AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety…

Hi All:

First post in this forum as I did not really find a good location for it in others... Sorry about the formatting as it is setup for my own forums home page with more [tag] capability...

AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… AmericanFlag

AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… AmericanFlag

Promoting riders non-use of helmets under the guise, “Freedom to Ride”.

Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - June 12, 2010
AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… 2010_Kawasaki_KLR650

AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… 2010_Kawasaki_KLR650

2010 Kawasaki KLR650 Rider in full gear and having fun while doing so.

Safety study after safety study including warehouses filled with injury and fatality statistics have proven overwhelmingly that an individual protecting him or herself with a helmet is the “safest” way for a rider of any age to hit the road, period!

A neighbor of mine lost his son in a low speed (< 10 mph) high side in a parking lot after his son’s head struck the curb that caused the high side to begin with. This was not while racing a bike down a public roadway but during a slow speed demo ride on his friend’s brand new motorcycle while not wearing a helmet.

A $50 to $750 safety item was all that stood in the way of a few scrapes and a son that will never grow up, never grow old and parents that will forever grieve the loss of their “Pride and Joy”.

In a motion heard back in early February and concluded this past week, the Supreme Court of South Carolina deemed unconstitutional an ordinance put into place by the city of Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Background

For years, large motorcycle rallies were held in Myrtle Beach. A number of objections were had to the rallies based on, among other things, loud noise and rowdy behavior. Additionally, there was evidence the rallies placed a heavy burden on the local medical community, police, and other emergency responders.
In response, the City passed a number of ordinances and amendments dealing with rallies and motorcycles, including the Helmet Ordinance, an ordinance requiring all persons riding on motorcycles to wear approved helmets and eyewear.

Among the ordinances was Ordinance 2008-64, which required that any person riding a motorcycle wear a protective helmet and eyewear (the Helmet Ordinance). Petitioners were each cited for violating the Helmet Ordinance by failing to wear the requisite helmet and eyewear.

They brought this action in this Court’s original jurisdiction challenging the Helmet Ordinance on three points:

The Helmet Ordinance is preempted by State law
The ordinance establishing the system for adjudicating infractions of the Helmet Ordinance, which has since been repealed, was so intertwined with certain Motorcycle Ordinances that its repeal caused the ordinances to fail
The current system for adjudicating alleged violations of the Helmet Ordinance in municipal court is improper as the municipal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the charges.

Judgment Details

Quote :: Even assuming, as the City contends, that the Helmet Ordinance does not conflict with the Uniform Traffic Act, we find that the ordinance may not stand as the need for uniformity is plainly evident in the regulation of motorcycle helmets and eyewear. Were local authorities allowed to enforce individual helmet ordinances, riders would need to familiarize themselves with the various ordinances in advance of a trip, so as to ensure compliance. Riders opting not to wear helmets or eyewear in other areas of the state would be obliged to carry the equipment with them if they intended to pass through a city with a helmet ordinance. Moreover, local authorities might enact ordinances imposing additional and even conflicting equipment requirements. Such burdens would unduly limit a citizen's freedom of movement throughout the State. Consequently, the Helmet Ordinance must fail under the doctrine of implied preemption.

The Supreme Court struck down this and other ordinances because the City Helmet Ordinance failed under “implied field preemption due to the need for statewide uniformity and therefore issue a declaratory judgment invalidating the ordinance. Moreover, the Court added. We hold that certain Motorcycle Ordinances were impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the administrative hearing system.”

In addition, some of the ordinances were upheld due to the removal of language designating those violations as "misdemeanors" rather than "administrative infractions" including the City amended Ordinances 2008-61 (accommodations restrictions) and 2008-65 (parking of trailers on public streets or unlicensed private lots).

To read the opinion in its entirety, visit: http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26825.

Conclusions regarding the ordinance reversal

The city of Myrtle Beach went out of their way to dissuade motorcycles from rallying within their city limits which should have been fought against through whatever legal means were available at the time. This includes going after the helmet law on the grounds it was not created as a means to protect but to dissuade riders from entering the city limits.

Who would not be ticked off if you entered a city and was subsequently ticketed because they passed an ordinance stating any vehicle with bumper stickers or possibly vehicles colored yellow will be fined.

Where the AMA’s wheels flew off the track was in its decision to herald the ordinance repeals on the grounds that non-helmeted and eye wear protection wearing riders personal freedoms were encroached upon or discriminated against.

