AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety…

Last edited by xcel on Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hi Dan:

From the OP, it appears to me that the AMA is promoting non-helmet use. Freedom to ride and keeping Government lands open for riding is one thing. Promoting the non-use of helmets is not something a motorcycle association should be promoting for the sake of their memberships future health and well being.

We as riders are an extreme minority on the streets and highways yet our fatality numbers are a large percentage of the overall roadway fatalities. If we do not clean up our own house, it will probably be cleaned up for us and the results may not be something as simple as wearing a helmet.

From the virulent responses so far, it appears each and every one of the responders are helmet wearing riders but want to see the freedom to choose to wear a helmet stay in force in those states where the Helmet laws have been repealed or not yet enacted.

On my side of the fence, one less death or brain injury due to wearing our gear is one more productive soul who will be with us until old age… By all appearances, the AMA would rather see the dues of the “Freedom to Choose” riders then those same riders live until old age. This is how I see the AMA today.

Good Luck

Wayne

Admin

xcel wrote:: Hi Jäger :

Your age is definitely showing with that one

Indeed. It's the mindset of an adult who doen't need somebody to tell me what I should and shouldn't do to protect my health. Or in your words "protecting me from myself". That's what we do for children, not for adults.

Quote :: 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.

Wrong again. This is about me. These laws infringe on my right to live my right as I see fit - including taking risks. If motorcyclists share your views that the AMA should join you and the rest of the nanny staters out there wanting the government to pass laws to "protect me from myself", I am sure they will leave the AMA en mass. It appears your opinion isn't widely held.

It's also my opinion that this kind of "protection" does nothing but reinforce stupidity. You don't have to think for yourself, the government will protect you, and if there ain't a law against it, then it must be okay. Live on greasy fast food - there isn't a law against it, after all.

Quote :: If you do want to make it about you, begin riding your WR in a t-shirt, jeans and flip-flops.

?????????

It appears you have no grasp of the concept of freedom, including the freedom of choice. Either that, or your next call is that the AMA lobby the government to pass laws requiring the wearing of approved jackets, pants, gloves, and boots.

What makes it about "me" is the fact I have freedom of choice to live my life as I see fit. The freedom to become a fat slob or not. The freedom to wear a helmet or not. The freedom to wear all the gear or not. I don't need a government mommy, egged on by nanny staters, substituting their judgement - and values - for mine.

Quote :: 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.

????????????????

This is a statement that makes the assumption that, if you are crazy enough to allow people the freedom to make their own lifestyle choices, they will always make poor choices.

Your grasp of statistics is badly flawed as well. Averages are not means, for starters. The statement also shows a lack of understanding that lumping all levels of morbidity together to come up with an average is no way of predicting the life span of an individual. That's why, when you apply for life insurance, they ask you about whether you smoke, have you go get a medical, family medical history, etc. My probable life span, given my eating, exercise, and lifestyle choices, is a lot greater than somebody who lives on fast food and whose only real exercise is pushing the magic button on their motorcycle - after putting on their helmet and adjusting the roll of fat hanging over their pants, of course. And that's why my insurance premiums are based on actuarial science assessing my risks as an individual, not an average nor even a mean.

Quote :

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?

Children are not adults. If schools choose not to offer soft drinks, chips, and candy in the schools where they are acting as guardians of children during the time they are there, that is a policy choice, and parents can choose how they respond to it. If they want to teach proper nutrition and exercise, that is certainly within their scope of purpose.

That is much different than passing laws that take away freedom of choice from adults, simply because some never got over the feeling they need a mommy to tell them what to do even though they're well past the age of majority.

Quote :

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.

People who are all for using government laws and police to FORCE people to make approved lifestyle choices scare the hell out of me.

If you aren't advocating fining and if necessary imprisoning the overweight, the unfit, the smokers while advocating those same penalties for motorcyclists who don't want to wear a helmet, then yes, you're a hypocrite. If you want the same kind of laws and penalties for these people as you support for motorcyclists, then you are not.

So which is it? Do we fine and if necessary imprison people whose body fat is outside of healthy norms, just as we will do in jurisdictions with helmet laws with people not wearing helmets? Easy question: yes or no?

A "sin tax" is not a legislative prohibition, backed up by fines and imprisonment, police and prisons. I would think the difference is obvious, including the language involved i.e. "offense" versus "tax". Those taxes are voluntary in that you only pay them if you so choose - helmet laws give no such choice. The "sin tax" I would be paying if I chose to not wear my helmet is the increased premium on my insurance.

Taxes, it should also be obvious to everyone who has been paying attention, do not force people to make healthy choices. If they did, we wouldn't have smokers. And more often than not, the tax is used simply for revenue purposes, not to directly address the cause or effect which some would argue it is intended to address.

Quote :: 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.

Lets include the three stops at a doughnut shop, the two Big Macs with fries, and the rest you gobbled down during that day. It appears you're suggesting that your intrepid biker only eats a bag of Doritos a day, while being the perfect picture of nutritional health the rest of the day. People don't live their life that way.

Again, the reality is that cardiovascular disease is the biggest cause of death in the US, 34% of all deaths annually. When 34% of motorcyclists who don't wear a helmet die as a result of not wearing a helmet - rather than from massive internal injuries or some other injury that would not be survivable with or without a helmet - then you can try your Doritos argument again.

Quote :

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.

It is personal in the way such helmet laws violate the freedom of personal choice, and you just figured it out when similar laws controlling other lifetyle choices are suggested? Tsk. Tsk. You don't have a problem with laws criminalizing not wearing a helmet because you claim such laws "aren't about you", and yet you have problems with somebody deciding to pass laws that will penalize you if you don't live a healthy lifestyle (for your own good, of course), because suddenly it becomes personal where it wasn't before.

You don't have problems with helmet laws because you always wear one anyways. If I was of the same mentality, I wouldn't care if they passed laws that would similarly criminalize and punish the overweight, the out of shape, unhealthy cholesterol and blood sugar levels, etc. After all, like always wearing helmets, I'm always pretty fit, I eat well and my blood work confirms it, etc. So those laws would take nothing away from me, no more than helmet laws take anything away from you. So if I believe in the idea that government's job is to protect you from yourself, why should I find any fault with laws enforcing health and fitness? And if you do lead a reasonably healthy lifestyle, then they won't affect you either, so what could possibly be wrong with such laws?

Quote :

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?

When did your doctor make you run 8 miles with a 50 lb pack in a little over two hours in boots with helmet and rifle to see how your strength and cardiac fitness measure up? And incidentally, the military DOES have regulations that enforce my personal health and fitness, and they aren't optional for me. The difference is, I accept those regulations as a matter of choice when joining the military and my desire to stay in the military.

I'm glad you get a checkup once a year. When does the fact you went for a physical indicate that you aren't overweight, your eating habits don't have your fats and blood sugar levels outside of healthy zones, etc? Does your doc run you through even a basic test like a three minute step test or shuttle run to check your cardiac health? Probably not, right?

You can visit your doctor for a checkup while 40 lbs overweight and getting no more exercise than pushing the magic button. The fact you go to the doctor once a year doesn't mean you're healthier than somebody who doesn't. You can also wear your gear and ride like an idiot - the fact you have the helmet and gear doesn't make you automatically safer than the guy who decides he isn't going to wear a helmet but rides defensively because he thinks everyone n a cage is out to kill him.

Quote :: 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.

Wait a minute. Now you're saying we probably shouldn't be making laws to protect you from yourself (thank you, that's my position). But at the same time you're criticizing the AMA for also saying we shouldn't be making nanny state laws to protect you from yourself.

And, in the last three months I haven't piled up or gone down, so if we had our motorcycle titles on the table in front of us in the form of a bet, you'd be walking home and I'd be looking for some guy to ride your bike back to my place.

Quote :: 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?

Once again, it's about the right to make a choice, rather than having nanny staters "protect you from yourself". And you can dice it up however you like, the fact remains that a motorcyclist is far more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than of injuries a helmet would have prevented.

Quote :

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.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Particularly when you consider that a national average is not a predictor of individual morbidity.

