Ma Helmet law may change.

[Tunertype]

I'm not sure the idea that a helmetless rider will get higher medical bills is really true. Wouldn't they just be more likely to die and therefor not get medical bills, while the one who gets into a major accident with a helmet will get the big bills, but live. Really no helmet is better for society because there will probably be less motorcycle related injuries that result in medical treatment and more motorcycle related fatalities.

[joeswamp]

The argument's major flaw is that the wording directly applies to nearly all dangerous activities. You can argue statistics and overall safety of helmet VS no helmet compared to car VS motorcycle, but we both know that the increased risk of a motorcycle is both substantial and measurable. And trust me, I know how you feel, but winning battles this way creates precedent, making it easier to achieve further restrictions in the future. Precedent clearly matters even in the court of public opinion, and I think defense of a no helmet law is ultimately defense of the motorcycle riding that we have all come to love. Financially it doesn't make sense, but I just don't find myself supporting any further legislation against motorcycles, regardless of the content of the legislation.

The problem with this slippery slope argument is that you're looking at risks alone without looking at benefits of the activity. If you consider the risks alone, you could make the argument that it should be illegal to go on roads at all or even exit your front door.

The benefits of riding without a helmet are quite small compared to the risk of a huge head injury. However the benefits of motorcycling in general is quite high -- reduced road/parking congestion, reduced fuel usage, etc. Yes, motorcycling is a higher risk activity but you can make the argument that the benefits outweigh the risks. You really can't make that argument with helmetless riding.

Of course this only applies to driving on public roads. Build your own closed course track and you should be able to ride naked if you want to.

[nhbubba]

...winning battles this way creates precedent, making it easier to achieve further restrictions in the future.

...

Financially it doesn't make sense, but I just don't find myself supporting any further legislation against motorcycles, regardless of the content of the legislation.

Exactly. It's a slippery, slippery slope.

The problem with this slippery slope argument is that you're looking at risks alone without looking at benefits of the activity.

You and I may see benefit in riding. But the average layman doesn't. Motorcyclists are the minority in this equation, like it or not. Playing the "well I like to do it, so its a benefit" game isn't going to get you very far. "Tough, drive a beige camcord, like I do and stop costing me so much." is the reaction you'll get from the masses. And statistically that's damned hard to argue with.

Unfortunately I think this is one of those situations where if you give an inch they'll take a mile. I once heard mandatory helmet laws compared to mandatory condom use. Not such a stretch if you ask me.

I'm tired of having other people tell me what they think I should or should not be able to do. Live free or die, I say.

However the benefits of motorcycling in general is quite high -- reduced road/parking congestion, reduced fuel usage, etc.

Defend it any way you like. (I think each of those points is contestable, especially here in New England where we all own cars as well.) At the end of the day the vast majority of us here in the US ride because we want to.

Of course this only applies to driving on public roads. Build your own closed course track and you should be able to ride naked if you want to.

Right. Because insurance isn't involved in the health care expenses when you crash on a private track?!

Didn't I just read that NJ law requires the use of a SNELL approved helmet when riding at NJMP?

You'd never get the ok from the zoning committee to do that anyway.

[NobodySpecific]

The problem with this slippery slope argument is that you're looking at risks alone without looking at benefits of the activity. If you consider the risks alone, you could make the argument that it should be illegal to go on roads at all or even exit your front door.

The benefits of riding without a helmet are quite small compared to the risk of a huge head injury. However the benefits of motorcycling in general is quite high -- reduced road/parking congestion, reduced fuel usage, etc. Yes, motorcycling is a higher risk activity but you can make the argument that the benefits outweigh the risks. You really can't make that argument with helmetless riding.

Of course this only applies to driving on public roads. Build your own closed course track and you should be able to ride naked if you want to.

I was looking at it from the point of view of somebody that wants to eliminate motorcycles. These people really do exist, and drawing attention to how dangerous riding without a helmet is only helps to draw attention to how dangerous riding itself is. Reduced road/parking congestion? Fine idea, but goes out the window when you are talking about a single bike in a lot of towns around here. 1 bike means no staggered formation, and lane sharing/splitting is illegal, so essentially a motorcycle by itself has to act almost entirely as a car, in regards to traffic laws and congestion anyway. And parking is only beneficial if there are motorcycle only spots to share with the community, or you have a group and can put more than one bike in a spot. I've often seen motorcycles, even in a city with free motorcycle parking spots, park alone in a meter spot for a car. That is no more efficient than taking their car.

Reduced fuel usage? If you compare one mile driven on a bike to one mile driven in a car, you're usually correct. However, how many of us take joy rides? Ride on the track? Dirty ride in the woods? Go drag racing? To be fair, we can eliminate closed environments because cars do them too. How much gas does the average joy ride, lasting 4 hours and involving 5 riders use? Is that offset by the reduction those 5 riders get by taking their bike instead of their car? My guess is going to be that no, as a whole we do not use less fuel per capita than those that don't ride. I don't, however, have any hard data to back that up.