Quote :: AMA:

South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down Myrtle Beach helmet law

In a victory against motorcycle discrimination, the South Carolina Supreme Court has struck down a Myrtle Beach, S.C., law that required riders to wear helmets within the city limits.

The Gloss Over…

In another release, the AMA expounded on how the Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus continues to expand in numbers. Congressman Walter B. Jones, from North Carolina's Third Congressional District, joined the bipartisan caucus in early June of this year.

Co-chaired by Congressman Michael Burgess (TX-26) and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), the CMSC is made up of Representatives that are motorcyclists, motorcycle enthusiasts and have a deep interest in the issues of the riders in their districts. It is influential in connecting the rest of Congress with the needs of motorcyclists through legislation, promotion of May as Motorcycle Awareness Month and events on Ride-to-Work Day.

Conclusions

How can an organization that does so many things right do this so wrong? Is it any wonder that Riders from around the country and even within this very forum have given up their AMA memberships? I can also see why the MSF wants to distance themselves from the AMA after the wording of their reply AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… Icon_rolleyes

I will never understand why someone refuses to wear a helmet but unfortunately if you legislate it without a clear definition of what a helmet is the V twin guys will just put those useless tupperware caps on and the whole thing is the same joke that we have today

A few high level guys have left the AMA in the last couple of years and the are not even in control of superbike racing now, DMG is wrecking that now (IMO)

Wayne, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the AMA's statements. Helmet laws, seat belt laws and any other law that legislates safety is, IMO unconstitutional. Let freedom reign supreme. If you don't want to wear a helmet or seatbelt, fine, but there can be consequenses for those actions (ie you die). What I do not have a problem with is say for instance, your insurance can decline coverage if you have massive head injuries due to not wearing a helmet, or your life insurance can decline to pay if you die in the crash and weren't wearing a helmet or seatbelt or whatever. Consequences.

Personal responsibility is key, without it our great Republic falls apart (as can be clearly seen these days).

I still think however, if you don't wear a helmet or seatbelt, you've basically got crap for brains. Maybe literally AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… 851577

AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… 851577

I always wear a lid. But those that don't, don't upset me unless I know them personally. It's natural selection.

As long as someone's choices doesn't put a burden on others, I can't see why a law should limit it's freedom of choice. Just let them pay in full the consequences of their choices.

It takes more then a helmet to keep you alive on a bike...

I buy the best helmet I can and I gear up for EVER ride but I don't need someone to tell me I HAVE to...

I smoked for yrs and at some point I knew it was bad for me but I still smoked and guess what? I'm 47 with only 53% of my lung cap and I now have to live with that. I did it and I knew what could happen, sucks to be Tammy in a race cuz she falls on her face real fast.. But that is life, I knew what could happen and did it anyways...

Riding is not safe, not at all, I've been doing it for 37 yrs and it's fun maybe too much fun but at some point in my life if I keep riding I may die doing what I love to do most in life. Sad for the people around me but no one has a gun to my head to ride so it's all on me... I like it that way all on me.

Next they will be telling me I can't ride at all.... Say it ain't so just go look at what we have to ride off road today and what we had 10 yrs ago. My lungs will last longer then the places I ride off road now and that is sad real sad...

Without wanting to denigrates some other's opinions, there is something I really don't understand.

Why some people want to choose what's best for others. If I'm not fit to make my own choices, it might be that I'm not fit to live at all. Beside what makes others fit to make choices for me ?

I always wear an helmet and body protection. I think that if I want to be able to have pleasure for many years on a motorcycle, I have to protect myself. We're living in a society where everybody is informed. That's good and it should stop at that, inform and educate, not rule.

Dumb people feel safe when the fit people tell them what to do..

Moderator

I do not support helmet laws.

Let the rider decide.

_________________
2008 WR250X
Gearing: 13t - 48t
Power Commander 5 / PC-V
Airbox Door Removed - Flapper glued - AIS removed
FmF Q4
Bridgestone Battlax BT-003rs

Alpha Rider

Tammy wrote:: Dumb people feel safe when the fit people tell them what to do..

Sure, if they actually LISTEN.,... 'listen to what I mean and not what I say.' "Huh? Oh! That's supposed to mean I'm good to go, right?" Suspect

_________________
A wolf's voice echoed down the mountain 'Share the bounty of the hunt with your brothers and sisters, and forever be strong and free.' AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… Wolf_b10

AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… Wolf_b10

Admin

xcel wrote:: Conclusions

How can an organization that does so many things right do this so wrong? Is it any wonder that Riders from around the country and even within this very forum have given up their AMA memberships? I can also see why the MSF wants to distance themselves from the AMA after the wording of their reply

For anyone who understands the concept of freedom, one has to wonder about anyone with the impression they got this "wrong".