In fact, the guy who choose not to wear a helmet can point out that the national average age for morbidity that you're referring to applies to him as well. Rather large misstep in logic going on with that comment.

Is the guy who doesn't wear a helmet less likely to reach whatever magic age you prefer? Yes. Is the out of shape, overweight guy who rides with a helmet also less likely to reach whatever magic age you prefer? Yes. In fact, he's the guy who keeps that average age down where it is.

Quote :

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?

?????

You need to think back to your first university stats course - or at least read a little bit about actuarial science.

An average is pretty much meaningless to begin with (although it improves with the size of a sample population) because it can be badly skewed. Example: if Bill Gates moves to a mill town with a population of 1500, announcing that the average annual income in that town is $12 million a year gives a very skewed view. If we look at the mean income, then we go a long way towards eliminating those outliers. But actuarial science and how it uses statistics goes considerably beyond that as well.

In short, you can't promise somebody who chooses not to wear a helmet will never live to be 75, any more than you can promise the remainder who do will live to be 75 on average. In fact, if you think of how averages are calculated, neither is possible.

The bottom line remains this: cardiovascular disease kills far more Americans than not wearing helmets does. As a risk factor to health and life itself, it is far more dangerous and is almost entirely preventable through lifestyle choices. If there is a rational that justifies legal sanctions and penalties for those who choose the risks associated with not wearing a helmet, that same rational justifies applying the same legal sanctions and penalties to those who choose the risks associated with the lifestyle choices that cause cardiovascular disease.

Quote :

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.

And they're even worse if you make poor lifestyle choices regarding fitness and nutrition. That average number you keep quoting is where it is because of the 34% of Americans who are killed by preventable cardiovascular disease.

Quote :

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.

Hmmmm.... let me check.... nope, still 54 bpm. All good here. Dealing with irrational silliness, particularly of the hypocritical variety, is more of a hobby than a crusade. Sometimes it just happens to intersect with nanny state crusaders, that's all.

If you can find anywhere the AMA suggests riders should ride without a helmet, I'd appreciate it. It seems to me they're quite accurately pointing out that it is not the business of government to treat voters as children and pass legal sanctions that fine and imprison them if they don't make the best lifestyle choices.

In fact, stating that the AMA supports riding without a helmet is just a plain falsehood. Here is their position on the matter:

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program to help reduce injuries and fatalities in the event of a motorcycle crash, strongly encourages the use of personal protective equipment, including gloves, sturdy footwear and a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.

The AMA believes that adults should have the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet. The AMA does not oppose laws requiring helmets for minor motorcycle operators and passengers, believing that many young motorcyclists and/or their passengers may lack the maturity to make an informed decision regarding the use of motorcycle helmets.

"... the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet."

The AMA says they strongly encourage the use of a properly fitted and certified motorcycle helmet. Spinning that into a claim that the AMA supports riding without a helmet is nothing but deceptive spin.

It's - very clearly - about the right of adults to have freedom of choice, not about the AMA encouraging riders not to wear a helmet.

Freedom of choice. It means something.

Admin

xcel wrote:: Hi Dan:

From the OP, it appears to me that the AMA is promoting non-helmet use. Freedom to ride and keeping Government lands open for riding is one thing. Promoting the non-use of helmets is not something a motorcycle association should be promoting for the sake of their memberships future health and well being.

This is just plain, deceptive, flat out spin. Promoting the non-use of helmets? Not hardly:
The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program to help reduce injuries and fatalities in the event of a motorcycle crash, strongly encourages the use of personal protective equipment, including gloves, sturdy footwear and a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.

The AMA believes that adults should have the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet. The AMA does not oppose laws requiring helmets for minor motorcycle operators and passengers, believing that many young motorcyclists and/or their passengers may lack the maturity to make an informed decision regarding the use of motorcycle helmets.

It seems almost painfully clear that it is about adults having the right to freedom of choice. It also seems painfully clear that the AMA actually strongly encourages the use of proper helmets - not "promoting non-helmet use" as is being alleged.

The real problem we seem to have here is someone outraged the AMA isn't helping the government to limit the freedom of their members to make choices as adults. And because they refuse to assist in doing that, they're the bad guys.

It doesn't wash. And it's a statist, nanny state position that is at odds with personal freedom and the idea that we don't want government telling us how to live our lives. The fact that the position of the AMA has to be mis-stated in an attempt to influence people to get on side is evidence in itself why this position lacks any kind of ethical basis, much less the hypocrisy it entails.

Quote :: From the virulent responses so far, it appears each and every one of the responders are helmet wearing riders but want to see the freedom to choose to wear a helmet stay in force in those states where the Helmet laws have been repealed or not yet enacted.

"Virulent"???? In comparison to a crusade against the AMA, based on a blatant lie that the AMA is promoting non-helmet use? People, understandably, take exception to that kind of Goebbelesque propaganda exercise.

xcel wrote:: Hi Dan:

On my side of the fence, one less death or brain injury due to wearing our gear is one more productive soul who will be with us until old age… By all appearances, the AMA would rather see the dues of the “Freedom to Choose” riders then those same riders live until old age. This is how I see the AMA today.

Good Luck

Wayne

Hi Wayne,

I don't know exactly what the AMA did or not. What the AMA does should be in line with their mission not the one that some would like it to be. Usually these organisation take positions following what is decided by the members that participate. If the members don't go to the reunions when the decisions are made, the solution is not to alarm the non members but to be active in the organisation activities.

I agree that safety should be everyone concern. For me there is a large difference betwenn a concern and a responsibility. As a father I educate my children with all my knowledge. I try my best to help them learn how to think. I always tell them my opinions and what motivates them. I also tell them that it is important that they develop their own opinions based on their knowledge and goals.

The only way to keep our individuality is to preserve our liberty of thought and of action. That's this liberty that preserve the fittest and that eliminate those that can't fit. That being said without wanting to sound insensitive. To take your example, the one that die because he doesn't have the abilities to protect himself won't influence my children with his carelesness. It is sad to say but what happens to him might serve a lesson to others.

Don't forget, the best security we have can't be enabled by laws. It's in our own heads and it must be free to perform.

thumb

Admin

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

For those without a personal agenda and a crusade against those who won't play along, two things are pretty clear:

The AMA strongly encourages their members to wear not only helmets, but other protective gear as well.
The AMA believes that their members should have the right to make personal choices on whether they do wear that gear or not

Contrary to what is being claimed, they most certainly do not advocate or promote riders not using helmets.

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

It isn't the "statistics war" (although it is quite true that figures don't lie, but liars figure).

The danger is that the statists (or the philosophy of statists if you prefer) are engaged in an unending war on personal choice and freedom. Government knows best (although how many governments can manage their budget as well as the average homeowner?), so we must allow them to make rules to protect us from ourselves. A little snip of freedom here, a little grab of personal choice there, and it continues to add up.

Yes, they will buttress the necessity of "protecting you from yourself" with figures. But it isn't the figures, it is the hypocrisy and refusal to put those figures in context or in framework that allows comparative inspection. Put their figures into context, and their justification generally disappears.

It's why, when you ask the statists who approve of helmet laws, if they also support similarly criminalizing and punishing adults who aren't maintaining a healthy range of body fat, you find it's like trying to nail jello to a wall. Or they simply say it isn't the same. The only real question is what point they're willing to agree that the government shouldn't be that far into running your life.

For some of them, I don't think that point exists.

Quote :: 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.

The concept of personal responsibility is increasingly disappearing in this country. Many simply want to substitute government fiat instead

If I choose to ride without a helmet - or smoke, or run around with my gut hanging over my pants - that is my choice. But when I go looking for my health insurance and motorcycle insurance, it is perfectly legitimate for those insurance companies to ask their actuaries how much more I should be paying for my coverage than I would be if I didn't smoke or did wear a helmet.

Hi Jäger:

Jäger wrote:: Wrong again. This is about me. These laws infringe on my right to live my right as I see fit - including taking risks. If motorcyclists share your views that the AMA should join you and the rest of the nanny staters out there wanting the government to pass laws to "protect me from myself", I am sure they will leave the AMA en mass. It appears your opinion isn't widely held.

