|
Fangs404 posted:This is so dumb. I'm all for a hands-off government, but this is as close to a seatbelt as a motorcyclist can have. Virtually every state mandates the use of seatbelts, so I see no difference here. Not when public money goes to cleaning them up.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
nsaP posted:Not when public money goes to cleaning them up. Yeah I was all "it's your choice dude" until I worked a bike vs car and had to clean up brains off of the road.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Crayvex posted:-- The law does not require a motorcycle operator to carry or present proof he or she has a motorcycle endorsement for at least two years or has successfully passed the motorcycle safety course. Huh? Does this mean you effectively don't need a motorcycle endorsement? Or was there previously a law that after you had an M-class for 2 years you were allowed to go without a helmet? What? The whole concept's retarded, but MAH FREEDUMS
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Well, the insurance companies are free to change their policies aren't they? From now on, your health insurance is invalid if you crash without a helmet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Ola posted:Well, the insurance companies are free to change their policies aren't they? From now on, your health insurance is invalid if you crash without a helmet. Yeah, no poo poo. That seems like the most obvious way an insurance company should handle this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Huh? Does this mean you effectively don't need a motorcycle endorsement? Or was there previously a law that after you had an M-class for 2 years you were allowed to go without a helmet? What? The law states that "Motorcyclists can forgo a helmet if they are at least 21 years old, carry at least an additional $20,000 in medical insurance and have either passed a motorcycle safety course or had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years." The law also then states that the rider is not required to carry proof that they meet those requirements. That's not to say that an officer that pulls over a motorcyclist for speeding can't run a check in their system against their DMV records. It just means they don't have to have some sort of extra paperwork, or have their insurance policy instead of a basic card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Is there anyone here that owns a '03-'04 Ninja 636?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
invision posted:Yeah I was all "it's your choice dude" until I worked a bike vs car and had to clean up brains off of the road. Are you FD or EMS? Can't wait to see this in action. What last year were relatively routine LAYERDOWNs will involve a lot more TBI's and fatalities. $20k in extra coverage seems like a pretty arbitrary number. If you suffer a significant head injury, twenty grand is gonna cover a few days in the ICU - barely a drop in the bucket.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 02:47
|
|
Thelonious posted:Are you FD or EMS? When Iowa repealed its helmet law, the ER docs called it "harvest season."
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Thelonious posted:Are you FD or EMS? FD
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Ola posted:Well, the insurance companies are free to change their policies aren't they? From now on, your health insurance is invalid if you crash without a helmet. I'm not sure the law lets them do this, although it may be state-to-state (for now.) Really a shame, I bet you could get noticeably cheaper insurance if they could put minimum standard protective equipment riders on your policy. I'm sure the people who would argue it's a Harley tax or some crap could find an accommodating insurer. And it'd be a far more effective solution than yet another sloppily enforced law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
Insurance companies are pretty smart. There must be a reason it doesn't already exist; it's probably a nightmare defining what equipment counts or doesn't. It's easy to abstract away the definitions for vernacular: "this is a motorcycle jacket", but putting it in writing on a contract is probably a lot harder. Who knows  I mean it seems like common sense to reward safer/geared riders with lower premiums, so to not see it enacted there must be a hurdle somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 11:10
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be in the insurance company's interest for you to not wear gear and splatter yourself all over the road rather than come out safely looking for a payout on your totaled bike?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
orthod0ks posted:Wouldn't it be in the insurance company's interest for you to not wear gear and splatter yourself all over the road rather than come out safely looking for a payout on your totaled bike? Insurance rates are typically lower in places without helmet laws because of this. Its cheaper for the person to just die vs having to get stitched back together and repair the bike. Lets face it, 90% of the people out there wearing a helmet are just doing it to get by the law, so if they wreck and the helmet keeps them alive, the rest of their body is toast and has to be pieced back together, which costs money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
