Ma Helmet law may change.

[EJLemo]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...rs_may_el.html

Thoughts?

[Expat]

I guess they have done extensive research and discovered that your head doesn't break if your over 21 and fall off a bike without a helmet on....

[Manny]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

If you look at the other stuff on the bill it includes prohibitions against selling aftermarket pipes. Seems like they are trying to make a trade....

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

All seperate bills.
I will be attending that hearing to voice my opinion.

[csmutty]

One proposed change would lift the helmet requirement for riders and passengers over the age of 21.

I agree with this. Regardless of whether it could protect you or not, a person should have the freedom to choose once they have reached maturity. (The age at which that happens is another debate.)

Another would exempt riders whose motorcycles are registered in a state without a helmet law.

This is a strange idea. Would they then enforce helmet laws from other states? I am not sure if I agree with this or not.

Other bills would ban children under 5 from riding on a motorcycle traveling more than 30 miles an hour.

This shouldn't have to be a law. Parents should use their own judgement. Parents should deal with the upbringing of their offspring, not the government.

ban the sale of exhaust pipes designed to make motorcycles louder

How would this be judged? Would this apply to all aftermarket exhausts or just those that the government deems too loud?

and prohibit cars from passing through groups of two or more motorcycles.

I agree with this, but how close do the bikes have to be to constitute a "group"?

[Kurlon]

How would this be judged? Would this apply to all aftermarket exhausts or just those that the government deems too loud

Maine is already moving down this road. It's illegal now to mount exhaust that is 'louder than stock', or modify the stock system so it's louder. No criteria for testing in the law that I recall.

[RandyO]

. Parents should use their own judgement. Parents should deal with the upbringing of their offspring, not the government.

I agree, I dint have to wear no steenkin helmet when my uncle took me fer a ride on his harley when I was about 4 years old

[nhbubba]

I agree with mutty boy front to back.

I'd be especially interested to see how they plan to enforce the "ban the sale of" one.

Considering the number of novelty helmets I see on riders in MA, the existing law seems pretty toothless anyway.

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9930; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.0.0.374 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

Dave, you haven't learned to just read and laugh yet?

[The Snowman]

I agree with this. Regardless of whether it could protect you or not, a person should have the freedom to choose once they have reached maturity. (The age at which that happens is another debate.)

I guess this means I'll be required to wear a helmet until I die.

[martyk]

so if what if we have a loud pipe before its passed? do we get so called grandfathered in or what? i say keep loud pipes, mine is semi loud, just a yoshi rs-3 cut in half but ordered a pinebox exhaust which is barely any muffling at all. My thought is it would end up like the cell phone law, not paid much attention to
i wouldnt mind cruising around a bit without a helmet, but i do feel comfortable wearing one

[aldend123]

I'm a big fan of personal liberty, so it won't be a surprise when I say I'm happy about this.

But it has indirect implications thanks to other problems in society, where the helmet is a bandaid in the sameway seatbelt laws are. Idiots who are uninsured or underinsured who neglect to use even basic safety measures and become a burden on the tax payer or the insurance company and therefore, you and I. That said, I still support personal liberty, and think we need to instead reform the problem of idiots becoming society's problem.

[GNTurbo6]

I'm all for it. More dead idiots = better image for the rest of us.

[FalArAk]

If you look at the other stuff on the bill it includes prohibitions against selling aftermarket pipes. Seems like they are trying to make a trade....

Pre-ban pipes...great

I wear a helmet no matter what the law says,but I say let Darwin take it's course and let the individual decide.

The bill will never pass in a nanny state like MA though.

[nhbubba]

My thought is it would end up like the cell phone law, not paid much attention to

This is exactly the problem in my view. All these laws that are 98% LEO discretion or completely ignored.

Don't most communities have noise ordinances already?

[ZX11D]

I think the helmet part of this should be left up to the individual. I will continue with ATGATT and thats my choice. As far as the pipe part I would think this should grab the interest of the pipe MFG`s. I think LOUDER PIPES are probably # 1 or 2 in the upgrade department and certainly produce more money than noise measured decibal for dollar invested. Ha Ha!

[aldend123]

This is exactly the problem in my view. All these laws that are 98% LEO discretion or completely ignored.

Don't most communities have noise ordinances already?

Yes, which are sadly not enforced enough. My guess is due to the number of LEO who are also Harley fans. The law already provides ways to mitigate obnoxiously loud vehicles, but is not used.

