__ The Right to Ride Helmetless shall not be infringed __

On Sep 14, 5:18 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> 'Uphill battle' for a Pa. helmet law
> By Cheryl McEvoy
> For The Inquirer
> Despite a call from the National Transportation Safety Board urging states to
> require all motorcyclists to wear helmets, it will be "an uphill battle" to
> change the 2003 Pennsylvania law that allowed bareheaded riding, a helmet law
> advocate said yesterday.
> Across the country, the number of riders killed in motorcycle crashes has more
> than doubled in 10 years, according to the NTSB. In 1997, 2,116 motorcycle
> deaths were reported; in 2006, the death toll reached 4,810.
>
> Annual motorcycle fatalities in Pennsylvania averaged 126 a year from 1997
> through 2003, but increased to 183 from 2004 through 2006, when it reached 187,
> according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
>
> State Rep. Dan Frankel (D., Allegheny), who has introduced legislation to
> reinstate helmet laws, said: "There are only a handful of us who have a high
> level of interest in this," but added the increasing death toll may change some
> minds.
>
> Bill Patton, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.), said
> after years of debate many lawmakers have firm positions on the issue and may
> not want to revisit the debate.
>
> "It has not been at the forefront this year," he said.
>
> Nevertheless, he said, "the issue is still percolating."
>
> Pennsylvania law says motorcyclists over age 21 can ride without a helmet,
> provided they have either two years of riding experience or complete a
> rider-education course.
>
> All motorcyclists under the age of 21 must wear helmets.
>
> The 2003 law repealed a 35-year-old helmet law requiring all motorcyclists to
> wear helmets, and ended a long battle waged by motorcyclists, including the
> Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Education (ABATE), which contend the decision to
> wear a helmet should be a personal choice.
>
> "We definitely support the law in its present state," ABATE lobbyist Charles
> Umbenhauer said.
>
> Chuck Ardo, spokesman for Gov. Rendell, said: "While the governor believes that
> riders should wear helmets, he also believes that individuals should be allowed
> to make their own choice."
>
> Rendell supported the 2003 law.
>
> Helmet advocates say the long-term health effects that accidents have on
> motorcyclists, and the economic impact of caring for motorcycle injuries, are
> often overlooked in debate.

Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
insurance company.

Studemania spews:

> Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
> injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
> insurance company.

Golly.
I didn't know you had to wear a helmet while driving a car, or being a
passenger in a plane, train, or automobile.

I suppose you have a cite for that silly asstralian law?

Regardless, Poofter Jones!/Ultrafaggotman is sadly reciting US laws that
s/he will never experience, because s/he is a BRITISH subject that does
not have the right to own or operate a motorised vehical, regardless of
how many wheels it has.

On Sep 17, 4:51 pm, JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:
> Studemania spews:
>
> > Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
> > injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
> > insurance company.
>
> Golly.
> I didn't know you had to wear a helmet while driving a car, or being a
> passenger in a plane, train, or automobile.
>
> I suppose you have a cite for that silly asstralian law?
>
> Regardless, Poofter Jones!/Ultrafaggotman is sadly reciting US laws that
> s/he will never experience, because s/he is a BRITISH subject that does
> not have the right to own or operate a motorised vehical, regardless of
> how many wheels it has.

The copmment was one from reading variious automags from US and Europe
decades ago when it was in effect. A I don't ride an M/C in Oz, I had
no oineterest in following up on it. I expect that you could probably
Google (Australia + Motrotcycle +Insurance+ or something like that or
call the nearest OZ embassy. I expect tyat you could get onto some OZ
car NG, too, and ask them.

Regarding a "motorised vehical," and claiming that a Brit can't own
one, I'm tempted to ask if you are a rider who suffered brain injury
in a M/C accident.

Anyone out there who can tell us what the deal is on this insurance
detail?

