HELMETS

[Camino LS6]

I really hate to correct you, but the helmet law in Pennsylvania was not repealed, it was revised. There is still a helmet law in Pennsylvania. In order to ride a motorcycle in Pennsylvania without a helmet, you must a) be over 21 years of age, b) have no less than 2 years experience riding a motorcycle, and c) have a motorcycle rider training course under your belt.

The subject of this particular thread, Ben Rothlesberger, is 24 but does not (as far as the report from KDKA news stated) have a motorcycle drivers license which seems to conclude that b) and c) were not met. Not only was he stupidly (in my opinion) riding a motorcycle without a helmet, he seems to have been doing it illegally.

And these laws that "try to protect me from myself" also protect everyone else from you. A point that was made on the radio yesterday (discussing this very debate) was that if you and I have an accident where I am not at fault and you, by not wearing a seatbelt or helmet, die, I have to live with the guilt that an accident in which I was involved in killed a person.

Driving is a prviledge and not a right. Certain criteria should be met. Cars/motorcycles should meet certain safety and emissions levels. Drivers/riders should be trained to a certain level before being given a license. And drivers/riders should be required to protect themselves from accidents to prevent those drivers/riders from being a burden on my taxes and/or my insurance premiums.

I'm all for freedom and fewer laws. But when it comes to holding people to a certain level of basic common sense, some laws are necessary. Too many people do not understand basic principles of physics which cannot be overcome by having their "freedom." Seatbelt use and helmet use should be just as mandatory as driving on the proper side of the road, obeying speed limits, and stopping at red lights and stop signs.

If we're arguing about what freedom means, there are many other avenues that should be discussed well before we get to choosing whether or not a motorcyclist should wear his/her helmet.

You are correct about the law, of course, and I should have stated those details before as they make the true legal situation clearer.

Beyond that, I simply cannot agree. I believe in personal freedom first and that includes deciding for yourself whether or not you wish to wear a helmet. No amount of statistics or argument will ever sway me from this position. And, if the Darwin effect is a consequence of this, so be it.

[Hudson]

I believe in personal freedom first and that includes deciding for yourself whether or not you wish to wear a helmet. No amount of statistics or argument will ever sway me from this position. And, if the Darwin effect is a consequence of this, so be it.

I'm all for increased personal freedoms, unless it interferes with someone else. And increasing my taxes (due to uninsured motorists) or insurance premiums (due to insured motorists) is the most direct why I am impacted by someone else not wearing a seatbelt or helmet. I don't want to pay for your freedom to choose the least logical way to drive/ride.

[regfootball]

Adults should be able to put their lives at risk so long as they're not risking anyone else's rights.  Aside from the dolt with the smashed head, who was the victim of his not wearing a helmet? 

Helmet laws are just one more way for folks to mandate their morals to others.

if gramma hits a biker who is not wearing helmet, and he goes bye bye, but it can proved he would have survived with one, there should be no recourse from dead biker fam to sue grandma on vehicular murder or negligence or anything. ie. her fault should be waived completely is said biker waives his right to stay alive by not wearing a helmet. biker shall pay medical costs, not gramma, not insurance.

Edited June 14, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

There is an important piece of information that is not understood here.

There is no question that IF you get into an accident on a motorcycle you have a somewhat better chance of surviving and or having reduced injuries if you are wearing a helmet.  The point that is not known is that there is a higher chance you will get into an collision if you ARE wearing a helmet. (based on nationial insurance statistics) This is due to some known and perhaps not known phenomena.  One is a significantly reduced field of vision and eliminated peripheral vision.

It is far better to do everything possible to avoid the collision than to improve your ability to survive, at the expense of increasing your chance of getting into one.

Interesting question for you helmet proponents - If helmets are so darn good why are they forbidden to be worn in cars?  In most states it is illegal to wear a crash helmet while driving an enclosed vehicle.

your car's safety cage is your helmet. that's why. and it has to meet crash test requirements. what if the carmakers want the freedome to build cars however they want?

[Casket Demon]

Let people choose if they want 2 die.

[Hudson]

if gramma hits a biker who is not wearing helmet, and he goes bye bye, but it can proved he would have survived with one, there should be no recourse from dead biker fam to sue grandma on vehicular murder or negligence or anything.  ie. her fault should be waived completely is said biker waives his right to stay alive by not wearing a helmet. biker shall pay medical costs, not gramma, not insurance.

That's a great idea in concept, but not in reality. I've heard of lawsuits where the estate of the deceased sued the CAR COMPANY when the deceased wasn't wearing a seatbelt. My current favorite had the deceased driving a 10-year-old car, not wearing the full seatbelt (it had automatic shoulder belts but manual lap belts which were not fastened), and with a 0.27 blood alcohol level...and still they sued.

