PA Helmet Law is repealed

[bleedingheart]

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/03243/217040.stm

I think that insurance rates for PA motorcyclists will be going up as well as the number of fatalities. My sister did ER work and they use to call them "donor"-cycles...

[rooboy]

1. No helmets on motorcycles???

Shit, in my state down under, it's illegal to ride a bicycle without a helmet!!

It's one thing to say that adults have a choice, but it's another to burden the health and emergency services with cleaning up the mess.

[bleedingheart]

2. but this is America...land of the free...free to wear a helmet or

free not to wear one ..so we wasted lots of legislative time and spent lots of money lobbying to be allowed to kill ourselves more effectively if involved in an accident.

Personally I think it was stupid to repeal it but hey...they are the ones who will pay the ultimate price.

I just worry they will repeal stuff like the car seat laws for kids...etc...

Funny how people want the "choice" to wear a helmet ...but when women want reproductive "choice" everyone gets crazier...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet is Darwin Award material

I'm sure that you have a "right" to not wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle on a public highway, I guess, but then again people are free to be IDIOTS.

[mitchtv]

42. we call them Donorcycles

I understan in certain European countries a helmet is not required, but donor consent is implied. Does anyone know if this is true? As an organ transplant recipient I think it is a good compromise with those who are against the helmet laws( which I accept).

[BiggJawn]

3. Uh, did they OUTLAW helmets?

I didn't think so.
Sure, there will be people who won't wear them now that they don't have to, but there will be just as many who continue to wear them.

I was one of the lucky ones. I survived my "bare-headed" wreck and went back to wearing a lid. I wear a helmet when I bicycle.

I agree with your assement of ER folk's attitudes about bike wrecks, though. when the nurse who was attending me (I had a concussion) found out I wasn't wearing a lid, she snorted "You should be DEAD" and stomped out of the room.

My rsponse was "sorry for the inconvienience, lady..."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Helmet saved my life once.

Cool, or not, it's the smart thing to do.

[bleedingheart]

7. I didn't say they outlawed helmets

they repealed the law governing helmets....personally I think anyone who doesn't wear one is taking big risks...

[BiggJawn]

9. I agree, it IS a huge risk, but what we have here is the "beauty"...

...of "The American System".

Motorcyclists who wanted the existing helmet law repealed did a more effective job of lobbying their legislators than the pro-helmet forces did.

If you feel really strongly about the NEED for every biker in your state to wear a skid lid, I just told you what you're gonna have to do.

[MiltonLeBerle]

15. I did just the opposite-

I survived a wreck with a helmet- A car went thru a stop sign, and hit me broadside- luckily I had highway bars, or my leg would have been smashed- I flew off the bike, and over the car, landing on my (helmeted)head and shoulder, breaking my collar bone and shoulder blade- it happened at the end of the summer, and the next spring when I started riding again, I usually went without a helmet...But by the end of that summer I was just enjoying riding less and less- I was always nervous and hesitant- so I sold the bike, and just gave it up.
Convertibles are more fun.

[donco6]

6. Colorado doesn't require them.

Every time I see someone riding without a helmet (usually young adult males, dressed in shorts, tennis shoes or flip-flops, Tshirt), I only hope they've been cross-matched for organs. Sad to see all those livers and kidneys going to waste.

[TomNickell]

17. Maybe the states should substitute...

organ typing and donor card requirements for the helmet laws.

It would make the fellows think about it and keep the organs from going to waste.

[donco6]

22. Actually, that's a great idea!

:toast:

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

8. In New York...

You have to wear a helmet even on a bicycle. I couldn't image not wearing one on a motorcycle. That's not cool at all, I thought most states had this law in place already.

[TomNickell]

10. A lot of helmet laws repealed over the last decade.....

The RW juggernaut got a lot of helmet laws repealed in the 90's. Same bunch that got a lot of 'Right to Carry' laws passed.

On general principle, I think adults should be able to decide for themselves what risks to take. Motorcyclists are an exception: mostly young males with their brains between their legs. And some -old- males with their brains between their legs, just dropping down further than they used to. Governmental intervention seems warranted in this case.

