Mark7 wrote:
I've ticked off many of you good folk with my ideas on this before. So I'll keep this short.
At slow speeds (say 50 and under) go lidless if you want. The choice not to wear a helmet will most likely only physically harm yourself if you're involved in an accident. However at highway speed I think you should be required to wear a helmet and eye protection...and a FULL COVERAGE HELMET TO BOOT. No freedom to choose there.
At highway speed you're ridding atop a 750+lb. hunk of metal that can transform from benign mode of transportation to deadly unguided missile if you're struck in the head or blinded by debris. Sand off a dump truck, tire "gators", cigarette butts, you name it and I'm sure we'll run into it at some point. There's a great deal of difference in effect of these items under 50 and over 50.
Your choice to wear a helmet or not ends where my right to use the highways without reckless endangerment begins. If you choose to go lid-less and end up killing my family with your bike because you lost control or just couldn't see due to your lack of helmet and eye protection then your choice has caused harm to someone other than yourself. And friends there isn't a right to cause me harm due to your bad choices about protective gear.
Yeah, you could also loose control just by running over an aluminum ladder, and yes you could become incapacitated by being hit in the chest or other areas as well. But no other single part of your body carries so much of the burden for your safe operation of a motorcycle more than your head(brain) and eyes.
If there is a logical well thought out counter to my position on this I've yet to hear it, but you're welcome to try.
Ride safe y'all,
M7
You did say welcome to try
First, lets eliminate the eyewear. I don't think anyone in this discussion has said they were for optional eye protection. So we agree on that part.
You are talking about the speed at which there is a marked increase in traffic fatalities that can be directly correlated to speed. Thats an excellent point, and one that the NTSB has proven repeatedly. Bug hits in the south at these speeds can make you see stars real quick. And I have had rock hits that were much worse at those speeds, like something kicked up from a truck tire (only once in the head -believe me- I was wishing I had put my helmet on).
Those are compelling reasons to wear a helmet to be sure.
Personally, I think the chance of a rider killing your family due to these causes is low (but its going to happen). I would suggest there is a much larger risk inherent in the high numbers of unexperienced, untrained bike riders who even with helmets stand a good chance of having an accident when something like that happens.
I also see the threat from distracted drivers as orders of magnitude larger and more real (when I am in my car) than any potential threat posed by motorcycles. The possible exception being some of those crazy kids on the rockets, who clearly are a reckless endangerment to others that borders on criminal negligence.
I am not having an easy time seeing the lidless in this same category of risk to others at all. Or in any numbers that will ever even start to approach the dangers I've listed above.
However your points with respect to speed are acknowledged. And the potential for incapacitation has to follow that curve.
Your Turn
Favoured: 0
And stirring the pot. 
something is screwed up when you do anything besides a 'quick reply'. Its both a political discussion and an intellectual one. ABATE is spending a lot of time and money on this issue at both the state and the federal levels. So its really become a battleground politically.