BotchedLobotomy posted:Insurance rates are typically lower in places without helmet laws because of this. Its cheaper for the person to just die vs having to get stitched back together and repair the bike. Is it possible that's why they repealed it? To decrease insurance rates?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
A good incentive would be that if the biker dies without wearing a helmet, his life and vehicle insurance payout goes directly to the Taliban. So riding without a helmet = supporting terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
BotchedLobotomy posted:Insurance rates are typically lower in places without helmet laws because of this. I don't know if this is true, but yeah, p much the people who wouldn't wear a helmet if it tweren't for that danged law are just going to wear skid lids, pith helmets and salad strainers anyway; those and a fringed leather vest aren't going to change the risk of crash injury a whole lot. It's yet another law that sounds great on paper but doesn't actually achieve much positive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Ola posted:A good incentive would be that if the biker dies without wearing a helmet, his life and vehicle insurance payout goes directly to the Taliban. So riding without a helmet = supporting terrorism. Well, we are all fighting the war against terrorism. Commissioner: The loss of life or any disabling injury to a war worker represents a definite setback to our war program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
With Michigan having flipped to light blue, I have to ask: When is the last time New York, the west coast, and the south agreed on anything? Odd distribution. Think of the upside here. Maybe ABATE will gently caress off and die.  Source: Consumer Reports
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
I'm assuming White "No Law" = you can ride without a helmet, and green "Universal Law" means you have to wear a helmet, but what is the blue one representing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Shimrod posted:I'm assuming White "No Law" = you can ride without a helmet, and green "Universal Law" means you have to wear a helmet, but what is the blue one representing? I would guess something like the prior Michigan law stating that you have to wear a helmet unless you're over 18 and have 2 years of experience and $20,000 insurance, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Shimrod posted:I'm assuming White "No Law" = you can ride without a helmet, and green "Universal Law" means you have to wear a helmet, but what is the blue one representing? Basically helmet free with some age restrictions: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/06/state-by-state-guide-to-motorcycle-helmet-laws.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Marv Hushman posted:Basically helmet free with some age restrictions: Which is precisely the wrong way to do it. "I can't wait until I've been riding for 2 years so I can finally ditch this stupid helmet and show people I'm an experienced biker."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Which is precisely the wrong way to do it. Well doing the exact opposite isn't very nice either. "You're BANNED from using helmets until you've shown you can survive for two years."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
 Purely for helmet law reference. There's been more than a few times where people have asked me why I'm still wearing my helmet ever since I've moved on to my big-boy plate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
So I'm slowly losing my mind to all the Michigan motorcyclists talking about how much safer this new law makes them. After all helmets are hot, claustrophobic, reduce vision, and noisy on the highways. After all helmets also cause closed head injuries. Their awareness is unhindered now. They may choose to wear a helmet if it is raining.* *This guy in his leather chaps was obviously the owner of a garage queen Harley and a loud pipes save lives bumper sticker. I must remind myself, "Let the wrong be wrong." Also, the insurance companies fought tooth and nail against this law. They claimed that this will jack up rates due to more brain injuries. 80% of voters are against this. The proponents say, "if you don't ride you don't understand." My reply is, NEITHER DO YOU. Now my loving insurance rates will go up because of a bunch of balding white middle class professionals that ride** their motorcycles precisely once a month when it is sunny and clear. ** go in a straight line between the two bars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
In my insurance policy it's stated that I have to wear a helmet (as is the law in  ) and approved protective gear (simply defined as gear that is CE certified) or my excess is doubled. Which doesn't really seem very harsh now that I think of it.As a personal reflection, I can see how it's easy to skimp out on some parts of armour sometimes (I sometimes ride in jeans when it's really hot outside because I'm stupid, although I do wear MX-style knee braces underneath), but I simply can't understand why you would skip the helmet. Riding without a helmet to me is like going outside without pants, it just seems so wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
