Protest ride irony

my way to "stick it to the man" is just not being friendly!! i know its a dick move but thats my protest. if im on the road or in the woods and you arent wearing a helmet i just pretend like i dont see you!!
 
I don't need to watch your link to know I won't learn anything from it. Nor do I need to be preached to regarding helmet use. I've seen more than my share of dead cyclists, most of whom were wearing helmets. If I want to wear a helmet, which is most of the time, I'll do so. If I'm in the woods I'm wearing a helmet, if I'm in a group likewise. As long as I'm not breaking the law, I'd like to politely suggest that my peers go back to worrying about their own lives... Or at least get one.
 
ajcsk8r said:
my way to "stick it to the man" is just not being friendly!! i know its a dick move but thats my protest. if im on the road or in the woods and you arent wearing a helmet i just pretend like i dont see you!!
Click to expand...

I do the same but with clipless shoes
 
I'm not looking for the thread to go downhill fast, but...
At what point do you make individuals responsible for themselves as opposed to a government mandating safety whether you like it or not?
This thread can apply to people driving older cars without the mandated TPMS to ourselves as cyclists riding the same public roads at 40 MPH with a joke of styrofoam helmet compared to a Scorpion full face motorcycle helmet.

If I ride a motorcycle 40 MPH down Yawpo Ave in Oakland or ride my mtn bike the same speed down the same road, should I wear the same gear on the mtn bike as I do on the motorcycle? At what point do you want the government to start telling mtn bikers they MUST wear full face helmets and kevlar body armor?
 
JerseyPete said:
If I ride a motorcycle 40 MPH down Yawpo Ave in Oakland or ride my mtn bike the same speed down the same road, should I wear the same gear on the mtn bike as I do on the motorcycle? At what point do you want the government to start telling mtn bikers they MUST wear full face helmets and kevlar body armor?
Click to expand...

Well, considering the government only requires you to wear a DOT approved helmet, which can be nothing more than a brain bucket, I don't think that'll ever happen. And that's only the states that require helmets.

I come from an area of the country where a lot of the motorcyclists have a policy of ATGATT. All the gear all the time. They're also known as "gear nazis." It's sort of a self-policing community. The mountains and canyons we ride see thousands of riders over a typical summer weekend and the amount of under-geared, inexperienced squids we see up there who bin it and have to be airlifted out pisses most of us off.

Still, it's been this way for decades, and I doubt it will change. So, even in one of the few places where mandating gear would be of great benefit to the riders and the public, there's nada. No matter how many people have to be ambulanced and airlifted out, gear's not going to be required by law.

I'm pretty sure the sport of mountain biking is safe from ridiculous gear laws.
 
I'd say at best, one out of every 20 motorcycle riders I see in Connecticut has a helmet on his head. Even the sport bike crowd rides without helmets up here.
 
Only a fool would buy a full face motorcycle helmet.........

















😀 about 3 are missing from the pic......yes I have a problem.

lids1.jpg
 
platypus said:
I come from an area of the country where a lot of the motorcyclists have a policy of ATGATT. All the gear all the time. They're also known as "gear nazis." It's sort of a self-policing community. The mountains and canyons we ride see thousands of riders over a typical summer weekend and the amount of under-geared, inexperienced squids we see up there who bin it and have to be airlifted out pisses most of us off.
Click to expand...

From all of the mountain/canyon talk I'm imagining out west somewhere? I think this is great. The whole community of motorcyclists needs to be a little more self-policing with regards to safety gear (as well as other things).
 
People tend to way over rate their ability and under rate risk. Bad combination when it comes to two wheels with a motor. Also a good reason for regulation which I'm normally against.
 
Ive witnessed first hand the reaction a body has when its leaking grey matter, it's not pretty. I just bought a new motorcycle after about a 10 year hiatus. Bought new gloves, 2 new helmets and a Textile jacket with some armoring. Sure in the right situation(or wrong) none of it will save my life, but my odds are better wearing it.
 
Simple solution. Repeal the helmet laws for adults. Then, allow insurance companies to charge a premium for not wearing a helmet to cover the potential extra cost of injury without a helmet. This can be done through statistics like every other insurance premium is calculated. If the client lies and says they wear a helmet, then has an accident without one, the insurance company should have the right to not pay the expenses.

Freedom of choice is preserved and the extra costs would be covered.
 