But lets pretend I never said any of that and those benefits are real. Traffic and gas consumption are reduced by motorcycles. Can you put a price on that reduction? How much money was saved in gas between lower consumption while traveling and less time idling? Now take the total medical expenses incurred by all motorcycle riders in the country (my guess is this would still be a valid exercise at the state level too). Which number is greater? The amount of fuel saved or the medical expenses incurred? Medical expenses are incurred at a much higher rate than the cost of gas, so it doesn't take much to completely wipe out the savings. Add to that the fact that CA is the only state that actually benefits, traffic-wise, from motorcycles, and the argument becomes even more skewed.

YOU can justify it to yourself really easily because you enjoy motorcycle riding. Look at what they have done already with the age restrictions in MA regarding private property. The laws have only just begun.

[DucDave]

Clearly the calendar we are using is incorrect. This thread is a sure sign that winter has officially started....

[mzdagrl]

Clearly the calendar we are using is incorrect. This thread is a sure sign that winter has officially started....

I think it is more accurate to assume that riding season has ended for most of us, not necessarily that winter has begun. But the snow on my front lawn tells me otherwise. Methinks my calendar is, in fact, wrong.

[NobodySpecific]

Clearly the calendar we are using is incorrect. This thread is a sure sign that winter has officially started....

My trickle charger is currently being borrowed and my battery died on Tuesday because it was too cold to get the bike started, there is snow in my yard, and the ski resorts opened (at least for Thursday). Close enough to winter for me.

[gadget]

http://www.thesecretofinvisibility.com/

[zombie]

To hell with cagers and what they think.
Every time a law or regulation is enacted it's nearly impossible to change and the safety argument is utter bollox.
Motorcycles have been a target forever by whatever goody two shoes group out there, even that asshole Ralph Nader wanted to ban bikes for our own safety of course.
Any regulations or laws are solely driven by special interests and they could give a rats ass about rights as long as their agenda is fulfilled.
The increased costs in health insurance for helmetless riders is totally spurious as it amounts to less than 1/2 % in incresed costs to anyone.
Fuck helmet laws
Fuck politicians.
Fuck health insurance companies.
Fuck this and Fuck that
and Fuck it all as we're all Fucked and don't even know it
Fuckity fuck fuck and Fuck that miserable bastard that bounced a check on me this morning.
Fuck it I'm off for a ride.
Now I feel so much fucking better ...

[nhbubba]

Fuck yeah!

[Kazinator]

I think the statement in this article of "ban the sale of exhaust pipes designed to make motorcycles louder" is too vague as one could argue you purchase the exhaust to perform better, not to be "louder". So if that is the wording of the official bill then exhaust manufactures just need to change their marketing language to fit this bill.

So I would be interested in the exact wording of this bill to see what falls under this.

[DucDave]

http://www.thesecretofinvisibility.com/

...where'd he go...?

[number9]

Where's my flamesuit? I actually don't have problems with helmet laws. Sorry I'm not sorry!

[nhbubba]

[mzdagrl]

Where's my flamesuit? I actually don't have problems with helmet laws. Sorry I'm not sorry!

me either, but then I am a NH'ite who follows ATGATT. People can't be trusted to make good choices on a regular basis.

[bostongixxer]

A lot of effort on these posts...I suggest some of that energy go into appearing tomorrow at the Committee hearing. Starts at 10:00 a.m. Transportation Committee. The language on loud pipes contains a possible license suspension...not good:

“The use and sale of any exhaust pipe that increases the sound emission of any vehicle including motorcycles shall be prohibited. All motorcycle exhaust pipes must conform to 82dBA maximum noise level measured directly to the rear exhaust outlet at a distance of 12 inches. The angle of measurement shall not exceed 30 degrees. Sound measurements taken beyond 12 inches that exceed the requirements are not acceptable. Violation of said decibel level, or illegal retrofitting, will result in a license suspension for six (6) months and/or a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).”

[bostongixxer]

Here's the link with every bill listed:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Events/...ource=Hearings

[Kazinator]

Theodore Speliotis & Robert Hedlund are douches

[Kazinator]

All motorcycle exhaust pipes must conform to 82dBA maximum noise level measured directly to the rear exhaust outlet at a distance of 12 inches.

I know nothing about dBa as far was comparability....but isnt 82dba really quiet?

[Kurlon]

I know nothing about dBa as far was comparability....but isnt 82dba really quiet?

That's the current EPA requirement for stock exhausts. REALLY quiet.

[Kazinator]

From what I remember isnt a dishwasher 80 dba?


WTF will happen to us who have aftermarket exhaust and don't have the stock exhaust any longer?

Fuckers.

[nhbubba]

I'm no loud pipe fan, but even I think that's insane.
No chance. ... But then I said that about my neighbor getting that variance for her addition too.

[Eric Baker]

That exhaust one is just crazy. The helmet one, eh, not sure. If I weren't working, I may have thought about going to this hearing.

[bostongixxer]

That's the current EPA requirement for stock exhausts. REALLY quiet.

One of the shootout articles said the Ducati 1198 and Suzuki GSXR idled at 86 decibels.

[golden chicken]

My muffled impact gun (IR 2135QTiMAX) is supposedly rated 86 decibels.