Pennsylvania’s Governor Rendell has signed a bill which will allow motorcycle operators to ride without a helmet.
I’m glad they listed the sponsoring Senator’s name so that 1. he can be voted out of office come re-election time, and 2. he can be named in the lawsuit by the families of people he has killed by removing the helmet law.
Here’s hoping that motorcycle riders are smart enough to voluntarilly strap on the brain bucket.
My GOSH, what a scary thread title. Don’t do that!
To the OP, I bet you’ll find many biker fellers on here who think riding without a helmet should be left up to the rider. The reasoning, IIRC, is that not everyone rides their bike on a highway or even at highway speeds.
Huh? If a person is stupid enough to operate a motorcycle sans a helmet, that’s his/her personal decision. Making such a decision legal does not and should not make the senator responsible for that individual’s death should s/he die.
For the record, I agree with the the state. It shouldn’t be illegal to not wear a helmet.
Who the fuck cares if some dumbass doesn’t wear a helmet? If he gets his head splashed along the pavement it’s his own damn fault.
I don’t want to be the one driving behind him when he hits one of PA’s famous potholes, or shitty patch jobs, and loses control of his bike, watching him bust his skull open and leaving a trail of bloody grey matter behind because he was too stupid or vain or lazy to put on a helmet. You don’t need to be travelling very fast to suffer severe head trauma in a fall.
I see. So you don’t mind being behind the same guy who is wearing a helmet but still manages to hit a pothole, lose control of his bike and, oh, I don’t know, gets run over by a dump truck?
-or-
So this is just all about not ruining your day?
It’s all about personal choice. IMHO, children should wear helmets when they ride bicycles. When you’re old enough to vote, drink booze, serve in the military, and make babies, it should be your decision to wear or not wear a helmet.
What I find most contradictory about this law, is that I can be cited for operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt. Isn’t the use of seatbelts another aspect of personal choice?
PA should decide whether or not they want to be Mum and Papa for everybody, or let one’s internal compass guide the trip through life.
JuanitaTech, it’s about what I percieve as stupidity in my state Senate, wherein a legislator decides that a helmet law which had seemed to be doing just fine on its own needs to be repealed. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, Senator Wozniak.
Granted, this is not the most profound or earth shattering rant. But, the law strikes me as a profound waste of government time, and I fail to see the logic in repealing a law which most people seem to have pretty much accepted, especially because most people will likely still wear helmets when riding.
And I perceive it as a good move… so what’s your point?
We’ve got a “no helmet” law down in SC which I thoroughly enjoy and use. It’s up to the individual whether or not to wear a helmet, or buckle up, or wear a condom for that matter. If people want to kill themselves, the gubmint should stay the hell outta it.
Besides, I’ve got a real nice helmet, and I’d hate to mess it up if I got in a wreck…
[sub]5…4…3…2…1…[/sub]
…apparently I have none…
Amen. Hopefully, those ridiculous seatbelt laws will be the next to go.
There’s also the consideration of the cost to the state for medical care, insurance, etc. when dealing with people with severe head traumas. Why do you think most states require you wear a seatbelt?
I considered buying a motorcycle when I moved to California. My boyfriend at the time said to me, “Do you know what we call motorcycle riders in the medical community? Organ donors.”
I don’t currently own a motorcycle. 
(Oh, and I love Ed Rendell. Just had to say that.)
Esprix
The really fascinating thing about this is that for years it’s been legal in PA to ride wearing shorts and no shirt, but you have to wear a helmet.
If some guy riding his bike basically naked wipes out the last of his worries is whether or not he’s wearing a helmet. In fact, at that point a smashed head may actually be the most merciful thing.
Just another thing that doesn’t make sense here in good ol’ Pennsylvania.
That’s what I was gonna say. Wearing a helmet is a personal decision, until your failure to do so ends up costing the rest of us money. I think that’s the basis for motorcycle and seatbelt laws.
Have you ever met anyone who suffered from Traumatic Brain Injury, Airman? Let’s just say I’d rather lose a limb. Or two.
Have you ever met someone who left his entire back and both legs on the road?
I have. He died of blood loss.
So, tell me about it.
What is this supposed to mean? If you ride a bike wearing a helmet and nothing else, you significantly decrease your risk of brain injury, no matter what else happens to you.
If you ride completely naked and you happen to survive a wipeout, the brain injury you’re more likely to sustain won’t just be one more problem for you to deal with. You like reading? Talking? Remembering shit? Then wear a seatbelt and a helmet. Trust me.
Seriously, I wadded up my bike back in 2000, I think…not sure 'cos I’m still suffering from memory problems from it…if it wasn’t for helmet laws, you’d prolly be reading something intelligent right about now, instead of my drivel…
And if it wasn’t for helmet laws, you’d prolly be reading something intelligent right about now, instead of my drivel…
If it was just a case of people dying due to their own stupidity, i’d say “Go ahead and repeal all seatbelt and helmet laws.” And i’d also reserve the right to laugh, very loudly, whenever anyone not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt died in an accident where the seatbelt or helmet would have saved their life.
But, as others have pointed out, it’s not just about the individual concerned. The rest of us end up paying, in a variety of ways, when this happens. If we witness the person’s head crack open like a melon, we suffer. And if our medical and/or vehicle insurance premiums go up as a result of increased accident costs, we suffer.
Maybe they need a system whereby you can declare to both your medical and your vehicle insurer that you refuse to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, and your insurance premiums would go up accordingly. After all, insured people are penalized for other things that might lead to increased costs. Or, maybe, those insurance companies could just add a clause saying that any injuries received when not wearing a seatbelt or helmet would not be covered (just out of interest, does anyone know if any such clauses exist?).
Your decision to wear or not wear a helmet or seatbelt could be printed on your registraqtion or insurance papers. Then, if a cop pulls you over for speeding (or whatever) and checks your papers, and you are not wearing your seatbelt but your insurance says that you promised to wear one, then the cop could issue a ticket. This leaves the problem in the hands of the individual, and it also makes them more responsible, financially and legally, for their decision.