Senator Pushing Motorcycle Helmet Law
Senator Pushing Motorcycle Helmet Law Save Email Print
Sen. Julian Carroll Says No Helmets In Crashes Creates Higher Health Care Costs
Posted: 7:07 PM Jan 9, 2008
Last Updated: 7:07 PM Jan 9, 2008
Reporter: Phil Pendleton
Email Address: phil.pendleton@wymtnews.com

A | A | A

Senator Julian Carroll, when he was governor decades ago, signed the first helmet law, but in recent years, lawmakers repealed that law. Now he says, because of the rising cost of health care, helmets need to be mandated again.

“Is that once they (riders) get injured, and their chance of survival isn't that great without helmets, but if they survive, the state ends up picking up the bill,” says Sen. Carroll, D-Frankfort.

And, Carroll says many times the taxpayers end up ultimately paying more. But he says passing a helmet law isn't very likely this session, because many lawmakers oppose the bill.

Carroll says some say helmets restrict the ability of riders to turn their heads and see traffic. Others tell him they don't agree with his assessment of higher health costs because crash victims can't pay for their own life long care.

“What I'm talking about is those individuals who end up getting a head injury and it's so significant that they require hospitalization or care the rest of their lives,” says Carroll.

More Stories
Fireworks a hit, despite soggy weather

Grant County authorities ID water skiing accident fatality

Parents now fined for not using booster seats

Investigators seek cause in fatal house fire

Truck crashes into family's backyard

Kentuckians gather at Capitol for tax protest

2 children, 2 adults killed in house fire in Louisville

Busy Independence Day for police in Eastern Kentucky

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Robert Location: LA on Feb 11, 2009 at 03:25 PM
I THINK IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE PERSON ON THE BIKE. MORE OF YOUR RIGHTS BEING STRIPPED. WHAT IS NEXT BIKES NEEDS TO HAVE SEATBELTS, OR ROLLCAGES. THEY SHOULD DO MORE ABOUT THE CELL USERS WHICH CAUSE MORE ACCIDENT THAN THE BIKERS.

Posted by: Ang Location: Springfield on May 29, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I believe helmet should already be a law for children under 18 no matter what! Over 18 I believe it should be a choice!

Posted by: mike Location: tenn on Apr 10, 2008 at 03:05 PM
over 21 we need more freedom state laws are meaningless since 1865;millitary induction 21 seat belt law after 21 choose;cycle helment over 21 choose;

Posted by: michael Location: tennessee on Apr 10, 2008 at 02:51 PM
over 21 i don't need you to tell me what i should do and not do. school busses do not have seat belts.if anyone should have them children should on their way to school ; this was not a hard decission for me to make ;seat belts are no good with rag top autos by the way;i do not have a seatbelt on my harley child protection yes adult forced protection no;.

Posted by: Emergency Nurse Location: Kentucky on Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Many non helmeted ATV/Motorcycle riders do not see the things that we see that come into the emergency room. Many people die because they did not wear there helmet or they become a vegetable for the rest of there lives. I know that you all believe that this is your choice, however, we are required to wear seat belts and seat belts have saved many lives. I just believe if motorcycle/atv riders could see what health care providers see when the patient comes through the door that was thrown 50 feet off of there motorcyle because they ran into a rock, car, etc. then maybe you would have a different point of view.

Posted by: bob Location: harrisburg IL on Mar 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM
i wear my helmet every time im on it . if someone decides not to were theres thats there right but i will always were mine. firefighter/paramedic for 20 yrs.

Posted by: Larry Location: London KY on Feb 2, 2008 at 01:46 PM
I agree with Steve in Lexington. require them to be organ donors I personally ride with our GWRRA group and it is required a helment. Also as being a lucky one to recieve a donated organ after waiting for 9 months for my new liver. maybe it would have been shorter if a motorcycle victim that was brain dead from a head injury was required to donate thiers. What do you other GWRRA guys think?

Posted by: larry Location: terre haute in on Feb 1, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Hello please those ride decide wether to wear A helmet I live in a state where we don't have to unless we wnat to I do believe that it should be OUR choice and I do live in America where at ONE time we had some freedoms left , we are slowly losing them , Feds are blackmailing states in manatorly seat belts laws by witholding fed road tax money, when I was in school our history teacher taught us THIS was started because of high TAXES in England , Now we have many more taxes and LAWS losing OUR freedoms slowly PLEASE all riders UNIT and JUST say NO to these new LAWS if you want to wear a Helmet that is fine I do when travling long distances when crossing into helemts states but I chose too thanks

Posted by: Rob Location: Florida on Jan 30, 2008 at 06:29 AM
Against Abortion? Then don't have one! Against Helmets? Don't wear one! Against seatbelts? Don't wear one! WTF is the United States coming to? Land of the Free? What's that these days? I don't see anything "FREE" anymore, and each day it becomes less and less. The land of the Free is to live your life as you see fit. It does not mean force your lifestyle on those who don't agree. For all those who agree to allow the rider to decide as to wear a helmet or not, GOOD for you!!!! For those who disagree, then wear a helmet when you ride. Oh wait, I bet MOST of you don't even ride. Okay, scratch that. How about minding your own business, or better yet worry about how you live your life while others do the same. I choose to not wear a helmet while on my Harley Fat Boy, but I do wear one when out on the sport bike. We ride all over Florida, but elect to not go North in Georgia where the helmet is required. Our Government should correct America!

Posted by: Dawolf Location: AZ on Jan 28, 2008 at 09:01 PM
The data is flawed. Using increased deaths to mandate helmets laws is using flawed logic. If there has been an increase in motorcyclists, then you your odds having more crashes also goes up. In addition a D.O.T. helmet which is not tested by the Chicoms (try to find one made in the U.S) is not prevent a car from killing a biker. He or she looking out for biker instead of talking on their cell phone will.

