My ninjette's in jail.

[matha028]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Yes FL laws are far from perfect. You can also get a $1300 fine for popping a wheelie. However, such a law is clearly biased against motorcycles in that a cage can't really pop a wheelie. Actually, I think the exact wording says something about "must maintain at least two wheels on the ground" so for the rare cars that can pop a wheelie, they are allowed.

So is it safe to say that if I dump my bike, I could get a ticket for not having 2 wheels on the ground, thanks to the wording of this stupid law. And not to disagree with you about personal safety laws, but in our state why is it that I can ride a bike without a helmet (I wear a helmet, gloves, jacket, pants, boots) but can get pulled over and get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in a car.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by matha028

So is it safe to say that if I dump my bike, I could get a ticket for not having 2 wheels on the ground, thanks to the wording of this stupid law. And not to disagree with you about personal safety laws, but in our state why is it that I can ride a bike without a helmet (I wear a helmet, gloves, jacket, pants, boots) but can get pulled over and get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in a car.

In an accident in a car with air bags (most of them have them these days), in some cases, it is actually more dangerous than older cars without them. That is, the air bag is designed to work in conjunction with the seat belt and not in place of it.

What happens is that without an airbag, an unbelted driver would simply fly through the windshield after a head on collision. If there is an airbag, it has a tendency to force an unbelted driver through the steel roof. Glass is relatively soft compared to steel.

So basically, if your car has airbags, you need to wear your seat belt to prevent your airbag from killing you.

Having said that, although I have always worn a seat belt in a car (long before the law), I am totally against mandatory seat belt laws. Just like with helmets, it should be a personal choice. I think better driver/rider education is a smarter way to get people to do what's right.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I just went to snopes and found the one you were talking about. It says it was just like I said, illegal left turn.

Here is one that looks like an illegal lane change by a truck. (Sick photo warning). Of course they spin it like its all the bikers fault when he's not around anymore to defend himself. Simply put, a biker isn't going to ride into the back of a truck unless the truck makes a sudden illegal lane change.

The bike could have swerved to avoid something else just the same. At over 120MPH, it could have been the longest most gradual lane change ever and the motorcyclist still may not have had enough time to react.

Now, as for the Honda inside the VW, it does NOT say that it was an illegal left-hand turn. The bike was more than a football-field's distance away at 155MPH when the car made it's turn and the biker is 100% at fault for it's illegal rate of speed. If you say otherwise, then ANY left-hand turn would be illegal because someone could be traveling Mach 3 from beyond the left hand horizon or something.

I'm all for defending my fellow bikers, but please don't make excuses for those that give us a bad name.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

In an accident in a car with air bags (most of them have them these days), in some cases, it is actually more dangerous than older cars without them. That is, the air bag is designed to work in conjunction with the seat belt and not in place of it.

What happens is that without an airbag, an unbelted driver would simply fly through the windshield after a head on collision. If there is an airbag, it has a tendency to force an unbelted driver through the steel roof. Glass is relatively soft compared to steel.

So basically, if your car has airbags, you need to wear your seat belt to prevent your airbag from killing you.

Having said that, although I have always worn a seat belt in a car (long before the law), I am totally against mandatory seat belt laws. Just like with helmets, it should be a personal choice. I think better driver/rider education is a smarter way to get people to do what's right.

Helmets aren't a personal choice in most states.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Helmets aren't a personal choice in most states.

I don't agree with that.

# Laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear a helmet are in place in 20 states and the District of Columbia
# Laws requiring only some motorcyclists to wear a helmet are in place in 27 states
# There is no motorcycle helmet use law in 3 states (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire)

Source

Here is a helmet law map of the United States:


Partial law means that people under 21 must wear them, others not. In some cases, going without includes other stipulations such as insurance requirements.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CZroe

The bike could have swerved to avoid something else just the same. At over 120MPH, it could have been the longest most gradual lane change ever and the motorcyclist still may not have had enough time to react.

Now, as for the Honda inside the VW, it does NOT say that it was an illegal left-hand turn. The bike was more than a football-field's distance away at 155MPH when the car made it's turn and the biker is 100% at fault for it's illegal rate of speed. If you say otherwise, then ANY left-hand turn would be illegal because someone could be traveling Mach 3 from beyond the left hand horizon or something.

I'm all for defending my fellow bikers, but please don't make excuses for those that give us a bad name.

A biker doing 155 through town has made a bad choice for sure. But I am not convinced that all of the photos are because bikers went too fast. In my state, its your fault if you fail to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic when turning left irregardless of how fast they're going. There is no telling where those photos were taken.

In the case of the guy in Tulsa that got hit by a semi changing lanes, without witnesses, there is really no way to say for sure on that one. Oddly enough, his best friend was killed a week later by another truck that he hit from behind. That kind of thing makes me highly suspicious of strange things going on in that town.

My goal is to install permanent mount HD video cameras in my bike (front and rear) some day. At least that way, if I'm not around, there will be a witness as to what really happened.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I don't agree with that.


Source

Here is a helmet law map of the United States:


Partial law means that people under 21 must wear them, others not. In some cases, going without includes other stipulations such as insurance requirements.

