Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   Misc News (
-   -   Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Law Gets Preliminary Approval in House. (

cduncancc 04-06-2006 12:27 PM

Re: Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Law Gets Preliminary Approval in House.
I too have one, and it does a nice job of cooling. I live in Florida, not as hot as Arizona, but still hot.

First post...

Tigercub 04-06-2006 12:45 PM

Re: Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Law Gets Preliminary Approval in House.
No it doesn't...

Does too...

No i....

roadpilot 04-06-2006 01:52 PM

Re: Repeal of Pear Presure Elimination Law Gets Preliminary Approval in House.
The problem with the crowd that says the rider should decide whether or not to wear a helmet is: If you ride with them, they want to decide for you that you NOT wear your helmet. I guess that's because you might make them look stupid or something.

robodoc 04-06-2006 06:32 PM

Re: Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Law Gets Preliminary Approval in House.
the VA admin. has the data. Seems the IEDs and vehicular crashes all cause severe concussive injuries(closed head) that transmit forces to the brain. Also the Kevalar helmets prevent penetration but do transfer energy to the brain. In Vietnam the explosives were benign compared to the ones used today. also rounds could penetrate helmets....death without concussion. severe enough concussion does cause a number of cognitive deficits....believe me, it's already a known problem in injured Vets trying to function with day to day life. Military and VA OT/PT and rehab centers are overwhelmed by the number of brain disabilities. No need to prove anything...the injuries are horrendous. This is not the kind of information that sells the War well.

sprchkn 04-06-2006 07:42 PM

Re: Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Law Gets Preliminary Approval in House.

Luckily this post will only appear at level 0, so I don't feel quite so bad posting such a huge reply...</p>

"The problem is with policing (as you point out). If folks are not supposed to exceed 100mph, it is way easier to outlaw motor vehicles that will exceed 100mph than to attempt to prevent those that do have such vehicle from riding at those speeds."</p>

But does it really solve a significant problem? Sure I know the Hurt Report is getting long in the teeth (though there were plenty of bikes that could handily exceed the speed limits even back then - 1980) but do you have any scientific statistical data to counter it's conclusions?:</p>

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.


6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.


16. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.
Source: The Hurt Report

If it's horsepower constrained then we're going to end up with motorcycles with 18HP like the XR250L I had in highschool. It could do 75MPH even in 30MPH headwinds. But that's about all it could do because it ran out of both gearing and power. How durable will it be and what kind of mileage am I going to get with a bike that's gearing-constrained to 75MPH? On the flip side it takes less energy to sustain a speed on the highway than to accelerate. Let's suppose your Harley, which weighs considerably more than the svelte (sarcasm) 250L (~295lbs wet), is horsepower-limited such that it cannot exceed 75MPH in any gear. Now how fast do you suppose that engine is going to accelerate your relatively-heavy bike? It's just not practical to constrain horsepower to limit speed. It's practical to electronically limit top speed, but then there's the issue of what to do on a bike that will likely see some track time with a portion of it's riders (if it can be overridden it defeats the purpose).</p>

So, until I see some evidence that contradicts the Hurt Report, I don't even see a need for horsepower limitations. I believe the idea of laws in this country is that they must have some large social benefit before they can start trodding on people's rights. I just can't see that strong benefit here.</p>

I think that if you are going to say it's OK not to have helmet laws, then you're going to have to say it's OK not to have horsepower or speed-limiting devices on motorcycles. You can't (OK, it's morally reprehensible and surely hypocritical to) argue against wearing a helmet when there is strong evidence to support the protective benefits (see the Hurt Report summary, lines 44-53) and then argue for horsepower limitations when there are not clear benefits (logic: 75% of accidents involved multiple vehicles and the median speed for all accidents was 29.8 MPH, which must mean that the overwhelming majority of those bikes were traveling under 30 MPH before they even realized an accident was going to occur).</p>

Sure, it may ***** you off when someone comes flying past you clearly going at least 20 MPH over the speedlimit, but the fact is that he just isn't that likely to crash (not that I condone it of course). He's certainly more likely to die if he does crash, but with the one-in-a-thousand crash speed of 86 MPH (0.1% of accidents*) it's really more of negative perception issue with cagers than a safety issue.</p>

* = To be fair, the >75MPH rate is probably higher than that, but I haven't purchased the full report so I can't accurately say, except that it will not be a majority exceeding that speed.</p>

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.