Position on ABATE?

[MarkM]

Helmet laws do not personally affect me because I wear a helmet all the time. But I do not think it should be required by law for adults. I mean, where do you draw the line? If you want the government to make you safer, that's a slippery slope that could lead to outlawing motorcycles entirely since they are not as safe as cars. I am generally opposed to ideas that start with, "There ought to be a law..." although I'd make an exception in the case of laws against loud pipes, provided the same laws applied equally to all kinds of vehicles.

 

[JDOCKERY132445]

Are you serious?

"At the Rally in Bloomsburg, I saw many of MOA members riding to around (mostly to swimming holes) in nothing but sneakers, bathing suits, and sunglasses.
How much in fines should they have paid for this?"

This was in a fairground. No other vehicular traffic. Grassy field from the camping to the river. You are comparing what people did at 5-10 mph going for a swim to what we do on public streets and roads? What are you smoking?

 

[JDOCKERY132445]

Amen to Kevin

With ABATE at the helm why do you think they are motorcycle checkpoints and motorcycle free communities? LOUD PIPES, DRUNK BIKERS ON POKER RUNS, HELMET LESS GAY PIRATES, these are the reasons for the backlash. The very behavior that is the inspiration for anti motorcycle laws or movements are those endorsed by the likes of ABATE. It is real simple, ACT LIKE A 1% THEN DON"T BE SHOCKED WHEN TREATED LIKE A 1%. ABATE is not doing anybody any favors endorsing this idiocy. To think they are is short sighted. In the long run they do more harm than good. I see the looks I get when I jump off my 2010 RT wearing my brown Firstgear Rainer Jacket and TPG pants with wife wearing same. I see the "oh my gosh bikers" look because I get lumped in with all the Sons of Anarchy wannabes. These type of organizations do more harm than good. It is clear they represent the views of the cruiser crowd and more to the point Harley Davidson. They are not promoting safety but a lifestyle, the biker lifestyle. ABATE is free to do what they want they just need to be honest and drop the promote safety speech. Just say what they are. The Hells Angels have a right to exist as well they just don't act like they are there to promote safety. The Hells Angels have better credibility.

Our motorcycle club met last night at a nice Celtic restaurant. The only thing that made us different from the rest of the customers was the amount of hi visibility clothing we removed before entering the restaurant. No throttle-blipping; no LOUD PIPES; no cat calls; no profanity; just responsible members of the community out for a good meal.

 

[greenwald]

Our motorcycle club met last night at a nice Celtic restaurant. The only thing that made us different from the rest of the customers was the amount of hi visibility clothing we removed before entering the restaurant. No throttle-blipping; no LOUD PIPES; no cat calls; no profanity; just responsible members of the community out for a good meal.

Excellent!

That's the kind of 'role-model' promotion our sport needs.

By the way, what does one eat "at a nice Celtic restaurant?"

 

[JDOCKERY132445]

Menu

Excellent!

That's the kind of 'role-model' promotion our sport needs.

By the way, what does one eat "at a nice Celtic restaurant?"

You start with Guinness draught...of course.

I had corn beef and cabbage. Quite a few had the Sheppard's pie.

Here is the menu;

http://www.harpwilmington.com/aboutus.html

 

[i-scream-stop]

As for promoting Cycles, When I am out and about, I don't mind wearing my gear in and out of shops and public places. I want people to know I ride a motorcycle and care about my own safety. I am also very attentive to other people around me, I try to be as polite as possible, hold doors for people, say please and thank you and show that I am not a "Biker BA" that people like to group every rider into.
I can understand why they want to outlaw motorcycles in communities and recreation areas. The sheer neglect of public privacy that bikers have for others is astounding, It is a "Look at me, Hear me, Notice that I am on a loud bike" attitude. ABATE seems to push this into the public eye also, even when they do the charity rides, they stand out there and say look ad us bad A**** doing good trying to improve our image that we destroy the other six days a week.
Now honestly tell me, when you see a guy walking, or riding (pipes blaring) down the street in the cut off sleeves and leather vests with the bandana on his head, do you think I bet that guy is a doctor or outstanding citizen, or think "what a jerk, when did he get out of prison"?
I personally care about my safety and the safety of my friends and family, I don't give a flying uh hum about the idiots dying because they were too cool to think about what can happen. I wish I was cool, but I am content with looking like a dork. I don't want to be stereo typed by some body because of some idiots acting like it is about freedom. If you really want "freedom to ride" you don't alienate yourself by making you and your riding community look like criminals.
Yeah, I have a sore spot.

