Fine, you would clearly make the choice to wear your helmet. But other riders have the same right to make their own choice. Don't make everyone else live by yours values, just as I wouldn't ask for legislation making you not wear a helmet. Get government out of our lives and stop encouraging them to become more and more involved in matters that are not their business.

↓↑report

Ok. So you'd obviously wear your helmet - good for you. I don't understand why you would then be opposed to repealing this law. Just because the law doesn't tell you to wear a helmet, doesn't mean that you're banned from doing so - it means that its your choice.

It doesn't make *you* any safer - that's your responsibility. If you want to wear a helmet, you can still do so, and you'll probably be much safer for it. But if someone else doesn't want to - that's their loss.

Helmets should be a personal choice. People are aware of the consequences - if they choose the additional danger, then let it be their choice as free men and women.

↓↑report

If that's the case, then seat belts should also be a personal decision.

↓↑report

Mr. Clickerson:

Absolutely, seatbelts should be a personal decision, so long as the passenger is legally able to make that determination for himself (so seatbelt and child seat laws for children would still stay in effect).

I always put on my seatbelt even before I push the clutch in to start the car. It's not because I fear a ticket, its because I wish to reduce my chance of death in a collision.

↓↑report

If you go down this path, seatbelts for men, women and children should be optional. As should vaccinations, education, etc.

The average joe should be allowed to do what he wants when he wants... right? Who cares about the rise in insurance premiums, added expenses to the healthcare systems and such?

↓↑report

""i am a proud resident of St. Louis, Missouri, but just hearing the idea of repealing the helmet law makes me much less proud to be living here... when weighing the benefits vs. the costs, it becomes clear that LIVING takes priority over the wind blowing in my hair.""


baah...baaah....baaad...baaad...freedom and personal responsibility are baaad...baaad...bleated the sheeple.

The barking government dog will tell us which way to move...were safer that way...freedom is baaad...baaad...baaah...baaah



Just a wild guess here, but you're an Obama voter, aren't you.

↓↑report

If an adult wants to ride without a helmet it should be there decision.

Likewise if insurance companies should deny coverage when helmets are not used. Or charge an appropriate premium for those who declare they will not wear them.

Bill Krause

↓↑report

To the liberty loving folks, if you get into an accident with my vehicle, and you die because you weren't wearing a helmet, does your family sue me? You can take your helmet off only after the law says eschewing a helmet waives your right and the right of the bereaved to any legal claim. If you're not OK with that, maybe you should keep your helmet on and stop trying to repeal these laws.

↓↑report

I wonder how many people think the insurance companies aren't popping the cava right now?

You think they'll extend an offer of a massive discount to those who promise ("Scout's Honour!") to wear their helmet? You think people wouldn't abuse that?

↓↑report

I'm not for positive if this is just a Missouri thing as well, but I have seen signs in construction areas that say if you hit a road worker worker you loose your license and have a $10,000 fine.

While we are in the process of changing laws regarding motorcycles, lets extend the loose your license to drivers in cars that are at fault for hitting a motorcycle. I say at fault because if you're one of the jackasses on sport bikes doing wheelies down the interstate by all means take your helmets off and leave the rest to chance.

As for the helmet law itself, as its written I don't have much of an issue with it. Hell Kansas and Iowa don't require helmets, doesn't mean I'm not going to wear one. Also it doesn't mean that your insurance company's for health and auto have to cover your injuries either if they choose to update their terms. Its all a matter of choices.

↓↑report

@6 Sandok: "The average joe should be allowed to do what he wants when he wants... right? Who cares about the rise in insurance premiums, added expenses to the healthcare systems and such?"

So, what if we take your argument in the other direction? People shouldn't be allowed to smoke, eat processed foods, drive cars capable of exceeding 70MPH?

The problem is that your argument implies that the person is the property of the state or society.

Do we own ourselves? Or does the society's interest in our wellbeing outweigh our self-determination?

If you believe in the second, then you do not believe in a free society, and over time you will come to accept some form of totalitarianism.

