I'll just leave this here

Town of Onondaga, NY – A Parish man who was participating in a motorcycle helmet protest ride was killed this afternoon when he went over the handlebars of his motorcycle and injured his head on the pavement, state police said.

As an everyday rider (bikes are my daily-drivers), I agree with the late Mr. Contos. Ironic? Most definitely. However, helmets should NOT be a mandatory law. It's personal protection that has no bearing on the safety of others, and the government has no place to make helmets legally required.

Should you wear them? Yes. Should you have to? No.

Skillet42565 wrote: What about the mental anguish of the paramedic who has to scrape your brains back into your dome into a bucket/storm drain?

After dumping my bike 3 years ago all desire to go sans helmet vanished.  This was hit with an exclamation mark last week when I was t-boned by a deer on my way to work on my bike.

DeTrevni wrote: As an everyday rider (bikes are my daily-drivers), I agree with the late Mr. Contos. Ironic? Most definitely. However, helmets should NOT be a mandatory law. It's personal protection that has no bearing on the safety of others, and the government has no place to make helmets legally required. Should you wear them? Yes. Should you have to? No.

StormyKnight wrote: Anyone that rides without a helmet in a no helmet state should have to sign a waiver stating the insurance company need not pay if it is firmly believed that the death of the insured was killed/maimed/etc. because he wasn't wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

Doesn't matter, family will still sue the insurance company. Company will have to pay lawyers to protect their interest. Rates go up.

tallen702 wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Anyone that rides without a helmet in a no helmet state should have to sign a waiver stating the insurance company need not pay if it is firmly believed that the death of the insured was killed/maimed/etc. because he wasn't wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Doesn't matter, family will still sue the insurance company. Company will have to pay lawyers to protect their interest. Rates go up.

That part is annoying about motorcycles, but the most annoying part is that they only transport one or two people and they are louder than a car that transports five. It makes no sense.

mbro wrote: That part is annoying about motorcycles, but the most annoying part is that they only transport one or two people and they are louder than a car that transports five. It makes no sense.

So do lawn tractors.  What's your point?

StormyKnight wrote: tallen702 wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Anyone that rides without a helmet in a no helmet state should have to sign a waiver stating the insurance company need not pay if it is firmly believed that the death of the insured was killed/maimed/etc. because he wasn't wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Doesn't matter, family will still sue the insurance company. Company will have to pay lawyers to protect their interest. Rates go up. Not if the waiver protects the insurance company from lawsuits.

Waivers do nothing. Seriously. If you think signing a waver protects people from indemnity, then you're in for a shock. Waivers don't stand up in court, especially when a jury gets involved.

It has always been a funny social experiment to me to watch people's attitudes change when they are told to do something vs. when they have the free will to do it on their own.