Posted by: JANICE Location: MT. STERLING, KY on Jan 27, 2008 at 05:16 PM
I VOTE NO FOR HELMETS. WE SHOULD HAVE OUR FREEDOM TO RIDE AS WE WISH. I WORRY MORE ABOUT DRUGS AND DRINKING DRIVERS THAN THOSE WHO DON'T WEAR A HELMET. LET US BE FREE TO RIDE, THIS IS OUR CHOICE

Posted by: Preacher Location: Arizona on Jan 22, 2008 at 01:41 AM
Helmets restrict movement and reduce visibility causing unsafe operation of a motorcycle. It may save your life, but it can be cause of the accident in which it is saving your life from. Helmet should be operators chice. wearing a helmet or not only directly affects the life of the operator, Freedom of choice, and right to choose for ones life. These laws are only being pursued to protect the financial interest of the pursuing parties.

Posted by: Vikki Location: Kentucky on Jan 21, 2008 at 11:43 AM
OK what are we doing as Americans?? We are daily giving the "Government" more and more of our Freedoms whether it is about the Choice of wearing helmets, smoking where we spend our money in restaurants and bars,just choice in general!! If we all wanted to live in a Dictatorship country don't you think we would have stayed in our "home countries?" The entire Nation was built on freedom to choose our religious beliefs, freedom from some persons laws of government that everyone had to live by, ahhhh, why are we folding the United States Constitution in a small tiny square and shoving it into a desk drawer? If YOU ride and WANT to wear a helmet, BUY ONE!! I'll even sell you the best DOT helmet on the market at my shop here in Adolphus Kentucky for less than $60, but DO NOT FORCE ME to put one on my head if I don't want to wear it.

Posted by: Diane O'Bryan Location: Kansas City, Kansas on Jan 17, 2008 at 03:47 PM
Show me where a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet cost taxpayers(bikers included) any more than any other individual head injury claim. Show me where most motorcycle accidents are caused by careless drivers. Where they insured? Insurance covers accidents. If it's a right of way infraction was the other driver charged? Usually not. Motorcyclist cost taxpayer NOTHING. Motorcyclist carry more insurance than most drivers on the road. Get over this BS about bikers costing taxpayers anything. Unmarried lazy welfare reciepiants cost more than any biker that has been injured in any accident. Show those statisics and put up legislation to stop wasting our tax dollars there. Stop trying to impose your thoughts onto our freedom to choose how we ride our motorcycles. If we want to wear a helmet or not is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

Posted by: pete campanella Location: buffalo ny on Jan 17, 2008 at 09:52 AM
The helmet issue is best left to the rider. It is his or her head and body. Anoughter isue that does need help those is one about insurance. PLEASE CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY MOTORCYCLES ARE NOT COVERED UNDER NOFAULT INSURANCE THE SAME AS AUTO AND TRUCKS? This is a shame and this is a blatent rip off by those insurance companies that spend our cash bringing us lisards and gey cavemen. Scew that give us the insurance coverage we need, not acute way for you to look nice.

Posted by: Forrest Location: Tennessee on Jan 16, 2008 at 09:51 PM
I don't understand how government can require anyone to wear a piece of equipment that is more likely to kill you as it is to protect you. The best,most expensive helmet in the world will not protect your head in an impact greater than 13 mph. However, that 3lbs of plastic can snap ones neck in a crash as quickly as a hangman's noose, not to mention the fatique and overheating helmets cause. Statistics have shown that accindents and fatalities decrease when no helmet is required. I am 57 years old and have been riding motorcycles since my mid twenties,I have yet to see the time that a helmet saved me any injury. I say " Let those who ride decide"! I believe I am old enough to make my own decision without the govt. interfering.

Posted by: MARK Location: WOODWARD on Jan 15, 2008 at 01:46 PM
HELMETS SHOULD BE PRO CHOICE AND NOT CONTROLLED BY THE GOV. IF I WANT TO GO OUT WITHOUT HAELMET AND SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN GOD FORBID IT SHOULD BE MY CHOICE

Posted by: Rebel Location: W Ky on Jan 14, 2008 at 05:58 PM
This choice should be made by cyclist! Not the government or the lobbyist pushing the issues. This is america home of the free? or is it the NEW COMMUNIST STATES OF AMERICA? We dearly pay insurance and taxes so let us decide not the ones driving lexases and jaguirs and such. Support the troops and not waste time and money on stupid stuff. Im ashamed that hes originally from western Ky

Posted by: dixie Location: kentucky on Jan 14, 2008 at 03:25 PM
"Is that once they (riders) get injured, and their chance of survival isn't that great without helmets, but if they survive, the state ends up picking up the bill,” says Sen. Carroll, D-Frankfort. " If, as the good senator says, people are more likely to survive and require state funded care when they wear a helmet, why enact laws requiring helmets? Doesn't that just add to the state's already over- burdened healthcare system? Let those who choose to go without a helmet continue to make their choice. According to the senator, they'll probably die in a crash anyway, thereby saving the taxpayers of Kentucky alot of money.

Posted by: Phatboy Location: Mississippi on Jan 14, 2008 at 02:25 PM
I would think their time and efforts would be better directed toward educating the general motoring public and prompting them to hang up their (edited) cellphones, put down their double-cheesburgers and Starbucks, and just pay attention to the road. Also, I've grown weary of the "requires hospitalization or care the rest of their lives” argument. Shouldn't we then declare war on teenage pregnancies and 3rd generation welfare families?? Aren't we, as the taxpayers, also footing the 'lifelong bills' on these and others? Good luck to my fellow bikers in KY, I always enjoy riding through your lovely state!

Posted by: Judge Location: Arizona on Jan 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The bottom line is about freedom of choice.Do you need the Gov. to tell you what and how to do things in your life?There is no empirical data that shows helments reduce these types of injuries,just another non-biker trying to push their views on the bike riding public.

Posted by: Dennis Location: Oregon on Jan 14, 2008 at 09:27 AM
This country was founded on the idea of FREEDOM. Let the one's that ride, decide. You sheeple that believe that a seatbelt and a helmet have the same safety in mind, why don't you wear a helemt in your car too? After all, if it's a SAFE idea, then wouldn't it be safer for you to wear one while you're in your cage yaking on your cell phone or pickin your nose.Wearing a helmet won't stop you cagers from running over us!!For you nose pickers, there are helmets that don't have a full face shield so you can still get to your "lunch". I guess you sheeple will be wanting seat belts on motorcycles next. The next time you're having your nose by products for lunch, look twice, there are motorcycles everywhere!

