Welcome back to us :/ Our hosts data center was down for the entire day.
MotoHouston.com MotoHouston.com
Register Members List Member Map Media Calendar Garage Forum Home Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MotoHouston.com > General Discussion > General Discussion (Moto Related)
Forgot info?

Welcome to MotoHouston.com! You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you limited access to the community. By joining our free community you will have access to great discounts from our sponsors, the ability to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content, free email, classifieds, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, join our community!

Register Today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.


FREE MH Decals by MAIL!

Advertisement

Reply
Share This Thread: 
Subscribe to this Thread Thread Tools
Old 06-14-2008, 12:08 AM   #21
DvlRacer
cerca trova
 
DvlRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Feedback Rating: (52)
Posts: 16,446







Member Garage





The purpose of regulatory laws is to protect one person from harming another. I understand the seatbelt law as one could be jostled out of their driving position under extreme circumstances and potentially take out someone else. As far as helmet laws, I think it should be totally optional. Since nobody is required to carry health insurance or to ride an insured motorcycle, I don't think that is a legitimate reason to enact a helmet law. Too many laws are breaking away from what laws were originally intended to do and are restricting the rights of humans to *choose* how to live their lives.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob78 View Post
nothing goes unmoderated....
"And so, this tiny metal deathtrap becomes known as the ultimate form of freedom. Like a steampunk cyborg, man and machine fuse to make a symbol of what you can become when style and speed matter more than safety and efficiency. Is it any wonder that some people just get mad every time they see a motorcycle go by? Because it challenges everything they have, while proving to them that they donít have enough."
DvlRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Regarding Helmet Law & Gear Law specterunseen General Discussion (Moto Related) 124 06-30-2008 09:09 AM
track day injuries/deaths? NorthHoustonGSXR Taking it to the Track 49 01-13-2008 07:50 PM
Florida Repeals Helmet Law - MC Deaths Skyrocket MadseasoN General Discussion (Moto Related) 45 06-22-2006 09:05 PM
Advertisement
Old 06-14-2008, 12:11 AM   #22
Azylum
The Chosen One
 
Azylum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ellington
Feedback Rating: (23)
Posts: 39,629

Experience: 8 years
Trackdays: 2











Quote:
Originally Posted by Pre-K View Post
Yup...

We have a "protective headgear" ordinance in Pearville... regardless of whether or not you have the 'lil green sticker of $10K in insurance... FWIW
didnt know that.
__________________
motohoustonlogo
Bringing back the old school.
Azylum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 12:15 PM   #23
Ogre
Ancient one
 
Ogre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stagecoach
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 1,302

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
Blackbird









Quote:
Originally Posted by DvlRacer View Post
I understand the seatbelt law as one could be jostled out of their driving position under extreme circumstances and potentially take out someone else
That is a false premise.

Seatbelts are required for passengers too.

If the reason for argument was prevention, I would argue that a helmet is more likely to prevent and accident due to flying debris, bugs, birds, etc. than a seatbelt is to prevent an accident because the driver slipped out of their seat.
Ogre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 12:32 PM   #24
DvlRacer
cerca trova
 
DvlRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Feedback Rating: (52)
Posts: 16,446







Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
That is a false premise.

Seatbelts are required for passengers too.

If the reason for argument was prevention, I would argue that a helmet is more likely to prevent and accident due to flying debris, bugs, birds, etc. than a seatbelt is to prevent an accident because the driver slipped out of their seat.
Good point, the law should only require underage(under 14 years old) to be belted in. I came up with that age since the law generally assumes 14 year olds are able to make responsible decisions. Hence, a driver cannot be charged with driving while intoxicated with a minor passenger unless the passenger is under fourteen, otherwise the passenger is assumed to be smart enough not to take the ride.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob78 View Post
nothing goes unmoderated....
"And so, this tiny metal deathtrap becomes known as the ultimate form of freedom. Like a steampunk cyborg, man and machine fuse to make a symbol of what you can become when style and speed matter more than safety and efficiency. Is it any wonder that some people just get mad every time they see a motorcycle go by? Because it challenges everything they have, while proving to them that they donít have enough."
DvlRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 04:26 PM   #25
gsxrjai
Sink or swim
 
gsxrjai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Houston
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 2,649

Experience: 3 years

Bike(s):
'03 GSXR 600 Sold
??? Not Sure ???








June 12, 2008 ó Head injuries from motorcycle crashes rose after the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws in Pennsylvania, a study shows.

The study's researchers found a 66% increase in motorcycle-related head injury deaths and a 78% increase in head injury hospitalizations from motorcycle crashes since the repeal of Pennsylvania's motorcycle helmet law in 2003.

"Our study shows that since the repeal of Pennsylvania's motorcycle helmet law, helmet use has gone down, while head injuries from motorcycle crashes have gone up, even after increased motorcycle registration," researcher Kristen Mertz, MD, MPH, assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, says in a news release. "The relatively large increase in head injury deaths and hospitalizations after the repeal suggests that the law was protecting riders."