In fact, we should all have the choice over every detail of our own lives. Including education, seatbelt, drug use, what we eat, etc. We might make mistakes, but as a general rule we know best. It is better for individuals to make mistakes than for policymakers to make mistakes on behalf of millions of people (for instance, compulsory failed public education that seems to turn out kids who are dumber than when they went in, or FDA approving garbage food that causes chronic disease).

The other huge argument against helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and all of our traffic laws in general is that they seek to fix the problem solely by extracting money. So, there is a perceived cost to society, that is remedied by...giving money to the police and/or municipalities. Huh? Do they pay for hospital stays for uninsured motorists? Why not use it to care for disabled people? Why not use it to fund a nationwide catastrophic medical emergency fund? If the police have fancy new cruisers, does that mean I will be safer on my motorcycle?

This is also a great argument against Universal Health Care. If there is Universal health care, more and more decisions will be made for us, more and more choice will be taken away from us, in the name of the public good and saving the government money. "If people continue to eat butter, they are stealing money from the taxpayers because they are using more Universal Health services. So butter must be made illegal."

Is that much of a stretch of the imagination?

I don't wear a helmet. Hardly ever. Every time I get on a bike, I am taking my life in my own hands. If I screw up, I will pay the ultimate price - I will probably die. I believe in a warrior's code, I believe that the price in the natural order for inattention is death, and I don't believe in screwing up. Not ever. If a car swerves and hits me, it is 100% my fault for not being alert enough to avoid it. Of course, I have been riding a bike for ten years, and prefer low displacement machines on quiet country roads.

But, I am an adult. The risk level I find acceptable for my life is MY CHOICE. I would gladly sign any waiver that would make it impossible for a lawsuit to be filed in my name, and I have made it clear to my family my feelings on lawsuits. I would rather die than stay a vegetable, a burden on someone else.

Despite all of this, I plan on living to a ripe old age.

↓↑report

Look on the bright side. With less people wearing helmets there will be more organs available for transplant. Close to 80% of donated organs come from the brain dead. So, by all means get rid of those pesky helmet laws and get those good organs out to the people who really want to live.

↓↑report

Well, if they require that anybody who wants to ride without a helmet automatically becomes an organ donor then I guess it kind of balances things out, since someone who actually wants to live might get their shot at a transplant.
Still, I think you should at least require people to wear one until age 25 or something, when they can make some semblance of a rational decision about this. I don't know if allowing hormone-filled teens who think they're invincible do whatever they want is the greatest idea. But if you're over 25 and you still feel like becoming and organ donor and are willing to pay for increased health and motorcycle insurance premiums then it's your idiotic call.

↓↑report

True dat.

Fine, don't wear a helmet, but if you don't they better make sure you carry at least $200,000 medical insurance and a waiver.

I AM SICK of paying high insurance premiums because of NEAR BRAIN DEAD MORONS who wail on and on about their "liberties" being violated.

What about OUR liberties to NOT PAY for brain injured a-holes like you!

↓↑report

What if you were going to a phat party and you were wearing a suit. Being that you are wearin' a suit, why would you want your fancy gelled haircut ruined by a helmet.

↓↑report

Actually Tim,

its the guys wearing the helmets that are raising the cost of insurance. when a motorcyclist doesn't wear a helmet and has an accident, his chances of being dead on the scene are huge. however when they wear a helmet, the brain is protected, meaning you end up with perfectly protected brains connected to mangled bodies... this is where the medial bills get expensive. guys that have to learn to walk or have there legs completely reconstructed.

repeal the law, increase revenue for the state in the form of more organized Harley rallies, (Harley riders don't like going to states with helmet laws), and keep the human race headed in the right direction through Darwinism, lets get the dumb sh*ts off the road... I do ride a motorcycle, and i wear all my gear, all the time, doesn't matter if it is to run to the corner store for milk, or a 105 degree day, if it's to hot for gear it's to hot to ride.

↓↑report

Icon, that is quite possibly the dumbest logic I've heard in a topic frequented by dumb logic.

↓↑report

Well said and probably the best comment here.

↓↑report