Check out these new helmets!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7813418.stm

No different than many of the Florida riders who think that a pair of sunglasses is enough protection for their head.

Maybe it's a social statement, like expensive jewelry or big cars. In an area of the world where thousands are dying of starvation, wearing ornamental food might be a statement....

Personally, it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive a bike, so it should be up to the rider whether they wear one or not. I don't think the government has a place telling people how to live their lives when it has no effect on other people's safety or well being. Don't confuse Uncle Sam's "caring" for Insurance companies caring about their bank accounts. I know I'm probably alone in this point of view, but I have yet for it to be logically rebutted.

blaze86vic wrote: Personally, it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive a bike, so it should be up to the rider whether they wear one or not. I don't think the government has a place telling people how to live their lives when it has no effect on other people's safety or well being. Don't confuse Uncle Sam's "caring" for Insurance companies caring about their bank accounts. I know I'm probably alone in this point of view, but I have yet for it to be logically rebutted.

I agree with you, same with seatbelt laws. Your choice. I choose belts and helmets.

However, uninsured "squid" or whomever goes into a coma, YOU pay for his hospital visit. The hospital and ins. co. is not going to pick up the tab, its passed to the taxpayer.

I do feel bad for the passengers who fear being struck with a spell if they put a helmet on. Personally I would be concerned about lice.

blaze86vic wrote: Personally, it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive a bike, so it should be up to the rider whether they wear one or not. I don't think the government has a place telling people how to live their lives when it has no effect on other people's safety or well being. Don't confuse Uncle Sam's "caring" for Insurance companies caring about their bank accounts. I know I'm probably alone in this point of view, but I have yet for it to be logically rebutted.

Because tax dollars will be spent in scraping your melon off the pavement.

The fact that if you do live you will be a vegetable, unable to contribute to society in any way, sucking of the teats of us working folk.

I hate bikers who don't wear helmets if you couldn't tell.

I see your point, but that is a price of freedom. I'm sure there are things that we all do for personal preference that cost tax dollars. The simple act of owning a registered gun is a huge burden on the government.

Hating people for their preference is what causes religious hate crimes. They don't hate you for wearing a helmet.

SupraWes wrote:

blaze86vic wrote: Personally, it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive a bike, so it should be up to the rider whether they wear one or not. I don't think the government has a place telling people how to live their lives when it has no effect on other people's safety or well being. Don't confuse Uncle Sam's "caring" for Insurance companies caring about their bank accounts. I know I'm probably alone in this point of view, but I have yet for it to be logically rebutted.

Because tax dollars will be spent in scraping your melon off the pavement. The fact that if you do live you will be a vegetable, unable to contribute to society in any way, sucking of the teats of us working folk. I hate bikers who don't wear helmets if you couldn't tell.

You could always have anybody who doesn't want to wear a helmet sign a waiver stating that if you do crash your smashed melon will be left on the street until it rots no matter how much you scream.

Stories have also appeared in the local papers highlighting passengers' fears that the helmets could be used by motorcyclists to cast spells on their clients, making it easy for them to be robbed. "Some people can put juju inside the helmets and when they are worn the victim can either lose consciousness or be struck dumb," passenger Kolawole Aremu told the Daily Trust newspaper.

You know what, let 'em go without helmets.

blaze86vic wrote: Personally, it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive a bike, so it should be up to the rider whether they wear one or not. I don't think the government has a place telling people how to live their lives when it has no effect on other people's safety or well being. Don't confuse Uncle Sam's "caring" for Insurance companies caring about their bank accounts. I know I'm probably alone in this point of view, but I have yet for it to be logically rebutted.

No, you're not alone, I agree with every thing you said. It's the same thing with seatbelts. I personally think it's a matter of choice, but the gov't only cares about the potential taxes citizens will pay out in a lifetime, plus lobbyists.

so tHATS where all the money goes!