And I don't mean to point fingers at cruisers vs sport bikes. All have loud bikes, which aren't a problem if you respect "time and a place" rules.

[smd753]

Living in North Hampton NH, home of Seacoast H-D, it can get LOUD around here in the summertime. The town has tried different approaches to quiet down the bikes, with mediocre success. The best course of action seems to be rider education and self-policing. Realistically, bikes are obnoxiously loud only when the rider feels the need to beat that '79 LeSabre from the traffic light.

IMHO

[Karaya One]

Loud pipes are so you can beat these guys...

Corvette race failed - YouTube

[nhbubba]

Noise ordnance. Quantitative definition of 'too loud'. Officers armed with sound meters and trained how to repeatably measure loudness. Done.

Maybe spring for a sign at the city limits if we're willing to pound home the point.

Everything else is a waste of effort.

[01xj]

If they ban loud pipes how are all the cruiser riders going to stay safe? Helmets? Jackets? Gloves? Say it ain't so.

[danny86]

What about the following argument,

"Driving is a privilege not a right. This privilege has rules that need to be abided by to protect yourself and the public.

Those who don't wear helmets incur higher medical cost than those who do. Medical cost are typically incurred by insurance companies which are pooled by citizens. "

Some may argue, well jeez motocross riders also incur heavy medical debt. Thats true however all the tracks ( roads) require the usage of a helmet.

What I see wrong is this. Rider A chooses not to wear a helmet, ride A crashes, incurs medical bills excess $100k and stiffs the insurance company. Insurance company raises rates on all participants who pay into the system.

All of this could be avoided had A worn a helmet.

I'm not saying eliminate all activities which have a high probability of incuring heavy medical debt. If you want to ride a bike without a helmet go ahead.

But what bothers me is when the decisions people choose , when the ripple effects of those decisions effects me in a situation as simple as putting on a helmet, that I have a problem with

If you have $100,000 saved up for medical bills, then go right ahead and ride w/o a helmet !

[DucDave]

someone tried to make a case to me that Insurance companies are actually in favor of choice about helmets. It costs a lot less to settle a claim on a dead rider than the healthcare costs associated with a severly injured rider. And, no helmet = more dead, less seriously injured.

...my POV has more to do with the notion that children are required to wear helmets because they cant be relied upon to make smart choices. Clearly, that applies to adults as well so we need to pass laws to protect them from the possiblity that they will make bad, childlike decisions..

(Derek....I'm laughing. Trust me...!)

[aldend123]

The solution, as I already hinted at, is reforming the idea that a brain-dead idiot is society's financial problem. But if you think about how the solution would be implemented, it's not something many people are very happy about.

[NobodySpecific]

What about the following argument,

"Driving is a privilege not a right. This privilege has rules that need to be abided by to protect yourself and the public.

Those who don't wear helmets incur higher medical cost than those who do. Medical cost are typically incurred by insurance companies which are pooled by citizens. "

Some may argue, well jeez motocross riders also incur heavy medical debt. Thats true however all the tracks ( roads) require the usage of a helmet.

What I see wrong is this. Rider A chooses not to wear a helmet, ride A crashes, incurs medical bills excess $100k and stiffs the insurance company. Insurance company raises rates on all participants who pay into the system.

All of this could be avoided had A worn a helmet.

I'm not saying eliminate all activities which have a high probability of incuring heavy medical debt. If you want to ride a bike without a helmet go ahead.

But what bothers me is when the decisions people choose , when the ripple effects of those decisions effects me in a situation as simple as putting on a helmet, that I have a problem with

If you have $100,000 saved up for medical bills, then go right ahead and ride w/o a helmet !

What about the following argument,

"Driving is a privilege not a right. This privilege has rules that need to be abided by to protect yourself and the public.

Those who ride motorcycles and crash incur higher medical cost than those who don't ride. Medical cost are typically incurred by insurance companies which are pooled by citizens. "

What I see wrong is this. Rider A chooses not to ride a motorcycle, ride A crashes, incurs medical bills excess $100k and stiffs the insurance company. Insurance company raises rates on all participants who pay into the system.

All of this could be avoided had A not ridden a motorcycle.

I'm not saying eliminate all activities which have a high probability of incuring heavy medical debt. If you want to ride a bike and assume all responsibilities for your medical bills, go ahead.

But what bothers me is when the decisions people choose , when the ripple effects of those decisions effects me in a situation as simple as not riding a motorcycle, that I have a problem with

If you have $100,000 saved up for medical bills, then go right ahead and ride a motorcycle!


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.