Posted by: ken on Jan 14, 2008 at 08:39 AM
Helmets are only good for very low speed impacts. Even helmet manufacturers put a disclaimer in the helmet boxes. Mine came with " Not intended to withstand impact of more than 13 mph". Riders over 21 should decide when and when not to wear their helmets. In certain conditions, the helmet itself becomes the problem, such as high heat or humidity.

Posted by: tim Location: franklin on Jan 13, 2008 at 02:57 PM
just stay out of a peoples right to choose for themshelves! It's that simple!

Posted by: Jan Location: Yuma, Az. on Jan 13, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Do you make automobile drivers or passengers wear helmets when they drive older cars that don't have air bags and their head is thrust forward into to steering wheel or windshield causing head injuries in an accident?? Just another farse to scare people and get his law passed.

Posted by: ray Location: sequim, wa on Jan 13, 2008 at 02:14 PM
no helmet law. it should be left up to the individual rider to decide.

Posted by: Big John on Jan 13, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Vote NO! Helmets do not prevent accidents. They only reduce injuries at very low speeds. Motorcyclists as a group are insured at a higher rate than auto drivers. This "social cost" argument is severely flawed and has been proven to be false. Anyone petty enough to say "I have to wear seat belts so you should have to wear a helmet" does not understand freedom and liberty. Seat belt laws are simply another police tool. Smarten up America and fight for ALL your FREEDOMS.

Posted by: jay Location: illinois on Jan 13, 2008 at 09:54 AM
NO HELMET LAW!!! I would bet that most motorcycle accidents are caused be people not SEEING motorcycles. Start teaching these people how to drive and pay attention. Especially the high school aged and elderly. And by the way, alcohol and riding DO NOT mix!

Posted by: Barbara Location: N. Illinois on Jan 13, 2008 at 01:27 AM
I think that we don't need the helemt law. They are taking to many things away from the AMERICAN PEOPLE . What will be next.

Posted by: Gil Location: Ky. on Jan 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM
This is supposed to be a free country and all we have is laws- laws and more laws.

Posted by: buzzard Location: usa on Jan 12, 2008 at 10:38 PM
In some states it is against the law to wear a mc helmet in a car. They say the helmet impairs vision and hearing. Yet they make us wear them on bikes. Go figure.

Posted by: Hell Hound Location: D-ville GA/ onset MA on Jan 12, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Hell no it's up to us.if we want to where a helmet or not.As far as the rest of these laws ..maybe are goverment needs to start takeing care of there own befor abroad.We have a huge number of homeless & elderly with no helth care and theres so many other things that can be fix.So maybe instead of sending troops to police other countrys maybe we should send them into the parts of are country where the gangs are so bad the police are afraid to go in..Like i said theres alot of things that can be done befor you start making laws that have no merit..and one more thing if you don't stand behind our troops then go stand in front of them!!!

Posted by: Neighbor John Location: Phoenix on Jan 12, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Helmet Law are a good idea for younger less experienced riders. However it is my opinon that it should be up to the rider to decide if he should wear a helmet or not!

Posted by: ProfEd Location: Southern Indiana on Jan 12, 2008 at 08:49 PM
I'd be interested to see how much PAC money the senator accepted from insurance lobbyists during the last campaign cycle. I ride in KY almost every day and I ride sometimes with a helmet and sometimes without depending on the weather. It's MY choice and I accept full responsibility for my actions, good or bad. KY is one of the largest producers of tobacco in the US but you don't see the senator trying to ramrod a bill through penalizing farmers who produce a product proven to cause cancer and other serious health problems for those that use it. Why is that? Follow the money, folks. Ask yourself the same question I posed in the beginning of this comment: How much PAC money did the senator accept from tobacco-interest lobbyists during the last election cycle? Look, improve KY schools and pay our men and women who serve in the KY National Guard more money for their service and leave the personal choice options for motorcycle operators alone.

Posted by: Kitty Location: Kansas on Jan 12, 2008 at 08:28 PM
I vote NO to Helmet Law It should be the riders deceision to wear one or not.

Posted by: Al Location: Chillicothe Ohio on Jan 12, 2008 at 06:46 PM
Let those who ride decide!!! Us out of state people who ride also have the right to decide where to ride to spend our tourist dollars! I have ridden for a lot of years, about 40 or so, but I never crossed the river on my motorcycle until Kentucky repealed the helmet law.

Posted by: GARY Location: EVAVNSVILLE on Jan 12, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Fix the big problems and leave people alone to do as they want and not what you want.

Posted by: Stacey Location: Sterling, Illinois on Jan 12, 2008 at 03:13 PM
The rising amount of health care is due to many other factors. In fact, why would the state pick up the bill of an accident unless the motorist was not insured? I feel that I would rather have it enforced that people carry insurance than I would to enforce a helmet law. I feel that freedom of choice is extremely important!! Don't make the tax payers pay a price for the few dead beats that get in accidents and then admit that they didn't take out the proper insurance!!

Posted by: John Harvey Location: Columbus Ohio on Jan 12, 2008 at 01:43 PM
It is terrible when someone is in an accident and has ever lasting injury. Its also a shame that insurance does not always cover all the costs associated. I wear a helmet at all times because of those reasons, however, that does not change the fact that we should still always have a choice. Most accidents that are the motorcyclesist fault occur in their first year of riding. I think that is the only time the State should require an individual to wear a helmet.

Posted by: Suzy Location: Greenville, KY on Jan 12, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Helmets should be at your own descretion. I choose not towear one. They are bulky, heavy and make my neck hurt. If I wipe out...all a helmet will do is make me a little better looking corpse or wheelchair rider. What needs to be done is stiffer penalties/fines for motorists that endanger bike riders by the way they drive their cars. GIVE US A BREAK, GIVE US SOME ROOM. There is enough blacktop for all of us. Sen Carroll needs to backoff!!!

Posted by: Bulldog Location: So. Illinois on Jan 12, 2008 at 01:35 PM
I think it would be best to let the rider deside if he/she wants to wear a helmet. To many laws now that aren't enforced. Why make more laws. Instead of finding another solution to what u call a problem. The bad thing is that everyone of us that ride are tax payers which in turn means voters. U say we are children and we must be looked after like we don't know what could happen.. I think u had better look again. I Love my country but I fear the goverment.. This country is suppost to be free but our freedom has left because of our goverment policies...