You will never catch me on a motorcycle without a helmet and gear - ATGATT, baby. Never. On the other hand, who are these presumptuous jerks who feel inclined to ORDER me on what I have to do and wear to protect myself? What sovereign right to they claim over my life and how I choose to live it?

If they feel a justification for protecting people from themselves, let's not stop with motorcycles.

Everyone who likes these helmet laws and is involved in creating these laws, if you're overweight, stand up.
If you don't get at least half an hour of decent exercise a day, stand up
If your cholestrol is high, if your blood sugar is high, stand up.
If you smoke, stand up.
If you have more than two drinks a day, stand up.

Now take your self righteous attitudes and piss off. I'll bet that clears out most of the fat self righteous bastards right there.

Come back when you're fit, with optimal body fat, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, with a reasonable level of aerobic fitness. Or have at least dreamed up some laws regulating diet and exercise along with acceptable minimal levels of body fat. Ban the Twinkie, I say! After all, diabetes and cardiovascular disease is going to kill and disable a lot more people than those who suffer the consequences of choosing to not ride a helmet, so shouldn't that be the first priority on our legislative hit parade?

The AMA understands that their riders have a right not to be treated like children and be discriminated against. Calling that "disregard for their member's safety" is spin of the highest order. Many motorists killed in traffic accidents die of head injuries. When they mandate that everyone in a motor vehicle has to wear a helmet as well, then I may reconsider what self righteous jerks these people are.

Yes, these nanny staters really, really piss me off. If you haven't noticed yet...

Jäger wrote:

xcel wrote:: Conclusions

How can an organization that does so many things right do this so wrong? Is it any wonder that Riders from around the country and even within this very forum have given up their AMA memberships? I can also see why the MSF wants to distance themselves from the AMA after the wording of their reply

For anyone who understands the concept of freedom, one has to wonder about anyone with the impression they got this "wrong".

You will never catch me on a motorcycle without a helmet and gear - ATGATT, baby. Never. On the other hand, who are these presumptuous jerks who feel inclined to ORDER me on what I have to do and wear to protect myself? What sovereign right to they claim over my life and how I choose to live it?

If they feel a justification for protecting people from themselves, let's not stop with motorcycles.

Everyone who likes these helmet laws and is involved in creating these laws, if you're overweight, stand up.
If you don't get at least half an hour of decent exercise a day, stand up
If your cholestrol is high, if your blood sugar is high, stand up.
If you smoke, stand up.
If you have more than two drinks a day, stand up.

Now take your self righteous attitudes and piss off. I'll bet that clears out most of the fat self righteous bastards right there.

Come back when you're fit, with optimal body fat, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, with a reasonable level of aerobic fitness. Or have at least dreamed up some laws regulating diet and exercise along with acceptable minimal levels of body fat. Ban the Twinkie, I say! After all, diabetes and cardiovascular disease is going to kill and disable a lot more people than those who suffer the consequences of choosing to not ride a helmet, so shouldn't that be the first priority on our legislative hit parade?

The AMA understands that their riders have a right not to be treated like children and be discriminated against. Calling that "disregard for their member's safety" is spin of the highest order. Many motorists killed in traffic accidents die of head injuries. When they mandate that everyone in a motor vehicle has to wear a helmet as well, then I may reconsider what self righteous jerks these people are.

Yes, these nanny staters really, really piss me off. If you haven't noticed yet...

Spot on.

Hi Jager:

I will be one of those presumptuous jerks because if you pay dues to the AMA, they should be protecting you and me and fellow riders from ourselves, not deriding safety under the guise of freedom to ride.

You wear your gear every time out as do I because not doing so is a completely idiotic thing to do. Why would anyone support an organization interested in protecting idiotic behavior unless they are forced too? Not me and I do completely understand ones freedoms.

Bike deaths are approaching 20% of all traffic fatalities yet make up less than .05% of vehicle miles traveled. These kinds of statistics are what may make bike riding an off-road sport only and helmetless riders are not helping matters by any means.

Wayne

xcel wrote:: they should be protecting you and me and fellow riders from ourselves, not deriding safety under the guise of freedom to ride.

xcel wrote:: Hi Jager:

I will be one of those presumptuous jerks because if you pay dues to the AMA, they should be protecting you and me and fellow riders from ourselves, not deriding safety under the guise of freedom to ride.

