The AMA on "education" and "training"

[Triple J]

2. People *actually* don't care about others enough to support legislation that would have no affect on them (assuming they already wear helmets)

If you think it doesn't effect you then I'm not sure that you've considered how insurance is calculated.

Even though I always wear a helmet, mandatory helmet legislation may affect me. It's the whole slippery slope thing. They make you wear helmets to reduce fatalities today...tomorrow they may ban motos all together for the same reason.

Rather than mandate helmet laws, why not mandate a beginning rider education class (same should be done for cars as well)? Part of this class curiculum would be to look at the effectiveness of helmets and to dispell some of the myths (i.e. loss of peripheral vision.  ). Educate the people...then let them make their own choice.

I also understand that we end up paying for it in the long run with insurance costs. The same can be said for ANY dangerous activity. The skydiver crashes without insurance, the rock climber falls without insurance, and on and on. Maybe we just ban all dangerous activities to keep costs down? This is one of the sacrifices that is made for a free society...where people can do what they please, how they please, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. No system is perfect in every regard.

[EvilSteve]

@needtorque  I'm not saying that loud pipes don't sometimes get people's attention, I'm saying that open pipes, at upwards of 110dB are ridiculous. They're annoying and the same result can be achieved with quieter, less offensive pipes. Having said that, out in the country somewhere, I don't really give a crap if people do have open pipes but in a very built up city or a quiet neighborhood, it's really freaking obnoxious. This leads people in cities to enact laws that will effect everyone.

Greater distances, steeper mountains, bigger people.

Germany has graduated licenses. Australia is the same size as the continental USA. This argument really doesn't cut it for me. America is unique, yes but not for geographical or physical reasons. The point of graduated licensing is to that people get more seat time on a bike that's easier to handle. You still end up with a bigger bike if you want one. For the record, I really don't think that someone with as little experience as would have them riding a 400cc bike in a graduated licensing system is going to be riding across the country. A graduated license doesn't permanently limit someone to a 400cc bike either, you just have to have a certain amount of experience on that sized bike before you're allowed to graduate to the next license and therefore get a bigger bike.

Firstly, i think that if a 40yo man who is riding for the first time is bold enough to go 100mph+ on a giant sport bike, then he should be aware the consequences and suffer whatever fate he is given. Just like a 16-18 yo kid, he was too stupid and didn't use common sense. Secondly, unless it's different in other states (which it very well could be, I'm in PA) minor and adult alike, if you're on a permit, you where a helmet. period. No night riding or having a passenger either, no matter what your age. Once you get a license it's your call. I'm not sure about minor vs. adult WITH a license here in PA to be honest, but if a minor is forced to wear a helmet, i can understand. At that age, he is not legally responsible for his own death or the death of others, his legal guardian is. He has no rights to other choices, like what school he wants to go to, buying alcohol, etc. Why should his safety be any different? It's not his responsibility legally, it's his parents/guardians until he is 18.

Yes, people should have the sense not to do stupid stuff, but they don't. If you're talking choice then it should be the parent's choice if the minor wears a helmet. I would agree that the PA law saying that anyone on a permit needs to wear a helmet is a better option than basing it on age but that's what the AMA is trying to implement.

@Triple J   I honestly don't understand the whole slippery slope argument. You're saying that, if we have a nation wide helmet law we're more likely to get all our other choices taken away? To me that seems illogical. I don't see how the motorcycling community coming up with it's own restrictions and having them made into laws (before someone with no idea does) will necessarily lead to the general population thinking "wait, we can make laws regarding motorcycles? let's ban them altogether!". Could you see why that doesn't make sense to me? To me this argument sounds like "marijuana is a gateway drug".

[Triple J]

Could you see why that doesn't make sense to me? To me this argument sounds like "marijuana is a gateway drug".

Yep...I understand why you feel that way. I just disagree. 

I don't get the correlation with the gateway drug statement.  Sounds like we probably agree on that issue...different thread though. 

[EvilSteve]

Heh, ok, I guess it's ok that we disagree.

The comment is with regards to a slippery slope argument. That's essentially what "gateway drug" means. You try one (as the theory goes) and then that starts you on the path to try others. The correlation being that having helmet laws necessarily means we'll end up with loads of other laws. My contention is that those laws will happen anyway if we fight for what the wider community perceives as unreasonable rather than coming up with our own restrictions that actually make sense to motorcyclists.

[Triple J]

The comment is with regards to a slippery slope argument. That's essentially what "gateway drug" means. You try one (as the theory goes) and then that starts you on the path to try others. The correlation being that having helmet laws necessarily means we'll end up with loads of other laws. My contention is that those laws will happen anyway if we fight for what the wider community perceives as unreasonable rather than coming up with our own restrictions that actually make sense to motorcyclists.

ah...I get it. The distinguishing thing to me is your talking about a personal issue (gateway drug) vs. a political issue (laws).

Politicians make laws...they don't repeal them. After the federal helmet law is put into place, successive lawmakers may see that moto fatalities are still higher than cages. Some might then feel the need to "save us" from that trend...and look to increase the existing laws. That just seems to be how the lawmaking process works...starts slow and mostly reasonable, then slowly builds into violations of rights.