[Justin Bimmer]

CA was the first state to make it a law that you had to wear a DOT helmet.

My question to big Ben is......... why do you wear a helmet when you are playing football????? If you don't want one riding the bike, don't wear one playing football. Make a statment

[Turbojett]

CA was the first state to make it a law that you had to wear a DOT helmet.

My question to big Ben is......... why do you wear a helmet when you are playing football????? If you don't want one riding the bike, don't wear one playing football. Make a statment

They wouldn't allow him to play. And by that same token, they shouldn't allow him to ride.

Not wearing a helmet is just plain stupid. I say it's better to learn by getting a ticket than to crack your head open on the street and never get the chance to learn. If that's what it takes to keep stupid people from killing themselves, then so be it.

CA already has made it mandatory. And this has saved countless lives. It's beyond me why anyone would oppose this.

[Sixty8panther]

If you don't want one riding the bike, don't wear one playing football. Make a statment

Ahhh... great point.

[andretti]

Yes, if I had a bike I'd wear a helmet but it should be my right to choose

weaterh or not to do so. Massachusetts has a helmet law NH does not.

Let me tell you as a Mass resident the LAST effin thing we need is more

regulation! Be carefull what you wish for, slippery slope!

Interesting Read:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant11.html

Whose Property Is It Anyway?

by Michael Tennant

About a month ago I wrote a column explaining that the problem of high gasoline prices could only be understood and properly addressed by those with an appreciation of the role of private property.

The idea of private property, however, has numerous applications outside the realm of market exchange. In fact, when it comes to public debate, one would be hard pressed to come up with a topic that does not in some way involve issues of property rights, although one would have no trouble at all finding people on both sides of an issue who will bicker over surface details while completely ignoring the elephant in the room labeled "Private Property." For example, the Left argues that the government needs to help the poor by transferring money to them from the rich, while the Right argues merely about whether this really helps the poor and about how much wealth transfer is too much. It is left to us libertarians, as so often is the case, to point out that neither of these positions gets to the nub of the issue, which is that welfare programs amount to legalized theft, a blatant violation of property rights.

Two noteworthy events here in the Keystone State have property rights implications, but neither is discussed that way in the news media.

The first is Monday’s motorcycle accident in which the Pittsburgh Steelers’ star quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, was seriously injured. While Roethlisberger consistently wears a helmet for the considerably less dangerous activity of playing professional football, he has chosen (at least until now) to endanger himself by going helmetless on his hog, the result being that the accident did some major damage to his head.

The incident has, predictably, revived the debate over whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should permit motorcyclists to go without helmets, since the legislature, with the acquiescence of the governor, repealed the mandatory helmet law three years ago. John Cigna, a former KDKA radio personality and well-known Harley-Davidson enthusiast, called one of the station’s talk shows Monday afternoon to voice his opinion that the fault lies not with Roethlisberger but with Governor Ed Rendell, who had the temerity to sign a law giving Pennsylvanians back a tiny bit of their freedom. The host of that talk show, Fred Honsberger, an ostensible conservative, agreed that the legislature needs to force people to wear helmets, adding later that it was just "stupid" of them to have repealed the helmet law in the first place. (Mr. Honsberger no doubt would object if the state tried to force people to exercise or to stop eating French fries, even though both of these laws would be "for their own good" – at least until those things become law, at which point he’d probably defend them against those seeking to repeal them, as so many conservatives are wont to do.)

This entire debate comes down to one simple question: Who owns the body of any given motorcycle rider? In other words, whose property is, e.g., Ben Roethlisberger’s body? The obvious answer is: Ben Roethlisberger. Therefore, the only person who has the right to determine whether Roethlisberger wears a helmet while cycling is Roethlisberger (thank goodness for cut-and-paste!) himself. Those who agree with Cigna and Honsberger, however, obviously believe that Roethlisberger’s body is actually the property of the state of Pennsylvania, for only if one believes that the state owns Roethlisberger’s body can one conclude that the state has the right to dictate to him what risks he may or may not take with his person. It’s simply a matter of private property. Either Big Ben’s body belongs to him, in which case he can do what he wants with it, or it belongs to the state, in which case the legislature can dictate to him all kinds of things he may or may not do with it. There’s no middle ground.

(There will be those who object that the risks a motorcyclist takes with his body are indeed the concern of the state because, if that cyclist is injured and cannot pay for his health care, the cost will fall on the rest of us via state medical assistance. As Walter Williams is fond of saying, this is a problem of too much socialism – itself a violation of property rights – not of too much freedom.)