Do you not wear a helmet when you ride?

Jäger wrote:: It's also my opinion that this kind of "protection" does nothing but reinforce stupidity.

Wearing a helmet promotes stupidity?

Jäger wrote:: It appears you have no grasp of the concept of freedom, including the freedom of choice. Either that, or your next call is that the AMA lobby the government to pass laws requiring the wearing of approved jackets, pants, gloves, and boots.

I have a firm grasp and also one on what makes a safer rider and what does not. As explained multiple times, the AMA does not care about the safety of its members if it promotes not wearing a helmet. Look at the OP for more detail.

Jäger wrote:: What makes it about "me" is the fact I have freedom of choice to live my life as I see fit. The freedom to become a fat slob or not. The freedom to wear a helmet or not. The freedom to wear all the gear or not. I don't need a government mommy, egged on by nanny staters, substituting their judgement - and values - for mine.

Are you one of those riders that wear your gear or not? Next question would be is it smart for you to wear your gear or not? After that, should a motorcycle association promote not wearing gear as the original rulings clearly showed.

Jäger wrote:: Your grasp of statistics is badly flawed as well. Averages are not means, for starters. The statement also shows a lack of understanding that lumping all levels of morbidity together to come up with an average is no way of predicting the life span of an individual. That's why, when you apply for life insurance, they ask you about whether you smoke, have you go get a medical, family medical history, etc. My probable life span, given my eating, exercise, and lifestyle choices, is a lot greater than somebody who lives on fast food and whose only real exercise is pushing the magic button on their motorcycle - after putting on their helmet and adjusting the roll of fat hanging over their pants, of course. And that's why my insurance premiums are based on actuarial science assessing my risks as an individual, not an average nor even a mean.

And here you tried to equate the average American lifestyle with non-helmet use as a choice? The statistics are quite clear. Do not wear a helmet and your chance of survival in a get off are no where near what they are with. Have you ever read the Hurt report? I would suggest you begin there and you can play statistics with helmeted and non-helmeted riders vs. the average male in the US living until the age of 75 including those with and without heart disease. The two are apples and oranges...

Jäger wrote:: Children are not adults. If schools choose not to offer soft drinks, chips, and candy in the schools where they are acting as guardians of children during the time they are there, that is a policy choice, and parents can choose how they respond to it. If they want to teach proper nutrition and exercise, that is certainly within their scope of purpose.

Yet taxes on a pack of smokes and DUI laws have cut back on those two activities for the betterment of those that partake in such activities. Both are generally directed at adults. As are DOT certs for trucks, cars and bikes.

Jäger wrote:: That is much different than passing laws that take away freedom of choice from adults, simply because some never got over the feeling they need a mommy to tell them what to do even though they're well past the age of majority.

If you need mommy to tell you that riding w/out a helmet or promoting riding without one is anything but a bad thing, then I do not have an answer for you.

Jäger wrote:: People who are all for using government laws and police to FORCE people to make approved lifestyle choices scare the hell out of me... If you aren't advocating fining and if necessary imprisoning the overweight, the unfit, the smokers while advocating those same penalties for motorcyclists who don't want to wear a helmet, then yes, you're a hypocrite. If you want the same kind of laws and penalties for these people as you support for motorcyclists, then you are not....
So which is it? Do we fine and if necessary imprison people whose body fat is outside of healthy norms, just as we will do in jurisdictions with helmet laws with people not wearing helmets? Easy question: yes or no?

Then why did you bring up the lifestyle eating choice discussion? Now you are scaring the hell out of me.

Jäger wrote:: A "sin tax" is not a legislative prohibition, backed up by fines and imprisonment, police and prisons. I would think the difference is obvious, including the language involved i.e. "offense" versus "tax". Those taxes are voluntary in that you only pay them if you so choose - helmet laws give no such choice. The "sin tax" I would be paying if I chose to not wear my helmet is the increased premium on my insurance.

Helmets in much of the country are all about choice. Ride without and chances are you will die suddenly in an accident. Ride with and chances are you will walk away to live in order to die of the diseases you are so accustomed to tell us about by the time we reach 75 years of age on average.

Jäger wrote:: Lets include the three stops at a doughnut shop, the two Big Macs with fries, and the rest you gobbled down during that day. It appears you're suggesting that your intrepid biker only eats a bag of Doritos a day, while being the perfect picture of nutritional health the rest of the day. People don't live their life that way... Again, the reality is that cardiovascular disease is the biggest cause of death in the US, 34% of all deaths annually. When 34% of motorcyclists who don't wear a helmet die as a result of not wearing a helmet - rather than from massive internal injuries or some other injury that would not be survivable with or without a helmet - then you can try your Doritos argument again.

You brought up the healthy or unhealthy eating habits. I countered that even with those choices, the average male lives to be 75 years of age. This is pretty simple. Helmets save lives. If you do not believe they do, that is your choice but the statistics overwhelmingly support helmet use is the best thing one can do while riding a bike.

Jäger wrote:: It is personal in the way such helmet laws violate the freedom of personal choice, and you just figured it out when similar laws controlling other lifestyle choices are suggested? Tsk. Tsk. You don't have a problem with laws criminalizing not wearing a helmet because you claim such laws "aren't about you", and yet you have problems with somebody deciding to pass laws that will penalize you if you don't live a healthy lifestyle (for your own good, of course), because suddenly it becomes personal where it wasn't before... You don't have problems with helmet laws because you always wear one anyways. If I was of the same mentality, I wouldn't care if they passed laws that would similarly criminalize and punish the overweight, the out of shape, unhealthy cholesterol and blood sugar levels, etc. After all, like always wearing helmets, I'm always pretty fit, I eat well and my blood work confirms it, etc. So those laws would take nothing away from me, no more than helmet laws take anything away from you. So if I believe in the idea that government's job is to protect you from yourself, why should I find any fault with laws enforcing health and fitness? And if you do lead a reasonably healthy lifestyle, then they won't affect you either, so what could possibly be wrong with such laws?

Once again, equating eating habits and helmet use. One is deadly right now; the other... Two completely different things...

Jäger wrote:: When did your doctor make you run 8 miles with a 50 lb pack in a little over two hours in boots with helmet and rifle to see how your strength and cardiac fitness measure up? And incidentally, the military DOES have regulations that enforce my personal health and fitness, and they aren't optional for me. The difference is, I accept those regulations as a matter of choice when joining the military and my desire to stay in the military.

Since you do not follow CleanMPG much, I have written up a number of stories on how the military is also enforcing its "employees" that ride to wear helmets and take extra bike training. Does that mean it sucks to be you becasue your choices and lifestyle are hampered?

Jäger wrote:: I'm glad you get a checkup once a year. When does the fact you went for a physical indicate that you aren't overweight, your eating habits don't have your fats and blood sugar levels outside of healthy zones, etc? Does your doc run you through even a basic test like a three minute step test or shuttle run to check your cardiac health?

6-1” and 215 pounds… At the age of 47, you bet I am over weight. And with the BP better than most teenagers to show for it. I did however wear my helmet when I got hit by the Pronghorn last week. Without it, I would not be a able to type this diatribe in defense of wearing a helmet which seems like such a simple thing for a rider to understand?

Jäger wrote:: And, in the last three months I haven't piled up or gone down, so if we had our motorcycle titles on the table in front of us in the form of a bet, you'd be walking home and I'd be looking for some guy to ride your bike back to my place.

My last big drop was back in 1986 when I was hit by a drunk 14-year old in a station wagon while I was on a Hurricane 600 at < 35 mph. Before that, a broken leg when run over by two Honda 350’s while fully geared on a Yamaha 60 back in 1969. Were you even born during those last two events???

Jäger wrote:: That makes no sense whatsoever. Particularly when you consider that a national average is not a predictor of individual morbidity.

Riding without a helmet is not a predictor or ones individual morbidity or the fact that the average lifespan of a male in the US is 75.x years of age?