Let me clarify then: They are not a choice in most US motorcycle riders' states. TX and FL are the major exceptions. Mandatory helmet laws in CA, NY, and almost the entire SE (excepting FL and SC) covers most by far.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Let me clarify then: They are not a choice in most US motorcycle riders' states. TX and FL are the major exemptions. Mandatory helmet laws in CA, NY, and almost the entire SE (excepting FL and SC) covers most by far.

You lost me there. Sounds like you are talking about the number of riders that have to obey such a law. To make that statement, you need to know the number of riders in each state and the number in each state that are under 21. Without hard data, its really just an assumption.

I'm glad that I have a choice in FL - even though my choice is to wear a helmet and most gear. The helmet law issue is really about rights - not safety.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

A biker doing 155 through town has made a bad choice for sure. But I am not convinced that all of the photos are because bikers went too fast. In my state, its your fault if you fail to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic when turning left irregardless of how fast they're going. There is no telling where those photos were taken.

In the case of the guy in Tulsa that got hit by a semi changing lanes, without witnesses, there is really no way to say for sure on that one. Oddly enough, his best friend was killed a week later by another truck that he hit from behind. That kind of thing makes me highly suspicious of strange things going on in that town.

My goal is to install permanent mount HD video cameras in my bike (front and rear) some day. At least that way, if I'm not around, there will be a witness as to what really happened.

It says that the road was known for late night speeding and stunting of motorcycles. Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation. It's no strange conspiracy against motorcyclists. The speed can be estimated pretty easily and it does look like he was going 120MPH+ like the police describe.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

You lost me there. Sounds like you are talking about the number of riders that have to obey such a law. To make that statement, you need to know the number of riders in each state and the number in each state that are under 21. Without hard data, its really just an assumption.

I'm glad that I have a choice in FL - even though my choice is to wear a helmet and most gear. The helmet law issue is really about rights - not safety.

Looking at the entire south, where motorcycling is decidedly more popular, the major populations are in CA, TX, and the south east. CA holds the most by far for having year-round riding conditions with little rain in the major population centers. It has a helmet law. The SE is almost entirely covered by helmet laws except for FL and SC. The desert states in between are sparsely populated except for TX. TX and FL are the only exceptions with large populations across the entire south. When you consider how much of the east coast, including NY, has helmet laws, it quickly becomes obvious that most motorcyclists are subject to them. NYC and LA are the two largest population centers in the US by far and they both are in states with helmet laws.

There are many more factors. Population size + year round riding season with little rain in the population centers make CA disproportionately represented vs. total population. The SE has longer riding seasons and motorcycling is undoubtedly more popular there than in the north. Motorcycles seem more popular in NY than the surrounding northern area. When I look at the map, it looks pretty obvious that the populous states where motorcycling is most popular have helmet laws except for TX and FL. That probably has a lot to do with Daytona!

[Liquidtoon]

I think I disagree with you Jet but only because there is so many riders in areas outside the main cities. look at Sturgis and the like there is tons of people, admittedly mostly cruiser types that populate largely rural areas. Most of your downtown riders are your SS riders that are more likely to be screwing around on the bikes. It is rare to see a cruiser riding wheelies but finding a squid to doing it on a major road isn't.

I feel helmet laws are a rights issue not a safety issue but I also know that I dont want to pay more in taxes cause some dumb kid decided not to have medial/life insurance and the public is left holding the bill. I would be happier if the law required life/medical and higher insurance rates for those who didnt wear them. I think that is fair ...and back to the topic of the thread ....and if you dont have proof of insurance at the time your pulled over they should impound the bike. It sucks when it happens but be glad it was cop not an accident that left you in a coma then the hospital didnt treat you because they didnt think you had insurance.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

To make that statement, you need to know the number of riders in each state and the number in each state that are under 21. Without hard data, its really just an assumption.

Sure, but that data is relatively easy to find. The top 9 states for number of registered motorcycles are:

1. California
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. Ohio
5. Pennsylvania
6. Illinois
7. Wisconsin
8. Michigan
9. Minnesota

I chose 9, because the totals for those 9, are more than the totals for the remaining 41. Motorcycling is a very regional activity here in the US. Some states have large numbers of 'em, but most don't. I would assume weather has something to do with it, but there are clearly some folks who enjoy their two-wheeled fun even in the frozen tundra of Wisconsin.

[CThunder-blue]

wow, this thread got derailed. lol

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

wow, this thread got derailed. lol

I typed up a really nice reply, but obviously I got distracted and didn't hit "Submit".

Basically, I replied to Alex's list of the top 9 bike states. Short version, only California and Michigan have mandatory helmet laws on that list. Michigan is about to flip, which leaves only California. CA is a big state, but I'm not sure if they trump the other 8 of the top 9.

However, this is the wrong data set anyway. It is based on the number of registered bikes and not riders. What is really needed is the number of people with valid motorcycle endorsements on their license AND who own a bike. The reason for that is that a single rider in a wealthier state could own multiple bikes. Whereas a rider in a poorer state might have only one bike. In that case, the single rider should be counted only once if you are trying to determine the number of people affected by helmet laws. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of states require helmets for those under 21.