THIS State Repeals Helmet Law - Deaths GO WAY UP! 

I wear full face. I rode in a 3/4 in the 70s as that was the common best choice. It makes a difference in the experience though. One side effect may be an increase in speed and therefore a desire for more speed/ripping HP. I have noticed that as a change over almost 50 years of riding.

Also, no identity visible.

The downside is that you will drive faster and increase substantially your risk of accident Those that don’t wear helmets are the safest riders, therefore the risk of making an accident in the first place if you wear a helmet increases substantially (almost twice more likely) If you see on the street, full face helmet drivers are those that drive most recklessly, do lane splits and do speeding on the highway

aGrim_Beard, 👍 go figure we are talking about Missouri, Florida et al. I'm having doubts about those States.

I’ve been hit by a bird at 70 mph(I guess I actually hit it), and was wearing a full face. It really rang my bell! Also had a stone get kicked up by a pickup that glanced off a helmet, that would have “left a mark” had it hit my bare head!

AKA "Donorcycle" rider.

This is true. UW Madison Hospital does near the most organ transplants.

@@bhouse92101 Beat me to it!

100% agree!

The problem is where do you draw the line? People engage in far riskier, more expensive to society, behavior every day. If we can’t tell obese people they are on the hook for their own insulin, heart, and blood pressure meds it doesn’t seem fair to target people on motorcycles.

@@elwood62 His statement is clearly related to decisions made by motorcycle riders. But yes, if someone smokes or is purposely obese, others should not be subsidizing their behavior.

@@tonycj7860 I agree. But since we live in the land of shared healthcare costs we either need to subsidize everyone’s bad decisions or no one’s. People that talk about withholding benefits from one group almost always turn a blind eye to another.

@elwood62 Looks like we need to vote for people who will revamp the Healthcare system so 1 group isn't subsidizing bad behaviors.

Advocating for freedom of choice is a foreign idea to you? Doesn't matter whether it's effective. The citizen is the most important decision maker in a nation. Or at least should be. That is why free counties have individual voting rights. You make individual choices.

@@impalaSS65 such an American response! There are some things you are just required to do in a civilised society - have a drivers license for example. Not drive drunk. Obey traffic lights. Wearing a helmet is another one. Just like wearing a seat belt is required in the name of safety, a helmet is required too. We have safety laws for a reason. It’s why you can’t legally do a lot of electrical work at home yourself. And don’t give me that line about Americans having more freedom, it’s just not true.

@@chrisnielsen9885 So what, if it is an "American" response? You mean as a debating base line, assume a grown man is is in his right to decide for himself? In that case - thank you for the compliment! I am a Swede, by the way. We are not known for being a beacon of freedom, so your compliment made my day. More freedom is better - all else equal. Your examples conflates individual risk taking with exposing others to a risk. Knowing the difference, is crucial for becoming a mature citizen. You want to waiver your right to decide - it does not nullify my rights. You might be an authoritarian, if you need to oppress others to feel "safe". "We have safety laws for a reason" not necessarily. Critical thinking is required to see which laws are necessary and which are emotionally motivated. You mention electrical work. Depending on where you are located - you can do a lot that is still dangerous if you are unskilled. Reparing/swapping a termination of a single phase 1~230VAC (not to be confused with the US three phase 3~208VAC) lamp, corded drill, amplifier, microwave etc. Yet in the great wisdom of our political retards, I am no longer allowed to do the simple entry level teenager work of routing cables on the wall, mount sockets etc, while leaving the connecting to the fuse board and the termination of the sockets to an electrician. "Drunk driving" is an emotional example - grown up men with a modicum of science background knows there is no such thing as "either/or" when it comes to alcohol intoxication. The fact that men are so much faster in reaction and so superior in spatial perception than women, can be likened to a sober woman being on par with a heavily intoxicated man. The actual competence is obviously not the target for the law. A man that haven't slept for 20h, is more dangerous than a rested man after a six glasses of beer. So the natural variations of danger/incompetence "allowed" by the law, is greater than any emotionally motivated legislation aimed at deemed "anti-social" behavior", seen from the eyes of the insecure authoritarians. Seat belts, helmets, ABS, etc,etc. are cost driving options - i.e. choices for me to make. Burning down my house when the neighbors are at risk, is a different story.

Some don’t have a brain

hella funny!

Of course this old argument is still with us. I fully support your decision to NOT wear a helmet. I have yet to see a credible study that proves your point.

If a person is unmarried with no children and has life insurance to cover their funeral, then I can basically agree with you that it's a person's right to choose for themselves whether or not to wear a helmet. However, married people, and especially married people with children, should not just think about it being their right to not wear a helmet. They need to consider how much their spouse and their children will be affected if they die because they refused to wear a helmet just because it was their "right'. People need to grow up and become responsible. They need to think about the fact that they can possibly save their families a lifetime of grief and lost opportunities if they would just have been willing to do a very simple thing like wear a helmet. So should government make a law that a person must wear a helmet? I lean toward saying no.... but it's such a simple and easy thing to take 5 seconds to stick a helmet on your head and it often saves children from a lifetime of sorrow, so really I think it is no worse than government making people wear a seat belt. Maybe it should be a law. No actual bad consequences seem to happen to people in helmet requiring states compared to non-helmet requiring states.

@@jlrutube1312 many of those same people you just talked about will take just as dangerouse risks as a person on a motorcycle WITH THEIR FAMILIES IN THEIR VEHICLES without life insurance or any insurance at all, so no that holds no water.

@@robertlane6431 Yes, there seem to be several ways to look at the issue. Thanks for your response.

77% of automobile accidents happen within 10 miles of home. Wear the proper gear all the time.

@@beepbop6697probably because that’s where your car is a majority of time. 4head