# Lawmakers Weigh Changes To Motorcycle Laws



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

One Bill Would Ease Requirement For Riders To Wear Helmets

*BOSTON -- *Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing changes to the state's motorcycle laws, including bills designed to ease the requirement that riders wear helmets. Current law requires all riders and passengers to wear protective head gear, except those participating in parades. One proposed change would lift the helmet requirement for riders and passengers over the age of 21. Another would exempt riders whose motorcycles are registered in a state without a helmet law. Other bills would ban children under 5 from riding on a motorcycle traveling more than 30 miles an hour, ban the sale of exhaust pipes designed to make motorcycles louder and prohibit cars from passing through groups of two or more motorcycles.

Read more: Lawmakers Weigh Changes To Motorcycle Laws - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston


----------



## EMTFORHIRE (Nov 11, 2009)

If someone wants to splatter their brain all over the road its thier choice but I feel bad for the people who have to clean it up.


----------



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)

EMTFORHIRE said:


> If someone wants to splatter their brain all over the road its thier choice but I feel bad for the people who have to clean it up.


I'm in agreement with this just as I was against the seat belt laws, except of course for minors.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

This state is a fucking abortion and these idiots are mulling over this for changes in the law?


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

EMTFORHIRE said:


> If someone wants to splatter their brain all over the road its thier choice but I feel bad for the people who have to clean it up.


For those who survive with traumatic brain injuries, guess who gets to pay for their lifetime care and rehabilitation costs?

Look in the mirror.

Mandatory helmets? HELL YES!!!!!


----------



## Inspector71 (Sep 30, 2007)

Loud pipes save lives!!!! Helmets are good to scoop up the brains too!


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

As usual they want the mess with something that has been working fine. Leave things alone.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

sorry boys

i lose the skid lid whenever crossing the boarders of NH, CT and RI.

ya got more chance of some idiot in a car running you over than splitting your melon on the pavement.

i've always said the only good thing about helmets is after some 90 yr old, blind, half senile old hag runs you over and drags your corpse 2 miles down the road they can at least recover the head for positive ID because there ain't gonna be more of you left .


as a bonus they can stick the head on a manikin body, put you in the box and people will say how natural you look. :tounge_smile:


10,000 miles a year on a bike.

yeah, i got issues :shades_smile:


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

pahapoika said:


> i've always said the only good thing about helmets is after some 90 yr old, blind, half senile old hag runs you over and drags your corpse 2 miles down the road they can at least recover the head for positive ID because there ain't gonna be more of you left .


A former co-worker of mine would most likely be alive today if he was wearing a properly-secured DOT-approved helmet when someone turned left in front of his motorcycle. It's not just for for your hypothetical 90 year old blind, senile, blah, blah, example.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, then sign a release that fully absolves all the rest of us from having to pay for your long-term care and rehabilitation if you suffer a traumatic brain injury as a result. If such a scenario is as rare as you want us to think it is, you would have no problem with that, right?


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

I used to think helmets weren't for me when I was living in California in the mid 80's, as an 18 year old. all young dumb and full of cum. I had a nicely worked '84 Honda Interceptor 500. Riding home from a girlfriend's house one evening, I had a choice to make on a sharp turn that came up too fast for me to properly handle. Stay upright, eat an 18" granite curb and get propelled into the Shell refinery that was dead ahead, or lay it down and ride out that shitstorm.

I laid it down to scrub off some speed and keep a lower profile. Long story short, I limped away with a sprained ankle, a scorching case of road rash, a bent and totalled bike and a valuable lesson. I swore to always wear a helmet after that. I somehow managed to keep head intact. 

Then after becoming a police officer, getting married and having kids, and investigating too many aforementioned left turning non driving fucks taking out a motorcyclist type accidents, I decided that my hobby was not worth maiming myself for, so I quit. It's not a matter of "if" you are going to crash, but "when". At least be prepared for it.