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the commonwealth, private property is under attack for a very different reason, namely, that some people don’t happen to like the opinions of others and wish to squelch those opinions under the guise of "diversity," which, as usual, means "adherence to the currently-in-vogue left-wing agenda."

It seems that Geno’s Steaks, one of the most popular cheesesteak restaurants in South Philadelphia, has posted signs that read "This is AMERICA . . . WHEN ORDERING SPEAK ENGLISH."

This, of course, did not sit well with the diversity crowd, and so the city’s Commission on Human Relations – as if we need government to manage relationships between individuals – has filed a discrimination complaint against Geno’s, on the grounds that the signs violate "two sections of the city’s antidiscrimination laws: denying service to someone because of his or her national origin, and having printed material making certain groups of people feel their patronage is unwelcome," as the Philadelphia Inquirer reports it.

Now raise your hand if you ever thought you’d see the day when, in the supposed land of the free, it would be illegal for someone to be made to feel unwelcome.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which will defend to the death the rights of such upstanding citizens as Larry Flynt, won’t come to the defense of Geno’s owner Joey Vento, saying that while he has a right to express his opinion, this particular instance "might cross the line" because Vento is daring to treat his restaurant as private property rather than as a "public accommodation" open to all comers.

And that, my friends, is the problem in a nutshell. Geno’s is clearly and unquestionably the private property of Joey Vento. Not one of these holier-than-thou members of the Commission on Human Relations has a single dime invested in the place. Therefore, they have absolutely no business telling Vento what signs he may or may not post on his property. The choice of patrons to serve or not to serve ought to be entirely at his discretion, as should the choice of whether to make certain patrons feel unwelcome. Whether one agrees with the sentiments expressed in the signs at Geno’s is irrelevant; the fact remains that the restaurant is private property, and the disposition of that property ought to be solely the province of its owner.

Both the Roethlisberger and Geno’s cases illustrate the simple yet highly significant choice we face every day. Either we accept private property as inviolable or we don’t. Those advocating the violation of bikers’ rights to their own bodies and those advocating the violation of restaurateurs’ rights to their own bistros are cut from precisely the same cloth. One group thinks the government ought to prevent people from hurting themselves; the other thinks it ought to prevent people from hurting other people’s feelings. Neither respects private property. Both believe in maintaining the fiction that property is privately held, but then they turn around and assert that the government ought to maintain effective control over that property. Economically speaking, there is only one term for this: fascism.

Il Duce would be proud.

June 15, 2006

Michael Tennant [send him mail] is a software developer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

[the_yellow_dart]

which is that welfare programs amount to legalized theft, a blatant violation of property rights

So... was it a violation of your parents property rights when they FED YOU FOR FREE and CHANGED YOUR DIAPERS?

WHAT AN A##HOLE.

[GEESIXER]

If it becomes a "constitutional right" to decide not to wear a helmet, how does one police the issue of how much insurance a person should be paying since they offer themselves no protection?  The rights of those forced to pay into equal terms is being infringed upon then.  A constitutional right to screw up your lives and/or bodies in whatever way you choose has a monetary value that ends up being covered by those with the brains for self-preservation habits.

YEAH, what he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Drew Dowdell]

This entire debate comes down to one simple question: Who owns the body of any given motorcycle rider? In other words, whose property is, e.g., Ben Roethlisberger’s body? The obvious answer is: Ben Roethlisberger. Therefore, the only person who has the right to determine whether Roethlisberger wears a helmet while cycling is Roethlisberger (thank goodness for cut-and-paste!) himself.

Michael Tennant [send him mail] is a software developer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Actually, in the question of "whose property is Ben Roethlisberger's body?", the answer is "The NFL".

[Camino LS6]

I am entirely with Mr Tennent, with the caveat that the NFL has a contractual interest in Big Ben's body as Oldsmoboi properly points out.

[Hudson]

Mr Rothlesburger was cited for failure to wear a helmet and failure to have a proper license.

Sometimes it takes a cracked skull to get these drivers off the road.

[capriceman]

I disagree. I stopped riding because I have to wear a helmet. I think seatbelts shouldn't be a law either unless under 16.

[NOS2006]

I disagree. I stopped riding because I have to wear a helmet. I think seatbelts shouldn't be a law either unless under 16.

I agree with the seatbelt thing.

[Turbojett]

I agree with the seatbelt thing.

I don't. Seatbelts are and should be mandatory.

