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?