Helmet vs No helmet

[cbigclarke]

unforn. MANY riders don't have med. ins. let alone life ins. so the dead or brain dead just keep their families suffering ong after they're gone. either thru heavy medical bills or having to foot the funeral bill, out of pocket.

Many.. Not all

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Younggun]

Maybe a minority even?

 

[Shorts]

I prefer full face. Luckily the people I care about who ride also do the same. We all have had some type of get off and we've seen first hand the benefit a full face helmet provided in our particular crashes.

 

[txinvestigator]

Why would they do that?

They are paying the bills, or their families or insurance will(unless insurance requires a helmet for coverage).

No, my tax dollars cover ems, fire and police. How much insurance does the average rider carry? Do you know how much one week in the hospital without life support, surgery and trauma care costs?

 

[Younggun]

No, my tax dollars cover ems, fire and police. How much insurance does the average rider carry? Do you know how much one week in the hospital without life support, surgery and trauma care costs?

So, are the riders NOT paying their taxes?

Maybe we should not allow anyone to ride a motorcycle because the chance of injury in the event of an accident is much higher.

 

[txinvestigator]

Which wouldn't exist if they were wearing a helmet?

Either way they will have bills to pay. Just the ambulance showing up will be expensive. Will they wait to dispatch an ambulance until they can verify that the rider is wearing a helmet?

My question was not really meant to be taken literally, because it would be impossible to do. But I think you see my point. Many want freedom, as long as the taxpayers will foot the bill for it.

 

[txinvestigator]

So, are the riders NOT paying their taxes?

Maybe we should not allow anyone to ride a motorcycle because the chance of injury in the event of an accident is much higher.

keep reading...........

 

[Younggun]

keep reading...........

Follows the same principle.

How many activities should not be allowed because they carry a higher risk.

After all, the tax payers are footing the bill....

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Are you folks who don't want the govt to make you wear a helmet willing to sign a waiver allowing first responders and medical types to not be utilized if you suffer a head injury?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not tell you that is as stupid a statement as I have heard in recent times (obama excluded).

That said it makes no sense what so ever. So can you go into some kind of justification?

And what do you mean the taxpayers foot the bill? Again that makes no logic at all.

UNLESS you are implying guys that wear helmets are law abiding tax paying citizens on those of us who chose to not wear a helmet are lazy slackers who don't pay taxes and live off the dole of those who do...and you do NOT want to hear my response to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[txinvestigator]

Follows the same principle.

How many activities should not be allowed because they carry a higher risk.

After all, the tax payers are footing the bill....

No one is talking about disallowing the activity. Let's stay on point. Since society has to clean you up and handle the aftermath of your actions, we get to have a little say in how you engage in that activity.

 

[reddog]

Don't remember for certain the numbers but back in the day completing my safety training so I could ride on base (USAF) they said a helmet would take a 50g impact and reduce it to 5, and 5 is survivable, may have been BS but after seeing some videos of heads in helmets bouncing off of pavement always made me glad I wore mine.

 

[Dred]

Are you folks who don't want the govt to make you wear a helmet willing to sign a waiver allowing first responders and medical types to not be utilized if you suffer a head injury?

Don't have to. Insurance is required to exercise the option. Repairs are on my dime.

Edit: plenty of discussion after, so adding:

Been down 3 times in 40 years of riding. Full gear once; nearly nekkid next 2 times. I ain't hit my head or helmet yet. That includes the get off from a GSXR 750 at approx 110 MPH (not sure 'cause I was hard on the brakes from much faster; I was younger and dumber). Worst injury was a bunch of gravel ground into my forearms from my most recent get off. This is to say my three strikes haven't cost you a penny; I've picked up and continued my ride each time.

I ride with a high level of awareness and managed to have a plan to minimize damage to myself each time I had a get off. Helps that I've been in the saddle since I was 3 and started riding for myself on my 6th birthday.

But I do take offense from those that want to make my decisions for me. 40 years without burdening the masses is evidence that it's my business and I've demonstrated the capacity to make my own decision. I'm not anti gear. But I'm strong on my personal liberties - no worries, 'cause I fight for yours too.

The idea that "the public" has a say in what gear I wear is no different than those that would overturn our second ammendment in our own best interest.

 

[txinvestigator]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not tell you that is as stupid a statement as I have heard in recent times (obama excluded).

That said it makes no sense what so ever. So can you go into some kind of justification?

And what do you mean the taxpayers foot the bill? Again that makes no logic at all.

UNLESS you are implying guys that wear helmets are law abiding tax paying citizens on those of us who chose to not wear a helmet are lazy slackers who don't pay taxes and live off the dole of those who do...and you do NOT want to hear my response to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't think you would have an argument. Please just leave if you cannot resort from personal attacks like you did in my other thread. OK?

 

[cbigclarke]

No one is talking about disallowing the activity. Let's stay on point. Since society has to clean you up and handle the aftermath of your actions, we get to have a little say in how you engage in that activity.

My... What progressive thinking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[txinvestigator]

Don't have to. Insurance is required to exercise the option. Repairs are on my dime.

Specifically what option? Who pays for the EMS, fire and police to respond? Your insurance?

 

[Sugar Land]

You guys hold those thoughts. Gotta go home and pick up the action. This should be some good entertainment...lol

 

[txinvestigator]

My... What progressive thinking

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Do you have an alternate point of view you can actually express?

 

[Younggun]

No one is talking about disallowing the activity. Let's stay on point. Since society has to clean you up and handle the aftermath of your actions, we get to have a little say in how you engage in that activity.

So I'll say it a different way.

Should those who fry turkeys for thanksgiving sign a waiver the the F'D does not have to respond if their house catches fire.

Your whole base argument relies on the assumption that no one will pay the medical bills. Do you have some source you can cite that shows evidence that motorcycle riders with out helmets don't pay their bills?

I have to say, this is the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted.

 

[Sugar Land]

I'm with you YG..

 

[txinvestigator]

You guys hold those thoughts. Gotta go home and pick up the action. This should be some good entertainment...lol

I know, right? A simple question and folks get mad and rather than counter with valid arguments, they attack and ask questions.

No one has yet answered the simple question I posed. Seems like it struck a nerve.......