You wear your gear every time out as do I because not doing so is a completely idiotic thing to do. Why would anyone support an organization interested in protecting idiotic behavior unless they are forced too? Not me and I do completely understand ones freedoms.

Bike deaths are approaching 20% of all traffic fatalities yet make up less than .05% of vehicle miles traveled. These kinds of statistics are what may make bike riding an off-road sport only and helmetless riders are not helping matters by any means.

Wayne

There is no law, rules or any other way a society can eradicated foolishness. Only education and information can contribute educate an idiot. When I pay a motorcycle association it is as a way to regroup with fellow motorcyclists to have a better political power. It is by no mean a mandate to protect me from my foolishness. Nature will take care of that. Many pedestrians are killed by cars every year and no one is asking them to wear safety devices against cars. There are more peoples dying of smoking and there is no law that can stop them from doing it.

What we need protection from, is car drivers that are unrespectful of others. We need protection from people that have prejudices against motorcyclists. We need protection from people that want to take away our liberties.

We need to educate them.

Hi Dan:

I completely agree. At the same time, the number of bike accidents occurring into fixed and/or immovable objects is ~ 25%. This is where an association like the AMA should be promoting protection and education, not a needless increase in the body count. Too many die today because they ride helmetless and it is an absolute waste given a large percentage of those victims would have survived and lived long and productive lives if they would have been wearing a technology packed DOT or SNELL certified helmet today.

A family that lives 3-houses down the street from me lost their son about 6-years ago in a parking lot as he tried out his friends 125, fell over and hit his head on a curb at no more than 5-mph. A helmet and they would be grandparents today. Instead, they have a flag and memoriam setup in their front yard. There are thousands of examples of this type of accident occurring from riders both young enough not to know and old enough to know better. The AMA is closing its eyes to the same at the rate of over 10 deaths per day all in the name of making sure those dues keep coming in from as many members as they can possibly recruit regardless if it is a bad thing for their memberships welfare.

Wayne

xcel wrote:: Hi Dan:

I completely agree. At the same time, the number of bike accidents occurring into fixed and/or immovable objects is ~ 25%. This is where an association like the AMA should be promoting protection and education, not a needless increase in the body count. Too many die today because they ride helmetless and it is an absolute waste given a large percentage of those victims would have survived and lived long and productive lives if they would have been wearing a technology packed DOT or SNELL certified helmet today.

A family that lives 3-houses down the street from me lost their son about 6-years ago in a parking lot as he tried out his friends 125, fell over and hit his head on a curb at no more than 5-mph. A helmet and they would be grandparents today. Instead, they have a flag and memoriam setup in their front yard. There are thousands of examples of this type of accident occurring from riders both young enough not to know and old enough to know better. The AMA is closing its eyes to the same at the rate of over 10 deaths per day all in the name of making sure those dues keep coming in from as many members as they can possibly recruit regardless if it is a bad thing for their memberships welfare.

Wayne

There is one thing that people seem to refuse these days and it's death. Whatever we will do, accidents will always happen. We all hope that we will be the last to whom it will happen. But it's part of the life cycle. That's what I meant when I said that nature will take care of my foolishness. My opinion is that we have to be aware that death is a fact of life. That a society stops people from destroying others life is ok. As long as one's doesn't cause problems to other members of the society, it's not their business how he lives or die.

By giving to others our right to decide when, how, why we do things, we let go our free will. If others want to do it it's their business. I don't like being told that I should do the same. I've had mishappenings. I've learned from it.

It all boils down as many have noted here to the rite of freedom of one own destiny. Wasn't one of Hitlers reasons for undermining Germany's freedom "For the protection of it's citizens."

I don't need anyone telling me how to conduct myself. I wear helmets most of the time. At times they are nothing but a skid lid and often they are high quality fullface units. But I live in a state which allows me my freedom. Thank God. They also allow me to protect myself. And yes I'm always armed. I wouldn't live in a state which so distrust it's citizens to the point of knowing what's better for me.

The fact that helmets are a good idea.......... Ain't the debate

One person a day drowns during summer (in Canada), no one will force PFD s on the public
I hate legislation
What if real important smart people just say motorcycles are unsafe ?
Be safer if no one even rode them right

Admin

xcel wrote:: Hi Jager:

I will be one of those presumptuous jerks because if you pay dues to the AMA, they should be protecting you and me and fellow riders from ourselves, not deriding safety under the guise of freedom to ride.

