Nice pic. I’m sure a helmet would have saved that cat’s life. Maybe the car occupants need to be wearing special gear to protect them.

And again I say, If your mission is to reduce your welfare-healthcare cost, a dead biker is more in line with your objectives - and the helmet is an increased load.

Again I say, maybe somebody else won’t approve of your loading the welfare-healthcare down with your poor diet, lack of exercise, too much sun, too many kids, too few kids, being too old, your drinking…

……..I agree with Governor Nixon’s action of removing the $33,000 from MoDOT’s budget. MoDot’s shameful action was nothing more than a shabby end-run intended to subvert Missouri’s constitutional legislative process. I think Governor Nixon should have gone even further and fired Mr. Rahn for approving the attempt.

PS, the shock-value picture you have attached is ridiculous. Was it supplied by MoDOT?

One wonders if this editor would be so anxious to pass laws against freedom of adult motorcyclists to choose if this issue had anything to do with freedom of the press. Tell me something Editor person, are you the same one that wrote against concealed carry freedom and inferred it would cause more gun violence? We all know how that turned out but we also know you aren’t a bit embarrassed but instead, probably angry because people didn’t go out and start shooting each other. In fact, quite the opposite. Why don’t you give your flaming sword of politically correct prejudice a rest. If MoDot would’ve spent that poll money to see what people thought about keeping newspapers from writing about their ridiculous mistakes that cost people their lives and tax dollars, you would’ve whistled a different tune.

Its too bad folks dont get this up in arms when money for motorcycle safety, awareness and training is cut out of the budget. Really, what good is a helmet if you dont know how to ride a motorcycle properly. Just further proof that 84% of the general public do not really understand motorcycles or they would be yelling for more training and awareness programs.

The logic that the medical burden falls to society just doesnt wash either. By that same logic, we should have laws preventing people from poor eating habits, laws requiring people to exercise, laws against drinking too much, smoking should be illegal and it should also be illegal to grow old.

Most motorcycle riders have private insurance. All those on Medicaid do not. The total medical cost of treating smoking and obesity, and related diseases like diabetes, far exceeds that of treating the small number of motorcycle related injuries. So how about publishing an editorial supporting a federal requirement that all Medicaid recipients cease smoking and stop purchasing (with food stamps) soda, snack cakes, and other prepared foods?

Oh, and by the way, I’m a former motorcyclist who quit riding after more than a decade because I decided it was too unsafe for my taste. And, I always wore a full-face helmet.

The editorial staff that wrote this article are idiots. This is another media outlet that thinks they are the elite and trying to manipulate public views.NHTSA has NO clue how many lives helmets have saved. Did they get the detailed accident reports? Doctors reports? You have a helmet law. Any deaths had helmets on.
You media people need to report the news and the facts as they are and leave YOUR opinions out of the equation.

I agree with Nick Kasoff. Most riders have their own insurance, so the burden to the public is minimal. Why don’t you have stories about the real burden on society. The government assistance lifers that know how to manipulate the system. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO that would be against your left-wing agenda.

The photo is obviously some kid on a crotch rocket who plowed into thet car going very fast. Too bad there was a car involved.

That’s one type of bike accident that drives up fatality stats. We’ll still have those without helmets, as a helmet won’t save you when you’re going way too fast. A helmet also won’t save you when you’re an idiot on an overpowered death machine.

The other type is the middle-aged guy who can finally afford a Harley, but hasn’t ridden a bike in years. These wallowing Harley plowhorses are not at all nimble, and require a degree of skill and caution in the corners. It’s not at all uncommon to see single-bike accidents involving Harleys that overshoot corners, etc. Many of these guys seem to wear those useless non-DOT helmets. They need a little more riding experience, and better head protection.

Helmets are great on the interstate. Why you need a helmet on back roads and in subdivisions where any capable motorcyclist would be able to outmaneuver any car and avoid accidents is a good question. The Legislature has the right idea.

Gov. Nixon, you want to accomplish something, lift the helmet law, but ban non-DOT helmets. But leave the crotch rockets alone - that’s just Darwinism at work.

You mean to tell me that a helmet saved that riders life in that photo? Please forward brand of helmet so I can go buy one! Medical costs are higher when unhelmeted riders are involved in motorcycle accidents (as compared to helmeted)? Where are those stats? Who did the study? Not the medical industry, who kill over a 100,000 a year (and seldom go to jail). What was it that caused the death of Dale Earnhart? Google University of North Carolina (unbiased..not like this reporter) medical study on motorcycle accidents. Virtually no difference in medical costs between helmeted and unhelmeted. What REALLY saves lives? Motorcycle training and public service announcements. If helmets really saved lifes, then car drivers should be wearing them as well…why? More auto drivers have head injuries than motorcycle riders. Plus it is the slamming of the brain against the inside the skull that cause death, not the crushing of a skull. I have some photos of that as well..should I post those? Get your facts straight

Nick

I may be in the 80% group. Usually I agree with you but removing the helmet law concerns me. I do believe in personal freedom so it is a tough call. I have similar concerns about the seat belt law.
Don’t we end up paying for many of these people that are injured?

When I get a say over who has to wear a condom, then someone else gets a say over when I have to wear a helmet.

Tim

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon did something a little weird last Thursday: He vetoed $33,000 from the Department of Transportation’s budget to punish MoDOT for commissioning a poll on Missourians’ attitudes about the Legislature’s decision to lift the state law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

We’ve had our differences with MoDOT’s director, Pete Rahn, but we think an agency whose job includes keeping the highways safe was perfectly within its rights to find out what the state’s citizens think about an important issue of highway safety.

