Helmet Law repealed in Nevada

[wkiltz]

so im confused ... is it just on highways.. or on city streets like i live in vegas and work in henderson.. is that helmet free too...

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by revstriker

A little on topic info. The following is an article by the AMA that was printed in the American Motorcyclist Magazine in June 2003.

Public Burden Theory?

Injured mortorcyclists. They're nothing but a burden on American taxpayers.

You've heard it repeated a thousand times, so it must be true, right?

Well, no. But try telling that to the people who make governmental policies in this country--or to those in the news media who cover safety issues.

The so-called social burden theory goes like this: Motoryclists get injured in accidents. Then they go to hospitals where they wrack up enormous medical expenses. And when it comes time to pay those bills, it turns out they have no insurance, so American taxpayers get stuck with the tab.

We've been hearing it for nearly 20 years, most recently in an ABC "World News Tonight" report last (2003) winter on how irresponsible riders were using up inordinate amounts of taxpayer dollars. But that doesn't make it any closer to the truth.

Amazingly, this whole issue can be traced back to a single study in the 1980's, a study in which researchers specifically avoided giving people the whole picture. And although the AMA was able to point out the obvious errors in the research at that time, the myth of irresponsible motorcyclists has taken on a life of its own.

That study looked at patients brought to Harborville Medical Center, a major trauma center in the Seattle area. It reported that 63.4 percent of the injured motorcyclists taken to Harborville relied on public funds to pay their hospital bills. If you heard that number, you might think there must be something to this whole social burden argument. But what the researchers didn't say is that 67 percent of all patients taken to Harborview were unable to pay their medical bills.

Why are the numbers so high? The main reason is that Harborview, as a regional trauma center, gets the worst injuries in the entire Seattle area. In other words, it gets the patients who are most likely to require more care than their insurance will cover.

But regardless of the reasons, the point is that motorcyclists taken to Harborview were actually less likely to rely on public funding than the general public. So if there was a group of irresponsible patients at Harborview, it wasn't the motorcyclists.

All of those were facts that the researchers chose not to report, perhaps because they didn't fit a preconceived notion of what the study ought to say.

Over the years, other studies have shown the same thing. A report by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center, for example, found that 49.5 percent of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, which is almost identical to the 50.4 percent for other road trauma victims. And the North Carolina study found that the average costs for treating a motorcyclist's injuries were actually slightly lower than the costs for other accident victims.

Despite all that, the issue continues to come up in reports from various safety organizations and in news accounts of them. As Ed Moreland, AMA's vice president for government relations, notes, its enough to make you wonder if we are all reading the same studies.

"Some researchers, members of the news media and others still subscribe to the social burden theory fallaciy that motorcyclists use more taxpayer dollars than other members of society to pay their medical bills," says Moreland. "That wasn't true in the past, and there's no evidence it's true now. Yet we keep having to make that case in legislative committee meetings and regulatory hearings.?

So, if somebody tries to tell you that motorcyclists are nothing but a burden on society, what can you do? Tell them to check their facts.

Thanks for posting that. Very good information.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by wkiltz

so im confused ... is it just on highways.. or on city streets like i live in vegas and work in henderson.. is that helmet free too...

As far as I can tell, its just the bill that passed committee and hasn't actually become law yet. Keep your fingers crossed.

[2010Zen]

I don't care what the government has to say or try to pass about helmet laws...a helmet saved my face from getting gravel in it when I was a passenger on a bike...didn't want to wear one and I did anyways...I will always wear a helmet no matter what...keeping my common sense protected..and I love my helmet...I'm sure the rider that got hit by a pickaxe on the freeway is happy to have had a helmet on and only suffered a scratch above his brow...I rest my case...:::::::::::shaking head::::::::::::::.......

[sarapacman99]

last time i checked LV review journal, this was one of the bills that didn't get signed

[wkiltz]

yeah i got bored at work and called the police and asked.. he had no clue what i was talking about so from what he said you still got to wear a helmet.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by wkiltz

yeah i got bored at work and called the police and asked.. he had no clue what i was talking about so from what he said you still got to wear a helmet.

Helmets are sooooo over rated!

I went back to the original post and read the article. It turns out on the same page as the "Helmet Article" is a link to a more important story.


Man's penis cut off, put through garbage disposal

By JOHN MONE
Associated Press




GARDEN GROVE, Calif. (AP) -- A Southern California woman was jailed Wednesday after authorities said she drugged her estranged husband, tied him to a bed before cutting off his penis and put it through a garbage disposal.

Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said Catherine Kieu Becker drugged a meal and served it to the victim, whose name was not released, shortly before the attack Monday night.

Nightengale said the 51-year-old man felt sick, went to lie down and lost consciousness. The 48-year-old Becker then tied the victim's arms and legs to the bed with rope, removed his clothes and attacked him with a 10-inch kitchen knife as he awoke, Nightengale said.

"He was conscious when his penis was removed," Nightengale said.

Nightengale said Becker put the penis in the garbage disposal and turned it on.

The lieutenant said Becker called 911 to report a medical emergency and told arriving officers "he deserved it" before pointing to the room where the victim was found tied to the bed, bleeding profusely. Authorities did not release details on a possible motive in the attack.

A telephone listing for Becker's residence could not be located and no one was home in the apartment.

Nightengale said Becker was taken into custody without incident and refused to talk to officers further. He said the couple was in the process of a divorce.

Bail for Becker was set at $1 million after she was booked at the Orange County Jail for investigation of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse.

She was due in court Wednesday.

The victim underwent surgery and was listed in good condition at the University of California at Irvine Medical Center in Orange, hospital spokesman John Murray told the Orange County Register.

The newspaper said the victim declined to comment when he was reached by phone Tuesday afternoon.