I became an adult nearly 40 years ago. Apparently, you didn't if you need somebody to pass laws to protect you from yourself.

I don't need somebody telling me how to live my life in their attempts to wrap me in a bubble. When did the idea of people becoming responsible for their own actions, good and bad, get so scary and get thrown away? When did people become fearful of the idea of becoming adults, responsible for deciding their own choices as far as their own welfare is concerned?

Where do people like you finally say "enough"? When it is some kind of government intrusion that YOU find unreasonable?

If laws that require me to wear a helmet are appropriate, why don't we have the same laws for motorists and children in cars? They don't need them because, although head injuries do kill car occupants, it isn't as many as motorcyclists, so some undetermined lesser number of deaths is acceptable in the interests of motorists' personal comfort?

Why don't we have laws to address the fact you may well be overweight? Or eat to much fatty foods? Or too much salt? Or you don't get enough exercise for your own good? I'll compare the number of people who die from cardiovascular disease against those who die from head injuries on a motorcycle any day.

In my view, if those who support helmet laws also don't support laws to address the fatties, the unfit, the smokers, to force them to make healthy choices - enforced by fines and other legal sanctions - then they're just hypocrites. A one trick pony.

We know what optimal body fat should be, optimal cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels (diabetes is becoming near epidemic, after all), cardiac recovery after exercise, etc. Now I'm in my mid 50's and I just finished my annual battle fitness test today; I jogged 13km with a 50 lb pack, a rifle in my hands, and steel helmet on my head in a bit over two hours. I'm not the speediest pup on the planet anymore, but it seems to me if I can stay that fit at my age, then the rest of the country should at least be fit enough they're not at risk of cardiovascular disease.

And I think we should protect YOU from YOU in how you look after your health. I'm concerned, Xcel, that you and the other nanny staters might not eat right, might not get enough aerobic exercise, and that you're overweight, cholesterol levels too high, blood sugar levels indicate you may be pre-diabetic, etc.

So I think we need a law to protect you from yourself.

So Xcel, whaddya say we write a law that says you go for a complete physical once a year? If you're outside healthy body fat levels, outside healthy cholesterol and trigyceride levels, blood sugar too high, cardiac markers in your blood, not fit, whaddya say we fine your ass to "protect you from yourself"?

Do you have a problem with that - or do you think you don't need your country telling you how to look after yourself and legally punishing you if you make bad lifestyle choices?

Quote :: You wear your gear every time out as do I because not doing so is a completely idiotic thing to do.

It isn't nearly as idiotic as not eating properly, not getting sufficient exercise, etc. And most people don't seem to think we need laws to address that idiocy.

How many times a week do you get a good cardiac workout, BTW, seeing as you're so concerned about people being protected from their idiocy?

[/quote]Why would anyone support an organization interested in protecting idiotic behavior unless they are forced too? Not me and I do completely understand ones freedoms.[/quote]
Why would anyone support an organization with statist principles?

And no, you don't understand freedoms if you think part of the government's job is legislating whether I wear a helmet, whether I smoke, whether I like twinkies, etc. That does not begin to resemble freedom.

Quote :: Bike deaths are approaching 20% of all traffic fatalities yet make up less than .05% of vehicle miles traveled.

Chicken feed.

Cardiovascular disease is the number 1 cause of death in the US - 34% of all deaths to be exact. What's worse is the vast majority of these cases of cardiovascular disease were totally preventable by simply eating properly and getting sufficient exercise.

So again: surely if helmet laws are so appropriate, you're all for fining everyone who doesn't look after their cardiovascular health, right? Because deaths on motorcycles from not wearing a helmet is kindergarten stuff when compared to deaths due to cardiovascular disease.

Quote :: These kinds of statistics are what may make bike riding an off-road sport only and helmetless riders are not helping matters by any means.

If this is a problem for us - and I'm not sure I agree with that - it's because busybody statists (most of whom I suspect don't have optimal cardiovascular health) feel somehow or other entitled to tell other people how they should live their lives, while they munch their junk food and work on their first jammer sitting on their fat asses in front of a computer instead of getting out the bicycle or whatever.

The only thing that gets their heart rate up is the idea that somebody is out there riding without a helmet.

Admin

xcel wrote:: Hi Jager:

I will be one of those presumptuous jerks because if you pay dues to the AMA, they should be protecting you and me and fellow riders from ourselves, not deriding safety under the guise of freedom to ride.

I became an adult nearly 40 years ago. Apparently, you didn't if you need somebody to pass laws to protect you from yourself.