Posted by: Kenneth R Bucy Location: Tempe, AZ on Jan 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Just another case of government butting into personal business. IT'S THE RIDER'S CHOICE.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: kentucky on Jan 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
If we have to wear seat belts than they should have to wear helmets. That is the way it should be. Seat belts don't always save your life and neither does a helment. If I was riding a motorcyle I would wear one in case I did wreck it could protect my head. I don't know about you all but I wouldn't want my head cracked open and have to have surgery it is to dangerous and could kill you. I guess that is your choice though you are the ones that will deal with it for the rest of your life not me.

Posted by: joe Location: s. illinois on Jan 12, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Myself and alot of the people I ride with avoid states with helmet laws. There would be a loss of tourism. Let those who ride decide.

Posted by: ED MORRIS Location: BENTON IL on Jan 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM
ITS NOT FAIR WE ARE LETTING TO MUCH GO NOW WHERE IS ARE RIGHT TO DO AND TO LIVE FREE?HELL I DONT EVEN SMOKE!!! BUT COME ON.LETS STOP THE BULL NOW,WHATS NEXT? NO BEER ON WEEKENDS????

Posted by: joe Location: arkansas on Jan 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM
live to ride ride to live pay attention and you don't need a helmet. we don't have a helmet law here but when conditions(rain or wet streets) require a little more safe activity I wear a helmet this is my choice and I like it that way. I think helmets and seatbelts should be a choice not a law. my insurance will pay if my decision is wrong. I wear a setbelt because a seatbelt kept me in my seat when my 18 wheeler ended up on its side. but I was wearing it before the seatbelt law was imposed(my choice).....they will have us a socialistic republic if we don't stop this senseless legislation.

Posted by: mike Location: kentucky on Jan 12, 2008 at 09:53 AM
i totaly agree with the shane on the helment law in ky it is our optione to where one or not to wear one if people who dont ride would pay more attinion instead of doing other things thier would be a reduction in motorcycle injuries

Posted by: Steve Location: Lexington on Jan 12, 2008 at 09:07 AM
First of all, I'm in favor of the helmet law, it should've never been taken away in the first place. Second, if they can't pass this, Sen Carroll should introduce a bill that requires motorcyclists who don't wear a helmet to be organ donors, because when they wreck that's all they are good for at that point. That way when EMS arrives, they can go ahead and rush the body to the hospital to be prepped to give organs to people who need them. If you're dumb enough to ride without a helmet, then you really don't care enough about yourself anyways, so require them to donate their organs to those who desperately need them.

Posted by: Mark on Jan 12, 2008 at 08:19 AM
Make sure all the people in cages have them on, kids on bicycles, moped riders, people walking down the street, and especially old people are wearing them too. It sure would help prevent injuries.

Posted by: David Dunn Location: Erlanger,Ky on Jan 12, 2008 at 08:04 AM
I Vote NO on the Helmet Law. Worry more about the important things, like getting our troops out of the war and helping the little people. Start thinking of things that really matter. Try the cost of living........

Posted by: moses Location: Arizona on Jan 12, 2008 at 04:00 AM
Helmets don't prevent crashes...Driver Education and good driving habits do! It is the riders decision to wear or not to wear a helmet! Spend time educating ALL drivers and riders on developing better road skills.Stay out of American freedoms and our right to make adult decisions.

Posted by: Chopper Location: Illinois on Jan 12, 2008 at 01:09 AM
We don't need no stinkin' helmet laws! Next thing you know we'll be wearing kevlar underwear.

Posted by: Terrie Location: IL on Jan 12, 2008 at 12:48 AM
I feel the Senator should worry more about the people who are abusing the public aid system. Someone who owns a $30,000 motorcycle has paid for the insurance to cover themselves. The same cannot be said for the people who drink and smoke and are multiplying like rabbits on the pulic aid system. These are the health care cost that the taxpayers are paying for.

Posted by: BRYAN Location: SE ILLINOIS on Jan 12, 2008 at 12:22 AM
WELL IT FIGURES THAT SOMEBODY LIKE SEN. CARROLL WOULD TRY TO PASS SOMETHING THAT HE HAS NO IDEA ABOUT THE NUMBERS. I AGREE WITH 100% OF THE COMMENTS HERE, ITS ABOUT CHOICE, AND NOW THE GOVT. WANTS TO TRY AND DECIDE FOR US. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE LAZY NON-WORKING PEOPLE ON WELFARE THAT CAN WORK BUT CHOOSE NOT TO, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THAT GET 'OUR' SOCIAL SECURITY AND DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES..WHY DON'T U WORK ON SOME LAWS FOR THEM INSTEAD OF ALL US HARD WORKING MOTORCYCLE LOVING PEOPLE THAT HAVE THEIR OWN INSURANCE. SEN. CARROLL IS PROBABLY ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE 1% THAT HAD A FRIEND FROM BACK IN KINDERGARTEN THAT GOT HURT RIDNG A BICYCLE AND HE THINKS MOTORCYCLISTS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO WEAR A HELMET, WHAT A MORON!! ITS LIKE EVERY OTHER CRAZY LAW HERE IN ILLINOIS AND OTHER STATES, THE LAWMAKERS THAT COME UP WITH THEM HAVE NO CLUE ON HOW IT WILL EFFECT PEOPLE, THEY JUST WANT THEIR NAE IN LIGHTS. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE SENATOR!!

Posted by: Lee Location: So. Il. on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I don't think it is right,the things politicians are doing to the people of our area first we had to wear seatbelts,then they are taking away our right to smoke, now they want me to wear a brain bucket I say NO WAY NO HOW

Posted by: rider on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:33 PM
No to helmit,Yes to Freedom. It's the law of the jungle, big car cuts off little motorcycle.Less accidents will happen when all drivers have respect for smaller vehicles and the traffic Laws.

Posted by: Jack Location: New Jersey on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Another safety nazi seeking publicity. What's next? Perhaps forcing everyone to wear Kevlar gloves when preparing dinner at home so no one gets cut?