Side note, I always went full face helmet. Two summers ago, I diagrammed a single vehicle accident involving a motorcyclist. The bike was hardly damaged at all, so I know he wasn't going fast. Best guess is that the dude looked down at something and went slightly off the road, and bumped the guardrail. He was wearing a helmet, but an open face one. Faceplanted the support beams that hold the guardrail up and fractured his face (skull) and died.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

Johnny Law said:


> It's not a matter of "if" you are going to crash, but "when".


When I was on the mounted unit (horses), we had a saying....there are 2 types of riders;

1) Those who have been thrown.

and

2) Those who are going to be thrown.

The same applies to motorcycle riders.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> For those who survive with traumatic brain injuries, guess who gets to pay for their lifetime care and rehabilitation costs?
> 
> Look in the mirror.
> 
> Mandatory helmets? HELL YES!!!!!


I agree with your premise but not the solution. My response would be a jolly good GFY to treatment--you took the risk, too bad so sad--provided it's even a significant result.

I personally know of two people who suffered severe traumatic brain injuries in accidents (a former GF's sister and a 2nd Cousin) but both were pedestrians struck by M/V's. Most of the time, people in motorcycle MVA's simply die.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I personally know of two people who suffered severe traumatic brain injuries in accidents (a former GF's sister and a 2nd Cousin) but both were pedestrians struck by M/V's.


I'm very sorry to hear that, but those people likely weren't engaged in a high-risk behavior such as riding a motorcyle without a proper helmet.



OfficerObie59 said:


> Most of the time, people in motorcycle MVA's simply die.


Will you acknowedlge that at least some people suffer non-lethal traumatic brain injuries every year because they either didn't wear a helmet, or they wore a non-DOT approved cool-looking "brain bucket"?

If you will acknowledge that.....guess who pays for their lifetime treatment/rehabilitation?

Break out the mirror.

Sorry.....I don't want to pay for the medical costs of someone who thinks that wearing a basic piece of protective gear is too uncomfortable, too inconvenient, or that is doesn't "look cool".

Even in 100-degree heat, I wear my body armor.

Is it comfortable? No.

Is it convenient? No.

Does it "look cool"? No, because it adds at least 10lbs to my body image.

Do I strap it on every time I get ready for work?

HELL YES!!!


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

I agree with you that sure, sometimes there are those that ride motorcycles and even drive cars without seatbelts experience debilitating brain injuries as the result of crashes. With that said, don't come running to the nanny state when your exercise of freedom lands you in the shit. Not wearing a motorcycle helmet, a seatbelt, or your vest at work is incredibly stupid. Bit it should be your choice to make.

I will say while my general opinion is consistent as above and I think the choice should be more flexible on hot road details, the choice to wear a vest has less credibility than the seatbelt or helmet. There, you work for the government and their paying you to be in their service. I think that point is a compelling factor non existent when your driving down the road for a Sunday motorcycle ride.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

Delta, met your co-worker on the side of the road one night coming back from Nantasket and he was a very good cop.

we were having a discussion on speeding :shades_smile:

stood in a very long line to pay my respects. 

Quincy lost a very good man that day.


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

pahapoika said:


> Quincy lost a very good man that day.


Truer words have never been spoken


----------



## sdb29 (Jul 17, 2002)

So we're all in agreement then, right? Mandatory helmet laws and mandatory, primary offense seatbelt laws.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

sdb29 said:


> So we're all in agreement then, right? Mandatory helmet laws and mandatory, primary offense seatbelt laws.


Sounds good to me!


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I agree with you that sure, sometimes there are those that ride motorcycles and even drive cars without seatbelts experience debilitating brain injuries as the result of crashes. With that said, don't come running to the nanny state when your exercise of freedom lands you in the shit. Not wearing a motorcycle helmet, a seatbelt, or your vest at work is incredibly stupid. Bit it should be your choice to make.


If that were the case (no running to the government), I would agree. Other people's freedom of choice stops when it costs me money.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> Other people's freedom of choice stops when it costs me money.


If I had my way, it wouldn't cost you money. If you stupidly refuse to wear a helmet, you deserve what you get.