Last edited:
I think somebody indirectly covered the view I personally have on all of this. Laws can't legislate against stupidity no matter how hard they try. And I'm not even saying that people who don't want to wear helemts are stupid. I think they believe the government thinks they're stupid, hence the need for a law. If someone can legitimately arrive at the conclusion that the benefits of going helmetless outweigh the risks of personal injury, then fine -- have at it. Just think about it first. I think that's what's missing most of the time. People are so concerned with being able to ride without one that they don't bother to ask themselves if they personally should. And part of that equation should be the consideration of others and how your decision will affect them as well -- whether it's your family, the guy in the car you collide with, or the other riders who may have their own rights or privileges impacted by your actions. That last one matters a lot to those of us who ride off-road. We're very often just one serious injury away from having access withdrawn anywhere we like to ride. One guy/girl goes out without a helmet, cracks open his/her melon and next thing we're all denied access to the trails for liability concerns. I'm not saying this is the biggest tragedy in a crash, but it's an illustration of one way in which your actions can have a ripple effect to people you've never even met. And I'm pretty libertarian about most things like this because I believe common sense and logic are better guides for social behavior than legal restrictions ever could hope to be. But I guess since you can't enforce common sense, it's open to debate. Wouldn't you think this is the sort of thing where the individual could just stop and consider and arrive at a reasonable risk ratio? Or are we willing to say that many people will lack the intellectual faculties necessary to create to reasonable behavior model for themselves?
 
Since this thread got political .... The govt is not some abstract, mysterious entity that restricts individual liberty but an instrument of the public collective. When the govt legislates against helmetless riding, its the voice of the citizentry acting through their democratic process. And sometimes, the voting public gets it wrong. Helmetless riding is probably a decision best left to the rider. But there is no liberty or right to helmetless riding. You'd be much better off refutting the safety claims of helmets. The libertariam position is a trendy one but the tradeoff of securing the privileges and benefits of living in a society is the surrender of certain "freedoms." Having said all that, happy trails!
 
monteverest said:
Since this thread got political .... The govt is not some abstract, mysterious entity that restricts individual liberty but an instrument of the public collective. When the govt legislates against helmetless riding, its the voice of the citizentry acting through their democratic process. And sometimes, the voting public gets it wrong. Helmetless riding is probably a decision best left to the rider. But there is no liberty or right to helmetless riding. You'd be much better off refutting the safety claims of helmets. The libertariam position is a trendy one but the tradeoff of securing the privileges and benefits of living in a society is the surrender of certain "freedoms." Having said all that, happy trails!
Click to expand...

To be clear (and I don't even know if you were addresing my post) I never made a judgment one way or the other on the true function of government -- only the perception of law as restriction on personal liberties, which, in a fundamental sense, it is. But, as you say, for a reason. It's kind of a paradox that libertarianism would ever be described as "trendy" -- it's a uniquely personal vision of what it means to be free, isn't it? I wouldn't say that society doesn't need laws to guide behavior. I would say that I as an individual don't need them to guide my behavior. But you wouldn't know that, so you prefer that society protect you from the possibility that I am lying (just like those laws protect me from you.) And because of that framework, we can all just carry on and go about our happy trails without worrying that we missed the memo that all bets were off and that it's time to start eating the weak. But ultimately, I personally really don't care if there is a law about helmets because I'm going to wear one regardless because, when I think about it, I can't come up with a suitable risk-ratio that favors not wearing them. I don't want to crack my head open (not even once) and I don't want my family and friends to have to go through theh discomfort of having to wear suits and things just to watch some dude throw dirt on me and I sure as hell don't want to cost my fellow riders access to a great trail because I smeared my brain jelly on a rock. If soeone else feels differently and can come up with a suitable model that says "go helmetless", I may doubt the mathematics of their probability models, but that's their call.
 
bruce.b said:
I'm going to break my rule here. Anyone who preaches to other people about helmets is an idiot. Get a life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok. Nice to know I am an idiot. Many thanks for the heads up. By your logic I should feel guilty about hounding my best friend into buying a helmet two days before he cracked it on a snowmaking machine - but thankfully I am happy I "preached" to him about helmets and that we both still have "a life".
 
Since I'm the O.P. I should say something I guess.
I was mainly pointing out the irony of someone dying of a head injury while riding their motorcycle helmetless on a ride protesting helmet laws.
I wasn't making a joke, just raising awareness on helmet safety.
FWIW I don't ride moto at all but I've crash tested a few MTB helmets over the years and will NEVER ride without one, (MTB or road).
I think helmet laws are a good thing just like seatbelt laws. Accidents happen, they're called accidents because you never know when one is going to happen to you.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom