The seat belt issue is really a matter of convincing legislators to change the law. The helmet law was changed because a large number of voters convinced enough legislators to change it. Not enough people are fighting for the same freedom in cars.

We have seat belt laws for one reason only. The federal government told the automakers if 75% of the states didn't pass some kind of seatbelt law, they would impose that mandatory active restraints would be required in all automobiles manufactured after a certain date. The automakers then became the "lobbyists" at the state level. States that had auto manufacturing, parts assembly plants, etc. were told that if the state didn't pass some form of law, they would close plants in the state. That is why, when first inacted in Indiana, the seatbelt law was a secondary offense. An officer couldn't stop you for merely not wearing a seatbelt, he had to pull you over for some other infraction. Additionally pickup trucks were exempted from the law. Once it was in place, the greed factor kicked in and the law was changed to make it a primary offense and pickup trucks were no longer excluded. With recent auto plant closings and layoffs now would be a prime time to mount an offensive to repeal the seatbelt laws. As a matter of fact, now would be a darn good time for all freedom loving individuals to mount some kind of offensive to start restoring some of the individual freedoms that have been lost. Wasn't that what the last election was all about, change?

You are correct. In 2007 there was a study in Great Britain that showed 80% of all motorcycle accidents involved injuries to the legs. I was shocked!!

Cloverfan, The statistics don't support a claim that there are less injuries with a helmet law. Riding with a helmet has the same risk as riding without one. The only protection a helmet provides is after the accident. I have been riding for well over 25 years without one and I haven't hit my head yet. I appreciate your sarcasm. It was funny. Thanks for reading.

I am glad you liked the sarcasm, thanks for the reply.

That said, I wasn't stating that a helmet law would mean less injuries or less accidents. I was stating that if you are ever in an accident, a helmet would help greatly. To carry out your logic, one could argue since my house has never caught fire in 27 years, then there is no need for a smoke detector. After all, a smoke detector doesn't prevent fires, it just helps me in case there is one. And since there has never been a fire, surely there never will be...right?

Especially if I tell myself there will be no fire (wink).

Cloverfan, a smoke detector alerts you BEFORE the fire consumes your house. A helmet does NOTHING to prevent an accident. Skillful riding CAN prevent an accident. That is my point. I have chosen to concentrate on prevention rather than protection. I hope to always have that choice.

WOW!!! Alot of good points brought up by the for's and against's (is that such a word?). If I had to vote right now that would be a hard choice which direction I would go. I am a great supporter of choices and being held accountable for them. I would love to have the government quit making choices for me but that may not happen either. However the point brought up by Polysemous1 concerning health care costs and how much the public may bear the brunt of alot of the costs is valid also. Glad I don't have to "choose" right now for me or anyone else..

Insurance is, by its nature, a socialist institution. I buy it hoping I will never need it, but if I do, in many cases, the monies paid out are in excess of what I paid into the pot.

In Indiana, while we are required to carry insurance, there is no notification to the BMV if a driver drops their insurance. So, some people buy insurance to register their vehicle, then never make a payment so the insurance expires but since there is no auto-notification--as other states have--they drive without until they have to register again. If these folks get in accidents, we have decided, as a society, that they should still get treatment and not be left by the side of the road to die. Consequently, the cost is born by the taxpayer. Furthermore, in Indiana motorists are only required to buy liability insurance--meaning that any damage to their persons--if they do not have insurance--is again born by the taxpayer.

I don't know how much helmets protect, and again I don't wear one, but if the protection is significant I understand why helmet laws would be fiscally prudent.

Cheers,

Everyone keeps talking about taxpayers paying for health costs for accidents of uninsured motorists and smokers. I would like someone to explain how please. When I was young, I had no health insurance and no car insurance. I was in an accident. I had to pay for all costs out of my pocket or face garnishment of wages. No government program paid for it. So please someone explain it. Oh and by the way, smokers pay HUGE amounts of sin taxes that by the way are going up. So spare me the tax stories.

oxymoron