This is ironic.

[Chippertheripper]

I ain't got no ttd signature, or clue what you're blathering about neither.

[Degsy]

If you insist. I don't believe you, but I'm happy you believe yourself.

Wes, you're 100% categorically, completely and utterly incorrect. Not even close to correct.

It's kinda like motards arent prone to headshake. You have to at least listen to the arguments.

[Chippertheripper]

Hypermotards.

[OreoGaborio]

I was trying to make a point

And what exactly was your point? That helmets provide better protection now than they did 5, 10, 20 years ago? Well yeah... I think that's pretty obvious, no?

or are you saying helmet CONSTRUCTION has reduced MORE deaths than helmet LAWS?

Cuz that could actually lead to a constructive discussion, though I'm not certain you'd be able to find any evidence supporting one side or the other... but you should have said that in the first place.



(PS, the TTD banner in my sig has absolutely NOTHING to do with this, but feel free to take pot shots that are completely irrelivant to the discussion.)

[blacklightning]

Why stop with motorcyclists? Wearing helmets in cars will decrease the amount of automobile accidents resulting in deaths due to head trauma. So let's make it a law.

[OreoGaborio]

Why stop with motorcyclists? Wearing helmets in cars will decrease the amount of automobile accidents resulting in deaths due to head trauma. So let's make it a law.

Because head trauma is the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH in motorcycle accidents.

Compare
Deaths due to the results of head injuries in automobile accidents
versus
Deaths due to the results of other bodily injuries in automobile accidents

and I think that'll answer your question.

[blacklightning]

Because head trauma is the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH in motorcycle accidents.

Compare
Deaths due to the results of head injuries in automobile accidents
versus
Deaths due to the results of other bodily injuries in automobile accidents

and I think that'll answer your question.

Ok, so maybe a law that requires side airbags.

[OreoGaborio]

Does the use of side airbags reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent?

[blacklightning]

My point is, it is unfair and unconstitutional to mandate that I be safer while I perform an unsafe act.

Promote safety, teach safety, preserve my liberty.

[OreoGaborio]

Well we should get rid of all seatbelt, airbag, eye protection and other DOT laws that infringe on your, my and all automobile & motorcycle manufacturer rights, then.

I should be able to drive/ride as fast as I want to. I shouldn't have to obey traffic laws. I shouldn't have to use my lights at night. I should be allowed to top out my bike on the wrong side of any public road with my hair on fire wearing nothing but a smile.

[blacklightning]

Does the use of side airbags reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent?

I'm not disputing safety statistics. I'm sure 37% is true.

Fact: not leaving my driveway on a motorcycle reduces the likelihood of my death in a motorcycle related accident by 100%, so I should be on the ban all motorcycles "ban"d wagon.

[Manik]

I'm glad that we can all agree that helmet technology has advanced in the past 30 years. Its an obvious fact. As for your coworker being able to telll that evil caneivals helmet was not as protective as a fullfaced, well I'm glad to hear that he or she has eyes...because they arfe all that is required for that observation.

Enough people have pointed out the stats on laws guarding the use of helmets, and iits pretty obvious (to most of us at least) that not wearing a helmet negates any ability it would have had to savehyour life.

As for the technology vs law aspect. These are not two seperate entities. Try turning your helmet around and veiwing the back. See that giant all caps DOT logo? They don't put that there because it looks good. They put that there because......ready for it? STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REQUIRE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AND SCREEN FOR REQUIRED TECHNOLOGIES.

Wait, so you mean the helmet laws are actually working to make helmets better? And are a huge reason why todays helmets don't resemble a jousting helm?
Ya think that the existance of said technology could then be said to have been gained through the existance of laws?

Ask yourself this. If helmet laws did not exist, and noone wore helmets, ( we'll go with around 30% which seems to be the average of most polls in nh) how benificial would it be for large helmet companies to produce new helmets and newer technology?

Sdo you think arai would spend hundreds of thousands testing helmets and making them by hand if noone baught them?

Helmet laws are responsible for a progressive technology. And theresfore are responsible for the lives that both the law itself and its subsequent technological advances.

[NobodySpecific]

Promote safety, teach safety, preserve my liberty.

You realize that driving at all is a privilege, not a liberty, right? If you don't have the right to drive, why should you have the right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet? I'm not talking about injury or any of that, I'm curious why you think you have the right to ride without a helmet, which was then taken away. If the right to ride without a helmet never existed, how can it be taken away?