Its beyond me why anyone WOULDN'T wear them, it's pure stupidity if you don't. If a crackdown on not wearing seatbelts is what it takes to get stupid people to actually buckle up, and save themselves form their own "I'm-not-gonna-wear-seatbelts-because-it-makes-me-look-cool-if-I-don't-cuz-I-don't-have-to-follow-no-rules,-man" stupidity then that's the way it needs to be.

The same thing goes with helmets for cyclists. Its better to have the cops drill the sense into you then the hard asphalt, three nano-seconds before your head ruptures on impact.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Turbojett

[capriceman]

When riding a bike a helmet for me is very distracting. It can ruin vison of to the side and above. It cancels out noises like Car engines. The straps become irritating to where you endanger your self trying to itch at your chin. To me I fell safer on a bike with out one. And I have not seen a crediable study that says you will survive being thrown of a bike at 70 mph by wearing a helmet. Most of the time if your hit on a motor cycle when you hit the ground your neck snaps from the weight of your body thrown around. Personaly i rather die and have my brains out on the hiway then be sitting next to a machine to keep me breathing and have a feeding tube into me to keep me alive for what? So i can waste Tax money?

As for cars I generally wear my belt but if im going dow back roads i unclick it sit back and relax.

I understand that you think im stupid for not having it manditory. I dont think its cool to not wear a helmet or buckle up. I have a problem that the state wants to collect money for one's own stupidity though.

[Hudson]

If not wearing a helmet or not wearing seatbelts could guarantee the death of the person if they're in an accident, I wouldn't have a problem...I think of it as cleaning the gene pool. But it's not guaranteed...they get hurt and crippled and I (through taxes or insurance) am forced to pay for them.

Pennsylvania laws are too lenient. In order to be caught for not wearing a seatbelt, you need to be pulled over for something else. And the same happens with helmets...unless you're pulled over for some other violation (or in an accident like Pittsburgh's star QB), you get away with it.

[Turbojett]

Pennsylvania laws are too lenient. In order to be caught for not wearing a seatbelt, you need to be pulled over for something else.

Does the nationwide "Click it or ticket" campaign not apply in PA? If a cop sees you not wearing your belt, whether or not you're doing anything else wrong, he'll pull you over and write a ticket. That's my understanding of it anyway.

And capriceman, I never would call anyone stupid directly, but I just think that not wearing one is stupid, and most of the people that I know that refuse to wear them have that "I don't wanna follow the rules, helmets are for wimps" mentality, and that is stupid as well.

But I have heard the complaints about how it limits traffic noise and side vision, but I'm sure that there has to be way to get around that, and I'm sure that it'd be possible to design a helmet with those complaints in mind.

I have seen studies on this, credible or not, and cases in which the whiplash of your body going faster than your head are more rare than your head hitting the ground first, and even then breaking your neck to the point of quadraplegism is even more rare. Most motorcycle accidents where the rider dies from not wearing a helmet, the head trauma was determined as the main cause of death. Sure, your head is not likely to be the first thing to hit the ground (It would probably be your shoulders or your butt), but consider when bracing for an impact, your body will tense up, and then your neck isn't as likely to snap. Sure, not every accident is going to go like that, some people won't see it coming or won't be able to tense in time.

Also keep in mind that most vehicular accidents occur in town. Nobody's going to survive getting thown from your bike at freeway speeds, but at say 35 or 40mph on a city street, the chance of survival is a little friendlier with a helmet on.

Now, I'm not trying to change your mind of course (I wouldn't succeed anyway, and it isn't my place), but I am at least stating my place on this issue, as you did yours.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Turbojett

[Hudson]

Does the nationwide "Click it or ticket" campaign not apply in PA? If a cop sees you not wearing your belt, whether or not you're doing anything else wrong, he'll pull you over and write a ticket. That's my understanding of it anyway.

In many states (Pennsylvania included) you must be pulled over for another violation before they can give you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

[Drew Dowdell]

They can still run seatbelt checks where they stop everyone.... much like a sobriety check.

[NOS2006]

Its beyond me why anyone WOULDN'T  wear them, it's pure stupidity if you don't.

This is like saying smoking (cigarrettes) should be illegal. Honestly, it's beyond ME why anyone WOULD smoke them; it's pure stupidity if you do. :AH-HA_wink:

[frogger]

I would be fine if seatbelts and helmets were not mandatory as long as they have to pay all their own medical bills when accidents happen to those not wearing them.

[Hudson]

They can still run seatbelt checks where they stop everyone.... much like a sobriety check.

Yes...and it's annoying. And they STILL can't give you a ticket for the seatbelt alone in Pennsylvania.