should the california helmet law be revised to optional for age 30 and over?

Question

Helmets are only good for up to 10 mph impact. Helmets only good for sliding on the pavement.

Answer 1

30? The age of majority is 21. In TX the revised helmet law requires a helmet for those under 21. Over 21 must have x amount of insurance to ride without a helmet . Of course , we believe in personal freedom and accountability, here.

You might read the so-called "Hurt Report" from 1981 concerning the usefulness of helmets.

Answer 2

I have seen them save a rider from death more than 5 times in one week, all motorcycle accidents. One guy was going 75 MPH when he hit the pavement, he was not sliding, he hit his head, end over end more than 5 times on concrete. he walked away and the helmet cracked in half. A good full face helmet saved his life and his face from damage.

Where I live, anyone over 21 can ride w/o a helmet if they have 10k in P.I.P. Insurance coverage on themselves.
I ride a bike every day, so I understand the want to ride w/o a helmet, if you were ever hit by a bird flying at 70 on the road you would think twice about riding w/o one.

Answer 3

No.
Whoever gave you that info about Helmets only being good up to 10mph perhaps had head trauma himself. There are way too many factors to conside rin a crash to make statements like that. What I can tell you is that the human skull is not good for crashes at even 1 mph. Not wearing a helmet dramatically increases your liklihood of a fatal accident, or being a vegetable the rest of your life. I have at least 3 friends who wouldn't be alive right now but for their helmet.
Wake up, smell coffee, wear helmet, ride safe, have fun.

Answer 4

each state is authorized to set their very own regulations with regards to the age to drink. Any age is unfair, even 18, so the concept somebody is mature at 21, mutually as no longer mature purely an afternoon in need of that magic birthday, is the comparable as thinking 18 is okay yet 17 isn't. This comparable argument is used interior the protection rigidity, i will serve and be killed at 18, yet can no longer drink a lager.

Answer 5

No..have u seen how ppl drive in California...like a bat of hell. I have seen so many near misses from racing cars vs motorcycles..helmets are a pain in the *** yes but hey they try to keep u alive most of the time.

Answer 6

you are joking right im from australia and helemts must be worn at all times over here
while a helmet might not look kool and it lasts better than a 10mph impact well atleast the ones in australia do but theyre probably built better than the ones in california

Answer 7

No, it should be optional for everyone 18 and over. Don't sell out younger cyclists just to enjoy a little bit of freedom yourself.
If you're young enough to carry a gun in Iraq, you're young enough to make your own decisions regarding helmet use.

Answer 8

helmets should always be mandatory. Seat belts do not prevent death from flying off a cliff but still save lives. One risk mitigated is better than none at all.

Answer 9

I guess if you think we don't want to keep the thirty plus year olds alive, too. All should wear helmets. Statistics don't lie. Vanity for safety, bad trade.

Answer 10

No.

Either way, a helmet is going to help. Maybe, according to you, it won't help MUCH, but something is better than nothing.