Posted by create (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope she's okay, but everytime I read that the rider was not wearing a helmet, my heart sinks. Yeah, yeah, yeah, riders have rights, etc., but just a teeny bit of roadside gravel, or oil floating on a rain soaked highway is all it takes.

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. Why is it we must wear seatbelts (I have no problem with that), yet motorcycle riders don't have to wear helmets. In a crash, who risks the greater injury?

Posted by spectator (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article indicates Ms. Weller was injured and that she was not wearing a helmet. Why do you ASS/U/ME a helmet was all so important in this instance ? Most likely, a cyclist MAY, MAY, receive injuries to the leg(s), arm(s), torso..... OH MY DEAR LORD ! THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BE 100 % SAFE. FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, LET'S RELEGATE THEM TO THE SIDEWALK WITH THE SMOKERS - THAT WILL BE BETTER FOR THEM ! Sarcasm and caps fully intentional.

Posted by spectator (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before those-who-don't-ride-but-demand-helmets-for-those-of- us-who-do get all fussy and crucify me because of the other comment, I wear a helmet and have done so for years.(my choice) I was involved in an accident (my fault) - if you ride, and the more miles the better the chance, you WILL have an accident. Major or minor, it's simply a matter of time - without injury of any sort. (Thank you, God.) My helmets were replaced every 5 years as is suggested and not one had a scratch so my pointy little head probably would have been OK too. In a former life, I was witness to the results of hundreds of motorized vehicle accidents; cars, trucks, motorcycles and airplanes. Seat belts...yeah, I'll vote for seat belt use. Mandatory helmets, I don' t believe so. It's common for the media to mention the helmet thing (Was the rider in violation of the law? No? Then why bother with it other than to make waves?) but even so, Bobbi, I'm sorta disappointed in you for bringing it up. You have more class than to resort to that stereotypical media garbage.

Posted by barefootin (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope she will be okay, with or without a helmet, a rider stands a good chance of a serious injury in an accident.

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In recent years, news articles ALWAYS mention whether or not seat belts or helmets were worn. ALWAYS. Check out as many vehicle accidents/crashes as you want and you'll find this to be true.

I'm not one of those "fussy" people who demand helmets for all. I have ridden since I was just a kid; in fact, I quit riding several years ago when my arthritic knee prevented me from holding up my 800 pound Italian stallion. Helmet? I always wore one for safety sake.

True, injuries to other parts of the body are dangerous too, but busted legs and road rash can be healed. Head injuries kill more often than not.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't ride motorbikes but I do ride a man powered bike. I don't wear a helmet while riding but I always wear one when posting on the Emporia Gazette forums. I think it's for the best.

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wonder why folks in the ER call motorcycles "donorcycles?"

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And back to the original question: Why doesn't the law require motocycle riders to wear helemts?

Posted by emporian (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I dont mind if folks dont wear helmets. There are lots of sick folks in need of organs.

Posted by esu42 (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a time and place for this debate and I think that right here is pretty insensitive. I hope she recovers.

Posted by whatever (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A lot of assumptions are being made about how motorcyclists operate their vehicles. As a rider, all of the near-misses I've had were caused by someone driving a car who decided that I didn't need as much of the lane as they did, and passed illegally, nearly forcing me off the road, pulled out in front of me, etc. etc. Riders know how dangerous it is -- a lot of times it's the people in cars who put us at risk. We don't know all the circumstances of this accident; she may have been forced off the road. Regardless, I wish her a full recovery.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And back to the original question: Why doesn't the law require motocycle riders to wear helemts?

What I believe to be a more important question is : Why SHOULD the law require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. I fully understand the risk of head injury, but why should it be the gov'ts job to protect people from themselves as long as they are mature and competent?

Posted by toofast (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Irish: Here is the answer to your question. It is because alot of motorcycle riders and rights activists fight to keep our right to decide for ourselves.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why should the law require that we wear seat belts, even though cars are much more forgiving than motorcycles? I am gonna go speculate the reason these laws exist is that people get disabled and the taxpayers end up paying for it, or they are uninsured and people pay for it in premiums. This is just speculation but I think it stems from lack of personal responsibility in the first place. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't ride motorcycles. But if I did, I would probably wear a helmet. My biggest fear would not be dying from an accident, but living with a head injury so severe that I spend the rest of my days in a nursing home, aware of my situation but unable to do anything about it.

I agree that most motocycle accidents are probably the result of bad auto drivers and not the motorcycle driver. However, the results are probably still the same, one seriously injured motorcyclist.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

irish, that is my fear as well. I ride, I wear a helmet, but I see it as my call, my responsibility.

goodoleboy, with that line of reasoning, when do we start going after those who drink alcohol and regulate their consumption. When do we start going after fat people and ban them from fast food. When do we start going after smokers.... oh, nevermind, done that ;D lol

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, my apologies. I reread your post and realized your comment was regarding seatbelts, not helmets. sorry.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I remember correctly, the reason for the seatbelt law was that the driver would have a greater chance of maintaining/regaining control of the vehicle and possibly avoiding greater harm.

Posted by spectator (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not wish to appear insensitive to Ms Weller, I wish her the best and hope she's back in the saddle again very soon. I did, as was my intent, generate interest in a somewhat questionable activity of the media. Some states require helmets as Kansas did some years ago. ABATE and other organizations fought this law and others that were "tacked on" as it were. As for the remark about "donorcycles", Irish, it is rude, crude and unacceptable even in an article concerning a motorcyclist's critical injuries. Let's outlaw motorcycles. And parachuting for pleasure. And ultra-light aircraft. And bicycles. And jogging. Serious injury or death is possible in each one of these activities so let's just outlaw everything remotely dangerous.
Brenda, get better soon. You're in the thoughts and prayers of many.

Posted by freebreezin (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok i signed up just for this article. first of all i as i'm sure all of us do have this young lady in our prayers. i started riding in my early teens( illegally) im 50 now and heres a few things i've learned along the way. some may agree some not. always believe a automobile is going to pull out in front of you. guess having 2 tons of steel blinds you! dont ride beside some one ride staggered because if you go down there is a good possibility you might take them with you. know your capabilities, if you have only rode in town and not so much on the hiway know that it is different.as for the helmut law!!! sure it may save your head but whos to say it wont snap your neck too. i don't wear one simply because my head fries in it when its 100 degrees out, (my choice) i know its a risk ,but so is the sweat pouriing in my eyes blinding me.so in a nut shell when out cruisin it you that determines if your as safe you can be and you and only you have to be sure your as safe as you can make yourself. now im not suggesting that this young lady didnt know this and that the wreck is her fault maybe shes a experianced rider things sometimes happen to people,
so with that keep the rubber down and the wind in your face, ride safe and brenda hope to see you back up and ridin again.

Posted by hottopics (anonymous) on June 8, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everything is a risk. Driving, riding, walking, biking and now breathing is a risk in Emporia. So with all that we continue to outlaw or make new laws. I think people were a lot happier when we didn't have so many laws and regulations. Kids used to have a good time riding in the back of the truck, even the dogs DID!
There are no guarantees in life. When its time to go....its just your time. But maybe they will say on my behalf...".Man they sure had a good time while doing it". Either way, the choice was mine.