Jäger wrote:: In fact, the guy who choose not to wear a helmet can point out that the national average age for morbidity that you're referring to applies to him as well. Rather large misstep in logic going on with that comment.

If you really believe that, maybe you spent entirely too much $'s on a helmet?

Jäger wrote:: You need to think back to your first university stats course - or at least read a little bit about actuarial science.

Helmet use saves lives. Promotion of not wearing a helmet does not. Cardiovascular disease kills 34% of all adults in the US.

Jäger wrote:: In short, you can't promise somebody who chooses not to wear a helmet will never live to be 75, any more than you can promise the remainder who do will live to be 75 on average. In fact, if you think of how averages are calculated, neither is possible.

I can promise that someone wearing a helmet that goes down stands a far better chance of walking away then being a vegetable or in the morgue. The facts are overwhelming and because you do not believe them do not make it any less of a fact.

Jäger wrote:: The bottom line remains this: cardiovascular disease kills far more Americans than not wearing helmets does. As a risk factor to health and life itself, it is far more dangerous and is almost entirely preventable through lifestyle choices. If there is a rational that justifies legal sanctions and penalties for those who choose the risks associated with not wearing a helmet, that same rational justifies applying the same legal sanctions and penalties to those who choose the risks associated with the lifestyle choices that cause cardiovascular disease.

Because your population is 300 + million people vs. the small number of motorcycle riders. Even you should know better than to compare a population of the entire US to a much smaller population of those that ride with and those that ride without helmets let alone life expectancy with cardiovascular disease compared to a helmetless rider to one that is fully geared. The small number of VMT's vs. the percentage of fataltiies should have woke you up to the facts.

Jäger wrote:: Dealing with irrational silliness, particularly of the hypocritical variety, is more of a hobby than a crusade. Sometimes it just happens to intersect with nanny state crusaders, that's all.

Do you really hate the military nanny state telling you what to do including possibly some of the bike riding gear requirements for you to set foot on a base? Coming from the military and arguing for lifestyle choice is a stretch. I thank you for what you do but I do not envy your choice and for the rules that you must adhere to. Are you still limited to how long your hair can grow as just one example of the military lifestyle?

While I do not know if the entire military or if your unit is under the same constraint, it appears some of the Air Force has a rather strict guideline regarding bikers riding gear and it is so appropriate for the discussion at hand:

MacDill AFB adheres to the rules in AFI 91-207.

3.4.2.4. Personal Protection Equipment:

3.4.2.4.1. Head Protection. A helmet designed to meet or exceed Department of Transportation (DOT) standards, shall be worn and properly fastened under the chin. Host nation equivalent is acceptable if it meets or exceeds the DOT standard. Commanders may authorize use of tactical helmets in appropriate off-road training or operating environments after completing an ORM evaluation.

3.4.2.4.1. (AMC) Head Protection. To increase visibility, motorcyclists are encouraged to affix reflective material to their helmets.

3.4.2.4.2. Eye Protection. Goggles, wrap around glasses, or a full-face shield (properly attached to helmet) designed to meet or exceed American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z87.1 for impact and shatter resistance will be worn. A windshield does not constitute proper eye protection. Host nation equivalent is acceptable if it meets or exceeds ANSI Standard Z87.1 for impact and shatter resistance.

3.4.2.4.3. Protective Clothing. Wear of long sleeved shirt or jacket, long trousers, and full-fingered gloves are required. Gloves should be sturdy, non-slip type to permit a firm grip on the controls. Wear of a motorcycle jacket and pants constructed of abrasion resistant materials such as leather, Kevlar, and/or Cordura containing impact absorbing padding are strongly encouraged.

3.4.2.4.4. Foot Protection. Riders will wear sturdy over the ankle footwear that affords protection for the feet and ankles (durable athletic shoes that cover the ankles may be worn). Sandals, low quarter sneakers, and similar footwear will not be used.

3.4.2.4.5. Garment and Motorcycle Visibility. Motorcycle riders will wear a brightly colored outer upper garment during the day and a reflective upper garment during the night. Outer upper garment shall be visible and not covered. Wearing a backpack is authorized if it has
brightly colored/reflective properties.

3.4.2.4.5. (AMC) Garment and Motorcycle Visibility. The following fluorescent colors are some examples of colors considered sufficiently vivid in color/reflectivity to ensure increased visibility from a distance: bright red, yellow, lime yellow, orange, or lime green. Note: Outer garments consisting of fluorescent colors with reflective panels (including motorcycle riding leathers with contrasting panels) are acceptable as an upper body garment. Note: Battle dress uniforms (woodland or desert), Airmen battle uniform, service uniform combination, and flight suits are not considered brightly colored.

You can read more in the following: Have military safety requirements been lowered?

If you can, Please tell us what your base requirements for motorcyclists are.

Jäger wrote:: If you can find anywhere the AMA suggests riders should ride without a helmet, I'd appreciate it. It seems to me they're quite accurately pointing out that it is not the business of government to treat voters as children and pass legal sanctions that fine and imprison them if they don't make the best lifestyle choices… In fact, stating that the AMA supports riding without a helmet is just a plain falsehood…

“... the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet."

The AMA says they strongly encourage the use of a properly fitted and certified motorcycle helmet. Spinning that into a claim that the AMA supports riding without a helmet is nothing but deceptive spin.

In the legal ruling, read the OP.

Jäger wrote:: If I choose to ride without a helmet - or smoke, or run around with my gut hanging over my pants - that is my choice. But when I go looking for my health insurance and motorcycle insurance, it is perfectly legitimate for those insurance companies to ask their actuaries how much more I should be paying for my coverage than I would be if I didn't smoke or did wear a helmet.

Are you in the military and if so, which of the above do you have the choice of doing or not?

Here is just a sampling of stories for you to read at your leisure with tens more available by request. Hopefully you will become accustomed to safer riding practices including gear and I hope that you will incorporate some of this into your daily routine if you do not already.

Rider training film to save young Marine's lives

“Quick Tips” urges Motorcyclists to assess their capabilities before deciding to ride

Motorcycle Safety Foundation awarded contract for California Safety Program

Helmet? We don't need no stinkin' Helmet!

Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2009

Ducati Riding Experience promotes safety through training and gear

Aging Motorcyclists hit the road, but at greater risk of injury and death

GEICO and Tour Motorcycle Riders Reminders for Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month – Keep the Rubber Side Down

Increasing Number of Motorcyclists Require Increased Attention to Rider Training

Wayne

Admin

xcel wrote:: Do you not wear a helmet when you ride?

I exercise the FREEDOM OF CHOICE the AMA is working for in other jurisdictions.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: It's also my opinion that this kind of "protection" does nothing but reinforce stupidity.

Wearing a helmet promotes stupidity?

Having the government increasingly substituting their opinions - backed by legal sanctions - of what are and aren't good choices promotes stupidity. And it's why we're increasingly becoming a country of stupid people who always find something or somebody else at fault for their misfortune, never their own choices. The responsibility to protect them from themselves was somebody else's job; they're a victim, it wasn't their fault.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: It appears you have no grasp of the concept of freedom, including the freedom of choice. Either that, or your next call is that the AMA lobby the government to pass laws requiring the wearing of approved jackets, pants, gloves, and boots.

I have a firm grasp and also one on what makes a safer rider and what does not. As explained multiple times, the AMA does not care about the safety of its members if it promotes not wearing a helmet. Look at the OP for more detail.

I don't need to repeatedly read a pack of lies to know it's crap. All I have to do is look at the AMA's position statement on this issue. They strongly encourage their members to wear proper, approved gear, including a properly fitted helmet. And they also believe their members have the right to the freedom of choice to wear that gear. While the fact they won't crawl into bed with the nanny state types to help them remove their freedom of choice obviously offends some of the statists out there, I don't see anything contradictory in either of those positions and how they serve their members.

Calling that "promoting not wearing a helmet" is simply a bald faced lie at worst, Goebbelesque spin at best. And it occurs to me if the cause is so just, why they have to lie to advance the cause.