I don't need somebody telling me how to live my life in their attempts to wrap me in a bubble. When did the idea of people becoming responsible for their own actions, good and bad, get so scary and get thrown away? When did people become fearful of the idea of becoming adults, responsible for deciding their own choices as far as their own welfare is concerned?

Where do people like you finally say "enough"? When does it get to the point you find some kind of government intrusion unreasonable?

If laws that require me to wear a helmet are appropriate, why don't we have the same laws for motorists and children in cars? They don't need them because, although head injuries do kill car occupants, it isn't as many as motorcyclists, so some undetermined lesser number of deaths is acceptable in the interests of motorists' personal comfort?

Why don't we have laws to address the fact you may well be overweight? Or eat to much fatty foods? Or too much salt? Or you don't get enough exercise for your own good? I'll compare the number of people who die from cardiovascular disease against those who die from head injuries on a motorcycle any day.

In my view, if those who support helmet laws also don't support laws to address the fatties, the unfit, the smokers, to force them to make healthy choices - enforced by fines and other legal sanctions - then they're just hypocrites. A one trick pony.

We know what optimal body fat should be, optimal cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels (diabetes is becoming near epidemic, after all), cardiac recovery after exercise, etc. Now I'm in my mid 50's and I just finished my annual battle fitness test today; I jogged 13km with a 50 lb pack, a rifle in my hands, and steel helmet on my head in a bit over two hours. I'm not the speediest pup on the planet anymore, but it seems to me if I can stay that fit at my age, then the rest of the country should at least be fit enough they're not at risk of cardiovascular disease.

And I think we should protect YOU from YOU in how you look after your health. I'm concerned, Xcel, that you and the other nanny staters might not eat right, might not get enough aerobic exercise, and that you're overweight, cholesterol levels too high, blood sugar levels indicate you may be pre-diabetic, etc.

So I think we need a law to protect you from yourself.

So Xcel, whaddya say we write a law that says you go for a complete physical once a year? If you're outside healthy body fat levels, outside healthy cholesterol and trigyceride levels, blood sugar too high, cardiac markers in your blood, not fit, whaddya say we fine your ass to "protect you from yourself"?

Do you have a problem with that - or do you think you don't need your country telling you how to look after yourself and legally punishing you if you make bad lifestyle choices?

Quote :: You wear your gear every time out as do I because not doing so is a completely idiotic thing to do.

It isn't nearly as idiotic as not eating properly, not getting sufficient exercise, etc. And most people don't seem to think we need laws to address that idiocy.

How many times a week do you get a good cardiac workout, BTW, seeing as you're so concerned about people being protected from their idiocy?

Quote :: Why would anyone support an organization interested in protecting idiotic behavior unless they are forced too? Not me and I do completely understand ones freedoms.

Why would anyone support an organization with statist principles?

And no, you don't understand freedoms if you think part of the government's job is legislating whether I wear a helmet, whether I smoke, whether I like twinkies, etc. That does not begin to resemble freedom.

Quote :: Bike deaths are approaching 20% of all traffic fatalities yet make up less than .05% of vehicle miles traveled.

Chicken feed.

Cardiovascular disease is the number 1 cause of death in the US - 34% of all deaths to be exact. What's worse is the vast majority of these cases of cardiovascular disease were totally preventable by simply eating properly and getting sufficient exercise.

So again: surely if helmet laws are so appropriate, you're all for fining everyone who doesn't look after their cardiovascular health, right? Because deaths on motorcycles from not wearing a helmet is kindergarten stuff when compared to deaths due to cardiovascular disease.

Quote :: These kinds of statistics are what may make bike riding an off-road sport only and helmetless riders are not helping matters by any means.

If this is a problem for us - and I'm not sure I agree with that - it's because busybody statists (most of whom I suspect don't have optimal cardiovascular health) feel somehow or other entitled to tell other people how they should live their lives, while they munch their junk food and work on their first jammer sitting on their fat asses in front of a computer instead of getting out the bicycle or whatever.

The only thing that gets their heart rate up is the idea that somebody is out there riding without a helmet.

Admin

xcel wrote:: A family that lives 3-houses down the street from me lost their son about 6-years ago in a parking lot as he tried out his friends 125, fell over and hit his head on a curb at no more than 5-mph. A helmet and they would be grandparents today. Instead, they have a flag and memoriam setup in their front yard.

Ah yes... also known as the "think of the children" argument. When logic doesn't cut it, appeal to emotion, run out the "if it just saves one life" argument, etc.