 

[40427]

I am sort of a fixture in our small town library. When I ride my BMW up there in all my gear I get some interesting looks from the other visitors.
I make a special effort to be polite , open doors and especially interact with the kids.

Some are intimidated by my helmet and loud jacket, but even the littlest of them warm up pretty quickly when they only hear the clacking on my Air Head's valves and not the thunder they expect.

I am proud to be a motorcyclist, never a BIKER !

 

[visian]

My position on the helmet issue is simple. If you are old enough to be considered an adult in this country you are old enough to be as stupid with your own life as you want to be.

butt.... in Florida, this thinking led to the "social burden" theory, and legislation regarding motorcycling. There you can ride without a helmet as long as you carry extra health insurance.

what's next, having to pay a fee to offset the "extra risk" involved in riding?

I don't see any difference between mandatory helmet laws and mandatory seat belt laws.

to me, this seems like the obvious perspective.

for some reason, the AMA and ABATE insist on demanding our "freedoms" to avoid sliding down a slippery slope to additional legislation.

to me, a balanced view would recognize the obvious, and in the process, help us better avoid irrational laws.

ian

 

[sjbmw]

"At the Rally in Bloomsburg, I saw many of MOA members riding to around (mostly to swimming holes) in nothing but sneakers, bathing suits, and sunglasses.
How much in fines should they have paid for this?"

This was in a fairground. No other vehicular traffic. Grassy field from the camping to the river. You are comparing what people did at 5-10 mph going for a swim to what we do on public streets and roads? What are you smoking?

Just tobacco in my old age now.

um, with all due respect, the field was not open to the swimming holes unless someone was there holding up the rope that blocked the far entrance.

The road back there was the public road next to the entrance to the fairgrounds. 35 mph speed limit. I also saw rally goers downtown in T-Shirts, and no helmets.
(Not that there is anything wrong with that! It was freakin' scorching. When in Rome, that's our rally credo.)


I found this take on the helmet law issue, this is a reprint from Bruce Arnold, unknown where it was first published.


_____
Helmet LAWS are detrimental to safety.

That's right, ATGATTers. Helmet LAWS are detrimental to the safety of motorcyclists. The AMA hints at the reason why:

"Being safe requires more than a helmet, and that's why we maintain that using a helmet is only one part of a comprehensive approach to rider safety. The AMA has long been a strong advocate of things like motorcycle rider education, improved licensing and testing, riding unimpaired by alcohol, drugs or distraction, and increased public awareness--all of which contribute to preventing crashes in the first place (something a helmet does not do). And we can all agree that avoiding a crash is far better than crashing more safely."

And I paraphrase here one of my many prior attempts to get the point across:

"The Law of Unintended Consequences tells us almost all human actions will have at least one unexpected result. Nowhere do we see this axiom substantiated more than in social legislation and public policy in general, and mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in particular. Helmet laws are the quintessence of "feel good" legislation. They are aggressively promoted by Haddonistic safetycrats as the cure-all for motorcycle safety, when the truth is that statistics provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") indicate that in 2006 if we had strapped a helmet on the head of every American motorcyclist for every mile they road for the entire year, no more than 747 lives would have been saved. I am not saying that those 747 lives are not important, but the sad fact is that they represent less than 16% of the 4,810 motorcycle fatalities that occurred in 2006 (2,792--58%--of which were wearing helmets and died anyway). What I am saying is that by focusing on a !
policy that impacts only 16% of the problem, we take attention, awareness and resources away from initiatives that would have a far better chance of reducing human suffering and saving lives by addressing the other 84 percent."

____

http://www.gardenstateabate.org/html/editorials/ed-LidLaws.htm


___

It's a point I was unaware of. Since 84% of motorcycle deaths are wearing a helmet, there are no resources or initiatives purposed to saving those lives.

The entire debate is about helmet vs no helmet, and that's where it stops.