Furthermore, anyone who advocates for government forcing people into lifestyle choices at the point of a cop and a jail might think they understand freedom, but it certainly isn't the kind of freedom free men enjoy.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: What makes it about "me" is the fact I have freedom of choice to live my life as I see fit. The freedom to become a fat slob or not. The freedom to wear a helmet or not. The freedom to wear all the gear or not. I don't need a government mommy, egged on by nanny staters, substituting their judgement - and values - for mine.

Are you one of those riders that wear your gear or not? Next question would be is it smart for you to wear your gear or not? After that, should a motorcycle association promote not wearing gear as the original rulings clearly showed.

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program to help reduce injuries and fatalities in the event of a motorcycle crash, strongly encourages the use of personal protective equipment, including gloves, sturdy footwear and a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.

Yeah, that position statement clearly shows the AMA is promoting not wearing gear.

When the cause is so just, why do they have to lie to support it?

The gear I wear, I wear by FREEDOM OF CHOICE. The fact it happens to coincide what the statists want enforced with cops and jails does not make using the power of government to force those lifestyle choices legitimate. If it did, the fact that I get about 12 hours of aerobic exercise a week, have a body fat of around 15%, and have fat and blood sugar levels in the ideal zone would legitimize passing laws to make you meet that same level of nutritional and physical fitness. And enforcing them with cops and jails, of course.

Quote :: And here you tried to equate the average American lifestyle with non-helmet use as a choice? The statistics are quite clear.

No. I'm pointing out that you either have no idea of how actuaries assess risk, or you are being deliberately deceptive.

You are right that the statistics are quite clear, however. Statistically, you are much more likely to die from cardiovascular disease due to poor lifestyle choices than you are to die on a motorcycle due to choosing to not wear a helmet.

The enormous difference is that this country is full of hypocrites who will support and shill for helmet laws, but wouldn't support similar laws and legal sanctions for people whose lifestyle choices put them at much greater risk of death due to cardiovascular disease. They want a nanny state - but a nanny state whose laws don't deal with their less than ideal lifestyle choices.

Quote :: I would suggest you begin there and you can play statistics with helmeted and non-helmeted riders vs. the average male in the US living until the age of 75 including those with and without heart disease. The two are apples and oranges...

It increasingly appears that you don't even understand how an average is obtained. It includes all members of the sample population. And that not only includes those with cardiovascular disease, but those who don't wear helmets as well.

The fact remains that 34% of Americans will die of cardiovascular disease. That includes motorcyclists, whether they wear a helmet or not. Within the motorcycle fraternity, nowhere near 34% of those who don't wear helmets will die in a motorcycle accident, much less an accident where their life would have been saved if they had a helmet on.

There's a well known saying among statisticians that figures don't lie, but liars figure. You can try and chop up and cherry pick figures all you want, but the fact remains that poor lifestyle choices leading to a risk of dying of cardiovascular disease is a much greater killer of Americans than poor lifestyle choices about whether to wear a helmet or not. And if you can justify using police and jails to enforce good lifestyle choices for helmets, you're even more justified to use those same police and jails to enforce good lifestyle choices in the areas of nutrition and exercise.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: Children are not adults. If schools choose not to offer soft drinks, chips, and candy in the schools where they are acting as guardians of children during the time they are there, that is a policy choice, and parents can choose how they respond to it. If they want to teach proper nutrition and exercise, that is certainly within their scope of purpose.

Yet taxes on a pack of smokes and DUI laws have cut back on those two activities for the betterment of those that partake in such activities.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what the hell do DUI laws have to do with either children or your "sin tax" comments?

And once again, children have nothing to do with adults having freedom of choice, no more than taxes on goods voluntarily purchased bear any resemblance to helmet laws enforced with police, courts, and prisons.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: That is much different than passing laws that take away freedom of choice from adults, simply because some never got over the feeling they need a mommy to tell them what to do even though they're well past the age of majority.

If you need mommy to tell you that riding w/out a helmet or promoting riding without one is anything but a bad thing, then I do not have an answer for you.

I'm not the one who needs the government to act as a substitute mommy to "protect me from myself". You were the one who put that reason forward. I'll make my own choices as long as I possibly can without a bunch of statists empowering the government to do that for me, thanks.

Quote :: Then why did you bring up the lifestyle eating choice discussion? Now you are scaring the hell out of me.

Let's try this one more time.

You support government enforcing good lifestyle choices with respect to helmet use with laws, cops, courts and jails.

Do you support government enforcing good liefstyle choices with respect to nutrition with laws, cops, courts and jails for the overweight? No more and no less than they do to enforce your helmet laws?

It's really a very simple question, although you've avoided answering it so far. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Quote :: Helmets in much of the country are all about choice. Ride without and chances are you will die suddenly in an accident. Ride with and chances are you will walk away to live in order to die of the diseases you are so accustomed to tell us about by the time we reach 75 years of age on average.

You really and truly don't understand that the average age you keep mentioning also includes all the motorcyclists who don't wear helmets, do you????

It's not that difficult, really.

You can line three people up. A triathlete, a fat chain smoking motorcylist with a helmet on, and another motorcyclist who doesn't wear a helmet. Each can say with absolute accuracy that they are part of the sample population that lives on an average to 75 years of age.

The insurance company is going to see it a little differently, and of the three, the fat chain smoking motorcyclist is going to be paying more for his life insurance than the other two. Because the insurance company knows from actuarial science that he presents the greatest risk of becoming an insurance claim.

Quote :: You brought up the healthy or unhealthy eating habits.

Yes I did. And you obviously aren't willing to stick your neck out and say if you'd use the same legal sanctions against those who would make unhealthy lifestyle choices with respect to diet and exercise as you advocate for helmets.

Quote :: I countered that even with those choices, the average male lives to be 75 years of age.

Can you enlighten us all by pointing out to us where in the US Census they decided to exclude motorcyclists who don't wear helmets when they figured out the lifespan of the average male in the US?

Do you not understand that figure you keep throwing around also includes motorcyclists, with and without helmets?

Quote :: This is pretty simple. Helmets save lives. If you do not believe they do, that is your choice but the statistics overwhelmingly support helmet use is the best thing one can do while riding a bike.

This is also pretty simple. 34% of Americans will die of preventable cardiovascular disease due to poor lifestyle choices. That makes those poor lifestyle choices considerably more lethal than choosing not to wear a helmet.

So the issue comes down to this. If there is justification in enforcing lifestyle choices regarding helmets with cops, courts, and jails, why isn't it even more justified and more imperative to start enforcing nutritional and fitness choices with those same cops, courts, and jails?

The only answer I can come up with is "Hypocrisy".

Quote :: Once again, equating eating habits and helmet use. One is deadly right now; the other... Two completely different things...

Oh jeez... I didn't realize a jammer and dropping dead at the kitchen table in front of the wife and kiddies was less dead then dying from a brain injury at the side of the road. Silly me.

Sounds like the dithering of a hypocrite who can't quite bring himself to say, no, he doesn't want laws that fine him if his annual checkup shows that his body weight is outside normal ranges, his cholesterol is too high, and his blood sugar readings are pre-diabetic.

Quote :: Since you do not follow CleanMPG much, I have written up a number of stories on how the military is also enforcing its "employees" that ride to wear helmets and take extra bike training. Does that mean it sucks to be you becasue your choices and lifestyle are hampered?

You're predictable in your failure to understand freedom.

I am not forced to join the military. Nor am I forced to stay in the military. I join by choice, I stay by choice. If I don't like the extra regulations regarding haircuts, polished footwear, wearing a vest while riding on a base - whatever - I have the freedom of choice to go find another employer who doesn't care how I wear my hair or how I ride my bike. It is another CHOICE.

Helmet laws give no such choice. Wear a helmet or get fined, court, and if you persist, jail.

Quote :: 6-1” and 215 pounds… At the age of 47, you bet I am over weight.

Well, that explains why you wouldn't like the same kind of laws applying to fat people to protect them from themselves that you like to see applied to riders who won't wear helmets to protect them from themselves.

Quote :: My last big drop was back in 1986 when I was hit by a drunk 14-year old in a station wagon while I was on a Hurricane 600 at < 35 mph. Before that, a broken leg when run over by two Honda 350’s while fully geared on a Yamaha 60 back in 1969. Were you even born during those last two events???

