never went down, but getting from 80 mph, to standing on the side of the road, I had time to appreciate wearing one, for a few seconds anyway. But it has to be my choice, not a mandate from some moron politician, under the guise of keeping me safe. How many people die every year from smoking cigarettes? Not a safe habit by any stretch, but there is no rush to make cigarettes illegal. Another case of big business trying to make the rules. If helmets are required, are your insurance premiums going to go down? No chance of that. The insurance companies want to save some money, not some lives. Business is business. Nothing matters like the bottom line.

Lives matter more than any bottom line.

I agree Chad. But you and I are not some faceless corporation. We all know how they think, and lives mean nothing to them. They do a cost analysis of the costs versus the benefits, and human beings don't enter that conversation for even a moment. Sad but true.

Matt: Do you really think that a faceless corp. like our food industry, or maybe Boeing aircraft only to mention a few, really think like that?

Nationwide, NHTSA reports that approximately half
of all rider fatalities were wearing helmets.


Even if we bought into the government's claim that unhelmeted riders cost U.S. taxpayers $853 million last year, let's put that number in perspective. According to MAG-UK (Motorcycle Action
Group of the United Kingdom), citing statistics from the BBC website,the United States spent $1.9 trillion on healthcare in 2004, so unhelmeted motorcyclists accounted for .00004% of the total costs.

For comparison, caring for smoking related health problems cost the
government $12.9 billion, or .007%, making it 150 times more costly. Obesity costs the government $7.7 billion in healthcare expenses.
Alcohol costs the government $12.2 billion in healthcare expenses.
Medicaid fraud costs the government $140 billion in healthcare expenses.



[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 1/25/2007).]

I think that's because most unhelmetted riders smoke, and they're fumbling with their lighters instead of focusing on the road.

all the while eating high trans-fat fast food and not getting any exercise...

Chad, Do you have a front porsche or a back porsche? Sorry, as a Corvette owner, I couldn't resist... Do you know why porsche owners always have their collars buttoned? Wait, some people refer to my v-rod as a porsche.... I better quit now

"Lives matter more than any bottom line."

Unfortunately that's not entirely the case. (as far as health care goes) There is a limit to health care resources.

Rick, if you would like to start a health care (and the costs and excesses involved) thread; I would be more than willing to jump in.

here is a little more info. for those interested

http://www.montanaabate.com:80/

I think the state ABATE meeting is in Billings tomorrow if anyone is interested in that

Bruce-

Only rear or mid-engine models are real Porsche's. The 924, 928, 944 series cars are okay, but the true performers are the rear and mid-engine models. Vette's are okay, but I don't know why US manufacturers can't get more out of thier engines? If Porsche can put two 3L motors together to form a 6.0 flat 12 with 100 HP per cylinder in 1971, the big three should be able to catch up by now. And if Honda can squeeze 50 mpg out of a 1.5L motor making 100 HP, why can't the big three?

It's a sad state of affairs.

Perhaps we should start a new thread.

The motorcycle helmet issue is not about safety or rising health
care costs. It is about power. The power of imposing your will
on your neighbor. Somewhat like the powers that have been imposing their will on Dick Hay.

It always appears easiest to attack those who are in many instances non conformists.

For the most part I would think that those who want the helmet law
would actually be happier if it were not inacted. If, riding with out a helmet is so dangerous then it would follow that it is an effective tool in removing some of what they perceive as a less desirable element from society.

Roger.... aka Hermano - General Lee - Billings chapter
Viva the Red and Gold

"as a less desirable element from society."

I don't know where you get this stuff, but I think you're off kilter. Unless you think everyone that rides a motorcycle is a gangster or a renegade? I think it's safe to say that very few motorcycle riders qualify as 'bikers'.

Even if they are bikers, who's to say they're "a less desirable element from society"?

I've ridden with several clubs from all over during my days in the service. All of these clubs had their "fringe element" that seemed to be rough and tough. Everytime I would see that exterior melt when they delivered toys to children in the hospital or raised tens of thousands of dollars for cancer research. I rode with a club in VA beach that each year sponsored a ride that would donate about 15,000 unopened toys to needy kids every christmas.

Bikers are really mean...

Easy there guys. I am not saying that all bikers are renegades or a fringe element. What I am saying is that by a large and possibly very large segment of society they, or we as the case may be, are
perceived as such.

I have also participated, and continue to as well, in many charitable fund raising events. These are usually reported locally. However the majority of national newscasts are always of the bad news.

I certainly agree with you that bikers, on the whole, are not
mean or tough. There are many of us who do not fit that profile in any way. I see many Honda riders and some Harley riders that wear
helmets which is their right.

My comments were merely an attempt to put forth one facet of what
is a multifacted issue. Where you and I understand some or most of
the arguments, pro and con, on the issue not all do.

The choice on whether or not to wear a helmet should remain that of the rider. In which case we need the support of all riders, even those that choose to wear a helmet. To be mandated to wear a helmet
would be just another example of big brother, or some other
unenlightened souls, taking away a fundamental freedom of choice.
I continue to maintain that there is a segment of the population that would love to put helmets on motorcycle enthusiasts for the express purpose of taking away a freedom of choice.

Roger.. aka Hermano - General Lee - Billings Chapter

HFFH SYLB long live the Red and Gold

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/motorcyclists_rights/bikersrights0702.php

Here is their contact information:

Betsy Hands (D)
1337 SHERWOOD ST
MISSOULA, MT 59802-2301
Home: 406-721-3881
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://tinyurl.com/2zeb7s (with photo)

Lynda Moss (D)
552 HIGHLAND PARK DR
BILLINGS, MT 59102-1046
Home: 406-252-7318
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://tinyurl.com/26gebv (with photo)

Email addresses for them and the Montana Senate and House Leadership are as
follows:

[email protected]
[email protected]

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

"To be mandated to wear a helmet would be just another example of big brother, or some other unenlightened souls, taking away a fundamental freedom of choice."

Just like requiring kids to wear seat belts, minors not to drink and gamble and smoke, and adults to limit their speed to 75, right?

Sorry, Chad, but I'm not a kid or a minor. The only 'real reason we have a 75mph speed limit is due to the threat of reduced Federal highway funding.

We make laws pertaining to minors because they are often not cognitively able to understand the consequences of their actions. As their "guardians" it is our job to "guard" them until they are old enough to do so for themselves. Some people regardless of age will never make the "right" choice but we must give them the opportunity to do so.

helmets, YES, helmet LAWS, NO

"The only 'real reason we have a 75mph speed limit is due to the threat of reduced Federal highway funding."

someone outside of Montana deciding what is best for Montana

[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 2/1/2007).]

Thursday, February 15, 2007 8am is when HB534 is scheduled to be heard, now is the time to act if you have a stance on this issue. thanks-