There was a time, I didn't think seat belt laws were appropriate.... I have come to realize a seatbelt worn by the driver secures him/her in place enough to better control a vehicle in the event of an accident. The passengers become projectiles also, causing potential harm to other people if he or she is not wearing a seat belt.

I believe helmets should be optional. I interned for a large law firm while in college, and was subjected to the results of many mtorcycle accidents. The ones I saw, the victims were in bad shape regardless whether wearing a helmet. A helmet might add protection for a motorcyclist traveling at low speeds through retirement neighborhoods, but once he/she is driving on the real road.....in the real world...well, flying off a motorcycle at 60 mph with a helmet on will help little.

I ski, and the new safety precaution is wearing a helmet...probably a good idea, but I can't get excited about wearing one skiing. I know wearing one might save my life. I think I will just stop skiing if it is this dangerous, it's not like I'm Picabo Street flying down the mountain at 70 mph + ....

That a helmet won't offer enough protection in so and so situation is another argument used by those who don't wear them. True enough, that if I crash head long at 70 mph into a fully loaded gravel truck also doing 70 mph, I'll probably die on impact and the helmet is just more wreckage. True enough, that there's a fair chance of that happening in that situation even if I'm buckled into an armored car.

Now let's say my crash involves me tumbling head over heels and sliding down the street, at 70 mph. That helmet will probably save my skull from being ground off my neck. That's well worth it.

As 'serves you right' as denying medical treatment to a motorcyclist who was injured worse for not wearing a helmet than he would have been if he were may seem, damn, that's harsh. It would also require a case by case investigation on each crash. I don't want anyone to wait for a scene investigation before they have what's left of their brain sealed back into their head. What if the crash was not even the fault of the motorcyclist? Then what?

Maybe making motorcyclist who shun helmets carry medical insurance to pay for their head trauma is an option. Even that though would be a round about way of making helmets mandatory.

"Helmet" means DOT approved in the USA. DOT and Snell is said to be even better. Check with the manufacturer of a helmet before you buy it. Those DOT and Snell stickers can be mocked up by anyone with a half decent printer.

You can be killed driving a motorcyle and traveling down the road at 30 mph and having a good topple!
Oh, if I were to drive a motorcycle I would be sure to wear a helmet, even if the choice were optional. I believe the government (and I'm one of those Ray liberals ) over regulates our choices. What is next? Forcing people to wear helmets when they drive golf carts? Did you know there are over 13,000 serious golf cart accidents in the US a year? Serious meaning concussions to the head and hemorrhaging... How about horse back riding? When will horseback riders have to, by law, begin wearing a helmet?

You could be killed from a slip and fall in the shower. Wear a helmet.

Motorcycle crashes are on the increase. Motorcycle riding is on the increase. This is not a coincidence. The number of people who successfully operate a motorcycle is also on the increase and that's no coincidence either.

As gas prices continue to climb, we are going to see more and more motorcycles on the road. It's happening already. There will be a greater increase in motorcycle crashes, but in the long run, the roads will become safer for motorcycles. People will become more aware of them and learn to share the road better. Motorcyclists will also learn to operate their machines better.

The number one reason given by cagers (car drivers) who are at fault in car vs motorcycle crashes is "I didn't even see the bike". It's an old saying. Watch for motorcycles. They're everywhere.

I don't know the number one cause of car vs bike where the bike is at fault but, I bet speed and trick riding rank up there pretty high. Lane splitting probably accounts for a good number too.

Lane splitting, aka filtering, is when motorcyclist drives between two lanes of traffic. It is legal in California.

HA! not true... you can get a bluetooth adapter thats either built into a helmet or can be retro fitted to just about any 3/4 or full face helmet. so.. there ya go.. and as a matter of fact, there will be less wind noise with a full face helmet so you'll be able to talk easier...

I too think to a point that it should be the riders choice, as long as it doesn't affect me. Now, I've heard a statistic that says something to the effect of Kentucky Motorcycle insurance is almost 3 times more expensive than Tennessee. Kentucky doesn't have a helmet law, and Tennessee does. In Kentucky, it doesn't matter if you decide to wear a helmet, you will still pay the same rate as some guy that "chooses" to not wear one. Then it's affecting me... There is some rattling going on that the Georgia state legeslature is considering a bill that would no longer require helmet use for consenting adults. Maybe I'll call my insurance company to find out what affect that will have on me...

There are small price reductions in insurance for parking in a garage at home, sometimes at work and sometimes even just parking 'off street'.

The are breaks in the cost for the safety rating of a vehicle or increases for not being as highly rated. This one shows up in motorcycle insurance, big time. A cruiser costs far lass to insure than a sport bike.

Given that, I say helmets wearers should get a break on their insurance rates. We are wearing the safety gear.

I agree with you.. but here's the thing... I go to get insurance, all the while telling the insurance agent and signing something that states "Yep, I always wear my helmet, wouldn't dream of riding without it, heck, I might start walking with it on because it's much safer" Then BAM! I'm in an accident and no helmet in sight. I don't die, becuase I was only going 25 MPH in a school zone when a St. Bernhard ran out in front of me, and I rode into a parked car trying to avoid the beast...

From an insurance companies point of view, I provided false statements on my insurance application, and by golly, I'll get dropped from my insurance. However, there are those pesky statistics that insurance companies love so much that say something like a rider not wearing a helmet is at an X% higher risk of traumatic brain injury. So, I'm now a cucumber drooling on myself because either the machine helping me breath makes it impossible for me to swallow, or I just can't seem to remember how to swallow at this point.

The insurance company's choice here is not as cut and dried as one might think. They can, according to the contract that I signed when I got the coverage states, refuse to pay any and all claims due to false statements provided on the application. At which time, my now destitute spouse will get a call from a very hungry attorny who promises that "if you don't win, I don't get paid!" and even if it's not quite right, and I was definately in the wrong, the insurance company will either be in court for years, or more than likely just pay my spouse, and her now fat attorney off to keep down expenses. Oh, by the way.. Those expenses are passed along to you because I was an idiot.

With that kind of risk, well, me telling an insurance company that I always wear my helmet probably isn't going to get me a discount. Now if a hidden arm held my shoulders and slammed said helmet on my head as soon as I started up the bike?.. now thats worth a discount.... LOL

Too bad you guys don't live in New Hampshire. A. You're not required to maintain insurance on vehicles you own(unless of course you're deemed high risk).

And B. There's no helmet law.

Live Free or Die!

Or both.