Posted by: Steven Location: Caldwell on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I vote no. The assumption that motorcyclist who are paying $10,000.00 plus for thier motorcycles cannot afford to carry insurance on ourselves and are therefore a "public" burdon is completely ludicrous! We have already given up too many of our personal freedoms of choice. Anytime your government begins enacting arbitrary laws "for your own good", Be afraid, Be very afraid

Posted by: jay Location: illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:06 PM
No helmet law,..let those who ride decide! The American public is going to have to wake up and ban together and get OUR government to start making laws that make sense and real changes,...like fuel costs, health care, ect.

Posted by: Sandy Location: Arizona on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM
It should be a Riders Choice for anyone over the age of 18

Posted by: Michael Location: Phoenix,Az on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I don't believe anyone elected or otherwise has the right to restrict our freedoms.Some might say that this has nothing to do with me in Az but they're wrong because I don't limit myself to just one state with my riding.In fact if they really wanted to cut health care costs all they'd have to do is cut off the illeagle aliens who put a drain of BILLIONS on the health care system annually.I really don't need someone with a lower I.Q. than myself deciding what's best for me or my fellow bikers.Remember I could ride long before I drive a car,so if we're raising bike limits why not driving and military limits.An eighteen year old can die fighting for his/her country but not have a beer,or if some had thier way about it ride a bike.It's not the kids doing something stupid that I shake my head at,it's the thirty something using a cellphone,smoking and drinking thier coffee while pretending to drive and scratching thier head when they run over another biker like it wasn't thier fault.

Posted by: bruce Location: phoenix,az on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:50 PM
maybe the senator should try driving his personal autombile while wearing a helmet. if motorcyclist needem then all drivers of cars and trucks and vans and buses etc. needem. also the emergency rooms are full of illegal invaders who don't pay for medical coverage, not motorcyclist. Perhaps somebody has a friend or relative who wants to sell helmets. Same old story, don't fix the problem, blame it on us. For shame!!!

Posted by: Chris Location: Canada on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Why does evryone have to tell me how to live my life. I work hard, earn my own money and still have "THE MAN" telling me what to do, when to do it, and to wear a helmet. I personaly choose to wear one but the choice should be mine. Go get some real criminals off the street.

Posted by: Tim Upton Location: Galatia Il. on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:16 PM
I ride a motorcycle and have since I was 6 yrs. old. I've had my share of crashes, hill climbing, trail riding, motocross racing, though nothing serious until I got broadsided by a car! I got lucky and didn't sustain any really serious injury. The perception of a helmet law is ridiculous. It is fine if you ride a bicycle, but a motorcycle is another story. The only good a helmet does if you wreck at highway speed,especially with another vehicle involved, which is usually over 87 percent of the time, is allow you to have an open casket funeral! The trauma involved to the human body at speeds of 50 mph and over are greatly increased and the use of a helmet is ridiculous. It's the equivelent of trying to stop a 30.06 cal. bullet with tin foil at 50 ft. A helmet just increases a novice riders perception of safety and ability to handle the motorcycle beyond his/her real capabilities. Those who do have the abilities, find a helmet useless is an accident!

Posted by: Glenn Location: Texas on Jan 11, 2008 at 08:52 PM
Again the goverment pulls out the tire and no fact arguments to tell us how to live. Too much goverment is already destroying the american way. Pass a helmet law and my torist money will be spent in a state that still believes in freedom of choice, and laws that do not tell me how to live.

Posted by: Sandra Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 08:23 PM
I feel it is a persons right to make the decision to were a helmet or not. Too many freedoms have been taken away from all U S citizens. We are adults and have to right to take care of ourselves. Go after BIG business and make them abide by the laws and leave our individual freedoms/rights alone.

Posted by: Timothy Location: O'Reilly on Jan 11, 2008 at 07:42 PM
Rather than enacat a helmet law, woiuldn't it be more benificial to educate not only motorcyclist's and other drivers through motorcycle awareness programs. Most vehicle VS motorcycle crashes the driver of the vehicle is found to at fault. It also would be a very good idea to offer motorcycle courses, basic and advanced for riders so they woould learn the basics of safe operation of motorcycles. This can be done possibly from grants and donations from motorcycle manufactures, there by having a affordable cost for riders. It is always better to educate than legislate.

Posted by: GWbiker Location: Arizona on Jan 11, 2008 at 07:20 PM
Can anyone in the Insurance business or in Senator Carroll's office point to any state that mandated helmet use for all motorcyclists within the past 20 years, then reduced insurance premiums for all riders? You see, the Insurance community wants everyone to believe that unhelmeted bikers impose a serious financial drain on taxpayer funded medical care. But, the insurance crowd thus far has been unable to furnish any data to back up their wild claim.

Posted by: michael Brachear Location: illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 06:42 PM
While my wife and I ride with a helmet 99% of the time I still respect others rights to make their own decision and think the laws should do the same!

Posted by: Ken Location: Sioux Falls, SD on Jan 11, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Senator Carroll must be very good at predicting what will happen in future motorcycle accidents. Perhaps with more helmet use, those that would normally be killed will now survive to be vegatables. There's only one sure thing with life and that is death. We will all die from something and it will cost money, even if we live to a grand old age of 200 with the last 100 of it spent in an expensive nursing home. We don't get to choose how we die, only how we live. Don't let crack pots take that away.

Posted by: Ruby Location: South Dakota on Jan 11, 2008 at 06:34 PM
I had a motorcycle accident from a car running a stop sign in front of me. I had insurance they didn't, which since it is a law to have it, seems they was breaking the law and it is that kind of mentality that is raising insurance costs...those of us that have insurance has to pay for those that feel they are above the law. If they had been paying for insurance it would of made the accident a lot less expensive plus my insurance wouldn't of had to pay for them breaking the law. Helmets don't prevent accidents..education and enforcing everyone that drives or rides a vehicle to carry insurance. People obeying the laws would go a long ways in saving costs in accidents. Such as running stop signs without insurance.