You must not ride. Otherwise you would understand.... (sigh)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Crayvex posted:balding This is as good a time as any to introduce the Iron Elite, an HD marketing campaign aimed at African Americans: http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_US/Content/Pages/iron-elite/iron-elite.html?locale=en_US&bmLocale=en_US And Harlistas, which is self evident: http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_US/Content/Pages/harlistas/harlista.html?locale=en_US&bmLocale=en_US Yes, corporate advertising has That One Goal, and nothing here is going to get a humanities grant from the MacArthur Foundation. But it is admirable that they're attempting to expand the tent and chip away at received opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
Finally got around to checking my MPG after getting all the old winter storage gas burned off. 39 MPG is much more in line with what I would expect from a carbed 600cc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Finally got around to checking my MPG after getting all the old winter storage gas burned off. Just checked and got 21 MPG from my slightly modified GT750. Lower is more fun. Your bike is 21/39=54% less fun than my bike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:In my insurance policy it's stated that I have to wear a helmet (as is the law in Yeah well here in America we don't need no BIG GOV'MENT telling us what to do with our motorcycles or body *crashes head first into a guardrail on federally funded highway*
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:Just checked and got 21 MPG from my slightly modified GT750. Lower is more fun. Your bike is 21/39=54% less fun than my bike. Yours is a 2-stroke, so of course it uses almost twice as much fuel, duh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Yours is a 2-stroke, so of course it uses almost twice as much fuel, duh. Obviously more strokes is less fun. My bike is 21/39=54%*2=108% more fun than yours. Now that we've established the above fact, your bike is up for a valve check. (I have a feeling I'm going to regret this) Sir Cornelius fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Apr 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 15:20
|
|
|
Sir Cornelius posted:Just checked and got 21 MPG from my slightly modified GT750. Lower is more fun. Your bike is 21/39=54% less fun than my bike. Not really relevant to the conversation but you had me curious. My 'busa gets 49 mpg with 185 ponies at the wheel, and only weighs 187 kg (412 lb for you Burmese). Then again, it's running a PCV with an autotune and bits replaced and removed, so it's cheating. Heck, my CBR954 track bike somehow manages 6 litres per 100km (39 mpg) running flat out. I probably spend as much time off the throttle braking as accelerating. Nidhg00670000 posted:Riding without a helmet to me is like going outside without pants, it just seems so wrong. I like to ask fans of open face and no helmets, would they run down the road and then take a flying leap onto the road? "Of course not", the answer is. To which I reply "So why do you think a motorcycle is any different?". I get blank stares at that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
My go-to is "Think of running as fast as you possibly can, which is probably around 15mph, and slamming your face as hard as you can into that brick wall right over there. Now imagine it at a 'measly' 60mph."
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Got the ninja 250 on the rear stand for the first time today. Scary as gently caress the first time but then it was actually really easy. Picked up a used pit bull and some spools off eBay!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
What would you guys do with a crashed up SV you haven't ridden in almost 2 years? I was doing track riding/racing in '09/'10. Last time I crashed in Aug 2010 at VIR, I was fine but the bike was pretty banged up. It has basically sat since then, although it needed a new gas tank and I did put that on and fill it up & run with stabil. It needs clipons, rearsets ( I have some spares but probbaly not enough ), tach/cluster, radiator, windscreen, tires, a lot of the controls got smashed. Bodywork rashed/cracked/torn in places. After so long it probably needs some regular maintenance as well like oil change, valve adj, haven't checked bearings in a while, fork seals are suspect... Now that I list everything it doesn't seem like THAT much stuff but it's becoming kind of a money pit if I want to fix it up. And I don't really have a ton of time to spend on it. Getting back on the track would be cool but I dunno if I wanna sell it, part it out, fix it up, blah blah blah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:What would you guys do with a crashed up SV you haven't ridden in almost 2 years? I was doing track riding/racing in '09/'10. Last time I crashed in Aug 2010 at VIR, I was fine but the bike was pretty banged up. It has basically sat since then, although it needed a new gas tank and I did put that on and fill it up & run with stabil. I'd hunt eBay/CL for parts and fix it as cheap as possible and use it as a track bike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
epswing posted:My go-to is My go-to is "It is my decision and I am willing to accept that risk." snail posted:I get blank stares at that one. They're just trying to gauge if you're serious about that lecture. clutchpuck fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 16:19
|
|