Poll on mandatory helmet law. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Poll on mandatory helmet law.


minuteman32
09-14-2007, 08:01
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

It's about 1/3 of the way down on right hand side.
We are losing @ this point!

whogasak47
09-14-2007, 11:46
71% y 21%n

fnfalman
09-14-2007, 18:01
I'd like to see a national helmet law for the cagers too. Then we'll see how much they like wearing the helmet.

Freaking do-gooders. I hate them worse than I hate Islamic radicals and commies.:upeyes:

epsylum
09-14-2007, 18:40
Am I the only one that thinks a lot of these laws (helmet law, seatbelt law, etc.) can be handled by insurance companies? Put clauses in the contracts that say if you have a wreck and it is found you did not have a helmet or seatbelt on then you are responsible for your medical bills and allow those that don't use them pay higher rates to have that wording left out.

Then you could just let the free market control it. Its the American way damn it! :supergrin:

I mean I wear both helmets and seatbelts but I REALLY don't like the laws forcing us to wear them.

NMGlocker
09-14-2007, 20:45
Good idea.
Put in additional discounts for wearing CE approved armor and i'd have some cheap insurance.
Let the Ray-Ban, cargo shorts,flip-flop wearing riders subsidize my rates.
:thumbsup:

epsylum
09-14-2007, 23:25
Originally posted by NMGlocker
Let the Ray-Ban, cargo shorts,flip-flop wearing riders subsidize my rates.
:thumbsup:

Subsidize? You are paying for them now and IMO you shouldn't be. Part of your rates are paying for people who get into wrecks without the right equipment on leading to much more extensive bodily damage.

I don't care if you want to ride naked, I just don't want to pay for your accident indirectly through my insurance rates (and I also don't want to see you unless you are hot chick ;) ). I also don't want daddy government deciding they have to tell us how to live our lives.

NMGlocker
09-15-2007, 07:41
I was agreeing with you.
Right now I subsidize the idiots... lower MY rates for wearing the correct gear, raise the rates of the Doo-rag crew, now THEY are subsidizing my insurance.

Ralphumor
09-15-2007, 13:58
Originally posted by epsylum
Am I the only one that thinks a lot of these laws (helmet law, seatbelt law, etc.) can be handled by insurance companies? Put clauses in the contracts that say if you have a wreck and it is found you did not have a helmet or seatbelt on then you are responsible for your medical bills and allow those that don't use them pay higher rates to have that wording left out.

Then you could just let the free market control it. Its the American way damn it! :supergrin:

I mean I wear both helmets and seatbelts but I REALLY don't like the laws forcing us to wear them.

I just keep thinking, It is legal to carry a gun in you state. You can carry it but just dont get in a gun fight cause we wont cover your medical cost. Yes I know that we are paying for dumb butts who dont wear helments. There are fellas that think I am a dumb butt because I dont wear leather 100% of the time. They would be right but I dont. Laws cant protect us from dumb selves.

RMTactical
09-15-2007, 14:12
Not wearing a helmet is stupid, but I disagree with laws making it mandatory. I feel the same way about seatbelt laws. Good to wear a seatbelt, wrong to be forced to.

Tennessee Slim
09-17-2007, 08:29
No! to helmet and seatbelt laws.

Yes! to allowing insurance companies to reduce benefits to those injured/killed in an MVA if they weren't utilizing all appropriate safety measures.

Egyas
09-17-2007, 09:17
Here's my take on it (as a non cycle rider/driver)...

1) I'm against mandatory helmet AND seatbelt laws for adults. In favor of them for minors. Adults have the right to make their own choices and rick their lives. Minors need to be protected, often from themselves.

2) I think forcing other drivers/riders to pay for unsafe drivers/riders is silly. I am in favor of allowing insurance companies to tell riders that if they don't wear proper safety gear (the insurance company would be required to define "proper" in their ToS) then they do NOT have to pay out for accidents, injuries, etc.

epsylum
09-17-2007, 09:46
Originally posted by NMGlocker
I was agreeing with you.
Right now I subsidize the idiots... lower MY rates for wearing the correct gear, raise the rates of the Doo-rag crew, now THEY are subsidizing my insurance.

I know you were. Sorry if it came off some other way.

Lewsid 13
09-24-2007, 06:47
I like the idea about the insurance companies limiting coverage based upon whether one wears protective gear or not.

I personally always wear a helmet and leather jacket, however I don't think I should be forced to!

bdhawk
09-27-2007, 19:19
i look at it from another perspective. if someone has an accident without a helmet, and he has a serious head injury, they will eventually/probabally become a ward of the state. as a taxpayer, i am not so sure i like that idea.

Egyas
09-27-2007, 21:05
Originally posted by bdhawk
i look at it from another perspective. if someone has an accident without a helmet, and he has a serious head injury, they will eventually/probabally become a ward of the state. as a taxpayer, i am not so sure i like that idea.


That's an easy fix. If you become disabled because you';re a fu#$%ng idiot, YOU foot the bills. No assistance for the stupid.

Tennessee Slim
09-28-2007, 04:29
Originally posted by Egyas
...If you become disabled because you're a fu#$%ng idiot, YOU foot the bills. No assistance for the stupid.
PAY the stupid tax!!!

It should be a constitutional amendment.