Posted by: Earl Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 06:32 PM
Another example of BIG Brother wanting to tell you how to live, they just keep chipping away at our right to live as free citizens Tell them to PROVE their statements. Vote NO!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: dave krueger Location: peoria,illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Let the indiviual decide if he or she wants to wear a helmet. Instead of madating laws on wearing helmets, make laws stronger on those who cause the accident by turning in front of the cyclist. This I didn't see them should not allow them to get off from penalties of their negilgence. Let those who ride decide.

Posted by: Smitty Location: Southern IL on Jan 11, 2008 at 05:36 PM
If we're gonna save lives, let's all wear helmets. Bikers, truck drivers you and the wife going out for dinner. You can probably get custom paint to match your Cadillac! Teach the public to be aware of motorcycles!

Posted by: Kat Location: Arizona on Jan 11, 2008 at 05:08 PM
In a state that allows for adults the freedom of choice I agree that this issue should be left alone and that Senator Carroll should use his time and efforts on more pressing issues which this one really about freedom of choice. How about using your position to help motorcyclists with more public education, signs to watch out for motorcyclists, and laws to help those motorcyclists hit by autos expecially during left hand turns. The spin which continues to occur when statistics, studies, and official information being used to support a helmet law is outrageous and well documented that it is not accurate. Freedom of choice for those that ride will always be our choice. And for those that don't ride, well leave these polls to the actual adults that will have to live by the laws. How about those that don't ride just spend your efforts and time on watching out for motorcylists because we are mother, fathers, grandfathers, brothers, sisters, etc. and registered voters just like you.

Posted by: Dawn Location: KY on Jan 11, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Where are Carroll's factual statistics on the burden that non-helmeted motorcycle riders place on taxpayers? Probably in the same report that shows the burden that non-helmeted car occupants place on taxpayers.....

Posted by: Ralph Bell Location: Columbia, SC on Jan 11, 2008 at 04:39 PM
Honorable Senator Carrol, After living in Mesa for some thirty years I think the next mandate should be flu shoots. With all the retired individuals in the state think of the savings in hospital bills. Who cares if they don't want one they can move to another state like Florida if they don't like your laws. Just make sure that you think about what you are trying to impose on the people you were elected to serve. Ralph Bell ABATE of SC

Posted by: Gary Location: Indiana on Jan 11, 2008 at 04:31 PM
No a person should have the right to do what ever he or she feels safe for them.

Posted by: moe Location: rosedale on Jan 11, 2008 at 04:16 PM
tell the senator to wear his seatbelt while driveing in his car and leave the motorcycles alone and go after the bicycle and tricycle riders

Posted by: Fred Location: Lexington on Jan 11, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Mommy says I have to wear my helmet so I don't hurt myself.

Posted by: Don P. Pender Location: Tempe Az. on Jan 11, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Use of a helmet is a personal issue and should not be mandated by the government.

Posted by: Jack Location: TENNESSEE on Jan 11, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Okay, so what about people that fly private planes? Have a swimming pool AND trampoline in their yard? Skiers, Mountainbikers? Rollebladers?Paintballers?High School Footballers? Are they not prone to extensive and EXPENSIVE head trauma ALSO??? I think to single out one group of folks merely for practicing their chosen sport is discriminatory to motorcyclists,(who ride AND VOTE) Not fair to change the existing law and let only motorcyclists foot the bill.

Posted by: Rob Location: Ohio on Jan 11, 2008 at 03:01 PM
No more laws. Helmets should be the riders choice. Americans are slowly loosing their freedom of choice. Are we going to require all houses with children, get rid of all toxic chemicals? How about requiring grandparents to have a lockbox for their meds so the little ones don't get into them? What next? A complete bubble around a rider to protect their arms, legs and body? Might as well ride in a car! How about a little more education for the cagers so they are watching for us! How many accidents are caused by cages? If Sen. Carroll wants to save taxpayers money, look to the waste in the goverment. Lets look to the failing welfare system. How about your salary Sen. Carroll. How much does the average public safety employee (firefighter, police) make in your state? You sit in a office everyday safe and sound while they are protecting you, your family and the voters that put you in office and you make a lot more than they do! Target smoking. How many people have lung disease?

Posted by: Rick Location: TN. on Jan 11, 2008 at 02:54 PM
If you feel it necessary to but in our lives and make us wear helmets then you should but into kids lives and make them pull up there pants. When you can do that i'll wear a helmet.

Posted by: Chuck Location: Utah on Jan 11, 2008 at 02:39 PM
I ride without a helmet. I drive without a seat belt. I am an American and I will defend my freedom of choice, regardless. My Government has certain duties to perform. Defend my country from alien invasion across our borders, and from aliens landing on our shores. It is not the intention of our forefathers that the GOVERNMENT make us wear condoms, seatbelts, helmets, chest protectors, stell toed shoes, or rain coats. It is for me to decide th level of danger I want to live in, and what is actually a danger to me. When I was a child, I had a Mother and Father to teach me to make choices. I learned that there are reasons for some things that are obviously gonna hurt. So, I don't jump from airplanes without a parachute, and I don't use my finger to stir a boiling pot of oil. My need to control others is defined to my children, and I pray everyday I did a good job. I want what Abe Lincoln wanted, no more Government than it takes to protect our country from alien invaders.God Bless America

Posted by: Randy Location: Portsmouth, Ohio on Jan 11, 2008 at 02:26 PM
I belong to a motorcycle club in Ohio that is right on the Ohio River. We are a short ride to WV as well. We ride in groups of 10-30 every weekend, and had 240 bikes at our last poker run. We often ride to KY, but NEVER to West Virginia. Why? Because of the Helmet law there. We are just a small number of the thousands of out of state dollars KY will lose with a helmet law. And as for the related healthcare costs and lifes saved, well, your data is not complete. Have you talked to ABATE or any other motorcycle rights group that keeps a close tab on these things? Do you know the economic inpact on Florida once helmet laws were revoked there? It's in the Millions per year. And don't just go by, "more deaths in the past 5 years then previous" or some such statement. Read the Facts! When registration and miles ridden are taken into consideration, fatalities are down! Is there occasional exception? Of course there is. Just be sure you don't use an exception to be the basis of a new law.