What cool Ouiji Board to you have that allows you to say so factually his parents would have been grandparents, he wasn't sterile, etc? Or did you just throw that out there for dramatic effect?

Of course, he could have simply had a fall in the home, standing on a chair to change a bulb, fell down the stairs, tripped in the driveway after coming home after one too many, and also died.

After all, about 13,000 people a year die in the US from falls in the home. I'm pretty sure 13,000 motorcyclists don't die each year in accidents where it can be reasonably established they would have lived if they'd had a helmet.

Maybe we need a law to compel wearing a helmet from the time we wake up in the morning? Shouldn't we start out by legislating to minimize the most common causes of preventable death first?

Oh wait, that would inconvenience those who think it's perfectly fine to legislate healthy choices for motorcyclists, but not for them.

Hi Jäger :

Jäger wrote:: I became an adult nearly 40 years ago. Apparently, you didn't if you need somebody to pass laws to protect you from yourself.

Your age is definitely showing with that one Shog

Jäger wrote:: I don't need somebody telling me how to live my life in their attempts to wrap me in a bubble. When did the idea of people becoming responsible for their own actions, good and bad, get so scary and get thrown away? When did people become fearful of the idea of becoming adults, responsible for deciding their own choices as far as their own welfare is concerned?

This is not about you but is about supporting an organization that knows it is far safer to be equipped yet aggressively lobbies to have those protections removed. If you do want to make it about you, begin riding your WR in a t-shirt, jeans and flip-flops. After all, it is about personal freedoms and you may as well take it to the limit as any number of other diseases are going to take you out by age 75 on average.

Jäger wrote:: Why don't we have laws to address the fact you may well be overweight? Or eat to much fatty foods? Or too much salt? Or you don't get enough exercise for your own good? I'll compare the number of people who die from cardiovascular disease against those who die from head injuries on a motorcycle any day.

Those are being addressed in many of our schools today. Do you think we should stop this progress in terms of personal freedom?

Jäger wrote:: In my view, if those who support helmet laws also don't support laws to address the fatties, the unfit, the smokers, to force them to make healthy choices - enforced by fines and other legal sanctions - then they're just hypocrites. A one trick pony.

I am all for laws to address the fatties, the unfit, the smokers, to force them to make healthy choices but call me a hypocrite? It is called sin taxes in some cases and they are piling up. With that, is it safer to eat a bag of Doritos a day or head out without ones helmet on a little adventure tour? I think you can answer that one for yourself.

Jäger wrote:: And I think we should protect YOU from YOU in how you look after your health. I'm concerned, Xcel, that you and the other nanny staters might not eat right, might not get enough aerobic exercise, and that you're overweight, cholesterol levels too high, blood sugar levels indicate you may be pre-diabetic, etc.

You just made it personal? Tsk Tsk.

Jäger wrote:: So Xcel, whaddya say we write a law that says you go for a complete physical once a year? If you're outside healthy body fat levels, outside healthy cholesterol and trigyceride levels, blood sugar too high, cardiac markers in your blood, not fit, whaddya say we fine your ass to "protect you from yourself"?

I hope you get your annual workup done once a year as I do? Should we make it a law to protect you from yourself? Probably not but I can all but assure you riding w/out gear for 3-months will see you visit the E-Room for something. I have heard a stone bounce off my visor at least 3 times in the past month alone... Care to risk it or do you think heart disease will get you in that same 3-months time?

Jäger wrote:: It isn't nearly as idiotic as not eating properly, not getting sufficient exercise, etc. And most people don't seem to think we need laws to address that idiocy.

Ride without gear today or die at age 75 on average like the rest of us will do over the next few decades. The choice is pretty clear with this one.

Jäger wrote:: And no, you don't understand freedoms if you think part of the government's job is legislating whether I wear a helmet, whether I smoke, whether I like twinkies, etc. That does not begin to resemble freedom.

Throwing the ball back into your own court and I am afraid you do not understand your own rhetoric. The AMA is about riders just as your local workout place is about a healthy lifestyle... Would you care to join a workout location that promoted smoking and an unhealthy diet? Now maybe you see the connection? Or maybe not?

Jäger wrote:: Chicken feed... Cardiovascular disease is the number 1 cause of death in the US - 34% of all deaths to be exact. What's worse is the vast majority of these cases of cardiovascular disease were totally preventable by simply eating properly and getting sufficient exercise.