[bicentennial_baby]

11. I agree

A 16 year old boy in my town plowed his bike into the back of a minivan full of children last week. He had a helmet on, but died after 5 days in ICU. The thought of giving teens the option of not wearing a helmet is frightening. I don't understand how seatbelts can be mandatory, but helmet laws get repealed.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

12. Yep

We had a student teacher here who was in a motorcycle accident, and he would have died if he hadn't been wearing a helmet. His legs were literally shredded but he is alright now. That was about 7 years ago, and he's back to teaching. It was still frightening, because he was so young.

[TomNickell]

18. Giving teens the keys to a motor vehicle is scary..

There ought to be special restrictions, at least until 18.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

20. I'm 16

nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. LOL great post!

[maxanne]

38. as a 47 year old female biker

I wear a helmet most of the time. It's a choice in NH. Let's not stereotype - there are more female bikers all the time.

[jeffreyi]

13. Too bad

I don't want some helmetless idiot getting a bee in his eye, losing control, and hitting and injuring ME...
If it were just the motorcyclist at risk, so be it...but not wearing helmets puts other drivers and pedestrians at risk also.

[MiltonLeBerle]

14. No helmet doesn't mean no eye protection.

Here in Illinois, helmets aren't required, but eye protection is- goggles, glasses, full fairing, etc...

[Zorro]

16. I say good riddance to helmet laws

Riding a motorcycle is inherently more dangerous than driving a car. That is one of its appeals.

But a greater appeal is the pleasure of riding a motorcycle down a winding road on a beautiful day and feeling the wind blow through your hair. Wearing a bucket on your head diminishes that pleasure.

People that haven't ridden a motorcycle probably don't understand why this is an issue. Of course wearing a helmet is the sensible thing to do. But choosing to wear a helmet or not should be a matter of personal choice.

If one argues that it is a public safety issue, then I suggest the government should mandate that all cars should be restricted to never exceed 75 MPH. After all, speed kills.

Peace.

[rppper]

19. as a biker and a helmet wearer.........

i agree that it is up to the rider as to whether or not he/she wears a helmet...but only after the age of 18.

zorro makes some good pasionate points about the right not to wear one, but it should also be said that DOT approved helmets come in 3 classes...full helmets which cover from the chin up and around the face; 3/4 helmets which cover the entire head, but leave the face open(although you can get shields to cover the face area) and 1/2 helmets, which cover the top of the head above the ears(these are what police generally wear). the Snell group, which is a non governmental helmet safety rateing group, will not certify 1/2 helmets, only 3/4's and full. you can get the wind in your face with the 3/4 and half helmets. i ride with a snell/dot approved high end Shoei full helmet....the 350.00 cost is expensive, but what price is your brain worth?

i also ride in jeans, boots or high top leather sneakers, gloves, and denim or leather jackets depending on the season. people who ride with sandals and no helmet haven't hit the pavement. i have...once in 21 years...that was enough. the last thing i remember seeing as i came off the bike at 60mph was the yellow line on the road scrapeing across my faceshield. i walked away from it because i ride smart...jacket, jeans, steel toed boots and a full helmet...but i still managed to break 4 ribs, 2 fingers and my right foot, not to mention a nice rash on my arms and legs. but my head was fine and i still have the helmet.

people who want the laws repealed will argue that if you wreck at 70mph, a helmet wont save you anyway...i beg to differ...watch any superbike race...those guys come off those bikes at 100+ mph, and normally walk away. where a helmet saves your @$$ is when you are t-boned going through and intersection at 30mph. most motorcycle accidents are not high speed accidents.

it all boils down to personal choice. it's an option in florida to, but you have to have a minimum of 10k dollars life insurance to do it hear. i think you should have to become a donor to do it personally. i am.

[gulliver]

23. One aspect of not wearing a helmet.

It's uncool to make another motorist kill you when they only would have injured you were you wearing a helmet. I ride a motorcycle, and I always wear a helmet. In addition to not wanting to die, I don't want to make other people responsible for, participants in, or witnesses to my ugly death.

I guess the same argument could be made for convertibles too, though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. As a former chair person for the Brain Injury Association, you are wrong

The vast majority of traumatic injuries to survivors in automobiles comes from not wearing a seat belt. I have no doubt anti-helmet people are also anti-seatbelt.

