- ADVERTISEMENT -
 

« Polls

Should motorcyclists and their passengers be mandated to wear helmets?

ChoicePercentVisualVotes
Yes 74%
722
No 25%
253
975 total votes

Comments

1 NoBS (2006 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Mandatory helmet wear used to be the law, but activists worked and got the law changed. It's a matter of the government infringing upon the rights of individuals. It's a good idea to wear a helmet - nobody denies that. But it's the rider's/passenger's right to choose.

Suggest removal:

2 paulydel (1325 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Helmets should be manditory because I don't like my insurence rates going up because somebody is to dumb to wear one.

Suggest removal:

3 Lifes2Short (3878 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Wear a helmet, that's just COMMON SENSE, which the stupidity of some fools must not have any.

Suggest removal:

4 NoBS (2006 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

So, let's all give away all our rights, and let the government make all our decisions for us.

And, to paulydel, please stop and think - are your insurance rates going up because of non-helmet-wearing motorcyclists, or because of greedy insurance companies?

Most fatalities in auto wrecks are from head injuries and trauma - it would be much safer, and our insurance rates would surely go down, if we all were mandated to not only wear seat belts, but helmets too, while driving our cars!

How many of you would support that?

Suggest removal:

5 VINDYAK (1799 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

I think all children should be required to wear helmets in the car when riding with their mothers, because the mother is on her cell phone and smoking a cig while making a right turn thru an intersection without using her turn signals.

Suggest removal:

6 NoBS (2006 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Finger, if the touchy-feely, "I know better than you what's good for you" types REALLY wanted to mandate something that would/could/ought to make insurance rates drop, they should focus on smoking.

Suggest removal:

7 northsideperson (365 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

NO public monies to support injured riders that weren't wearing helmets.

Suggest removal:

8 anothermike (213 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Helmet or no helmet eventually means open casket or closed casket...........

Suggest removal:

9 LtMacGowan (668 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes curse that evil government for trying to keep people too stupid to live, alive or at the very least out of long term hospice care because they broke their necks how dastardly of them to take away my right to be brain dead.

Suggest removal:

10 NoBS (2006 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

LtMac, look at it this way: No helmet means head trauma, which means dead biker. With helmet means broken neck, which means a long, expensive life as a quadriplegic. Which one would make you happier?

I see lots of emotion on the mandatory-helmet side, but not so much actual reason.

Suggest removal:

11 redvert (2100 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

I voted no since it should be a personal choice. That being said, I wear a seat belt and would wear a helmet. I am sorry, just common sense.

I believe that motor cycle insurance should be setup to not affect automobile rates. Will that happen, of course not.

Last but not least, if a rider chooses to not wear a helmet they should be required to sign a 'Organ Donor" card.

Note: The card stipulations would exclude reuse of the brain....but that would make sense!!!

Suggest removal:

12 NilesOhio (760 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Whether you're wearing a helmet or not will not stop grandma from pulling out in front of you. It just makes you a bit more recognizable at your funeral.

Suggest removal:

13 pjohn (25 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

NoBS. Ask someone whose life was saved by a helmet whether you should have to wear one. I'm all for the whole "it's a free country;it's my life; screw the government" argument but I don't understand how you can deny their utility?

I'm sure insurances rates would be lower if less people died and more people were just injured. Deaths are what really spike it.

The only reason helmets shouldn't be mandatory is to limit the population of people with IQs low enough to get on a 2 wheel death trap without one. Seriously, why would a city/municipality want to be responsible for letting it's motorists ride around without a helmet, die a nasty death, and then get terrible publicity

Suggest removal:

14 NoBS (2006 comments) posted 2 years, 6 months ago

pjohn - please see my first post, post number 1. Note where I say it's a good idea to wear a helmet. I do ride, and I do wear my helmet 100% of the time.

I'd argue with your contention that deaths cost more than injuries to insurance companies. A broken neck, especially in the upper C-spine, means someone's still alive, but unable to do anything, possibly even breathe, for themselves. But they can live their normal lifespan, with medical assistance. Guess who pays those medical bills?

And, to you and the others who feel entitled to make smug, smarmy comments about the intelligence of motorcyclists without helmets, let me point out that it's the "people with low IQs" and other morons driving cars who CAUSE the traffic problems and accidents. If intelligence was a criterion in obtaining driving privileges, there would be a whole lot fewer cars on the road than there would be fewer motorcycles.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes