Should motorcycle riders be required to wear a helmet?

[NDN]

No, because they simply don't work. In 2005, states with mandatory helmet laws actually had a slightly higher rate of fatalities per 1,000 registered motorcycles than states with a modified law or no law at all. That's not a statistically noteworthy difference, but it does demonstrate the futility and pointlessness of the current law.

[NDN]

yes, because I don't want to waste tax dollars cleaning their brains up off the road.

See, I would agree with you if I saw that it actually made a difference. Thus far, I have not. The same goes for seat belt laws and most if not all drug laws.

[CultureKing]

yes, because I don't want to waste tax dollars cleaning their brains up off the road.

See, I would agree with you if I saw that it actually made a difference. Thus far, I have not. The same goes for seat belt laws and most if not all drug laws.

The tax dollars are actually significant, think of all the expenses that go to pay for these idiots from health care for the uninsured to taking care of them in case they become vegtables or handicapped, ext. Basically it should be against the law to not wear a helmet, you uneccesarily endanger yourself and you cost the state too much money for your easily rectafiable mistakes. This goes for car seat belts too, I am happy that Washington requires both seatbelts and helmets

[NDN]

yes, because I don't want to waste tax dollars cleaning their brains up off the road.

See, I would agree with you if I saw that it actually made a difference. Thus far, I have not. The same goes for seat belt laws and most if not all drug laws.

The tax dollars are actually significant, think of all the expenses that go to pay for these idiots from health care for the uninsured to taking care of them in case they become vegtables or handicapped, ext. Basically it should be against the law to not wear a helmet, you uneccesarily endanger yourself and you cost the state too much money for your easily rectafiable mistakes. This goes for car seat belts too, I am happy that Washington requires both seatbelts and helmets

If I saw evidence that they have significantly reduced injuries, I would agree. But I haven't. In fact, some information points to an increase in injuries/fatalities following the institution of mandatory helmet laws. [1] Of course there might be other factors involved there, but the data actually isn't that great. Not only that, but the amount of head injuries caused by bicycle/motorcycle accidents is actually not that high. You're far more likely to sustain that sort of injury riding in a car than a bike.

I understand your concerns about tax payer money being wasted on easily preventable injuries, but again from what I've read the effect seems pretty negligible. And considering all the other directly harmful crimes there are going on, I'd rather the police focus on those rather than some jerk who doesn't want to wear a helmet.

[Aizen]

I say no. I'm proud to live in a state where helmets are not required.

Same here

[Jake]

They're death traps with or without a helmet, especially so for those who don't bother learning how to ride one correctly or for those who do stupid things while riding them. For the danger reason alone states should require helmets and a mandatory safety course for those who wish to ride one.

[DuEbrithil]

they just should wear their helmet. simple as that. and to be honest, if I see someone riding a motorbike like an ass with no helmet, I just laugh about it and think, yep hes probably gonna kill himself. I voted yes because if they have a crash, they will be less seriously hurt if they wear a helmet. Which means less tax dollars caring for them.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't really care - I said yes - b/c it gives MI more money from tickets (we need $$$) and it can protect others.  Seatbelts are yes - b/c those can clearly protect others.

[MODU]

Yes, just as drivers are required to wear seatbelts in their cars.

[??????????]

As long as their not wearing a helmet doesn't affect another persons right to life, liberty and property, then no, such laws are ridiculous.

[angus]

As long as their not wearing a helmet doesn't affect another persons right to life, liberty and property, then no, such laws are ridiculous.

I agree.

[Silent Hunter]

Yes, unless they have a religious reason for not doing so.

[Gabu]

As long as their not wearing a helmet doesn't affect another persons right to life, liberty and property, then no, such laws are ridiculous.

It does do that indirectly, given that you'll get locked in jail for killing someone in a traffic accident, and a motorcyclist will have a much increased chance of death in the event of a traffic accident if he or she does not wear a helmet.

[??????????]

As long as their not wearing a helmet doesn't affect another persons right to life, liberty and property, then no, such laws are ridiculous.

It does do that indirectly, given that you'll get locked in jail for killing someone in a traffic accident, and a motorcyclist will have a much increased chance of death in the event of a traffic accident if he or she does not wear a helmet.

Then should wearing bullet proof vests be mandatory, considering someone may rob and shoot me? Seatbelt laws and tickets only exist as revenue getters for cities/townships/counties.

[Bono]

As long as their not wearing a helmet doesn't affect another persons right to life, liberty and property, then no, such laws are ridiculous.

It does do that indirectly, given that you'll get locked in jail for killing someone in a traffic accident, and a motorcyclist will have a much increased chance of death in the event of a traffic accident if he or she does not wear a helmet.

You cna only go to jail if the traffic accident is your fault.

[Emsworth]

Even if we ignore the personal liberty arguments, there is reason to believe that laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets might actually do more harm than good, due to the strong possibility of risk compensation.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If the State has to pickup a penny of the medical tab,  yes.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No, although laws should be on the books that if you were not wearing a helmet you are responsible to pay back all medical costs incurred.  That would certainly give riders a large incentive to wear one.  If you are still too stupid to wear one, well then you really are a cancer to the world.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

No, although laws should be on the books that if you were not wearing a helmet you are responsible to pay back all medical costs incurred.  That would certainly give riders a large incentive to wear one.  If you are still too stupid to wear one, well then you really are a cancer to the world.

This just in: DWTL announces motorbike riders who do not wear a helmet are societal cancers.....

Shall we execute them and save the trouble?

[DownWithTheLeft]

No, although laws should be on the books that if you were not wearing a helmet you are responsible to pay back all medical costs incurred.  That would certainly give riders a large incentive to wear one.  If you are still too stupid to wear one, well then you really are a cancer to the world.

This just in: DWTL announces motorbike riders who do not wear a helmet are societal cancers.....

Shall we execute them and save the trouble?

They'll obviously execute themselves by dangerously riding without a helmet.  Please take your insignifigance and stupidity elsewhere

[The Man From G.O.P.]

No, although laws should be on the books that if you were not wearing a helmet you are responsible to pay back all medical costs incurred.  That would certainly give riders a large incentive to wear one.  If you are still too stupid to wear one, well then you really are a cancer to the world.

This just in: DWTL announces motorbike riders who do not wear a helmet are societal cancers.....

Shall we execute them and save the trouble?

They'll obviously execute themselves by dangerously riding without a helmet.  Please take your insignifigance and stupidity elsewhere

I'm afraid you still fail to make sense.