The same doesn't hold true for personal issues. Marijuana doesn't always slowly build into something more (although it does sometimes for some people). There is no general trend like there is with the creation of laws and them slowly becoming more stringent.

[corey]

"Yes, people should have the sense not to do stupid stuff, but they don't. "
My point exactly. But just because THEY don't doesn't mean EVERYONE doesnt. Why should the people who are responsible and intelligent have to suffer because the majority of people are dumb and reckless? It would turn motorcycle riding into the exact same thing as every other institution and social program in the U.S... The rights of the people who actually make motorcycling what it is will be impeded upon so that people who have no idea what they're doing can have their hands held. Classes are free, take them. No excuse.

And again on graduated licensing, i think that this type of structure would actually deter people from becoming motorcyclists. Too much hassle.
It would turn Motorcycling into even more of a sub-culture. Not to mention that not everyone can afford to buy a 400cc bike instead of the bike they want just because they're forced to. What if they start doing this for cars? Everyone needs to drive a 4 cylinder crap mobile until they log 50,000 miles? It would never fly.

Words like THEY and EVERYONE keep being used in these arguments. All of them seem socialistic, and that is not what America is about. It's about the individual. If it wasn't, we wouldve stayed put in Europe.

[EvilSteve]

ah...I get it. The distinguishing thing to me is your talking about a personal issue (gateway drug) vs. a political issue (laws).

Which doesn't make the argument any more valid IMO.

FL had no helmet law, then added one, saw fatalities drop and then repealed the law and watched fatalities go up. As an example, the new sound laws in NYC are totally unfair as they had been drafted but they were ready to be signed into law. Without an effort from motorcyclists, we would have ended up with a draconian law only applying to motorcyclists. Now we'll end up with something that's more fair but still a PITA and it *will* apply to anyone that rides through NYC. Had we all decided some time ago to implement laws to (for example) require a dB check on inspection, these stupid laws wouldn't have come up because it would be easy to establish that someone was in breach of an existing law that actually made sense to us.

...

So, in your opinion, to summarize:
1. Every person for themselves
2. Motorcyclists aren't committed enough to try
3. Laws to help people = socialism (see #1)

If I'm honest, your opinions seem quite short sited and are exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to think what I'm saying is that we need more laws because laws are good. What I'm actually saying is that if we don't come up with something that makes sense now, we'll be forced to deal with something that makes no sense later. You seem to think that only looking out for yourself will achieve your goals and helping others is socialism. I can see that I'm not going to convince you of any of these ideas so I won't try and I'll leave you to believe what you feel is right, as is your right.

For the record, I'm a skydiver and, for the most part, the skydiving community does a much better job of policing itself than the motorcycle community, even more so in other countries.

[minnesotamonster]

As for a helmet only affecting the rider and it should be his choice that is complete bullshit.  For those of us who are parents we are affecting our children.  

So the government should outlaw you from doing anything that could possibly kill you? It should not be the government who has to make that choice. It's you. If you have people in your life who you do not want affected if you die, then wear a helmet. They're not the ones who should be making sure you don't burden your family with your death because YOU did something stupid. If you don't want it to happen, wear your lid. It's not illegal to wear one and you (as well as I) know that, and choose to wear helmets for many of those reasons. 

[needtorque]

So the government should outlaw you from doing anything that could possibly kill you? It should not be the government who has to make that choice. It's you. If you have people in your life who you do not want affected if you die, then wear a helmet. They're not the ones who should be making sure you don't burden your family with your death because YOU did something stupid. If you don't want it to happen, wear your lid. It's not illegal to wear one and you (as well as I) know that, and choose to wear helmets for many of those reasons. 

My point with that comment was not making that a valid reason for a helmet law.  My point was that people who try to defend themselves not wearing a helmet by using the argument that it affects only them are fooling themselves.  Part of being a grown up, an ADULT is realizing that our decisions always affect more then self.

[minnesotamonster]

My point with that comment was not making that a valid reason for a helmet law.  My point was that people who try to defend themselves not wearing a helmet by using the argument that it affects only them are fooling themselves.  Part of being a grown up, an ADULT is realizing that our decisions always affect more then self.

Ahhh ok. gotcha. I agree. Personally, I see no valid reason for not wearing a helmet, but even so, I don't believe it should be the government's decision whether you should wear one or not.

[EvilSteve]

I can certainly see your POV but I don't want some idiot who choses not to wear a helmet to push up my insurance. Nor do I want the son/daughter of some congress member dieing because they didn't have a helmet triggering ridiculously draconian laws. There's a strong knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of things that will generally be much stronger than the laws put in place by us, for us.

[needtorque]

I can certainly see your POV but I don't want some idiot who choses not to wear a helmet to push up my insurance. Nor do I want the son/daughter of some congress member dieing because they didn't have a helmet triggering ridiculously draconian laws. There's a strong knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of things that will generally be much stronger than the laws put in place by us, for us.

This is my fear as well.  Honestly I was so surprised that this did not happen when Ben Duchelberger wrecked his with no gear on.  Usually it only takes a wreck from one person of some fame to cause an over-reaction to any particular issue.