Researchers say the findings strengthen the argument for more comprehensive helmet laws to help protect motorcycle riders. Motorcycle helmet laws have weakened across the U.S. since 1975, when the federal government stopped withholding highway money from states without universal motorcycle helmet laws. Only 20 states have laws that require all riders to wear helmets.
^^^^LOOOK^^^^^
gsxrjai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 04:28 PM   #26
gsxrjai
Sink or swim
 
gsxrjai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Houston
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 2,649

Experience: 3 years

Bike(s):
'03 GSXR 600 Sold
??? Not Sure ???








ONLY 20 STATES

Head Injury Risks Rise Without Helmets
In the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers compared motorcycle-related head injuries in Pennsylvania when motorcycle helmet laws were still in effect from 2001-2002 and after the repeal in 2004-2005.

They found helmet use decreased among motorcycle riders involved in reported crashes from 82% to 58% after the repeal of the motorcycle helmet laws. During the same time period, head injury deaths from motorcycle crashes increased 66%.

Motorcycle-related head injury hospitalizations also increased 78% after the law was repealed, and the number of motorcyclists with head injuries requiring further treatment at rehabilitation facilities and long-term care centers increased 87% after the repeal.

In comparison, non-head injury-related deaths and hospitalizations that were motorcycle-related rose by much smaller margins, 25% and 28% respectively.

Finally, researchers found total hospital charges arising from treating motorcycle crash-related head injuries increased 132% in the two years following the repeal of the motorcycle helmet law, compared with a rise of 69% for non-head injuries.
gsxrjai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 05:44 PM   #27
miraculous dan
Quality tuna fish.
 
miraculous dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tampa, Fl
Feedback Rating: (6)
Posts: 4,584


Bike(s):
Honda VFR









Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
That is a false premise.

Seatbelts are required for passengers too.

If the reason for argument was prevention, I would argue that a helmet is more likely to prevent and accident due to flying debris, bugs, birds, etc. than a seatbelt is to prevent an accident because the driver slipped out of their seat.
Seat belts are only required for passengers riding in the front seat- i.e. those who have a reasonable chance of sliding into the driver and causing an accident.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/directo...n/seatbelt.htm

"Sec. 545.413. Safety Belts; Offense.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) is at least 15 years of age

(2) is riding in the front seat of a passenger vehicle while the vehicle is being operated;

(3) is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt; and

(4) is not secured by a safety belt."
miraculous dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 08:17 PM   #28
Ogre
Ancient one
 
Ogre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stagecoach
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 1,302

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
Blackbird









Quote:
Originally Posted by miraculous dan View Post
Seat belts are only required for passengers riding in the front seat- i.e. those who have a reasonable chance of sliding into the driver and causing an accident.
That would appear to be presumption on your part. I don't see any commentary or reference indicating that the rational for the law is specifically for accident avoidance. Did I miss something there?

To the contrary the Texas law does make reference to "federal standards for crash-tested restraint systems as set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration", albeit in reference to child restrain systems. The NHTSA Uniform Guidelines Guideline for State Highway Safety Programs http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whats...Protection.htm Specifically refers to seatbelt use for occupant protection.

I think it's a false argument to say that seatbelt laws were enacted for the specific purpose of accident avoidance. If you think differently show a citation from a qualified source.

At the end of the day, you are acting foolishly if you elect to ride in a passenger vehicle without wearing a seatbelt or riding a MC without a helmet.

IMO: if you ride without a helmet it should be considered as an implicit "No Heroic Measures clause" in a DNR order. This gives you the freedom to choose and medical/rescue personel the freedom to not spend exhorbitant resources to save you, when you have displayed little regard for preserving your own life.

Last edited by Ogre; 06-14-2008 at 08:20 PM.
Ogre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 09:20 PM   #29
Crystalline
Can't ride now...
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Houston
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 9,376

Experience: 2 years
Trackdays: 1











Send a message via Yahoo to Crystalline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pre-K View Post
the ignorance of some people... WTF should I help pay your extra health care costs because you wreck without a helmet?

Standard accident claims are (usually) unavoidable, so I don't mind paying my share of the costs. Deliberately choosing not to wear a helmet and increasing MY health-care costs is just down-right of you.

Please, take offense...
+1...

I understand read the argument against Todd's statement (above) and while some may firmly believe that healthcare cost increase is not in direct of motorcycles accidents/fatalities, how would you then explain the cost of motocycle insurance? Silly to believe that it doesn't have any affect. And why would we want to pay for the full amount if we get into an accident when we have have a co pay? I may not personally agree with the government playing the parent role and making it a law to wear a helmet (remember you are not forced to, only fined), they felt the need to because there are so many who don't have that common sense to wear one or feel like nothing would happen to them.
__________________
sunshine
Crystalline is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Advertisement


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 AM.


MotoHouston.com is not responsible for the content posted by users.
Privacy Policy