The freedom to make decisions in reagrds to personal safety will always be inherently dangerous simply because people will not always make the correct decision. But the liberty interest served by placing the decision in the hands of those whose safety is at issue is far superior. It's the slippery slope to the nanny state we unfortunately already have, and I see this as chipping away at it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

USMCMP5811 said:


> Not only NO but, HELL THE FUCK NO!


If you sign an airtight waiver which swears that neither you or your family will ever expect the government to pay for your long-term catastrophic injury health care costs if you get launched off your motorcyle and land head-first on the pavement, or get launched through the windshield because you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then have at it.

Doesn't sound so appealing anymore, does it?


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

USMCMP5811 said:


> Been there, done that. Still doesn't change my opinion of seat belts or their "Life Saving" attibutes. As to helmits, if you're gonna take a spill and bounce your head off the pavement, I don't see the helmit helping any as the brain damage results from bouncing itself off your inner skull, not the pavement.
> 
> While you and I see eye to eye on just about 99% of everything Bro, I think this is one of the very few that we'll just have to agree to disagree.


One of our former motorcyle guys (who is now a K-9 handler) had someone pull out in front of him, he crashed, got launched off the bike, and the back of his head hit the sharp edge of the street curbing, putting a divot in the helmet almost a half-inch deep. He got a concussion, but had no lasting effects.

The physicians at the ER all agreed that if he wasn't wearing a helmet, he would have almost certainly died, and the absolute, most remote, best-case scenario is that he would have been brain-damaged to the point that he would require baby-level care for the rest of his life.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

only time i use a seatbelt is on a plane.

*in the event of a emergency please buckle your seat belt, place your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye !
*


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

While I am all about taking the decision out of the hands of the Government and letting people decide wether they want to wear either the seatbelt or the helmet (after agreeing that they are solely responsible for the consequences), I think it would be very difficult to argue that they do not save save lives and prevent injury. 

My maternal grandfather, God rest His soul, would tell a story of an accident he was in years ago in which not wearing the seatbelt saved his life because the car caught fire. Wether that is true or not I don't know but even if it were, the number cases of people killed by these safety devices is miniscule compared to the number of lives saved (esp. true in the case of seatbelts).


----------



## cousteau (Oct 31, 2011)

Sure, the insurance companies have a hand in the law making process; lobbyists. Not the only industry to use them. Do helmets protect your head? Obviously. You can argue the primary, secondary, etc. impacts. The helmet absorbs a portion off the shock. Will it protect you brain? Possibly. Will it safe the majority of the flesh on your head? Likely. Will it protect you from death? Sometimes. Should you be forced to wear them? Absolutely not. Should your home and welfare of your family be jepardized monetarily if you are a vegetable by your decision? Well?


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

cousteau said:


> Sure, the insurance companies have a hand in the law making process; lobbyists. Not the only industry to use them. Do helmets protect your head? Obviously. You can argue the primary, secondary, etc. impacts. The helmet absorbs a portion off the shock. Will it protect you brain? Possibly. Will it safe the majority of the flesh on your head? Likely. Will it protect you from death? Sometimes. Should you be forced to wear them? Absolutely not. Should your home and welfare of your family be jepardized monetarily if you are a vegetable by your decision? Well?


Since I can't "like" your post officially yet, here it is LIKE and THANKS


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

cousteau said:


> Should your home and welfare of your family be jepardized monetarily if you are a vegetable by your decision? Well?


Absolutely, positively, HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing better than a little familial peer pressure to make people do the right thing. Every time I leave the house in uniform, whether it's for a regular shift or a detail, my daughter punches my chest to make sure I'm wearing my vest, and even when I'm moving the cruiser from the back deck of the police station to my car in in the parking lot to get my gear (maximum speed 10mph), I put on my seat belt.

I may well buy it in the line of duty some day, but it won't be because I wanted to look cool, be comfortable, etc. I shouldn't be expected to pay for someone else's decisions to the contrary.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

all the respect in the world for ya Delta

but like the jarhead said, let's just agree to disagree on this one 

peace, man ! :shades_smile:


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

When we insulate people from the consequences of their actions, their freedom (as far as I am concerned) is an illusion. 

