[Hogfish]

Hopefully this does not come true...

A BILL
To amend sections 3304.23, 3304.231, 4507.164, 4509.101, 4510.11, 4510.12,
4510.14, 4510.16, and 4511.53 and to enact sections 3304.232, 4501.40, and
4509.106 of the Revised Code to require persons who are under 25 years of
age to wear a helmet while riding on a motorcycle either as the operator or
as a passenger, to require persons convicted of failing to wear a helmet
while riding a motorcycle, driving under license suspension, driving without
a valid driver's license, driving under OVI suspension, driving under
financial responsibility suspension, and failing to produce proof of
financial responsibility in certain circumstances to pay a mandatory $500
fine, to permit those persons in certain circumstances to choose between a
jail term of two consecutive weekend days or attendance at a safe and
responsible driving instructional class, to create the Traumatic Brain
Injury Fund and the Safe and Responsible Driving Instructional Fund, and to
require some of the fines paid by such persons to be deposited into these
new funds. +SMSH+

If it does, how long before mandatory for everyone on a bike.

 

[geoffreyt]

Let me guess. You never fell off your bike and hit your head.

 

[jockeyshift]

Let me guess. You never fell off your bike and hit your head.

:nope:

 

[ratmotortom]

I live in Ohio and wear my helmet all of the time, but................ I like it to be my choice.

 

[DrHeathenScum]

<yawn> I believe all 50 states have a seatbelt law.

 

[Stratplexi]

Well why not make air bags mandatory, ABS mandatory, and body armor while we are at it?

Personal choice...personal responsibility.

 

[bigal51]

Having been an ABATE Chapter President I have heard all the debates pro and con. The simple fact remains that enacting a helment law for people in cars would save more lives than a law requiring helments on MC riders. Keep it simple, let those that ride decide (over 21)-Al

 

[ratt]

Having been an ABATE Chapter President I have heard all the debates pro and con. The simple fact remains that enacting a helment law for people in cars would save more lives than a law requiring helments on MC riders. Keep it simple, let those that ride decide (over 21)-Al

Yup ... but then politicians alway like to grand stand and act like they are doing somthing great and dont wanna honk off alot of voters at the same time ...... michigan has a helmet law ,,, its been voted on ,, the gov said she would veto it .... i dont remember if it passed or not ,, abate of indiana got the helmet law repealed there. I have used a helmet for its intended purpose one time when i was 21 ,, am 54 now ....I choose to wear a 3/4 lid at all times.....Face it when you tour ,,, they make a great hat lol... they are waterproof ,, warm and keep you cooler in the heat.....but i do agree. let those who ride decide. I do question if the majorty of riders really understand the risk they are taking ,, while a helmet may not save you in a major league accident ,, they will keep a simple parking lot whoops from turning into a really bad or fatal head injury ......I have heard all the arguments for and against.... I do sorta cringe when with a group of bikes and the leader pulls over to take off his lid when we hit indiana ......because i know alot of people remove theirs due to peer pressure more than their own educated decision .... just food for thought .......Personally i have spent so many miles riding with a lid that i really dont feel in the zone on the bike without it .....rat

 

[bigal51]

I agree with you, Like a wise man said a long time ago, follow the money. There is usually a financial gain for someone who introduces this type of legislation. If you let them in now, sooner or later you will be wearing a helmet in a car.-Al

 

[Scarbelly]

I've had the distinction of getting a ticket for no helmet, back when Ohio DID have a helmet law. These days I ride with a 3/4 more times than not. It was my choice then, and it's my choice now. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

 

[Nomad55]

I ALWAYS wear a helmet!!! And I insist any passenger I carry wear one, too. That having been said, I feel strongly that it should be my choice. Helmets have saved my life twice on the road, and I couldn't count how many times on the track. But I do not agree with somebody else telling me how to protect myself. My head, my choice. Period. Simple.

The part about the passenger? My responsibility, my choice. If you don't like it, ride with somebody else. Seem like pretty easy questions to me.

 

[Rock]

guess I need to stay in PA where it's safe. Still gotta choice.

 

[minivan]

<yawn> I believe all 50 states have a seatbelt law.

