How about a compromise: they only have to wear a helmet if they are collecting food stamps.

I heard on the radio this morning that some people want to make it mandatory to wear a helmet while skiing. So I guess anything is possible.

OK, let them have their "freedom" to ride unprotected as long as I have the "freedom" not to use any of my tax money to provide services to them for any injuries related to not using a helmet.

It actually sounded like she was say that people with motor cycles are also on welfare.

My health insurance and motorcycle insurance that I pay for would cover my expenses from a motorcycle accident.

People die from choking on French fries do we make people wear a special eating device to "protect" them?. People die in there sleep, should would make sleeping illegal?

If you people have it your way soon we will have to wear a protective suit at all times. I wear a helmet all the time on my motorcycle or when I ride my bicycle, but I respect people right to "choose" it is not up to us or the government to tell people what they can do in every aspect of their lives.

Don't you think we are told what to do enough by special interest groups and the government?

People life is dangerous, you could die at any time from so many different things. We can't regulate everything that people do to try to protect them.

ladyslipper, I am just trying to meet you halfway. If it's okay to people on food stamps what they can and can't eat, it follows that we can tell people on food stamps what they can and can't do across the board. (earlier you implied you knew the meaning of the word "facetious.")

Abolishing the nanny state is the only thing "overdue".

i guess im not getting the connection between foodtstamps and helmets, food stamps are for people who, for whatever reason, cannot afford to eat with out them. The helmet law will take away yet another choice we were given as our right when we were born into this country, pretty soon we wont need foodtsamps cause we will all have to stand in line and get our food handed out to us by the government. COME ON people stop letting the government run our lives, whats next?

sorry, dawn, my comment relates to an old argument here that was about food stamps. I didn't mean to confuse the issue for you.

thanks anne, for a minute i was wondering how the two were connected

I've got sons that I'd just as soon see wearing helmets.....why is there a seat belt law, why do we ban smoking in public buildings, why not drink and drive, etc. It's common sense, but there's too many that lack it....including lots of young riders.

OBTW, nice hijack of the thread with the food stamp issue...

The young woman on the "Today" show this morning who just won a major trophy for the second year in a row stated skiers should always wear helmets to protect against head injuries. Does anyone think motorcycle riding/accidents are any less dangerous than snow skiing?

Pathxe, does your insurance (both combined) provide for up to $1 million in rehabilitation treatment, special equipment and housing? Maybe your income needs for the rest of your life? Doubt it. And what about the impact on those around you - your family (parents, spouse, children, friends, etc.) who will be emotionally and psychologically impacted if you are traumatically injured - but not flat out killed. How many people will have their entire lives changed while you are maybe in a coma for weeks, months, years... or have to be in a wheelchair for the rest of your life and can not return to work. What the Mass. District Court wrote is ABSOLUTELY true. It's not just about the individual motocycle rider. It's about everyone else who ends up being impacted - especially when there is something simple that can be done to reduce the potential damage to so many.

Was that young woman on the show an expert?

If the argument is that taxpayers must pay for injured motorcyclists, this is a poor place to begin saving money. motorcyclists represent a very small precentage of population. Those who cost taxpayers money are even more of a minority, so what do Mainers die of?

Heart failure is #1 these deaths cost taxpayers a very high precentage of their health care dollar. So here are a number of ways to save money BEFORE we attack freedom loving motorcyclists.

Outlaw snow-shoveling, Banana Cream Pie, and stress.

Freedom is the ability to do what you wish with your life as long as no one else is physically hurt. In a free society it is not necessary for the government to "protect" individuals from themselves.

The problem with these 'statistics' they give is that they are slanted to give the data they want people to see. More laws means more income for the state and more control of the masses nothing more. There have been studies that show more specifically where a helmet helps and where a helmet hurts. At normal diving speeds a helmet is deadly. There is a much greater chance of breaking your neck wearing a helmet when driving at normal driving speeds. At low speed accidents a helmet does more to protect the head and a broken neck is much less likely. These accidents usually involve inexperienced drivers. Our laws already cover these instances. Perhaps increasing the age to 18 would be beneficial. But to require a segment that this will more likely cause more harm than to help is completely wrong. People compare wearing seat belts to wearing a helmet. This is apples to oranges and does not apply.If you were to require people in cars to wear helmets this would be closer to being the same. I was in a motorcycle accident 17 years ago without a helmet. The bike hit a set of railroad tracks at the wrong angle and flipped over. I went headfirst into the track I have a scar across my head from it. If I had a helmet on, in all likelihood I would have died. There was an accident in Orono in 2003 where a Hermon woman who was a passenger on a motorcycle, was wearing a helmet, died on the scene. Her husband was driven to the hospital and was later released. He was not wearing a helmet. This is not a matter of safety, this is a matter of control. Both the seat belt laws and helmet laws are unconstitutional, but because a minority of the people feel they need to impose their rules on people they are accepted by the rest of the people because they do not know any better, do not care or are just not well informed about what their true rights are. Here is a link to a study that was not promoted by anyone with anything to gain: http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein2.html

This is turning into the peoples republic of Maine, you should wear a helmet sking, bicycling and in the bathtub will be next, wake up people and quit sending these Democratic legislators to Augusta to screw the people of Maine, Let those who ride Decide..... I won't shed any tears when BDN closes the door and the editorial writers are on food stamps......LOL

It is not to up some Maasachussetts judge to take my rights away even if it saves the state money. if he was so quick to use that argument to pass a helmet law did he also pass a law- that would forbid unemployed people from getting pregnant and having to rely on state for support just like he claimed injured motorcyclists rely on state to support them? sounds like discrimination to me. a law that discriminates is illegal and thus the seat belt and the helmet laws are illegal. anyway inujries , pregnancies discrimination etc its all beside the point. The point is The constitution granted me the right to make choice about my life and if it costs the state money to protect that freedom -too bad- I still have that right and i m not giving up my right and NO JUDGE has the right to take it from me.

I hold Ben Franklin views in more esteem than some arrogant Massachussetts judge's personal likes or dislikes. Maine had better took example of its neighbor, New Hampshire a state which is first in the nation in protecting individuals rights. and not Massachussetts

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

how do you like them apples mr Massachussetts judge ?

Jozef Nielubin

Brewer,maine

Quote:

I heard on the radio this morning that some people want to make it mandatory to wear a helmet while skiing. So I guess anything is possible.

Unquote

Anything is possible? Maybe. Maybe even mandotory colonoscopy? why would it be made mandatory? for one reason... early detection improves chances of cure.of colon cancer, thus it will save the state money. it does sound though like you were treated like farm cattle ? suddenly the bikers call to protect the freedom of choice doesnt sound so bad does it?

to those that call for a Helmet law . be careful what you wish for- you may actually get more than you bargained for. .

Abolishing the nanny state is the only thing "overdue".

the above statement is AWSOME .....RIGHT ON. Sweet SWEEEEET.

I don't understand why you woudn't want to protect yourself. Sometimes we have to protect people that can't make that decision on their own. I mean after all why should I have to wear Orange when I hunt, or wear chainsaw chaps when I cut wood? Oh yeah to save the American families the added cost of paying for the additional injuries I occur because I don't want to protect myself. We complain about the added stress of the War and Economy, but do you understand the amount of money we are spending on preventible deaths and injuries. I have worked in several Emergency rooms and treated almost all preventable injuries to people that didn't wear or do the right think. I do not judge them but I use that to better arm myself. I am not perfect but I don't cost you money either. I am not sure if there should be State intervention to "make" people do the right thing, but then again if you want to fly a fighter jet with no ejection seat then good for you, I don't think there will be many hospital bills with that. Set a good example and move on, you never know when that kid in the car next to you is watching!

Respecfully

Mike

All ...all arguments here are missing te point...saying that if people must wear seat belts then riders must wear helmets is missing the point.. either takes away the right of choice and it is ILLEGAL. to take the right to choose . The state has an obligation to protect that right instead with the support from the stupidest ones is managing to take that right away thanks to superficially benevolent banner SAVING LIVES AND MONEY. If its ONLY about saving money and lives what will stop the state from mandating medical procedures without patient consent.once the seat belt and the helmet laws set the precedence? what would stop the state from mandating medical procedures that save lives and money for example colonoscopy which by detecting a colon cancer earlly can save lives and money? How many of those that say a right to choose is not the most important issue in this helmet issue would like to have a scope inserted up their behind WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION? You would not like it? Even if it saves money and lives? are you suddenly being hipocriical and discriminating agaisnt motorcycle riders? discrimination is illegal did you know that ? I hope that shows what really is the point in this discussion. its not about a helmet law or seat belt law or ski helmet or boat life jackets...it is about the state recognizing you as a human being with rights that cannot be taken or looking at you liike at a farm animal. If you want to be treated like a sheep go for it but dont make me follow you.