As a matter of fact, I'm about chronologically eight years older than you, kid. Which means I was riding motorcycles before you even had your first bicycle. More importantly, I'm old enough that I don't need the government enforcing my lifestyle choices with cops and courts as you said we need to "protect us from ourselves".

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: In fact, the guy who choose not to wear a helmet can point out that the national average age for morbidity that you're referring to applies to him as well. Rather large misstep in logic going on with that comment.

If you really believe that, maybe you spent entirely too much $'s on a helmet?

Your grasp of even the most basic statistical analysis is so flawed you really shouldn't be discussing statistics in relation to anything.

Once again, an average is calculated on ALL members of the sample set. And as a result, the average you get applies to all members of the sample set used to calculate that average. Every one can say the average lifespan of their group is x years. Whether or not they wear a helmet, whether or not they are obese. It's why insurance rates are different for different men, even though they all have the same average predicted lifespan. Why do you have such a problem understanding how averaging works?

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: You need to think back to your first university stats course - or at least read a little bit about actuarial science.

Helmet use saves lives. Promotion of not wearing a helmet does not.

Joseph Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. You appear to have adopted that philosophy in your crusade against the AMA. Rather than having you misrepresenting them, I suppose their position statement on helmet use bears repeating again:
The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program to help reduce injuries and fatalities in the event of a motorcycle crash, strongly encourages the use of personal protective equipment, including gloves, sturdy footwear and a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.

You have to be pretty warped to interpret that as promoting not wearing helmets to their members.

Quote :

Jäger wrote:: Dealing with irrational silliness, particularly of the hypocritical variety, is more of a hobby than a crusade. Sometimes it just happens to intersect with nanny state crusaders, that's all.

Do you really hate the military nanny state telling you what to do including possibly some of the bike riding gear requirements for you to set foot on a base? Coming from the military and arguing for lifestyle choice is a stretch. I thank you for what you do but I do not envy your choice and for the rules that you must adhere to. Are you still limited to how long your hair can grow as just one example of the military lifestyle?

This is apparently news to you, but we don't have a draft.

Which means I joined the military by choice. Which means I remain in the military by choice. If I don't like cutting my hair, I can choose another employer. I can't simply change employers if I don't like helmet laws, or any other government nanny state rules that leave me no choice to opt out.

But you're right. You wouldn't like the military. Because if you were here, we also have rules that would have me or somebody like me running you around until we'd ran all the lard off your ass and you weren't at risk of becoming a cardiovascular statistic.

You see, one thing about the military is they're consistent with enforcing good lifestyle choices. Yes, they enforce driving and riding safe practices. But they also enforce diet and exercise practices. I don't have a problem with a consistent approach like that. I have a problem with the hypocrites outside the military who pick and choose what they want to see enforced with cops and courts.

Quote :: Here is just a sampling of stories for you to read at your leisure with tens more available by request.

No thanks, I've had enough statist garbage from nanny staters for a while. The issue isn't whether wearing a helmet is safer or not; I certainly haven't argued that you are safer without a helmet. The issue is whether we decide to have government edicts replacing our freedom of choice. Which includes the freedom to make bad choices as well as good choices. I don't want people like you controlling the choices I make through government intervention, any more than you want people like me standing over you every day and forcing you to run your ass off because you're fat. Let me make my lifestyle choices as I see fit, and I don't have any problem with you making your lifestyle choices as you see fit. Coercing people to be healthy through cops and courts is simply wrong.

The only question remaining is whether you would want to see healthy lifestyle choices enforced for nutrition and physical fitness to protect you from yourself in exactly the same manner that you want to see helmet laws enforcing that lifestyle choice.

So Wayne, should we have laws that would have you fined for being fat to encourage you to make good eating and exercise lifestyle choices or not?

It is not science but people I see dying around me are of every style.

I wouldn't say they are liar but at least they omit some facts. The progression of what causes death amoung people is increasing each day.

Since Jager is a military he is able to see that the militaries don't live longer than civilians. Beside what I can say is that if you have enough money to pay it, medicaments will lead you to die very old even if your lifestyle wasn't that good. I guess the 75 of life expectancy would be much lower if we would exclude people not able to take care of themselve or to survive only with the help of their family.

I don't know if it is the main reason but the weight of the society in one's life becomes a stress that doesn't promote a long life. Activities with a certain amount of risk are becoming popular because the make people feel alive. Living like our society promotes it represents a uniform line of living depleted of any excitement.

I am convinced that a motorcycle driver that likes and knows how to control his bike willl live longer without an helmet than one that just want to show off on a motorcycle with an helmet. The stats around the helmet don't consider all the circumstances of the accidents. It is impossible to do since once the principal witness is dead, there is no way to know exactly what happened.

The equation is simple, the more responsibilities you give to government the less freedoom you have. It is still the population choice.

Some prefer that, believing that less people will die. I live in Quebec where the social net is pretty wall to wall and the life expectancy of the people in our province is not higher than elsewhere.

Hi Jager:

Earlier you called me a hypocrite (let alone the dumb @$$ “I grew up 40-years ago” diatribe) regarding helmet use and the AMA’s freedom of choice stance. And to find out you work for the military with laws “possibly” requiring helmets use let alone how long your hair can be, how a recruit is supposed to make his or her bed and what time you will have breakfast?

When I was 25, I used to run marathons so please hold your "lard ass" comments to yourself. To this day I probably have a lower BP then you do and at almost 48, that is saying something? This is the third time you have called me something other than my name. A mod on my site would have been shown the door for loosing his cool long ago... You have a problem and I would hate to see you in a time of war as a gun is the last thing you need in your hand if you have that little control over your fingers on the keyboard.

Next you equated heart disease to riders not wearing a helmet.

Should I have the baked potato w/ butter or ride without a helmet today?

Save the rhetoric for those that could care less if they have a brain injury or worse in their next motorcycle accident.

If the AMA is about motorcyclists, then it should be protecting motorcyclists vs. freedom to choose at its member’s expense and well being. Not wearing a helmet while riding is far more dangerous then riding with one. Promoting helmetless riding through “freedom to ride” is a very dangerous precedent.

The local health club is surely not promoting smoking and drinking yet your local motorcycle association is promoting helmetless riding. All the directives initiated within the AMA itself do not remove the fact it supports helmetless riding under the guise “Freedom to choose”.

If your state allows riding without a helmet and you do so, that is your choice. I personally would never support a motorcycle organization that promotes not wearing a helmet while riding under ANY circumstances.

“There are two types of motorcycle riders; those that have gone down, and those that are about to.”

It sounds like you have never been involved in a hard get off. If so, I pray that you never will. At the same time, the odds are high that you will and thus the need for a helmet each and every time you ride. I hope you do but at least the military organization you work for has the presence of mind to force you to do so for yours and their best interest.

AMA Stance

AMA Seeks Clarification by NHTSA Administrator Regarding Helmet Use Comments

Instead of helmet use which saves lives immediately, the AMA urges that you instead write to the NTSA and ask that they identify measures to prevent crashes from occurring.

What “nanny state” action is being proposed? How do you shrug the responsibility of helmet use to the rest of society with more laws or actions directed at the road and the vehicles we share the road with? Will the roads be safer in the future due to new technology and infrastructure upgrades? You bet.

Just one example: AutoLiv – A Company Engaged in Making Everyone a Safer and Far More Aware Driver

What can the average rider do today to improve his or her chances for not only a wonderful ride on his or her WR, KLX, CRF or any other number of bikes while also improving their chance for a long and fruitful life? Wear the helmet.

When the AMA demands that there members where a helmet each and every time they swing a leg over the bike, then they are speaking for their members safety. IIRC, AMA Sanctioned race events require riders wear "ATGATT". With almost 20% of all fatalities and just .04% of the Vehicle Miles Traveled, we are at too great a risk not to wear a helmet... EVER!

Dan, are their helmet laws in Quebec and the surrounding provinces?