Sent from my Incredible 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

Another way to put it...

It's balls cold out. Common sense, and my own interest of self preservation, determine that I should wear a coat or other warm clothing to maintain my body temperature. It also will reduce the possibility of catching an illness due to a drop in immunity due to the weather. 

If the .gov started barking about people getting sick because they wore a t-shirt in 30 degree weather, and mandated coats from November through March, I think we'd be loading mags and sharpening knives.

Same thing, smaller scale. 

Personally, I liked my matching helmet on my crotch rocket.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Another way to put it...
> 
> It's balls cold out. Common sense, and my own interest of self preservation, determine that I should wear a coat or other warm clothing to maintain my body temperature. It also will reduce the possibility of catching an illness due to a drop in immunity due to the weather.
> 
> ...


You're comparing apples to moonrocks; not wearing adequate clothing for cold weather makes one very uncomfortable, so there is an inherent instinct to dress for the weather. Wearing a helmet is supposedly (I don't see the big deal) uncomfortable, and is to protect you from something that *might* happen, not *will* happen (hypothermia).

I saw an online comment in a newspaper that sums up my feelings on the matter: If you choose to not wear a helmet, then you probably don't have a brain that's worth protecting.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

My rationale was that hypothermia MIGHT happen, just as a motorcycle accident MIGHT happen. The choice should be ours to make what we choose to wear, or how we choose to protect ourselves. I was agreeing with you in my own way.


----------



## screamineagle (Jul 11, 2005)

I wear my helmet every time I ride, in or out of state. Its *MY* choice. I dont do it cuz I think its cool, or it makes me look good. I look like Peter effing Griffin with or without it. But its *MY* choice. If I dont want to wear it, so be it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> My rationale was that hypothermia MIGHT happen, just as a motorcycle accident MIGHT happen.


If you walk around in a t-shirt in sub-freezing temperatures, hypothermia WILL happen.



Pvt. Cowboy said:


> The choice should be ours to make what we choose to wear, or how we choose to protect ourselves. I was agreeing with you in my own way.





screamineagle said:


> I wear my helmet every time I ride, in or out of state. Its *MY* choice. I dont do it cuz I think its cool, or it makes me look good. I look like Peter effing Griffin with or without it. But its *MY* choice. If I dont want to wear it, so be it.


]
As I said, sign an airtight waiver that no one but your family will be responsible for your long-term medical costs if you suffer a traumatic brain injury, and I have no problem with not wearing a helmet. Just don't make me and everyone else pay for your poor decision.


----------



## Inspector71 (Sep 30, 2007)

USMC and Papahoika....

I love you guys too! I think you guys don't want to wear lids that's OK. You take em off in NH, Maine, or wherever that's cool too. I've been in two decent MC accidents, and although I can't say with certainty I would've died without em...I'm damn glad I was required to wear them afterwards! Also I'm sure they contribute more positively in the arena of injury reduction than the naysayers allude to. Not to chose sides either but the death and permanent injury claims settlements have to push our insurance rates up somewhere.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

*if you choose to not wear a helmet, then you probably don't have a brain that's worth protecting.*

I LIKE IT ! :shades_smile:

*Dr. Frederick Frankenstein*: Now that brain that you gave me. Was it Hans Delbruck's? 
*Igor*: No. 
*Dr. Frederick Frankenstein*: Ah! Very good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I DID put in? 
*Igor*: Then you won't be angry? 
*Dr. Frederick Frankenstein*: I will NOT be angry. 
*Igor*: Abby someone. 
*Dr. Frederick Frankenstein*: Abby someone. Abby who? 
*Igor*: Abby... Normal. 
*Dr. Frederick Frankenstein*: Abby Normal?

