Author Topic: Motorcycle helmet law? (Read 3591 times)

B17Skull12 · « **on:** August 06, 2006, 06:58:05 PM »

Does colorado not have one or is everyone who rides motorcycles in colorado stupid. I just got back from a fishing trip there. Everyone who rode a motorcycle didn't have a damn helmet.

bj229r · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2006, 07:44:11 PM »

Colorado and New Mexico both...probably 20 states or so. If it upsets you then I suggest you wear one when you ride:aok

MiloMorai · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2006, 07:57:14 PM »

The H-D Touring Handbook only has Colorado, Illinois, and Iowa not requiring helmuts with no restrictions. Some states have exceptions > age, novice drivers, passenger, etc.

NM requires a helmut if you are under 18.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2006, 08:37:05 PM »

Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2006, 09:17:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.

agreed.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2006, 09:19:24 PM »

Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.

If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2006, 09:20:51 PM »

Bycycle riders without helmets = organ donors. Skateboarders without helmets = organ donors.

Virg, you read National Geographic? Nice odds of dieing chart, by reason, in the Aug issue. Look at the odds for cars.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2006, 09:33:26 PM »

That's one thing that really pisses me off about the anti-seatbelt campaign recently. They cannot at all come up with a morally sound reason why it is a law, so they reason that it is a law because it would hurt your family to see you get hurt.

Pure legislative bull****.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2006, 09:38:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.

hey, that's not a bad idea. if you die in a motorcycle crash and you are not wearing a helmet, your organs (including your skin if you took a faceplant) belong to the state.

Dago · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2006, 10:00:40 PM »

Minnesota didnt require one last time I checked.

Is it right to use legislation to force someone not to do something stupid? I suppose there is some merit to it when the stupidity of others forces the rest of use to pay higher insurance premiums and taxes taking care of the dumb ones.

Maverick · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2006, 10:03:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.

If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.

Source?

icemaw · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2006, 10:09:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184

If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.

true however in a minor accident one that you would normally walk away from with roadrash could very likely be fatal with out a helmet. i allways wear simpson carbon fiber both on my hog and my crotch rocket. i have an valuable head i wear a good helmet.

Dago · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2006, 10:09:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.

If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.

The big problem is the not-so-bad accident that becomes one because of the lack of a helmet. A crash that might have been easily survivable with minor or no injuries can become a catastrophe for lack of a helmet.

Your right about a bad accident, a helmet sometimes doesn't matter, and usually not when the torso contacts a tree or vehicle at high speed.

Again, its the lesser accidents where helmets make a huge differance. High sided off a bike in 1988, did some time airborne and came down on my helmet, but the full face Bell saved me. Shoulder was seperated, but no head injuries, and there would have been some otherwise.

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** August 07, 2006, 01:07:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
That's one thing that really pisses me off about the anti-seatbelt campaign recently. They cannot at all come up with a morally sound reason why it is a law, so they reason that it is a law because it would hurt your family to see you get hurt.

Pure legislative bull****.

IMHO, they shouldn't be trying to legislate morality at all.

Chairboy · « **Reply #14 on:** August 07, 2006, 01:09:45 AM »

Helmet and seatbelt laws are an affront to liberty. The only borderline case I could see for them would be for people under 18.

That said, I _never_ ride my Bandit 1200 w/o a helmet and never drive or fly w/o wearing a seatbelt.