The mandatory helmet law gives everyone the false sense that we are doing everying to make things safer, when in reality, it's making things worse, as it's a red herring, and the science of making motorcycling safer for all is under permanent arrested development.

Note the latest M/C crash study, the Hurt Report (1981?) and no government wants to spend for another one, even as they are jacking up registration rates for bikes, and the money is there for one. The landscape for bikes has changed a lot in 30 years.


It's a tale of missing the "motorcycle education forest" because of the "helmet tree".

 

[statdawg]

I wear all my gear except some days I may have jeans on but at least I could self care my skin grafts. I don't pay any attention to AMA nor ABATE ..... who is very strong in Pennsylvania with high law makers on their side.

In my life time I have seen a few pumkin heads or dented skull fractured former riders DOA or drifting off to better place than an ER or ICU and I have seen a few ATGATT have intact bodies with dissected aortas and lungs the size of a raisin from blunt trauma so the issue to me comes to the luck of the draw the same with horrific auto accidents and opposing force injuries. I have even seen sport deaths. I think the stats are misleading because no two accidents are alike thus making it very unscientific with about as much spark as most marketing applications of each side.

I am guilty of not wearing a helmet while skiing, mountain climbing and in my early days on bicycles. There were many times I didn't wear ear protection, safety shoes, respirators and protective gear even around farm machinery and household operations and I didn't need to hear the dribble of some government body or self promoting lobby about my body. However to make thing easier on society I have an Advance Directive with a do not resuscitate order. That is much more important than any perceived safety net.

 

[Brettendress]

Just this Saturday a 37 year old in Bedford Pa. Quote ( Came out of a bar and without a helmet tried to do a burn out on his Boss Hogg V-8 motorcycle) . It ended badly with rider dead and a small dent in a truck. Somehow Bars and motorcycles are becoming too common and it's ABATE that has their meetings in bars with Alcohol and wants helmet laws abolished. I ride ATGATT and have for all my riding career. It seems more time should be put into Alcohol awareness. I have heard 65% of all motorcycle deaths are alcohol related.. Make no mistake I am pro helmet and will not even ride in a group if a rider is helmetless to make my statement. Not everything should be about choice and government. Every motorcycle maker states on the bike or in the manual ( Always wear you helmet and safety gear or death could occur) Why is government allowed to go against the manufacture on this issue. It's not a choice and should not be !

 

[MOTOR31]

butt.... in Florida, this thinking led to the "social burden" theory, and legislation regarding motorcycling. There you can ride without a helmet as long as you carry extra health insurance.

what's next, having to pay a fee to offset the "extra risk" involved in riding?

Actually it is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming floriduh has done. My position, and it is MY position not some state's or anyone elses, is that if you want to be stupid and toss your life away go right ahead.

What you are claiming floriduh has done is simply more of the nanny govt. "solution" to a perceived problem that being, if motorcyclists are not smart enough to think it through the govt. must do so for them and "protect" them.

Perhaps a concept where the motorcyclist who rides without a helmet is presumed to have given permission for non resuscitation, no artificial maintenance of life and automatic organ donor would solve floriduh's issue with no "burden to society"

 

[rocketman]

I found this take on the helmet law issue, this is a reprint from Bruce Arnold, unknown where it was first published.


_____
Helmet LAWS are detrimental to safety.

That's right, ATGATTers. Helmet LAWS are detrimental to the safety of motorcyclists. The AMA hints at the reason why:

"Being safe requires more than a helmet, and that's why we maintain that using a helmet is only one part of a comprehensive approach to rider safety. The AMA has long been a strong advocate of things like motorcycle rider education, improved licensing and testing, riding unimpaired by alcohol, drugs or distraction, and increased public awareness--all of which contribute to preventing crashes in the first place (something a helmet does not do). And we can all agree that avoiding a crash is far better than crashing more safely."