Unfortunately the cost to society in general for a traumatic brain injury ( which mostly affects males between the ages of 15 and 32 not wearing a helemt on a cycle, a skateboard, a bike or not wearing a seatbelt) is approximately 4 million dollars over the course of their lifetime. Often teh recipients of TBI's are not insured and since they are so young, it is doubtful they have the funds to care for themselves so the burden falls on society or on their family.

All this because you want the wind whistling between your ears.

Not a smart trade off.

[Zorro]

32. As I said

people who haven't ridden motorcycles won't understand why it is an issue.

It's about consciously accepting the responsibility for one's decisions. And I am not my brother's keeper.

If I smoke, drink, speak my mind, practice my religion, or ride without a helmet, I do not want a government nanny restricting what I choose to do or enjoy. That is the kind of puritanical overregulation that sticks in my craw.

And BTW, I wear a seat belt when driving, so your belief that anti-helmet people are anti-seatbelt is false.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. You aren't your brother's keeper but they become yours when

you have a brain injury and can't remember to put one foot in front of the other when you walk. This is not an issue of personal freedom, it is an issue of public health and putting the brakes on a condition which is quite costly and completely avoidable with a little common sense...

oh and on the bike thing you are not correct...I used to ride a Harley sportster (with a helmet)

[depakid]

37. People who've never had to be caregivers don't understand

the gravity of the issues surrounding long term care, particularly those involving neurological conditions. I can't say as I blame them, really- like oncology, it's not a pleasant subject for a Sunday afternoon and hardly competes with the personal gratification of feeling the wind in one's hair.

My solution to this (as it is with so many things) is to cultivate empathy. For example, if a person is convicted on a helmet or seatbelt violation, give them a choice- pay a hefty fine- to be placed into a mandated fund designed especially for the care and treatment of accident victims, or, pay a smaller fine and participate in a program where the person is required to pay a visit to a rehabilitation or long term care facility, and talk to some of the residents. Give repeat violators the same choice, only make the fines higher and require that the person do directed community service in the facility or perform some kind of respite care.

One poster had an interesting idea about insurance and special license stickers- hadn't thought about that before, but the economist in me (ugh) thinks that may also be an option to explore... though I doubt anyone would ever actually underwrite such a thing.

[salin]

36. While I believe in personal choice

I believe those freedoms end when they infringe on other peoples' freedoms and personal choice. Or money.

My question is who pays the costs for lifetime care of the unhelmeted cyclist who has a tragic accident and a truamatic brain injury?

Do I pay through medicaid? Do I pay through higher insurance bills? Do I pay through higher base costs of medical care (when hospitals raise fees to cover indigent care costs - if this is how that uninsured person would be paid for)?

If/When the answers come back that society ends up covering the costs - and when those costs are significant (and if NSMA is correct - 4 millin is pretty significant), then I begin to think that this might be one of those freedoms that infringes upon others.

I don't know the answers of who pays. But to me it makes the question a different issue altogether.

[Desertrose]

34. yeah here in Zona- no helmet law...dumb dumb DUMB!

I look at those cool little kerchiefs wrapped around their heads & think- man, that won't do much to save ya!

I've know of a few who lost their lives but would have at lest lived had they worn helmets...now how much less the damage would have been with a helmet, I don't know.
:shrug:

I agree...IMO the wind whistling in your ears is not sufficient trade off for continuing to live....


Peace
DR

[donco6]

43. I've ridden

Many times. I wouldn't dream of going without a helmet and full face shield, any more than I would skip wearing the boots and leathers. I like my skin ON my body, TYVM.

Surely you've had a rock hit you - and you didn't rethink your position? I'm sorry, but that's just pretty stupid. You're endangering your fellow motorists by being irresponsible.

But I suppose there's the freedom to be stupid . . .

[ButterflyBlood]

21. I have the libertarian view on this

as some quote I once heard said: the law exists to protect people from other's stupidity, not their own. if a person chooses to engage in dangerous activities that don't affect others, let them.

[depakid]

24. The trouble is that it DOES affect other people

Brian injuries seriously tax an already overburdened long-term care system and also cost the public in terms of lost revenue, productivity, meidiaid and disability payments. I suppose that the same could be said to some extent about obesity and smoking, but neither of those problems are amenable to a simple, relatively unintrusive common sense law that provides an "incentive" to risk takers to protect themselves from injury.

Having cracked a couple of bike helmets and left a bit of my hide on the pavement over the years, this one's a "no brainer," if you ask me.