"This is a private matter," he said.

Neighbor Lourdes Painter told The Associated Press the couple had been married since December, did not have any children and seemed very quiet. Becker and her husband lived in a second-story condo in the working class complex. Painter lives in the unit below them.

Nightengale said a database search showed no previous calls to the house for any past problems. He didn't know what kind of food the couple ate for dinner. Detectives took the food as evidence and were analyzing it.

No private attorney was listed on booking documents. If Becker seeks a public defender, one could be appointed at her first court appearance.

In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis in Virginia and threw it out of her car window into a field on the side of the road. She claimed years of sexual abuse drove her to the attack, and she was acquitted by reason of insanity. His penis was later reattached.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.


Now that's news!

[ducducgooseit]

Some things I just don't care about it. (the cutoff story ...)

[Alex]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...cle1180943.ece



Synopsis:

- decide to get into motorcycling
- buy a CBR1000RR as a first bike, decline to wear helmet (or other gear, based on picture)
- wait one week
- funeral plans

It's just so senseless. Whether it's graduated licensing, helmet laws, or just more accessibility to common sense, there ought to be ways to make this that much less likely. This wasn't a stereotypical dumb kid, this was a middle-aged skilled engineer. It's a shame he apparently didn't have access to riding mentors or any other entity who would have been able to get across what a, well, bonehead he was in going about this.

[CC Cowboy]

Sad story.

Mother wants a helmet law! The problem wasn't the helmetless head it was the brainless head for riding over his experience.

I noticed the paragraph about "Crotch Rockets" crashing more than any other type of bike. Maybe riding a Harley is safer than we think.

[Xoulrath]

The ONLY way to prevent motorcycle deaths is to ban motorcycles.

It is sad that a person so young died from something that may have been preventable. Helmet laws wouldn't have necessarily changed the outcome. There were no details of the accident, there was no mention of speed. All I read about was a loss of control from an inexperienced rider. Depending on how the crash played out, and the speed involved, he could have been killed even with a helmet.

So that would imply we need graduated licensing. Then he couldn't have been on such a powerful bike. But wait, a Ninja 250 is more than capable of doing 90 mph, so maybe that wouldn't have saved him either. So I guess we better ban bikes altogether.

And if we're going to start graduated licensing for bikes, then it is only fair that we do the same for all vehicles. I would like to see the road rid of the burden of poor drivers. Too many people out there who think they can drive a 2 1/2 - 3 ton monster and Twit to their friends, all while drinking coffee and reading the morning paper.

The single biggest problem with any legislation is to figure out where it ends. I'm all for helmets. I'm for ATGATT; my wife and I are about to gear up and go riding in 90 degree heat with humidity. I'm not for people controlling the lives of others under the guise of "trying to help" or "trying to save lives". At what point does it end. And let's not even get me started on common sense.

[Alex]

The slippery slope arguments are just that, a slippery slope that can be slid along all the way to advocating that manufacturers should be able to sell motorcycles with table saws mounted on the gas tank, and if anyone is silly enough to put their hands into the spinning blades, they deserve what they get.

Something failed here, and it fails a few thousand times per year. One solution is banning motorcycles. Not a fan of that for some pretty obvious reasons. But having that out there as a fear isn't by itself a reason to avoid wishing there was a level of understanding about 2-wheeled machines here in the US like there is every where else in the world. Graduating licensing and mandatory training is par for the course over much of the world, but not here. One of the consequences of inaction is that eventually, those who don't have our best interests in mind develop enough support for action that is much more draconian than could have been gained earlier by rational compromise. See the new exhaust laws in California for an example.

There are still dealers that strongly advise against new riders hopping on a 160+ hp missile, up to and including having the buyer go elsewhere. But individually, there certainly isn't any financial incentive for most dealers to even consider it.

[n4mwd]

Very sad.

I'm against mandated helmet laws. Its debatable whether it would have saved this guy or not. From the news article, it sounds like it was the direct result of being inexperienced and having too hot of a bike for his skill level. It didn't say where he bought the bike, but if it was a dealer, they should get in trouble. I'm guessing that the guy didn't even have a motorcycle endorsement or the MSF course. The dealer should have checked that.

As far as graduated licenses, they do that now for cars. Many states have a "restricted" license that requires a licensed driver as the passenger. For motorcycles, I'm not sure if I would be for or against something like that. I'm leaning "against" any law like that is a violation of our rights.

Anyhow, I just went to the meeting this morning and became an official ABATE member. I had the only sport bike and only me and another guy had a helmet. They fight for biker safety laws that don't impact the rights of bikers.

[Xoulrath]

D, the laws for cars here in Georgia have to do with teenage drivers. Once you are 18, it doesn't matter anymore. As if you somehow will automatically drive better because of a whopping two years worth of maturity. Driving is a skill and a privilege that many people take for granted, unfortunately, as is riding.

Personally, I am for graduated licensing, for both cars and bikes. But it has to be for both. People learning to drive and/or ride better directly affects others safety in a positive way. Unlike mandatory helmet laws which only affect the rider.

[n4mwd]

In FL. I'm honestly not sure any more. When I was a kid, you got your restricted at 15 and then your regular license at 16. Last I heard, they were either changing or proposing that all new drivers have to get a restricted first for one year regardless of age. Like I said, I'm not sure if its law or just political rhetoric. It does make sense though.

I'm thinking for a restricted bike license, maybe restrict operation to daylight hours and require a 250 or less. A helmet should be strongly encouraged, but not required.

But as far as the law goes, it does not appear that this guy has his motorcycle endorsement. If so, then he was breaking the law.

Here is another article about the same guy.It lists another helmetless rider accident where the rider was "ejected" from her Harley. Sounds like that newspaper is on a mission to get helmets required here.