And I paraphrase here one of my many prior attempts to get the point across:

"The Law of Unintended Consequences tells us almost all human actions will have at least one unexpected result. Nowhere do we see this axiom substantiated more than in social legislation and public policy in general, and mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in particular. Helmet laws are the quintessence of "feel good" legislation. They are aggressively promoted by Haddonistic safetycrats as the cure-all for motorcycle safety, when the truth is that statistics provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") indicate that in 2006 if we had strapped a helmet on the head of every American motorcyclist for every mile they road for the entire year, no more than 747 lives would have been saved. I am not saying that those 747 lives are not important, but the sad fact is that they represent less than 16% of the 4,810 motorcycle fatalities that occurred in 2006 (2,792--58%--of which were wearing helmets and died anyway). What I am saying is that by focusing on a !
policy that impacts only 16% of the problem, we take attention, awareness and resources away from initiatives that would have a far better chance of reducing human suffering and saving lives by addressing the other 84 percent."

____

http://www.gardenstateabate.org/html/editorials/ed-LidLaws.htm


___

It's a point I was unaware of. Since 84% of motorcycle deaths are wearing a helmet, there are no resources or initiatives purposed to saving those lives.

The entire debate is about helmet vs no helmet, and that's where it stops.

The mandatory helmet law gives everyone the false sense that we are doing everying to make things safer, when in reality, it's making things worse, as it's a red herring, and the science of making motorcycling safer for all is under permanent arrested development.

Note the latest M/C crash study, the Hurt Report (1981?) and no government wants to spend for another one, even as they are jacking up registration rates for bikes, and the money is there for one. The landscape for bikes has changed a lot in 30 years.


It's a tale of missing the "motorcycle education forest" because of the "helmet tree".

Wow, that is some of the most twisted logic I have read to date!

For one, How does does one substantiate the claim that

"The mandatory helmet law gives everyone the false sense that we are doing everying to make things safer"????

Who has ever heard of anyone involved in passing legislation making this claim (and not just about motorcycle related laws) ???? (anyone in their right mind, that is!) and what "everyone" and what "everything" ??? Talk about a sweeping generalization! Wow! So I guess I feel just wonderful for supporting everything (since I would have to included in the group "everyone", right?)

and then there is the statement

"Since 84% of motorcycle deaths are wearing a helmet, there are no resources or initiatives purposed to saving those lives. "

(Frankly I'm at loss to comprehend just what this is even saying???!!!) But let me take a shot at it....
Are they saying that because there are helmet laws (in some states) and due the high rate of death there are no other resources being devoted to cycle safety?? (talk about a streeeeeaaach....) WTF????

Taking it to the extreme we could state emphatically that
"Since All people die while living, there are no resources or initiatives purposed to saving those lives.!" (because we are trying so hard to extend life, rather than resolve non-fatal diseases.)



Gotta love stuff like this! Using this "logic" one could claim any law, any legislation or act, is flawed.

Ain't the internet grand? You can find support for any theory, idea, concept you want out there. And if it does not exist, create it yourself just by posting it once and then sit back. Before you know it it will be repeated a hundred, a thousand, a million or times, till it becomes "truth" simply by the force of its shear volume! "If that many people "believe" it (i.e. re post it), it Must Be True!

Ha Ha!

RM

 

[pffog]

I DO have an issue with them spreading false information as fact to support their cause, restricted vision, broken necks from full face/weight. Yes sound is muffled, but those who spew this argument, usually have bikes that are not, and will be deaf in a few years of serious riding anyway.


It is ALL connected. I too think there are too many laws, and on the surface you can say it only hurts the rider/driver if they don't wear a helmet/seat belt. Except the HUGE cost to the rest of us to pay for long term care, that could be publicly or insurance company funded.

So some advocate, if you get hurt exercising your "choice" either you sign a care waver, or pay extra for coverage Now that opens a slippery slope as the same could now be applied to health insurance of ALL riders as riding is more dangerous than 4 wheels. How about bicyclists, swimmers, boaters, how about those who drink or are overweight, or like pie, all those choices pose dangers.

There is NO easy answer to the problem, I just wish everyone was smart enough to make the wise choice.

 

[kgadley01]

I wear a helmet because I choose to. What the other person does in none of my business. I also keep my opinion to myself when I see someone suited up like their ready for a spacewalk. I ride a Motorcycle because I enjoy riding. I know the risks involved and accept them. JMHO

 

[amiles]

Lets face it, today cruiser style motorcycles are in the vast majority. If the AMA takes positions that aficionados of that "life style" strongly disagree with it will cost them members and money.