*Dr. Frederick Frankenstein*: HE'S GOT A ROTTEN BRAIN! IT'S ROTTEN, I TELL YA! ROTTEN! 
*The Monster*: RAAAAAAAA! 
*Igor*: Ixnay on the ottenray.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> One of our former motorcyle guys (who is now a K-9 handler) had someone pull out in front of him, he crashed, got launched off the bike, and the back of his head hit the sharp edge of the street curbing, putting a divot in the helmet almost a half-inch deep. He got a concussion, but had no lasting effects.
> 
> The physicians at the ER all agreed that if he wasn't wearing a helmet, he would have almost certainly died, and the absolute, most remote, best-case scenario is that he would have been brain-damaged to the point that he would require baby-level care for the rest of his life.


I've never argued that not wearing a helmet was a good idea, only that you should be able to make the dumb choice without government command.

Let's ask this one: Should the government be able to force you to buy health insurance? I'm not talking about the Commerce Clause argument--what about this as an affront to individual liberty (which would include Romneycare).

The arguments are very similar. We force people to buy health insurance because if they don't and get sick--which I would argue has a greater risk of occurance than lauching off you motorcycle--the .gov has to pick up the tab. The counter, espoused by libertarians like Richard Epstein and Randy Barnett, is if the goverment can force you to buy health insurance under that logic, why not force you to buy broccoli to combat costs to obesity or toothpaste to lower dental expenses?

Seems to me the arguments are quite similar: Let's force a good idea upon the people to save everyone money. To me, the slippery slope of liberty suppression is too great a price--even more than what it might cost me if I'm forced to pay for others.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I've never argued that not wearing a helmet was a good idea, only that you should be able to make the dumb choice without government command.


As I've said ad nauseum throughout this thread, if someone signs an airtight waiver that taxpayers won't be responsible for their medical costs/long-term care if they suffer a traumatic brain injury from not wearing a helmet, then I have absolutely no problem with people not wearing helmets. IMO, it would just thin the herd of stupid people and make the gene pool stronger overall.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> As I've said ad nauseum throughout this thread, if someone signs an airtight waiver that taxpayers won't be responsible for their medical costs/long-term care if they suffer a traumatic brain injury from not wearing a helmet, then I have absolutely no problem with people not wearing helmets. IMO, it would just thin the herd of stupid people and make the gene pool stronger overall.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume your view on the healthcare system is likely that you shouldn't be forced to buy it.

If that's the case, I'm looking to see you square that with your opinion on the helmet/seatbelt issue. Should you be forced to sign a waiver saying you won't take any govenrment paid-for healthcare if you get sick to remain unisured? After all, if you get sick and are unisured, we all pay for it, right?

While one can certainly argue (as I would) that there are consequences for such decisions like injury while riding a motorcycle without a helmet, the more prevaliant view in society is that its in our nature to take care of others in at least the "lack of health insurance" situtation. And if that's the case, while it may sound cliche, I'm simply wondering if the price we pay to cover these people is simply a cost of liberty that should be factored in to our expenses as a society.

Again, my problem is there's no logical line anyone can draw as to where this all ends. Why not simply ban people from riding motorcycles? After all, aren't you much safer in a car--I'm sure even with a helmet people have had horrible injuries and paralysis that have to be covered by taxpayers for a lenghty amount of time.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume your view on the healthcare system is likely that you shouldn't be forced to buy it.


Absolutely.



OfficerObie59 said:


> Should you be forced to sign a waiver saying you won't take any govenrment paid-for healthcare if you get sick to remain unisured?


Absolutely.

When I was first discharged from the military, it took me awhile to secure a job with health insurance (which I mostly paid for...the company picked up something like 10%). During that time, if I got sick, I went to the local "Health Stop", which were 80's-era storefront health clinics, and I paid for whatever services I received. One time when I put my hand through a window and needed stitches, I went to Quincy City Hospital (a.k.a. The Stairway to Heaven) and made monthly installment payments to pay the bill.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Sorry, I think I added the last two paragraphs after your reply. Didn't mean that to be a curveball.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Sorry, I think I added the last two paragraphs after your reply. Didn't mean that to be a curveball.


No problem...my overriding point can be summed up by something my minister told me when I was a child; "You can do whatever you want in life, provided you're willing to accept the consequences".

Key word being "you're".....don't expect everyone else to pay for your reckless decisions and behavior.


----------

