• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

helmet laws

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet

Should motorcycle riders be required by law to wear a helmet?

  • yes

    Votes: 27 56.3%

  • no

    Votes: 21 43.8%
  • Total voters
    48
Sort by date Sort by votes
I think it is stupid to ride without a helmet. If somebody is stupid enough to ride without a helmet, I hope they are organ donors, so sombody can benefit...

Spring is the transplant season... a large percentage of donors in the sprin comes from bike riders... (this is also reason number 1 as to why I don't ride)...
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeSoldier said:
If you are that worried about the insurance crap then pass a law that says anyone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet forfeits all coverage other than liability.
Click to expand...

That's about as realistic as Charlie Weis not going back for a second go-around at the buffet. As I said before, med pay on bikes doesn't account for much if anything outside of excuses to jack up premiums. It's health insurers who take the hits when morons riding without a helmet turn themselves into veggies. I find it to be highly unlikely (and by highly unlikely I actually mean virtually impossible) that a health provider will be adding that kind of clause to policies anytime soon...or ever.

There's more than just an impact on insurance. The potential loss of an income can throw an individual or a family into economic turmoil and onto government assistance. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer my tax dollars go elsewhere.

I'm always amused by riders who wear protective gear everywhere but their head. You'll see them in their leathers with reinforced gloves and proper boots, but they don't wear a helmet. They usually offer the same lame and unfounded excuses: "It cuts down my peripheral vision", "It's cumbersome". or the worst "It messes up my hair." Such stupidity...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
We need to do something about these damn hurricanes, as well. I mean, why should we pay for that shit when we don't live there, and weren't affected? What a crock...

I understand why people are calling Big Ben stupid for not wearing a helmet, but let's not forget that he didn't break any laws, and he wasn't negligent in that accident, the stupid bitch that didn't see him was. When an individual commits a tort, they are legally liable for the damages that arise out of that tort...if you have a problem with that, you need to change insurance law in all fifty states.
 
Upvote 0
FKAGobucks877 said:
I understand why people are calling Big Ben stupid for not wearing a helmet, but let's not forget that he didn't break any laws, and he wasn't negligent in that accident...
Click to expand...

Not to split hairs here, but technically he did break at least 2 laws. He did not have a valid motorcycle license, which lead him to breaking another law. From what I've read, the Pennsylvania state law regarding helmets says that you are required to wear a helmet, unless you have a valid motorcycle license and have had that license for 2 years, niether of which Ben had.
 
Upvote 0
AJHawkfan said:
Not to split hairs here, but technically he did break at least 2 laws. He did not have a valid motorcycle license, which lead him to breaking another law. From what I've read, the Pennsylvania state law regarding helmets says that you are required to wear a helmet, unless you have a valid motorcycle license and have had that license for 2 years, niether of which Ben had.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Roethliswhatever and his insurance company don't have much of a legal leg to stand on and, if Pennsylvania is a no-fault state it won't matter one bit.
 
Upvote 0
I think that insurance companies should add clauses in their policies for motorcycle riders that have diffferent coverages for wearing a helmet vs. not wearing a helmet. If the accident occurs without a helmet, and the person doesn't have the much more expensive 'no helmet' coverage, all injuries to the head should be the responsibility of the rider, not the insurance company.

It's not perfect, but it would help reduce the problem of the risk-takers raising the insurance rates for everybody. And the difference in insurance rates would help increase the number of helmets being worn.

There would just be an increase in the number of injured motorcyclists trying to crawl back to their bikes to pretend that they were wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
 
Upvote 0
BB73 said:
I think that insurance companies should add clauses in their policies for motorcycle riders that have diffferent coverages for wearing a helmet vs. not wearing a helmet. If the accident occurs without a helmet, and the person doesn't have the much more expensive 'no helmet' coverage, all injuries to the head should be the responsibility of the rider, not the insurance company.

It's not perfect, but it would help reduce the problem of the risk-takers raising the insurance rates for everybody. And the difference in insurance rates would help increase the number of helmets being worn.

There would just be an increase in the number of injured motorcyclists trying to crawl back to their bikes to pretend that they were wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
Click to expand...

That's just not practical. For one, med pay limits aren't much of a factor b/c they're not large (if your bike policy even has the coverage). Accidents that result in major head injury affect health care providers far more than bike insurers. P&C insurers are looking at the accident simply as an insident with a med pay loss and will adjust liability, med pay, and PD rates to match. The details of the accident (like whether a helmert is worn) isn't as significant as one would believe. Second, to establish different rates, an insurer would have to determine if someone actually wears a helmet before an accident ever takes place. This would be like trying to detremine if a potential insured wears his/her seat belt all of the time without the aid of an MVR report (which wouldn't be much use anyway for something like this). And that's just for the P&C insurer. There's no incentive to adjust premiums or claims procedures for helmetless riders for the health insurer either (at least right now...as the number of cyclists rises, that may hypothetically).
 
Upvote 0
There would just be an increase in the number of injured motorcyclists trying to crawl back to their bikes to pretend that they were wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
Click to expand...

What would that be, the imaculate head denting "Yes officer, I know there is a dent in my head, and not in my helmet, but I am telling you I was wearing my helmet."
 
Upvote 0
gregorylee said:
What would that be, the imaculate head denting "Yes officer, I know there is a dent in my head, and not in my helmet, but I am telling you I was wearing my helmet."
Click to expand...

I'm picturing guys with concussions trying to think through how they need to rig the evidence. Rub some blood inside the helmet, bang it on the ground a couple of times. And then explain the broken nose, broken jaw, etc. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top