Michigan State helmet law repealed

[Tigadee]

why repeal a law like that? - people like to bitch about nanny states etc, but those people sometimes forget how stupid they can be themselves - some people NEED a nanny state to not kill themselves through their own stupidity.

BUT, if the stupid kill themselves off, that only leaves the smart good-looking group like us...

[tigertim20]

OK. I have a question for you lot that are firmly behind the legal requirement to wear a helmet:

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

two hands, two legs, two arms two feet two lungs ONE brain.
I dont agree with total regulation, Im against the hi vis thing too - but a helmet? come on!!! thats a no brainer!
pun intended!

[Scuba_Steve]

Me I'm against legal requirement for helmet. Laws should only ever be there to protect others, they should never protect people from themselves!!! I say it's a good thing they're doing!
However would I ride round without 1 given the choice???

[scumdog]

Me I'm against legal requirement for helmet. Laws should only ever be there to protect others, they should never protect people from themselves!!! I say it's a good thing they're doing!
However would I ride round without 1 given the choice???

See, that is the biggest danger of freedom of choice for things like this - people like you KNOW why they should wear a helmet.

The broken arsed brain dead bozos with no money wouldn't even consider it. "Don't need it" "Ruins my hair" "Can't afford one" etc...

And they would be in the 'most likely to need the protection of a helmet' catagory.

Even if they haven't actualy got a brain.

[Coldrider]

Meh, bikers are referred to as organ donors over there, and organs are worth more than helmets.

[p.dath]

OK. I have a question for you lot that are firmly behind the legal requirement to wear a helmet:

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

Hitting the road with your head while stationary from 1m can cause brain damage. Add even a small amount of speed and it quickly becomes fatal. Fatal means non-recoverable.

At 50km/h you can come off on a road with jeans and a tee-shirt, go for a slide, suffer terrible gravel rash that might take 6 months to recover from - but you are likely to live. Take the famous example of the girl in the bikini who ended up having one of her breasts scraped off by the road.


See the difference? We don't accept suicide as a legal choice. As a result, we tend to regulate and control things that cause death (weather it be helmets, drugs, guns, whatever).

However you still have the freedom of choice to choose options that will only result in you suffering excruitating pain for an extended period of time.

[swbarnett]

two hands, two legs, two arms two feet two lungs ONE brain.
I dont agree with total regulation, Im against the hi vis thing too - but a helmet? come on!!! thats a no brainer!
pun intended!

No matter what the merits of any given safety device I still maintain that there is no place for mandating their use. To steal a motto: "Education, not legislation".

[swbarnett]

Hitting the road with your head while stationary from 1m can cause brain damage. Add even a small amount of speed and it quickly becomes fatal. Fatal means non-recoverable.

At 50km/h you can come off on a road with jeans and a tee-shirt, go for a slide, suffer terrible gravel rash that might take 6 months to recover from - but you are likely to live. Take the famous example of the girl in the bikini who ended up having one of her breasts scraped off by the road.


See the difference?

No need to educate me on the benifits of helmets. You're preaching to the converted.

We don't accept suicide as a legal choice. As a result, we tend to regulate and control things that cause death (weather it be helmets, drugs, guns, whatever).

Which is exactly my point. My body, my choice. Suicide is yet another place that the law has no right being. If I want to end my life then that's my choice.

[tigertim20]

No matter what the merits of any given safety device I still maintain that there is no place for mandating their use. To steal a motto: "Education, not legislation".

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

[scumdog]

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

You're talking about some of those we already share the roads with eh!

[Coldrider]

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

no, but a brain with just a couple of synapses still holding hands is worth more than an (was) intelligent dead one.

[swbarnett]

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

The purpose of a helmet is to protect the brain in the event of a crash. It is, however, only a distant cousin to not crashing in the first place. And what's the ONLY way to guarentee you won't crash? Don't ride. So tell me, if the aim is solely to reduce brain injuries, why is it legal to ride at all, with or without a helmet? This is wny the helmet law makes no sense to me.

[p.dath]

No need to educate me on the benifits of helmets. You're preaching to the converted.


Which is exactly my point. My body, my choice. Suicide is yet another place that the law has no right being. If I want to end my life then that's my choice.

There can be a selfish touch to death.

When a person is in horrible pain through illness, its terminal, and they have the support of their family for suicide then I feel there is some grounds.

However when a person dies through their own actions (drugs, smoking, motorcycle fatility might have been preventable with a helmet) then they leave terrible pain in the hearts of their loved ones they leave behind.

It's incredibly selfish to exercise a choice to kill one's self, because of all the other people you hurt.

[Zedder]

It's Goverments duty to protect the public, often from themselves. Unfortunately the laws made sometimes go too far in terms of personal choice and it's knowing when to draw the line that is critical.

However, even if there was no laws regarding helmets, I would still wear one plus other usual protective gear. In short, I do not want to die or be maimed and possibly become a burden on the system.

[Ocean1]

It's Goverments duty to protect the public, often from themselves.

It's true, when you don't have a constitution the Govt gets to decide what it's duties are.

In reality very few people get to make suggestions about how I live my life. None at all get to dictate terms, not even large groups that tell themselves they have a duty to do so.