[donco6]

44. And the guy who has to lay down his bike . . .

. . . on the interstate because a rock smashed into his exposed forehead, and I had to swerve to miss the idiot, causing me to crash - that's impacting me. A sensible precaution would avoid the entire situation.

[MGKrebs]

25. I read a proposal once

that advocated different insurance rates for those who rode without a lid.

If you had this insurance, you get a big red sticker for your bike so the cops can tell if you have the proper coverage. This is the best compromise I have seen.

I rode without a helmet for a short time while living in South Carolina. I didn't like it. I found the bugs/grit/sunburn uncomfortable, as well as the wind bothering my eyes. Oh, and the wind noise in your ears.

My helmet has almost certainly saved my life. (Car turned right on red right into my path and I dumped it; head hit the ground pretty hard.)

[jafap]

26. sad to see all the fans of the safety gestapo

Let's see - I have about 250,000 auto miles without a seatbelt, and over 20,000 miles on my bicycle without a helmet. So I am a frigging foolhardy idiot if I do not do what all the worry-wart school-marms think I should have to do. Since I am mentally competent to handle my own affairs - my safety is only my business. Nobody on this planet cares more about my safety than I do - nobody else bleeds when I get cut. If the state wants to declare me non compos mentis, then I think they should send me $1000 a month since an incompetent person certainly should not have to support himself.
Helmet laws are bad for the public health too - they raise blood pressure. At least for me.

[depakid]

27. Sad to see that you are willing to pawn off your irresponsibility

to others in society. The bed you take up and the resources you divert from others for your failure to protect yourself are very real, at least to those need them- and yet have to be denied through no fault of their own. You don't need to have studied health care economics to figure this out, just ask any nurse- or better yet, read any of the countless articles about the situation.

Personally, I don't care whether you crack your skull or crush your chest. I fully support your right to take your own life. However, once you're injured, we all end up having to take care of you- which is of course what any decent society should do. In light of that- I find it not only irresponsible on society's part, but selfish on yours that that we'd risk scarce public health care resources over something so trivial as wearing a helmet.

[donco6]

45. I'm still shocked that you don't wear your seatbelt.

Whatever. Do what you want. Smoke - several packs a day. Use dirty needles. Have unprotected sex with whoever, whenever. Don't let the "safety gestapo" stop you.

[TaxAway]

52. Since I am mentally competent to handle my own affairs

it's not about your "affairs." Its about the very considerable costs which we as a society will incur when you finally have a collision. At best, your health insurer will pay for your foolhardiness (i.e., a lower standard of living for your co-workers). In the worse case you will end up on the floor of a hospital devoted to "head injuries." Most every major city has one. Go visit one and report back.

[newyawker99]

54. Hi TaxAway!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lady President]

28. I passed on a job because of this issue

Several years ago I decided to pass on a third interview with the American Motorcyclist Assoc. (AMA) because of this.

The AMA was pushing to major pieces of legislation: 1. To repeal the helmet laws across the country. 2. To make the penalties more severe for motorists who injure a rider in an accident. There is no way to comport these two goals. I was fine with saying that individuals were free to put themselves at greater risk of injury by not wearing a helmet, but not to then punish a driver more severely because that same rider was more seriously hurt. The lobbyist were not to budge on the wording to allow the punishment and monetary recovery be based on helmet use. Just plain silly.

Of course, with tort reform everyone better wear a helmet because the maximum recovery won't help much if you have a serious head injury.

[kathee]

29. My brother died on a bike

He was going an estimated 90 miles an hour, hit a sharp curve, and impaled his fool ass on a wooden fence, took the fence with him, and landed on his head. No helmet. Wouldnt have mattered anyways, and at least it was quick for him.

Im thankful he didnt take anyone out with him.

I also have a good friend whose ex wife lost her leg last month getting side swiped by a car.

Im not yet sure where I stand on helmet requirements and laws,but I appreciate both sides of the argument here.

[Mixxster]

31. A few points

1. I think PA still requires teenagers or new cyclists to wear a helmet, although I'm not sure of the details.

2. Zorro, although having an accident at 70+ MPH is obviously life threatening, you've got a lot more protection inside a car, at any speed, than you do on a motorcycle.

3. IMHO, anyone choosing to ride a motorcycle without a helmet should have to sign a waiver releasing insurance companies, hospitals, the state and anyone else from having to pay for any head injury sustained.