[blacklightning]

Well then we should get rid of all seatbelt, airbag, eye protection and other DOT laws that infringe on your, my and all automobile & motorcycle manufacturer rights, then.

I should be able to drive/ride as fast as I want to. I shouldn't have to obey traffic laws. I shouldn't have to use my lights at night. I should be allowed to top out my bike on the wrong side of any public road with my hair on fire wearing nothing but a smile.

Your list includes things that can cause an accident. No, let's not get rid of eye protection, lights and traffic laws that can "prevent" an "accident".

[blacklightning]

You realize that driving at all is a privilege, not a liberty, right? If you don't have the right to drive, why should you have the right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet? I'm not talking about injury or any of that, I'm curious why you think you have the right to ride without a helmet, which was then taken away. If the right to ride without a helmet never existed, how can it be taken away?

Ummm, I live in NH. I don't have to wear a helmet right now.

[NobodySpecific]

Ummm, I live in NH. I don't have to wear a helmet right now.

That's still not a right, it's a privilege that has been extended to people that ride in NH.

[kb1]

-because I just spent 2hrs of my morning looking for statistics, I need to find value of that time spent. as does my employer.

-and trying to steer the argument? that's what lobbyists do, the same lobbyists that say a helmet-law infringes on yur' freedoms. I was trying to make a point, but shits' useless unless you have a TTD sig. see y'all in jersey in Sept.

huh... where did the TTD sig come in here?

[blacklightning]

Oh, I see, semantics.

So, the way I see it; it's a liberty until it's taken away, then it's a privelage when it's given back. Right? Mien Fuhrer

[Manik]

huh... where did the TTD sig come in here?

He was trying to say that without a ttd tag you don't get heard on forums. All I heard was
" I can't make a point that people find viable so I'm going to attempt to degrade your many fact based comments"

[OreoGaborio]

Your list includes things that can cause an accident.

Good point...

How about licensing requirements, then? NOT having a license doesn't cause accidents but a person is required to get a license, which has all sorts of additional requirements that must be met, before operating a vehicle on public roads... Isn't that an infringement on your liberties?

[Manik]

Oh, I see, semantics.

So, the way I see it; it's a liberty until it's taken away, then it's a privelage when it's given back. Right? Mien Fuhrer

Please, when in the history of the united states was driving "taken away"? Improper use of that quote.

Its a liberty when it pertains only to your wellbeing or happyness. It is a priveledge when the use of said priviledge incorrectly can risk others.

[Manik]

Your list includes things that can cause an accident. No, let's not get rid of eye protection, lights and traffic laws that can "prevent" an "accident".

How can you say a helmet doesn't prevent accidents? Does a falling object HAVE to hit you in the eye to cause you to turn your head? A rock in the forehead, or cheek is just as likely to cause an accident as one in the eye.

[Degsy]

Oh, I see, semantics.

So, the way I see it; it's a liberty until it's taken away, then it's a privelage when it's given back. Right? Mien Fuhrer

Driving is a privelige that can be taken away from or granted to anyone by the department of transportation, regardless of the requests of a judge, jury, magistrate or anyone else.

The DOT allows states to mandate their own driving laws, including helmet laws. Any law to do with driving any vehicle that requires a license of any kind is not an infringement on civil liberties or rights. You have every right to not wear a helmet in Massachusetts, until you decide to take the state up on their generous offer of allowing you to ride a motorcycle. Then you play by their rules, end of story. You don't want to wear a helmet? No problem! Don't get on a motorcycle.

[NobodySpecific]

Oh, I see, semantics.

So, the way I see it; it's a liberty until it's taken away, then it's a privelage when it's given back. Right? Mien Fuhrer

Well ultimately yes. Are you outraged that they took away your liberty to not wear a seatbelt? Your liberty to smoke in bars? Text while driving? Walk around drunk in public? Show your willy to whomever you please? I'm sure at one point in time all of those things were legal. Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't make it a right.

I'm not saying that I agree with the practice, I was just asking a question.

[kb1]

Driving is a privelige that can be taken away from or granted to anyone by the department of transportation, regardless of the requests of a judge, jury, magistrate or anyone else.

The DOT allows states to mandate their own driving laws, including helmet laws. Any law to do with driving any vehicle that requires a license of any kind is not an infringement on civil liberties or rights. You have every right to not wear a helmet in Massachusetts, until you decide to take the state up on their generous offer of allowing you to ride a motorcycle. Then you play by their rules, end of story. You don't want to wear a helmet? No problem! Don't get on a motorcycle.

We agree in this thread Degs.