PA Helmet Law Changing

I post the news

It's news. Ya dont' like it, don't read it.

Re: I post the news

yeah, yeah. it belongs here, I know. keep 'em coming...I just wonder if the other people ever get tired of arguing helmet laws....

If you live in PA and would like to write the Honorable Gov. Ed Rendell just go to: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/ (copy/paste people) and you will find the link to contact him.

BTW, I’ve never understood the public burden argument when used to oppose helmet choice laws. Of the riders I know who choose to go lidless all of them have great health care as well as long term disability coverage. How would I, if critically injured in a motorcycle accident or auto accident for that matter, cost this "society" a single penny?

I wrote Bill Pasen, who I believe is the Senator there. I found his name on a site telling people to contact him to kill the bill. I wrote him in support, even though I am not from PA.

Would you post either his email or the link where you found it? I couldn't find any listings for him with Google.



Thanks

Not to say I support this argument, but to answer your question about how you would "cost this 'society' a single penny" the argument goes as follows:

The insurance you speak of is generally paid for by employers. If claims go up, then rates go up. If the employer is a producer of consumer goods then they will pass the increased cost onto the consumer ("society") and if the employer is the government then they will pass the cost onto the taxpayer ("society") etc.

As for my opinion on helmet laws, put them on the ballot and I will vote against them or to have them repealed. However, I myself wear a helmet 99.9% of the time so these laws are of little consequence to me and there are plenty of other laws over which I am much more concerned. I'll tilt at my windmills and you anti-helmet law folks can tilt at yours.

Here it is

This is his mail address:

[email protected]

It's immaterial whether or not this bill involves motorcycle helmets. What's really at stake is how far we are willing to let the govt go to 'protect' us by removing freedom.



The argument of public burden is so openended that it is like handing politicians absolute power. Do we really want that? That argument makes it possible for the govt to justify anything it wants to do. It's all "for the public good".



The people who want all this govt largesse should just set up the system for themselves and leave the rest of us out of it. That's impossible, of course, because such losers require a large number of producers to extort money for their precious benefits.

Helmet Laws Bite!

Here's a thought. When airliners crash everyone dies. Nobody outlaws flying in planes. When we send our son's off to war they have a good chance of dying but nobody has come up with a no war law. And when that military person dies we tax payers take the hit. Let's just put a law on everything and just hide out in the house.

I'm not going to get into the great helmet debate, but I wear one every time I ride.



But its ridiculous to say it's a freedom issue. What the heck are seatbelt laws, or airbags, or emissions controls? The government has long been in the "protection" game by removing freedoms. If you're worried about freedom why don't you complain about the total circumventing of the constitution that's going on right now under the guise of anti-terrorism.

All fine and nice, IF...

I'm not opposed to this, so long as the rider in question can prove that in the event of a crash, the government has no liability AT ALL.

The rider that isn't wearing a helmet can prove that they have enough medical insurance to pay for a life long stay in the hospital.

It should be kind of like the seat belt law in that you couldn't get pulled over for it, but they could check you for it, and you could be fined or eventually mc endorsment revoked if you didn't have the proof on you when you road with out.

At the same time private insurance companies could jack up the rates or opt not to cover riders that don't wear lids. I can hear some of you saying "Oh, unfair!" but suck it up. Smokers don't get as good of rates as non smokers, so why should helmetless riders get the same rates as ones wearing lids?

Re: All fine and nice, IF...

So, in effect, if there is proof that riding a motorcycle, even with a helmet, is more dangerous than riding in a car (and there is plenty of proof) then ALL motorcyclists should bear the same burden of proof you stated above, as well as "jacking" their rates for participating in this dangerous activity. Why should motorcyclists riding unsafe machines get the same rates as riding in a safe car? By extension, you are condemning yourself with your "burden of proof" argument.

"However, I myself wear a helmet 99.9%"



First, 99% isn't good enough because helmet laws require 100% compliance. Second, what if you got hurt the 1% of the time you didn't wear it? How is your windmill tilted now?

Re: Helmet Laws Bite!

The bill didn't say you can ride a motorcycle, it said that certain people need to wear helmets when riding. Kind of like how we have to wear seat belts during take off and landing, listen to the same speech at the beginning of every flight.

Go visit a grand father in a hospital, with his head stitched up like a baseball, who can't remember who are, because he fell off a old honda 175 at less than 25mph when a car driver wasn't paying attention.

Then watch that same grandfather get dimensa years later and slowly deteriorate due to scar tissue on his brain causing strokes. And watch you grandmother spend 10+ years taking care of her vegetable husband, which was a 24/7 job. Watch them have to sell their Florida retirement home and RV. A long with a very large chunk of their retirement savings to pay medical bills.

wonderful point longride. You should be a politician.

Why does the government have the right to make us get driver's licenses? I mean this is a free country right? Why can the government make us do anything? Or you can look at it this way: If you loan your car, or anything for that matter, to someone else it is still yours and if you say don't smoke in my car that person has an obligation to not smoke in your car. A gainfully employed person has to pay for the opportunity to work in this country, it's called income tax. The government uses this money for many things, one of which is to build roads. Since they are the government's roads they get to decide how the citizens using them can use them, speed limits, vehicle inspections, seat belt, etc. If you don't like the rules then don't use the road. Ride your bike how ever you want to on your own land.

Re: Helmet Laws Bite!

"Go visit a grand father in a hospital, with his head stitched up like a baseball, who can't remember who are, because he fell off a ...."

Roof. Ladder. Horse. Pickup truck tailgate. Fence. Ten-foot high stack of government regulations endorsed by people who use emotions to decide what laws the rest of us must put up with. Funny, with all the advocates trying to make my life safe, nobody is endorsing Hahn's devices on horses, but look at Christopher Reeve...