[maxanne]

39. I am absolutely amazed

I've seen lengthy threads on DU arguing against DUI laws. More people die in drunk driving crashes than in motorcycle accidents - but here are people arguing for helmet laws. I am flabbergasted by this. Bikers bad - drunk drivers good. Amazing.

[ButterflyBlood]

41. very very unlikely it's the same people

I'm pro-DUI laws and anti-helmet laws.

[bleedingheart]

55. I am for the DUI laws

and I would prefer the helmet law to stay on the books. Now I don't have a motorcycle but I have a normal bicycle...and I always use a helmet.

There is a little boy in our neighborhood who always takes off his helmet... just this week I almost saw him get killed by a car...luckily the car stopped but his reckless behavior and lack of helmet may spell trouble for him eventually...By the way his mother saw it all happen and yet no admonishment...

[ForrestGump]

61. The two have nothing to do with each other

DUI is bad.

Riding helmetless is bad.

The only connections are that (a) if someone's drunk in charge of a bike, they'd better be wearing a helmet (no, on second thought, they'd improve the world by taking themsleves out before they get to kill some innocent party) and (b) with all the drunk drivers around, motorcyclists need to be as careful as possible - car drivers will not see us at the best of times, no matter how obvious we make ourselves.

[LightTheMatch]

40. Well...

I suppose it's not illegal to be stupid. If you don't want to wear a helmet when on your motorcycle, then I don't think your insurance company should cover your medical costs when you crash.

[salin]

46. Nor the public hospital (that can't turn away uninsured)?

Nor public assistance (medicaid) when there is no insurance, and the family goes destitute because of the costs?

To me the issue is about the costs that get passed on to others - and the imposition of those costs.

[BiggJawn]

50. And *I* don't wanna pay for jogger's Titanium knees.

let's not start this "cost to society/I don't wanna support an idiot cripple" argument because we're both wrong.

You don't want want to share the costs of Bikers who vegetate themselves in helmetless wrecks, and I don't want to pay for Joggers who turn their knees and hips to mush pounding the pavement in their "healthy" pursuit.

what makes you more "right" than me?

[Mixxster]

56. "And *I* don't wanna pay for jogger's Titanium knees."

I don't think that's a good analogy. First of all, recent studies have shown no real difference in knee wear-and-tear between runners and non-runners. Secondly, even if runners did need knee replacements more than the general population, there are a myriad of other health benefits that come from regular exercise. I don't see how that compares to riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet.

[donco6]

47. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is like . . .

. . . riding on the hood of your car. While I'm sure both are "exhilarating", I wouldn't do either without a helmet.

(Well, I wouldn't do the one at ALL, but you get my point.)

[ForrestGump]

62. I'd ride on the hood of NSMA's car

But, otherwise, no. Wouldn't be prudent.

[Fescue4u]

48. Since we don't have socialized Medicine yet

I could care less if others don't wear a helmet...

Since if they get hurt, Im not going to have to pay for it.

Once we get to free healthcare and socialized medicine, they I definitely support helmut laws.

[donco6]

51. Actually, you probably pay for it now, too.

Traumatic brain injury leads to a tremendous amount of support needs. Insurance doesn't cover a lot of things. It usually falls on the state to provide vocational rehabilitation, nurse aides, etc.

[MurrayDelph]

59. ...so if they choose not to wear a helmet

(or wear a seatbelt) once the insurance runs out they should be harvested.

[no_arbusto]

49. I knew this would happen eventually.

Unfortunately, I have many friends who will take advantage of this new law just because they can. They were already riding to Ohio or bike week in Myrtle Beach to take advantage of their helmet laws. I'm not the least bit surprised that the kid in the Post-Gazette story is from my county and is only a year younger than me. I'm sure some of my friends probably ride with him. Many of them have wrecked as well. There have also been several motorcycle deaths involving young guys in our area in the past few years. I just don't see the attraction to this and I always thought that most of MY brains were between my legs.

[IMayBeWrongBut]

53. Do helmut laws really reduce total brain injuries?

Do helmut laws really reduce total brain injuries? It's a serious question onn my part. Wearing a helmut allows bikers involved in a mild accident to survive without a brain injury meaning one less brain injury for society to pay for. However, in a more severe crash, wearing a helmut may cause a person who would have died without a helmut to survive with a brain injury, causing one more brain injury for society to pay for.