Chicken feed? And the average age before death of an American male is 75.x years even with 34% of us being taken out by cardiovascular disease. I cannot promise that the average American male would live to be 75.x years old while riding without a helmet but I know everyone else will live to be 75.x years old on average?

Jäger wrote:: So again: surely if helmet laws are so appropriate, you're all for fining everyone who doesn't look after their cardiovascular health, right? Because deaths on motorcycles from not wearing a helmet is kindergarten stuff when compared to deaths due to cardiovascular disease.

The odds to reach 75.x years old are a lot worse while riding a bike w/out a helmet.

Jäger wrote:: The only thing that gets their heart rate up is the idea that somebody is out there riding without a helmet.

I do not think my heart rate has crept up a single beat but apparently somebody else's has? And not at all... It is the fact the AMA, a motorcycle riding organization supports riding without a helmet knowing full well the consequences of such support. If you support the AMA's disregard for its members safety and longevity, so be it. I simply do not.

Wayne

Hi Jäger:

Jäger wrote:: Ah yes... also known as the "think of the children" argument. When logic doesn't cut it, appeal to emotion, run out the "if it just saves one life" argument, etc.

I am sorry but the young man died from an impact with a curb while falling off a motorcycle without a helmet. Pretty cut and dried.

Jäger wrote:: What cool Ouiji Board to you have that allows you to say so factually his parents would have been grandparents, he wasn't sterile, etc? Or did you just throw that out there for dramatic effect?

His younger brother just had a child which now makes them Grandparents. Sorry for making an assumption that he would have had children as well?

Jäger wrote:: Of course, he could have simply had a fall in the home, standing on a chair to change a bulb, fell down the stairs, tripped in the driveway after coming home after one too many, and also died.

After all, about 13,000 people a year die in the US from falls in the home. I'm pretty sure 13,000 motorcyclists don't die each year in accidents where it can be reasonably established they would have lived if they'd had a helmet.

With a population over 300,000,000, 13,000 people dying from falls in the home is a tragedy. I am not even going to guess as to the number of motorcyclists riding a given distance w/out a helmet over a given year’s period is as I do not have those available but riding a bike w/out a helmet is a far more risky endeavor.

Jäger wrote:: Oh wait, that would inconvenience those who think it's perfectly fine to legislate healthy choices for motorcyclists, but not for them.

I am not sure if you have children or ever will but when you take them for a ride, feel free to let them freely bounce around in the back seat. After all, child safety seats are an impingement on their personal freedoms as well as yours regardless of the laws that mandate them?

Taking this topic to the absurd cuts both ways…

As a somewhat OT add-on, I wrote this one up yesterday. If promting helmet use gets your dander up, you are going to love my mini-treatise on the following Very happy

Highway Safety - Just the Facts minus the Bull ****

Wayne

Does the association promote driving without an helmet or do they promote freedom of choice ?

Is the basis of this association the security of motorcycle drivers the rights of the motorcycle drivers ?

The whole point of the argument is the idea of protecting people from themselve through regulation or laws.

Since we live in democratic countries we should expect to have different opinions. Having a different opinions doesn't make good or bad people.

Where I live the health system is universal. The covergae for road accidents is mixed. All damages related to the people are paid by the state and the damages to material is covered through individual insurances. Being covered by an universal system has the advantage that everyone has the same coverage. The fact that you have more or less money doesn't influence on the amount that you'll be entitled to receive after an accident. This system stopped lawyers from making a lot of money on accidents. The other side of the coin is that it legitimates the governement to create laws to protect people from themselve. All one has to do is to regroup many people behind a virtuous idea and that makes enough pressure on the government to create laws that costs a lot in terms administration, enforcement and freedom of will. Here if someone has 1000cc super sport bike with 30 years of experience and no accident on record will pay more than a newbie with a custom bike of 1600cc and 30 accidents on record. It's like that following statistical records of accidents. Nobody can be against virtue eventhough everybody knows that it's only a concept when applied to a society.

That's the danger of starting to protect people from themselve. The game always leads to a statistics war that never ends.

There are already so many rules that we must follow that it becomes stressfull. there are so many that it becomes impossible to enforce evenly. When you can't enforce a rule it makes the whole system loose credibility.

Since the consequences of not wearing an helmet are to the one that didn't wear it, that's it's problem and he just has to die with it. I agree with security promotion not with legal enforcement.

» Safety Q
» Why riding gear works....
» Aside from the obvious safety issue...............
» Need Help- Failed MD Safety Inspection
» clutch safety switch problem