Last month Mr. Rahn said a telephone survey of 2,050 residents showed 84 percent of them support the current law requiring motorcyclists of all ages to wear helmets. He said that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in 2007, the helmet law saved 42 lives in Missouri.

“By a 9-to-1 ratio, Missourians know this simple fact: Motorcycle helmets save lives,”

———- by a 9-to-1 ratio, people who aren’t obliged to wear a bucket on their head (non-riders ) said that people who ride are too stupid to dress themselves . . .

Mr. Rahn said. He added, “This makes as much sense as going out and ripping out median guard cables on our interstates. It will have the same effect: More people will die on our roads.”

——— it makes less sense than mandating condoms for all unmarried sex-partners - a bucket on yer head or a bucket on the head of yer … . . .

Some state lawmakers and “helmet freedom” advocates said the poll — and Mr. Rahn’s advocacy — was an improper attempt to influence Mr. Nixon’s decision about whether to veto the helmet law the Legislature enacted in April.

———- well, it WAS an improper attempt. on the other hand, it’s NOT helmet freedom, it’s FREEDOM ! if you want to wear a helmet, WEAR a helmet ! . . .

Mr. Nixon agreed, whacking $33,000 from MoDOT’s budget (the amount the poll cost), saying it was an inappropriate use of tax dollars to influence a public official, i.e., him.

———– listen to yer governor ! . . .

Mr. Nixon has until July 14 to sign or veto the measure or take no action, thereby allowing it to become law on Aug. 28.

———- nicely coincidental with Bastille Day - a strong symbol of freedom for the french ! . . .

If the riders are confused now, just wait until their heads bounce off the pavement a couple of times.

Newspapers around the state — including this editorial page — have opposed lifting the helmet law and have urged Mr. Nixon to veto it. The public knows that in addition to adding to the death toll, the costs of caring for traumatic brain injury are huge.

———- the costs of brain injuries in car accidents are TEN TIMES as large ! why aren’t you editorializing for mandatory helmets in CARS ? ! ? ! . . .

In most cases, those costs will passed onto the general public.

——— JUST NOT TRUE . . .

Big

…freedom isn’t free: its price is eternal vigilance . . .

This has nothing to do with freedom of choice. You earned the right to ride a motorcycle by passing the State test. You knew when you took the test, a helmet was required in the State of Missouri. If you don’t like it, ride some where else. It’s a fact, helmets safe lives, just like seatbelts. Why should all of us pay with higher insurance rates and health care costs. As the old saying goes “You can’t fix stupid”.

Randy, We earn our rights? That’s really interesting to me; tell me how I may earn my right to my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness – because that seems to have largely slipped away.

I don’t understand the no helmet desire and you can argue all day long that supporting a vegitable on life support falls onto the public. In my opinion MODOT would be much much better off the day after Mr. Rahn is no longer with that agency.

egoist - Randy is unfortunately correct, you earn the right to operate any motor vehicle by passing all the applicable tests. A driver’s license is NOT a right according to the Supreme Court, but an earned privilege.

Where Randy is wrong is that the impact on our insurance and health benefits his anything more than a fly’s spit in the ocean. In fact, a 40-year old killing himself saves us Social Security, and Medicaid, and a host of other government program costs down the road. The last big study to come out about it says it is probably a wash.

I think not wearing a helmet, or a seatbelt, or any safety gear is completely stupid. I also think, since it in no way infringes on the rights of anyone else, there is no reason why anyone should be made to use safety gear (proviso: children don’t count of course, they cannot weigh the risks and make those decisions fully). If someone wants to smear their coconut on the pavement, that is their business…

On May 2, 1998, a helmet saved my life. I can still recall the sound of my helmet scraping on the asphalt. Without a doubt, the helmet saved my head from serious injury. To those of you who think this issue is about personal freedom of choice, I say that the Governor has an obligation to protect the general welfare of the people. We must retain the helmet law.

If not, then why not lower the drinking age to 16? Let’s allow kids the personal freedom to choose if they want to consume alcohol and drive. It makes the same amount of sense.

egoist… A cat was driving that motorcycle? Like in Mr. Toonces? I knew this would happen if he were left to live on his own!

Tim S… I know you were wearing a helmet at the time, but how would you have felt if such a proposition as this were proposed back then? Believe me, no disrespect intended, but I’m curious.

So, Tim (referring to the first poster), I’m assuming you’re gay. In both cases, aren’t we talking about helmets for the protection of the general public? Why wouldn’t you demand your partner wear one, even if you’re riding side-saddle?

Jom… Could you possibly be more daft? Freedom of the press feeds democracy. It educates people as to which politician would be their best choice to vote for, given their interests, needs and desires. How the hell do you equate that with someone being allowed to be daft enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? One is an informed decision, the other is not.

Jom… Regarding the remainder of your post, please direct me to the information that Missouri’s conceal-carry law has lowered incidents of crime. Wasn’t that the argument for it? I’ve read no documentation of such. Despite your claim, the Missouri legislature IGNORED a public vote AGAINST residents being allowed to carry concealed weapons. And the reason why is that the gun lobby stood to make a LOT of money via Missouri. That’s not democracy. In the event you’re at a loss as to what democracy is (and I suspect that to be so), I’d suggest you consult a dictionary or encyclopedia.

Mr. Nixon, veto the repeal!