Seem ,s wrong to protect one group of People and ignore another group . If you are going to tell everyone you have to wear seat belts ( click it or ticket ) sort of HYPOCRITACAL when you let Motorcyclist not wear the very thing that could save them in an accident .
2007-05-26 12:50:20 · 8 answers · asked by bigfred1954 4 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
First of all, there is no requirement for the government's laws to be consistent.
Secondly, laws are written with input from special interest groups. The motorcycle lobby (manufacturers, dealers and riders) has done a good job to date, of blocking a national helmet law.
In contrast, there is no significant special interest group trying to oppose the use of seat belts in cars.
2007-05-26 15:42:53 · answer #1 · answered by Tom-SJ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some states do not have a manditory helmet law. A helmet does not really protect anybody. It is not the least bit hypocritical.
I had family that were riding their motorcycles late last summer, when a driver, talking on a cell phone, caused an accident that totaled 4 motorcycles. Three of the motorcyclists all had concussions, neck injuries and assorted broken bones. The 4th had road rash and a broken back. All were wearing helmets.
So I have to ask, what good is a helmet or a seat belt when we have drivers that are unaware of their surroundings? Or those who just do not look?
2007-05-26 20:45:22 · answer #2 · answered by eks_spurt 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is no nationwide seat belt law, nor nationwide helmet law.
Each state sets their own laws regarding seat belt and helmet use.
Some states have a seat belt law and no helmet law, or have had the helmet law repealed. Generally, you can trace this to motorcyclist groups being more effective at lobbying than motorist groups.
2007-05-28 12:39:34 · answer #3 · answered by KaeZoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
luna, bush has nothing to do with the laws that tell you to wear a seatbelt. before you go shootin your mouth off about politics or laws know who,what where and why. the seatbelt laws are based on the theory that if you are strapped in you will have more control of the vehicle. If you are thrown out then obviously you have no ability to control it anymore. The helmet which might protect a rider from injury is only that. that is why it is a personal choice in some states.
2007-05-27 08:19:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've often wondered about that myself. I would no more drive without a seat belt than I'd ride without a brain-bucket or. I'm only alive today owing to both of those.
The ones that really frost my nuts are states like KS where it's now a primary violation to drive without a seat belt, but perfectly OK to ride without a helmet. Absolute idiocy, IMHO.
BTW, I'm not some dimwit cager. I ride and drive.
2007-05-27 11:56:13 · answer #5 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its your fault. You let the government tell you what to do and instead of standing up for your liberties, you try to restrict your fellow citizens.
There are more head injury and DWI deaths in cars , by the way, yet the feds don't require cars to be built with Breathalyzers or require the use of helmets.
2007-05-27 03:40:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because the democrats think all bike riders are poor rednecks and have no interest in keeping either alive. sorry - hope I do not offend anyone - but this is what democrats think and that is actually why.
2007-05-26 20:15:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
because bush is a loser!!!froto failed, bush has the ring
2007-05-26 19:57:33 · answer #8 · answered by Luna C 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