Posted by: Kat Location: Ohio, Il on Jan 11, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Once again the helmet health care myth is trotted out by a politician looking to make the headlines. Check the facts yourself. Teach the young and reckless how to drive a motorcycle safely.

Posted by: barry Location: illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 02:15 PM
the role of government is to protect the weak from the powerful, not the weak from themselves. Did this congressman reveal how much the insurance industry donated to his election fund in order to propose such a claim?

Posted by: Brian Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Give me a break..It is my choice to wear one ...letting them get away with this type of stuff and it will never end....Next thing you know ..you wont be able to smoke and drive...Lets pass that too !!!...There are only a few real pleasures left in life...Riding down the road with the wind in my hair and face is one of them...Leave the law alone....

Posted by: jeremy Location: sikeston on Jan 11, 2008 at 01:10 PM
this should be left up to the rider, not the state. I almost always wear a helmet but this is supposed to be a free country and the feeling of no helmet with the wind in your face on an american made bike is priceless, you big wigs should try it! It may relieve some stress and cause you to live a little!

Posted by: Steve Location: Ohio on Jan 11, 2008 at 01:03 PM
It seems the good Senator is saying that the motorcyclists shouldn't be allowed to use the social nets established simply because they ride motorcycles. His impression is that motorcycle riders guit being taxpayers when they start ridng. And have never contributed to those social nets. Is he saying that the health care, costs more for injured motorcyclists? That would mean an aspirin cost more for an injured motorcyclist than any other person in the hospital. Senator if you want to do something start enforcing the laws on the books. "I didn't see the bike" should not be an excuse. It is an admission of guilt and therefore a failure to exercise highest degree of care in the operation of thier vehicle. When that results in the death of a rider it should be considered as evidence of negligence. I DIDN'T SEE EM is not an excuse! Approx 70% of motorcycle/car accidents are the fault of the 4 wheeler. Lets stop blaming the victim in this negligence.

Posted by: Not Politically Correct Location: Vandalia, IL. on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Why do State and Federal Government think they need to tell me whats best for me? Stop wasting taxpayer money on this issue. I am a taxpaying United States citizen and proud of it. I have been riding for over 20 years without a helmet, it's my choice. I ride with alot of people that choose to wear a helmet, that's their choice. We don't need someone sitting in their office in the capitol, that doesn't ride, making that choice for us. What ever happened to "America, Land of the Free"? What's next? I'm a Mason, Shriner, ABATE member, I hope someone doesn't decide these organizations are not in my best intrest, and spend taxpayer money to get rid of them. I'll get my papers in-order, I may want to take my family on vacation and cross into another state!

Posted by: Manny Campana Location: Arizona on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Helmets in cars, riding horses and all types of transportation should all be addressed as well.Helmets in cars should be a top priority law NOW. It will save countless lives from head injuries since far more people use cars than motorcycles

Posted by: WTH Location: IL on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Laws are based on money and not people interests or their well being. Communism

Posted by: a free rider for now Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Instead of making us wear helmets, why don't they pass a law against cell phone use while driving!!! It's already been proven that it causes more accidents than drunk drivers. People pull out in front of me and cut me off when I'm in my truck because they can't shut up long enough to drive. I thought I lived in a free country but it's become a country of politicians ruling everything they can! Motorcycles have been a part of life for over 30 of my 41 yrs. and there are times when I feel helmets are necessary, when someone is not on the street. My son has been envolved in all types of racing and riding for 12 yrs. and I've never made him wear one when he was on the street. As a mother, I let him make his own decission on that just as I always have and don't feel the need for some high paid politician to decide for us. Most of them have never been on a bike and never will. Most have never been in any situation that a lot of us go through. I love to ride but get mad everytime I do.

Posted by: G W Robertson Location: Urbana Ohio on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
They never really look a the cost, How many riders survive a crash that would have killed them if they where not wearing a helmet. And live for years a paraplegic or comatose

Posted by: Dan on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM
The overwhelming evidence indicates that helmets and helmet laws work. Some of the comments here perpetuate myths (like helmets impair vision, hearing or the weight causes neck fatigue) - all of these myths have been proven false by vaild research. Like most questions every research study does not conclude exactly the same but taken as a whole the evidence is overwhelming - both helmets and helmet laws do what they are designed to do. Helmets are designed to protect the head and brain in the event of a crash and helmet laws are designed to ensure that every riders has this proven protection - just like seat bealt laws. The "government" not only has the right but has the responsibility to enact laws that protect the citizens.

Posted by: me Location: usa on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I agree with most of what was said below. I am an avid motorcyclist along with my father and mother. We all wear helmets. Helmets do not restrict me from seeing traffic it actually keeps the bugs from hitting me between the eyes.. lol.. but I don't think it should be mandated. Like seat belts it should be the individuals choice. If they don't want to wear them let it reflect in their insurance premiums not ours! I think the main reason for the law is for them to have another reaon for cops to harrass riders just like the seat belts in cars!

Posted by: Chuck Location: Chicago, IL on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Helmets are really 50 / 50! Sometimes they help and sometimes they don't! Sometimes they cause more of a problem. So much for freedom these days! Join ABATE and fight!

Posted by: Mike Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I've read through these comments and have noticed that, maybe they're elderly and those who need structure in their lives are the ones who actually are saying, helmets yes,and organ donors should be motorcyclists. What's with these folks, don't they believe that people, all people have the right to choose. And I mean the right to choose everything in their lives, not the government,not the officials we elect to help create laws to help safeguard the nation and the states, not the individual. That is what we have fought wars for,to protect our each individual freedoms. Safety equipment should always be available , but let those individuals choose, not you.

Posted by: George Location: Springfield, IL on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Motorcycling is a multi-million dollar industry in Kentucky. The taxpayers benefit from this segment of our economy, as do the thousands of people employed in it and who enjoy the ripple effect of money generated by motorcyclists. It is clear that any restrictions on motorcyclists has a chilling effect on this industry and on tourism. The money lost to KY because of restrictions like a helmet mandate would far exceed any dollars saved by the insurance industry or by taxpayers because of the mandate. If the senator is concerned about money, he should protect our right to choose whether to wear a helmet. Senator Carroll should realize that his job is to protect the rights of his constituents -- not to protect the profits of the insurance companies.