Wayne

Wayne,

Yes there are helmet laws . In Canada everyone has to wear an helmet when driving a motorcycle. Here in Quebec we are close to have a law forcing the helmet for bicyle riders. The diferences between provinces is in the insurance coverage and some bylaws. As an example in Quebec we have a law that forces all motor vehicules to have approved winter tires between December 15 and March 15. As a consequence I can't use my motorcycle by a sunny day in February when the road is dry but I can at the end of March during a snow storm. What is funny is that there weren't any alarming stats concerning motorcycle accidents in winter time.

I'm not the one to argue that in specific circumstances the helmet will save lives, I'm convinced it does. I'm also convinced that if someone is not brigth enough to protect itself with an helmet, he will find another way to kill himself. I would compare wearing an helmet with wearing a condom. Although many people died of aids, there is no one that thought about making a law forcing the wear of a condom. I guess that it would be difficult to enforce such a law but then there are some places where there are laws as difficult to enforce.

What is also coming is a law about the noise. There are many motorcycle owner that exercise their frredoom to ride motorcycle that are heard loudly by everyone. Many will associate this with HD owners but they are missing all the thumpers that rides in the trails that go near some homes or places where people go to have some silence and privacy. This is an area where I agree that freedoom must be limited since the consequences are supported by people that didn't make the choice.

It's not a debate that will be solved by insults and bad taste appreciation of the intents of people. We live in a society where freedoom of thought also exists. Hatred is not promoted by any society as a mean to ease the exercice of rights. I do not share your opinion that a law should force people to wear an helmet where the burden of the damages isn't supported by the state. That's because I believe laws should be made to regulate how people must conduct themselve with their fellow citizens not how they deal with their own life. Even in the spirit of religions the freedoom of choice is left to the individuals.

Wayne,

- Canada has helmet laws in every province (not sure about the rest or Canada, but I believe there too.)
But I would not use Canada as a shining example to laws. Ask me about Ontario's recent new 'stunting law' some time to see how far stupid laws can go when written by ignorant (and I use the word correctly here) polititians.

- I think you need to step away from this debate for a while. IMHO you appear too angry to debate with Jager (I was hoping you would answer his yes-or-no question that he posed to you several times.)

- You're new here (I've not been here long either), and I enjoy some of your input (not all of it.) But you may want to back off before you start trying to change how things are run here. I think the level of 'moderation' on this site is perfect. If you prefer how the moderating is done on other sites, then maybe those sites are a better place for your posting (that sounds more harsh than I mean it to be, but I don't know how else to say it.)

Greg.

Hi Greg:

Regarding the name calling, Jager breached good netiquette a number of times and at our shop, he would have been asked to pull back his hair and leave the field of battle in the moderators lounge.

I posted this article about the AMA and its disregard for their membership’s safety including links regarding the AMA's past actions regarding helmets vs. their Press Releases prompting helmet use. Someone spun it into an eating lifestyle diatribe having absolutely nothing to do with motorcycling.

For someone "choosing" to have so little choice in the matters at hand (wearing a helmet or not) while carrying the flag of freedom for those same choices at the expense of rider safety, something seems out of sorts.

If the AMA stands for riders choosing not to wear helmets while protecting land rights and such, great. They should be upfront about it. Unfortunately, the AMA’s Press Releases and Race sanctions both support and demand helmet use while at the same time they dissuade helmet use through political dog fighting with NHTSA with the details linked.

There are almost always two sides to every coin and forums are a great place for the details to be debated. In the world of the Yamaha WR250R/X, helmet use for the safety and well being of us (the riders) appears to be 100% which is a very good thing imho.

A few more…

Motorcycling is not only fun but an environmentally friendly way to travel -- With an AMA endorsement!

And the tragedy.

Motorcycle mogul killed in senseless self-inflicted accident

Good Luck

Wayne

Alpha Rider

Ok, the name calling needs to stop NOW. AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… - Page 2 911463

There's no need to revert to this kind of behavior and really, everyone is all mature enuf (or one would hope) to be able to discuss a topic without reverting to such actions. Opinions are one thing, but name calling and expecting everyone to see it one way only creates bad feelings and really, there are other boards one can go and play that game on. Not here. One thread was already shut down due to the same crap. I have no problem doing the same with this, but really there is no reason for this kind of shit to be taking place on here. If you have a problem and need to discuss things further amongst yourselves, take it to a PM but keep the horseshit behavior off the board.

_________________
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… - Page 2 Wolf_b10

AMA’s disregard for its membership’s safety… - Page 2 Wolf_b10

xcel wrote:: 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.

It's actually safer to ride without a helmet. Do you know how many people die each year from choking?

And guess what, helmet law wouldn't apply to your neighbors kid, as he was in a parking lot, where the laws of the road do not apply. He still wouldn't have wore one if there was a mandatory helmet law.

I hope the best for everyone but I still don't understand under what system of value the right to do what one wants to do with it's life should be removed.

Without offense it sounds presomptuous to force someone to do something against its own will. What is the purpose of this kind of system ?

For me it's difficult to understand who can decide that he has the truth. If I die Wayne, what does it matter to you ? There are millions of people dying around the world, are you under pressure to save all of them ?

For me it is more human to help people live happily than live the higher number of years. Instead of getting involved in promoting laws, I try to get involved with people so we have fun, share, build. I don't say that so you think it's better than your idea. I just say that so you understand why I don't share your opinion. And I truly don't understand what gives you the idea that you can decide what is good or not for another person. since these persons obviously don't share your point of view let them die. There will be less and less of them and every survivor will wear an helmet and live for ever. Peace YAM

Hi Dan:

The deaths including yours do and would hurt. Even though the Harley Icon was doing something incredibly dumb and was without gear (read the story I linked above), his family and loved ones will surely miss him the same as if it were one of our own.

What I am really concerned about over the longer term however is that the motorcycle fatality rate per vehicle miles traveled is so horrific, if we do not clean up our own act by mandating helmets and gear for ourselves (or the noise pollution issue I believe you brought up above), sometime in the not to distant future, somebody else will take action for us. That somebody will be the Big G that everyone appears to be so afraid of. The underlying reasons include the fact that automobile passive and active safety systems are becoming so good and the fatality numbers are coming down so fast that NHTSA, IIHS and the DOT will have no choice but to look elsewhere to save lives which puts their sights squarely on us, the motorcycle rider. We are sitting in the number 2 position and vying for number 1 because of non-helmet use as the biggest reason with a multitude of other causal factors coming into play keeping the numbers so very high as well.

Once you get Congress' feet in the fire, hell hath no fury like that of a law banning riding altogether or some other such craziness. Not just a simple helmet law which only makes sense for those of us that do know the consequences of a get off without.

Bikes are way too much fun and economical to see go by the wayside because we were not responsible enough to keep our own house in order. The deaths due to simply not wearing a helmet including the AMA’s lack of involvement to remove this problem altogether should be cured now before it is possibly too late for the rest of us.

Good Luck

Wayne

I begin to understand what are your motivations.

My belief on this subject is that motorcyle in north america is associated with a particular image. We are a minority and the image that the non motorcycle drivers have of us is that we are rebels. This image comes from various sources and is legitimated at a certain degree. We have to live with that. Whatever we will do this image will prevail and any reason will be ok to restrain our activities. We would all act as angels with full respect of everybody and the majority would support anything against us or would restrain from supporting us.

The sport that has the higher rate of mortality is scuba diving. There is no social reaction to this fact since it doesn't make the news. It doesn't make the news because there is nothing negative associated to it. That shows the true value of life in the mind of people. If we can't be scandelized about something it's not worth it.

For me the value of life is its intensity. Exploring our limits whether physical or mental is exhilarating. When we explore the limits there is a risk. Everyone must be left free to live that. Without that there is no salt in one's life.

My older son broke one arm in 3 points while doing bicycle. A law could have restrain him from the situation that caused that. This law would have keep him from getting the intelligence to avoid it by himself.

The smartest thing we can do is to bahave ourselve, not to make others do it.