Yes, and I bet the revenue from the tickets is in the millions......

 

[ceraaa42]

I guess my take is;

If wearing a helmet is optional, the amount of damages for an accident for the rider/riders should be limited. I think if they choose to risk their safety then they also limit the mitigated damages they would be entitled too.

Example; If a person is driving a car and makes a mistake, does not see a bike and hits it, I'd just a soon the rider survived. But if the rider has made a choice to ride without helmet, the financial damages should be limited to what happened as though they had on a helmet (how you would determine this beats me).

Then when you make the choice it's a bigger decission overall and should be thought out carefully.

Chris

 

[swmnkdinthervr]

I guess my take is;

If wearing a helmet is optional, the amount of damages for an accident for the rider/riders should be limited. I think if they choose to risk their safety then they also limit the mitigated damages they would be entitled too.

Example; If a person is driving a car and makes a mistake, does not see a bike and hits it, I'd just a soon the rider survived. But if the rider has made a choice to ride without helmet, the financial damages should be limited to what happened as though they had on a helmet (how you would determine this beats me).

Then when you make the choice it's a bigger decission overall and should be thought out carefully.

Chris

Limiting damages for accidents NOT the riders fault...I think not, guess we shouldn't pay acceptable amounts for any negligent act againt another person because the weren't wearing all available safety equipment...like the guy accross the street mowing that hits a rock and shoots it through your eye, better not make him fully liable 'cause you weren't wearing safety glasses when HE was mowing...yeah right...

 

[SKUNKY]

Dale Earnhardt was wearing a helmet and it broke his neck...ouch

 

[azrider]

Let me guess. You never fell off your bike and hit your head.

I've never fallen off a ladder either but over 300 were killed last year. Helmets laws when climbing a ladder, too? 4900 pedestrians were killed last year. Helmets when walking along the street?

Skiiing?

Boating?

Bicycling?

Working on your roof?

 

[Rock]

Helmets laws when climbing a ladder, too?

Pretty much standard around my neck of the woods. :laugh:

 

[Scarbelly]

I guess my take is;

If wearing a helmet is optional, the amount of damages for an accident for the rider/riders should be limited. I think if they choose to risk their safety then they also limit the mitigated damages they would be entitled too.

Example; If a person is driving a car and makes a mistake, does not see a bike and hits it, I'd just a soon the rider survived. But if the rider has made a choice to ride without helmet, the financial damages should be limited to what happened as though they had on a helmet (how you would determine this beats me).

Then when you make the choice it's a bigger decission overall and should be thought out carefully.

Chris

I'd say chances are,the person that made that mistake, in most, if not all cases, broke the law when he made that mistake. Whacks a biker, not wearing a helmet,WHICH BY THE WAY, IS STILL FREAKING LEGAL IN THE STATE OF OHIO (asper this thread), and you think there should be some kind of limit as to medical or other payments? Because the biker chose not to wear a helmet, which is his right according to the state of Ohio?

Maybe it was a bad choice, maybe not. But the fact that there IS a choice is the issue at hand.

BTW, I'm glad 'you'd just as soon the rider survived', mighty "civil" of ya...as oppossed to what?

 

[hardwork2]

Its all about choice. I wear my helmet,jacet and gloves all the time when I ride the sport bike. but rarely when I ride the Ultra. I look at life diffrent than others. If it is my time then lets do it.I am not really afraid of dying or death. However, I am scared as hell of being in a wheelchair or stairing at a ceiling for the rest of my life which could be many years. like terri chivo. for me screw that. Next, 800 people die from slipping in the shower. Does that mean everyone should stop taken a bath? Besides if you wear a lid during the cleaning your body process how would you wash your hair? besides if I die in a crash I'll be doing what I love to do most. Can you think of a better way to check out? If I die first my wife is well taken care of. I have a coustomer that had alzheimers the poor guy didn't know if he made stinky in his diaper. his wife of 50 years.absolutly nothing if that is the reward for wearing a lid no thanks I will take my chances. For the govt. it is all about tax dollars. you work you pay, you speed you get a ticket, don't wear a bucket you get a ticket. Do you see a patern? there has been studies that after 15 mph helmets are usless anyway.