My point is people wearing helmuts doesn't *always* save society money.

A modest proposal:

If you insist on not wearing a helmut, you must be going fast enough that a crash will kill you at all times... :)

[donco6]

57. Well, I can sorta see your point.

From the perspective of saving society's money, yes, that would be the logical approach - avoid having the burden of these brain injury patients altogether by letting them die outright.

But that's a bit cold for me. I'd rather at least try to preserve a life, if possible. And the injuries you see from even low speed crashes (ever seen someone's scalp rubbed off, for example? It ain't pretty) warrant an encouragement to wear a helmet.

On the other hand, wearing a helMUT sounds kinda kinky to me . . . Ha!

[uptohere]

58. why not ?

its a lot cheaper to bury them than to patch them up. People are allowed to be stupid in this country.

[ForrestGump]

60. I always wear a helmet (at least when on a motorcycle) and, basically,

I think that anyone who doesn't these days is simply being idiotic. If you ride a motorcycle, you WILL eventually take a tumble. Hopefully it'll be just a minor whoopsie, with nothing worse than a tad of road rash (if that), but it is probably a surprise to some people just how easy it is to become dead through even minor head-pavement interfacing.

And how the hell can anyway who HAS previously laid a bike down, and suffered as a result, possibly advocate not wearing a helmet? Can you say 'duh'? Can you say 'doesn't get a subtle hint'? I remember when Gary Busey took a shot at being brain dead, as a result of a late-'80s motorcycle crash, and moved from being fervently anti-helmet to pro-helmet - THAT is a more sane response, if you ask me.

I wrote off three helmets in my younger youth, even as the experienced rider that I already was, and in one case the helmet was reduced to the consistency of sponge - totally shattered, and I could poke my finger through it. I have little doubt that I WOULD have died in that crash if not for my helmet and there's a possibility that I could have been snuffed out in the other two incidents, as well.

I've ridden helmetless, off-road, and all that wind-in-the-air stuff is BS when it comes to its inherent value versus the downside of not wearing a helmet. Crashes aside, insects barreling in at phenomenal relative speeds are not much fun and sandstorms, if you happen to be traveling in the desert, will really give your face that nice 'peeled' look and feel.

And a full-face helmet is best - I know that both my father and I would have lost face were it not for that chinbar....somewhere I've seen a graphic that breaks down by percentage of accidents the zone of impact on a helmet, and impacts on the chin and face are way too common to ever have me wearing an open-face helmet.

For that matter, motorcyclists owe to to themsleves and everyone concerned to deck themselves out with good footwear and gloves, at least, as well as abrasian-resistant jacket and pants. If it's leather or similar purpose-made gear, so much the better. People that I STILL see in beach areas, in particular, cruising along with just shorts and flip-flops (with their babe perched on back, wearing a bikini) are just complete morons. They're just waiting to become strawberry jam, and these squids are also the ones who tend to engage in stunting that's far beyond their capabilities AND far beyond what's safe for others in the vicinity. Those f***ers give the rest of us a bad name.

Oh, but sure, this is alleged to be the Land of the Free, and so motorcyclists have every right to do whatever the hell they want. Ride Free in your designer Harley accessories, and all that. So maybe we should forget about the costs involved in squeegeeing up the unprotected brains of smeared riders and laud this anti-helmet move as a step toward the evolutionary process known as stabilizing selection. Call me a neo-fascist, but I don't accept that. Sometimes morons do need to be told what's good for them - seat belts are one transportation-related example and motorcycle helmets are another. That's just one reason why I'd never join the national motorcycle organizations of the US, because they lobby so vociferously against helmet laws - they're the NRA of the highway. Complete with fake data about how helmets are MORE dangerous than a bare head. Give me a f***ing break.

If you don't want to wear a helmet while aboard a motorcycle, then to hell with it....good for you. Just don't come whining to me when your frontal lobes are to the road as paté is to a cracker.



"So many of these injuries are completely preventable. Helmets and seatbelts are easy and convenient methods of protecting yourself." - Gary Busey

[bearfartinthewoods]

63. when i read your thread title in GD, and glanced at your name...

for a second i thought it said bleedinghead...
how appropos!