Hi Jager:

A quick clarification... Every time you pull your clutch in, you are essentially in neutral. I do not downshift to N but I do pull in the clutch for what we call a NICE-On in the car circles. Pulling in your clutch is not illegal by any means. Shifting to N and coasting downhill is in some jurisdictions. Coasting the flats or uphill is not that I have read.

Speeding – In my world, this practice is absolutely verboten. During classroom and general presentations, the speed limit "Is The Law, Not A Suggestion”. While 99% of the population speeds, the US imports almost 70% of its daily needs. I cannot do much about either on a global scale but we all do have choices. One is legal and saves a ton of fuel and the other is illegal and wastes it by the Super Tanker full.

In addition, staying in the right hand lane until such time you must leave it in order to allow the faster illegally moving traffic a way around or an out.

For traffic handling from the rear, it is RR first, foremost and always, Reverse Passing second, Quick Hit Alternates third, E-Flashers fourth, a Maintenance Lane drive for accident avoidance fifth with a WOT - Get Out Of Dodge sometimes in conjunction with #5 and/or sometimes as a last resort.

Wayne

Subject: wating fuel, NOTHING about safety or the AMA! Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:29 pm

xcel wrote:: Speeding – In my world, this practice is absolutely verboten. During classroom and general presentations, the speed limit "Is The Law, Not A Suggestion”. While 99% of the population speeds, the US imports almost 70% of its daily needs. I cannot do much about either on a global scale but we all do have choices. One is legal and saves a ton of fuel and the other is illegal and wastes it by the Super Tanker full.

Wayne,

Since you mention speeding in the context of saving fuel, in your world I would not really be allowed to ride a motorcycle. I ride 10,000 - 15,000 kms a year. At most only 400 km of that is to work. This rest is all pure recreation. So by your logic in your world of maximum fuel conservation, I would only be allowed to ride 400 kms a year. cry

Do your ever speed when you pass another vehicle on a 2-lane road?

How about on a busy 4-lane road? (ex: you come up behind a vehicle tavelling 3 mph slower than you, if after you have moved left to pass you then see a vehicle coming up FAST behind you before your pass is complete, do you let the FAST vehicle tailgate you or do you speed?)

Hi Deeerhater:

I am moving pretty far off the topic at hand unfortunately so let me apologize to any future reader upfront.

Regarding maximum fuel conservation, if I were for no recreational transport, I would be wearing a hair shirt and living in a cave. Hopefully we never get to that day.

Even my ride from the Atlantic to the Pacific had a purpose as I have friends in Chicopee, MA I had not seen in some time. I have an interview with a UK times Reporter in Seattle and am meeting up with a CleanMPG forum member to do some riding up in the Mt. St. Helen’s area afterwards. I then have to bring the WR back to CA to drop it off at Yamaha's HQ when I am finished as it is one of the stipulations of the long term Review contract.

When you do ride, the difference between being first to the stop light ahead and being last to the same stop light is only the amount of fuel you use.

Passing -- I would never pass someone at 3 mph below the PSL as they are not harming my ability to get from point A to point B other than a minute or two per hour. Someone following the PSL’s (remember the PSL is anything between the limits, not at the limit itself) receives my Hero of the Day award. Read the following as occurred last Monday: Hero of the Day… California Lady Prius driver

The following is pretty graphic but something everyone should view before they make that next pass or turn the throttle to move ahead of the next guy or gal. Unless there is a trophy or $'s at the end of the ride, the following is certainly not worth it from my perspective.

Unsafe Driving Video

Good Luck

Wayne

Admin

deerHater wrote:: Since you mention speeding in the context of saving fuel, in your world I would not really be allowed to ride a motorcycle. I ride 10,000 - 15,000 kms a year. At most only 400 km of that is to work. This rest is all pure recreation. So by your logic in your world of maximum fuel conservation, I would only be allowed to ride 400 kms a year.

Well, it gets better (or worse) than that.

If we're really that concerned with fuel consumption, those of us in cities with public transport seldom have any justifiable excuse to fire up private transport. If we're really that overwhelmed with the nation's fuel consumption, the truly responsible person is only going to use their personal vehicle when public transport, or a bike, or a walk simply won't do it.

Beyond that, it is a matter of personal convenience or the enjoyment of the trip. Criticizing others about their fuel consumption is no different than a bicyclist railing at those operating motor vehicles for unnecessarily contributing to energy consumption when they could be on a bike or bus. It's my wallet, and if I choose to pull bills out of it to buy gas instead of change out of it to buy a bus pass, that is my business alone.

Hi Jager:

Jäger wrote:: If we're really that concerned with fuel consumption, those of us in cities with public transport seldom have any justifiable excuse to fire up private transport. If we're really that overwhelmed with the nation's fuel consumption, the truly responsible person is only going to use their personal vehicle when public transport, or a bike, or a walk simply won't do it.

Which is exactly the problem. Being dependant on almost 70% of our daily need from a foreign source is not a good thing by any measure. Oil is fungible so even if we get it all from Canada, it is still coming from Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela as others are not purchasing Canadian. In reality, we purchase Middle Eastern Oil nad Japan purchases ours as an efficient means to move the product.

Jäger wrote:: Criticizing others about their fuel consumption is no different than a bicyclist railing at those operating motor vehicles for unnecessarily contributing to energy consumption when they could be on a bike or bus. It's my wallet, and if I choose to pull bills out of it to buy gas instead of change out of it to buy a bus pass, that is my business alone.

Has someone on this forum criticized you or others about personal fuel consumption?

Wayne

xcel wrote:: Which is exactly the problem. Being dependant on almost 70% of our daily need from a foreign source is not a good thing by any measure. Oil is fungible so even if we get it all from Canada, it is still coming from Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela as others are not purchasing Canadian. In reality, we purchase Middle Eastern Oil nad Japan purchases ours as an efficient means to move the product.
Wayne

Anyway since all we hear is consideresd in terms of growth and the planet having limited resources we will hit a wall sometimes. What is funny about it is that energy is the only thing we have access to in virtual unlimited supply. There won't be food for all people before we will be out of energy, at least as long as the sun will exist.

We are in a global market. Promoting this market has advantages but it also had the side effect that each country stoped living on their own resources. And there goes the wheel again, if we trade with other countries, we must accept to restrain some of our liberties as a country.

xcel wrote:: Hi Deeerhater:

When you do ride, the difference between being first to the stop light ahead and being last to the same stop light is only the amount of fuel you use.

Passing The following is pretty graphic but something everyone should view before they make that next pass or turn the throttle to move ahead of the next guy or gal. Unless there is a trophy or $'s at the end of the ride, the following is certainly not worth it from my perspective.
Wayne

I did not look at your video, because I do not make unsafe passes. That means I don't make as many passes on my WR250X as I do on my Triumph 675. My prefered roads are small and very twisty, and have no stop lights. And don't assume I'm in a hurry, I don't care when I arrive. On my favorite type of road I don't need to speed, unless the idiots have the speed posted much too low because the stupid drivers are too stupid to figure out what is a safe speed for them and their vehicle in corners (but that's another subject, stupid laws/limits for stupid people that should not have a drivers license. wink

)

But I am still curious about your passing on a 4-lane road. I did not say you were riding at the speed limit. Maybe you were a hero and already 3 mph below the limit and the other car was 6 mph below the limt. My question stands, do you let the faster vehicle tailgate you while making your slow pass?

Greg.

Hi Greg:

I might pass somebody maybe two or three times a day while on the Interstate when they are in the off-ramp lane and slowing below 45 mph. If the center lane is clear, I will perform a 5-click, move over and accelerate to the PSL and get back in the right lane as soon as the off-ramp lane has been driven by and the exiter is well clear. If the center lane is not clear, I just slow with the person exiting and reaccelerate in a P&G scenario.

With police that have pulled over speeders or are helping stranded motorists, I turn on my E-Flashers about 1/3 mile back , slow to 45 mph and when the center lane is clear, move over, around and back into the right lane again once passed. During some weeks, I might not even drive as I run my businesses from home.

Few drivers/riders follow the PSL around Chicago or anywhere else I have ridden/driven for that matter.

Wayne

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