Some, I am sure choose to gear up after a close call. Some, two close calls. In ancient times while young I was privileged to attend a free screening of several movies called "signal 30" These were provided by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. These did provide food for thought.

I liked the MSF position that risk management was the way to go. I interpret this as doing everything I can to minimize my exposure. Protective gear is one of several things that I do in this direction.

 

[Rob Nye]

Just tobacco in my old age now.

um, with all due respect, the field was not open to the swimming holes unless someone was there holding up the rope that blocked the far entrance.

The road back there was the public road next to the entrance to the fairgrounds. 35 mph speed limit. I also saw rally goers downtown in T-Shirts, and no helmets.
(Not that there is anything wrong with that! It was freakin' scorching. When in Rome, that's our rally credo.)


I found this take on the helmet law issue, this is a reprint from Bruce Arnold, unknown where it was first published.


_____
Helmet LAWS are detrimental to safety.

snipped


It's a tale of missing the "motorcycle education forest" because of the "helmet tree".

IMO your source is a windbag.

 

[sjbmw]

Wow, that is some of the most twisted logic I have read to date!

For one, How does does one substantiate the claim that

"The mandatory helmet law gives everyone the false sense that we are doing everying to make things safer"????

Who has ever heard of anyone involved in passing legislation making this claim (and not just about motorcycle related laws) ???? (anyone in their right mind, that is!) and what "everyone" and what "everything" ??? Talk about a sweeping generalization! Wow! So I guess I feel just wonderful for supporting everything (since I would have to included in the group "everyone", right?)

and then there is the statement

"Since 84% of motorcycle deaths are wearing a helmet, there are no resources or initiatives purposed to saving those lives. "

(Frankly I'm at loss to comprehend just what this is even saying???!!!) But let me take a shot at it....
Are they saying that because there are helmet laws (in some states) and due the high rate of death there are no other resources being devoted to cycle safety?? (talk about a streeeeeaaach....) WTF????

Taking it to the extreme we could state emphatically that
"Since All people die while living, there are no resources or initiatives purposed to saving those lives.!" (because we are trying so hard to extend life, rather than resolve non-fatal diseases.)



Gotta love stuff like this! Using this "logic" one could claim any law, any legislation or act, is flawed.

Ain't the internet grand? You can find support for any theory, idea, concept you want out there. And if it does not exist, create it yourself just by posting it once and then sit back. Before you know it it will be repeated a hundred, a thousand, a million or times, till it becomes "truth" simply by the force of its shear volume! "If that many people "believe" it (i.e. re post it), it Must Be True!

Ha Ha!

RM

I believe what is being said is that mandatory helmet laws are not providing the panacea that their proponents are advertising, and a number of states dropping these laws are most likely looking at the issue deeper than prejudice, emotion, and/or rhetoric.

I do wish they would create a "mind our own business" law.
But jails would be overflowing after the first week of enactment.

 

[JDOCKERY132445]

um, with all due respect, the field was not open to the swimming holes unless someone was there holding up the rope that blocked the far entrance.

The road back there was the public road next to the entrance to the fairgrounds. 35 mph speed limit. I also saw rally goers downtown in T-Shirts, and no helmets.
(Not that there is anything wrong with that! It was freakin' scorching. When in Rome, that's our rally credo.)

I went from the beer garden to the swimming hole 3 times a day. I never encountered any ropes/wire/fences between me and the creek/. I never saw a motorcycle parked on the road; only in the grass behind the cable that separated the fairground from the road.

Were we at the same rally?

 

[harryt11]

A few years ago while living in Oklahoma I became frustrated with the prohibition on lane sharing or lane splitting. Particularly given the heat, it would have made sense to be able to "filter" to the intersection while at a stop light in order to keep moving and have airflow over yourself and your engine. It would not increase anyone's wait and would contribute to traffic flow. Unfortunately the driver's in Oklahoma, when I attempted to filter, would yell, open doors and move over to keep me from doing it. I had the bright idea to enlist the help of ABATE in maybe taking up the legalization and promotion of lane splitting as a "cause". I sent an email to the state president outlining the issue. ABATE's response was deafening in its' silence. Nothing. Not even a reply.

I will say that ABATE was not completely ineffective in the state that particular year. They led the fight to get tattooing legalized which had been illegal in Oklahoma.