Because its 1 rule thats easy to enforce. It also has been proven that helmets could save a life 50% of the time. I'm sure full body leather would save people, but nothing near what a helmet does.

If you were going to make a law that provides safety yet is easy to enforce and doesn't require much thought or money what would you do? I'm all for freedom and less government, but a helmet law is common sense just like a seatbelt law. Might as well go to the other extreme and say why have DUI laws, why have blinkers, why have speed limits? Isn't it our choice to be safe or not? I'm happy a helmet law is all that they are forcing on us.

Yeah, baffles me too.
Guess its my way to try to get some legislator to let me ride without it again. It always comes down to money and thats what they were trying to do with the helmet laws, cut their losses financially. Having seen way too many people on way too many bikes that have no skills I think it would be better to take the helmets off and get some real training before you can buy a bike. Yeah, people will cry about the onerous government and all that but I'd rather have savvy experienced riders without helmets than what we have now. Huge article recently here in California about the growth in motorcycle population and an exponential growth in accidents/death. The wreck rate is way out of line with the sales rate which points directly to inept riders not whether they wear helmets or not. funny too, they nailed exactly the groups that we know are pushing the numbers way out of line. Guys buying their first big bike in 30 years and young guys on crotch rockets. Our gut feeling about them is right, the data backs it up and then some. They are the one's making our reputation and jacking our insurance rates.

Hey Isriam

My confusion isn't with the laws. It's with the riders who think that you should just be hung out to dry if you aren't wearing a helmet. There are other ways besides head injuries to be laid up for life. I don't see the magic line where some deserve help and others get condemed. It seems to be purely a money based prejudice. So I ask. Why not full rigid body armor or you get hung out to dry too. I'm just curious on how they came to this way of thinking.

I believe the government study said that in motorcyle crashes where people were wearing helmets 48% lived. You can do the math.

Interesting viewpoints. If you crash and break your spine / neck and you end up bed ridden for the rest of your life are you left out in the cold with no financial support also because you weren't wearing full body armor? Why draw the line at helmets? Please explain this thinking. It's always baffled the hell out of me.

What baffles me is the all or nothing view of the people against helmets. We have seatbelts in cars but wouldn't it be safer to have a 3 point harness and a roll cage? Why stop at seatbelts? That sounds as stupid to me as why stop at helmets. There has to be a line somewhere and with cars its seatbelts, and with motorcycles its helmets.


Moondog

Moondog are you aware of the fact that the Government Outlawed 3 wheel ATV's?? Why because they felt they should protect us from hurting ourselves. 3 wheel ATV's were safe as long as you rode them correctly. It wasn't the fault of the cycle but the IDIOT riding it. So what's to stop the Government from saying "Well we think to many people have been hurt on motorcyles so were going to Outlaw them to keep people from hurting themselves!" Why stop there let's outlaw cars too. Too many people die from car accidents!With or without seat belts! The government can build public transportation and force us to ride it only! Would save the world billions right?

Musky wrote:
Hey Isriam

My confusion isn't with the laws. It's with the riders who think that you should just be hung out to dry if you aren't wearing a helmet. There are other ways besides head injuries to be laid up for life. I don't see the magic line where some deserve help and others get condemed. It seems to be purely a money based prejudice. So I ask. Why not full rigid body armor or you get hung out to dry too. I'm just curious on how they came to this way of thinking.

I believe the government study said that in motorcyle crashes where people were wearing helmets 48% lived. You can do the math.

Amen Musky. Where's this study? I want to see the stats.

Isriam wrote:
Because its 1 rule thats easy to enforce. It also has been proven that helmets could save a life 50% of the time. I'm sure full body leather would save people, but nothing near what a helmet does.

If you were going to make a law that provides safety yet is easy to enforce and doesn't require much thought or money what would you do? I'm all for freedom and less government, but a helmet law is common sense just like a seatbelt law. Might as well go to the other extreme and say why have DUI laws, why have blinkers, why have speed limits? Isn't it our choice to be safe or not? I'm happy a helmet law is all that they are forcing on us.

DUI endangers others. Me not wearing a helmet isn't going to hurt someone else, just me. Blinkers are a safety thing to inform riders of the road your intentions. Speed also can endanger others.

Not the same thing.

takehikes wrote:
Yeah, baffles me too.
Guess its my way to try to get some legislator to let me ride without it again. It always comes down to money and thats what they were trying to do with the helmet laws, cut their losses financially. Having seen way too many people on way too many bikes that have no skills I think it would be better to take the helmets off and get some real training before you can buy a bike. Yeah, people will cry about the onerous government and all that but I'd rather have savvy experienced riders without helmets than what we have now. Huge article recently here in California about the growth in motorcycle population and an exponential growth in accidents/death. The wreck rate is way out of line with the sales rate which points directly to inept riders not whether they wear helmets or not. funny too, they nailed exactly the groups that we know are pushing the numbers way out of line. Guys buying their first big bike in 30 years and young guys on crotch rockets. Our gut feeling about them is right, the data backs it up and then some. They are the one's making our reputation and jacking our insurance rates.

Amen, you want to enforce something, how about MSF school required before issuing a license. Of course, how many riders out there don't even have an endorsement on their license to ride a motorcycle? A lot!

Helmet laws guarantee nothing.

I would be in favor of making the MSF course mandatory before the issue of a motorcycle endorsement. After all, driver's training, driver's ed, and holding a driver's permit is a prerequisite for being able to drive at age 16. (At least it is/was in California...)