La. Motorcycle Helmet Bill Moves to Senate Floor

June 17, 2004

  • June 25, 2004 at 9:12 am
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think the helmet should be optional. In a car, you are required to wear a seatbelt. We have no seatbelts on a bike. A seatbelt doesn’t necessarily save a life. A helmet won’t either. If this is the law now, we should be required to wear helmets in a car. I am taking my life into my own hands by getting into a car or onto a bike. A helmet doesn’t save me from getting a broken neck or a broken leg or arm or even a few ribs. The same could happen in a car. A seatbelt won’t keep those things from happening either. It should be my option to exercise the way I want to.

  • June 25, 2004 at 1:57 am
    Ruth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have ridden snowmobiles and dirt bikes since I was a young teenager. Never, ever, would I have thought of riding without a helmet. I understand the riders quest for “freedom” but what about the innocent auto driver who hurts that bare head and finds themselves fighting off a multi million $ lawsuit? That suit could be prevented or lessened if the rider wore a helmet. Same for bicycle helmets – I get sick every time I see a kid or parent on a bike w/o a helmet. Think of the person looing at a potential lawsuit! To me, if you choose to not wear a helmet, you are waiving ALL rights to sue. I know many 4 wheeled vehicles drivers don’t see the cyclist and cause the accident; but many accidents are also caused by cyclists weaving in and out of traffic to avoid jams, and darting out from around other vehicles, giving all drivers no chance to avoid an accident.

  • July 12, 2004 at 10:54 am
    Anonymous2 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ruth! Do you ride, or have ever ridden a motorcycle. If not you should mind your own business. Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one. Do you go around showing your butthole?

  • July 12, 2004 at 11:10 am
    Ruth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Apparently you ride without ahelmet and it shows! Can’t you read? I have many years experience riding. Anonymous – no guts huh?

  • July 14, 2004 at 11:58 am
    James Shelby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I find it extremely naive to think that an automobile drive that cuts off a biker would have a lessened chance of a lawsuit or no chance at all if I wear a helmet. That is plain ridiculous! Cervical spine injury is another argument in helmet use. I am intimately knowledgeable in the fact that a helmet can kill you, just as a seat belt can kill you. There is no fail safe element that can assure you that you are safe either behind a wheel, or on top of a bike. If I were to waive my rights to sue if I wasn’t wearing a helmet, then people who drive without a seat belt should waive their right to sue if they are hit due to no fault of there own. Not a valid agrguement Ruth! I will have to support pro-choice in this arena. Everytime I get on my bike I take the risk of an inattentive driver running me over or causing me to wreck. So my helmet has nothing to do with safety unless you are stating to me that my helmet is a guarantee that my life will be saved if I wear it. No helmet does or can gaurantee that, no seatbelt can either. The statistics are algrebraically flawed due to many elements that create them (bikes per thousands per populations, etc.). It has been proven time and time again, that no one in the legislature can define “protective headgear” and certainly not take on the liability of designating a “list of approved helmets” for use by bikers. It is fact the Snell and DOT testing is under isolated conditions (14 mph anvil drop test) and this test does not duplicate an actual event that could cause a fatal head injury. Lets stick to facts. Helmet laws are subjective. And the legislators that create these laws are not completely educated in real statical fact. Besides, it is unconstitutional to create a law or statute that is vague and ambiguous which tends to lead to interpretation through the “police powers act”. And that is why so many states have been forced to repeal thier unethical/unconstitutional helmet laws. It should be a choice, not a standard. If so, make helmets a requirement in all vehicles, and make the governments that require these helmets have the laibility of a failed product if in fact they fail to protect me from a massive head injury or cervical neck fatality. No state or government wants that liability. I feel the issue isn’t necessarily the rider, this is an issue in respects to the motorcycle and the use of it on the highway systems. The motorcycle has been deemed a danger to the individual, where driver or fellow motorist. This is a control issue to be indirectly discriminitory against motorcycles period.

    Nuff Said.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*