On Sep 17, 4:51 pm, JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:
> Studemania spews:
>
> > Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
> > injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
> > insurance company.
>
> Golly.
> I didn't know you had to wear a helmet while driving a car, or being a
> passenger in a plane, train, or automobile.
>
> I suppose you have a cite for that silly asstralian law?
>
> Regardless, Poofter Jones!/Ultrafaggotman is sadly reciting US laws that
> s/he will never experience, because s/he is a BRITISH subject that does
> not have the right to own or operate a motorised vehical, regardless of
> how many wheels it has.

I checked with an Aussie site and helmets are required for use there
and their standards are higher than in the US, or elsewhere.

Regarding the insurance set-up I was talking about, after thinking
about it, I realize that is was for a seatbelt law. If you were
injured and didn't have a belt on, a panel would estimate what the
injuries would have been had you been wearing one and pay out
accordigly. This leaves the question of what would have hapened if
"belted" injuries would have required lifelong care, vs the fast death
that actually occurred. It could fix the survivors up pretty well for
the estimated number of years the departed one had left as a vegetable!

In article >,
JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:

> Studemania spews:
>
> > Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
> > injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
> > insurance company.
>
> Golly.
> I didn't know you had to wear a helmet while driving a car, or being a
> passenger in a plane, train, or automobile.
>
> I suppose you have a cite for that silly asstralian law?
>
> Regardless, Poofter Jones!/Ultrafaggotman

Wait. You're using juvenile accusations of homosexuality to strengthen
your argument? Those are not the tactics of a master debater.

> is sadly reciting US laws that
> s/he will never experience, because s/he is a BRITISH subject that does
> not have the right to own or operate a motorised vehical, regardless of
> how many wheels it has.

Maybe some day you'll learn the difference between "that" and "who", and
how to spell "vehicle". Until then, I'll just think of you as a
dodohead.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

Studemania wrote:
> On Sep 14, 5:18 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>> 'Uphill battle' for a Pa. helmet law
>> By Cheryl McEvoy
>> For The Inquirer
>> Despite a call from the National Transportation Safety Board urging
>> states to require all motorcyclists to wear helmets, it will be "an
>> uphill battle" to change the 2003 Pennsylvania law that allowed
>> bareheaded riding, a helmet law advocate said yesterday.
>> Across the country, the number of riders killed in motorcycle
>> crashes has more than doubled in 10 years, according to the NTSB.
>> In
>> 1997, 2,116 motorcycle deaths were reported; in 2006, the death
>> toll
>> reached 4,810.
>>
>> Annual motorcycle fatalities in Pennsylvania averaged 126 a year
>> from 1997 through 2003, but increased to 183 from 2004 through
>> 2006,
>> when it reached 187, according to the Pennsylvania Department of
>> Transportation.
>>
>> State Rep. Dan Frankel (D., Allegheny), who has introduced
>> legislation to reinstate helmet laws, said: "There are only a
>> handful of us who have a high level of interest in this," but added
>> the increasing death toll may change some minds.
>>
>> Bill Patton, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R.,
>> Phila.), said after years of debate many lawmakers have firm
>> positions on the issue and may not want to revisit the debate.
>>
>> "It has not been at the forefront this year," he said.
>>
>> Nevertheless, he said, "the issue is still percolating."
>>
>> Pennsylvania law says motorcyclists over age 21 can ride without a
>> helmet, provided they have either two years of riding experience or
>> complete a rider-education course.
>>
>> All motorcyclists under the age of 21 must wear helmets.
>>
>> The 2003 law repealed a 35-year-old helmet law requiring all
>> motorcyclists to wear helmets, and ended a long battle waged by
>> motorcyclists, including the Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward
>> Education (ABATE), which contend the decision to wear a helmet
>> should be a personal choice.
>>
>> "We definitely support the law in its present state," ABATE
>> lobbyist
>> Charles Umbenhauer said.
>>
>> Chuck Ardo, spokesman for Gov. Rendell, said: "While the governor
>> believes that riders should wear helmets, he also believes that
>> individuals should be allowed to make their own choice."
>>
>> Rendell supported the 2003 law.
>>
>> Helmet advocates say the long-term health effects that accidents
>> have on motorcyclists, and the economic impact of caring for
>> motorcycle injuries, are often overlooked in debate.
>
> Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
> injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
> insurance company.

Even if the injury was a broken leg? I can see the sense in such a
rule for head or eye injuries but there are many other classes of
injury that a helmet doesn't address.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> Studemania wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 5:18 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>>> 'Uphill battle' for a Pa. helmet law
>>> By Cheryl McEvoy
>>> For The Inquirer
>>> Despite a call from the National Transportation Safety Board urging
>>> states to require all motorcyclists to wear helmets, it will be "an
>>> uphill battle" to change the 2003 Pennsylvania law that allowed
>>> bareheaded riding, a helmet law advocate said yesterday.
>>> Across the country, the number of riders killed in motorcycle
>>> crashes has more than doubled in 10 years, according to the NTSB.
>>> In
>>> 1997, 2,116 motorcycle deaths were reported; in 2006, the death
>>> toll
>>> reached 4,810.
>>>
>>> Annual motorcycle fatalities in Pennsylvania averaged 126 a year
>>> from 1997 through 2003, but increased to 183 from 2004 through
>>> 2006,
>>> when it reached 187, according to the Pennsylvania Department of
>>> Transportation.
>>>
>>> State Rep. Dan Frankel (D., Allegheny), who has introduced
>>> legislation to reinstate helmet laws, said: "There are only a
>>> handful of us who have a high level of interest in this," but added
>>> the increasing death toll may change some minds.
>>>
>>> Bill Patton, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R.,
>>> Phila.), said after years of debate many lawmakers have firm
>>> positions on the issue and may not want to revisit the debate.
>>>
>>> "It has not been at the forefront this year," he said.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, he said, "the issue is still percolating."
>>>
>>> Pennsylvania law says motorcyclists over age 21 can ride without a
>>> helmet, provided they have either two years of riding experience or
>>> complete a rider-education course.
>>>
>>> All motorcyclists under the age of 21 must wear helmets.
>>>
>>> The 2003 law repealed a 35-year-old helmet law requiring all
>>> motorcyclists to wear helmets, and ended a long battle waged by
>>> motorcyclists, including the Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward
>>> Education (ABATE), which contend the decision to wear a helmet
>>> should be a personal choice.
>>>
>>> "We definitely support the law in its present state," ABATE
>>> lobbyist
>>> Charles Umbenhauer said.
>>>
>>> Chuck Ardo, spokesman for Gov. Rendell, said: "While the governor
>>> believes that riders should wear helmets, he also believes that
>>> individuals should be allowed to make their own choice."
>>>
>>> Rendell supported the 2003 law.
>>>
>>> Helmet advocates say the long-term health effects that accidents
>>> have on motorcyclists, and the economic impact of caring for
>>> motorcycle injuries, are often overlooked in debate.
>>
>> Australia found an interesting way to settle this debate: Anyone
>> injured in a crash w/o wearing a helmet couldn't collect from any
>> insurance company.
>
> Even if the injury was a broken leg? I can see the sense in such a
> rule for head or eye injuries but there are many other classes of
> injury that a helmet doesn't address.
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>Don't care if you wear a helmet or not. But don't even be dumb enough to
>debate that they work - they do save lives, and prevent brain injuries.
>**** statistics, numbers don't lie, but you can lie with numbers. And no
>one said they do anything for other injuries either, dumbass. The only
>thing worse that roadrash and any other injury is to top it off with a
>brain so ****ed you don't know you have he other injuries. I suppose you
>don't need seatbelts either, but I know of 2 dudes that should have had
>them on before they fell outta the chopper back in '85. And 4 other fine
>navy personnel who died back in '83 because they didn't need life jackets
>until they got knocked unconscious after hitting the water. But they all
>looked cool up until they died.

Now, do you want to be wearing that DOT helmet when I hit you in the head
with a hammer, or not. Your choice.