Posted by: Chuck Location: Arkansas on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:37 AM
As far as I know there are no statistics nation wide that show wearing a helment while riding saves more lives than not wearing one. The most cause of injuries to motorcyclist are people not paying attention to the roadway and cutting us off while talking on cell phones or playing with the radio. Why I say this is look while you are going down the road and you can see this happening in any part of the world. Let the riders choose to wear a helment or not. It is known through the biker commuity; that helment laws stop or slow tourism in these states that make it mandatory to wear helments. Insurance companies are making it hard just for everyday usage let alone being a bike rider. I stand with my Brothers and Sisters in fighting a helment law wherever we live.

Posted by: Allen Location: ILLINOIS on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
LET THOSE THAT RIDE DECIDE. HELMET LAWS DO NOT MAKE A RIDER SAFE. I DO VOTE

Posted by: CHICAGO Chapter Prez Location: DUH on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
KY, has some of the most beautiful roads and countrysides in the United States. I have ridden in KY with and without a helmet and can tell you this. I don't visit family there anymore in the summer and I miss them, additionally if you want to draw in more visitors they should have the freedom that the forefathers guarentee'd them. No they didn't have motorcycles then or motor driven bikes but how do you think this would have played out. I'm sorry Mr. Carson but you and Jefferson Davis will have to wear blinders while riding your horses in our great state. Or sorry Mr. Lincoln but you have inadaquet head protection to go out riding today, but you can go to Illinois and ride free if you'd like. This was not meant to be funny but our individual freedoms are not free and came with a price that we still pay to this very day. I would like to see this lifted so I can ride out to see family in KY. and see the hills the way they were meant to be seen....FREE AND UNRESTRICTED!!!

Posted by: Mark Location: IL on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM
If I have to wear a seatbelt. Motorcyclist should have to ATLEAST wear a helmet!

Posted by: Valkyrie Location: PA on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I understand the principal involved here but it should still be a choice for each and everyone of us to make personally. I for one will always wear a half face helmet since I slid on my face along the road while stopping my bike. I was run off the road by a Toyota cruiser who didnt see me.

Posted by: J Craig Location: South Dakota on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Injured motorcyclists could never catch up with the public burden tobacco has caused

Posted by: J Craig Location: South Dakota on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Let those who ride decide!!!

Posted by: Julie Location: Henderson on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I've found helmets to limit my vision, produce sweat that affects my vision, and very much limits my peripheral vision. They are not comfortable and have not been proved to lower death rates for cyclists. I vote NO!

Posted by: Brian Location: California on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:16 AM
My helmet did not protect me when I was hit on my bike.It failed to stop the other driver from making a bonehead maneuver.He decided he did not want to wait in the left turn lane.And he pulled in to my lane and struck me.He was an 82 year old recent immigrant to the U.S. Of course, California is run by recent immigrants.So he probably got his license along with his Happy Meal at the drive thru. An airbag,helmet,seatbelt or other device will never out perform that device that resides between your ears(as long as that puppy is tuned and turned on!).

Posted by: Shaun Location: Crofton on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Before voting on anything keep in mind all politicians are liars... cigarettes are more of a burden on healthcare than motorcycle accidents but you don't see him trying to ban cigarettes now do you? There's sure to be an Ins. lobbyist paying for this push... be wary of what you approve it's harder to repeal a law than it is to pass one...

Posted by: kcm Location: ky on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Seatbelts and helments should by an option by any person over 18 years of age. As stated before most motorcycle accidents are caused when a automobile collides with a motorcycle. I ride (with my helment on). However, I do not degrade my friends who ride without a helment. According to the KSP website as of Dec. 25th 2007 there were 681 automobile fatalities 382 were not wearing a seatbelt, 92 motorcycle fatalities 53 were not wearing a helment and 24 ATV deaths 20 not wearing a helment... you do the math.

Posted by: Tom Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:10 AM
"Pola" is from the greek word meaning many. "tic" is a blood sucking parasite. These people "politicians" are all out to take the "free" out of freedom.

Posted by: Shaun Location: Crofton KY on Jan 11, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Before voting on anything remember that ALL politicians are liars, you cna be sure that smoking puts more of a burden on healthcare than motorcycle accidents but you don't see them outlawing cigarettes do you?.... there's sure to be a lobbyist behind this push....

Posted by: Tom Simmons Location: Michigan on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Let those who ride decide, Whatever happen to the freedom of choice?

Posted by: JR. Location: HOT SPOT KY on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I don't need MR Carrol to tell me if I can wear a helmet or not!You would think he would find something more important to work on for the money the taxpayers are paying him!

Posted by: Mr Ed Location: Frankfort, KY on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Lack of a mandatory helmet law does not make wearing a helmet a crime. Just means we have a choice. If you like to wear a helmet, then I support your decision.

Posted by: Eric Location: Flint, MI on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Whether or not a motorcyclist wears a helmet should be entirely their choice. I speak from experience when I say that helmets cause a false sense of security and also hinder the rider's awareness by creating wind noise.

Posted by: Richard Sampson Location: Florida on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Let the people of kentucy decide .I live in Florida and get the pleasure of ridiug helment free. Richard L. Sampson

Posted by: paul Location: lex on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
why not just require bikers who don't wear helmets to have long term care health insurance, as well as vehicle insurance..Busy body politicians, and insurance providers should be happy with that, and the freedom of choice stands? I thought we already had this provision

Posted by: trapper Location: alabama on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM
no helmets...pro choice....ours!!!

Posted by: Paul Location: Paducah on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:04 AM
No hemets, no seatbelts. I'll keep paying taxes, stop making up laws when you don't enforce the ones you have.

Posted by: Rodger Location: So.Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I VOTE NO for helmet law, its a person decision to wear or not wear one. NO < NO < NO

Posted by: Gary Location: N. Ky on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Its all about "Choice". Bikers should have the choice whether or not to wear a helmet. The Gov't restricts us (the public) on one thing, then its something else, then something else. I will bet a good 90% of those voting YES on this issue, has never owned nor ridden a motorcycle. Wait until they are told they have to wear helmets on their riding mowers and tractors.

Posted by: Will Location: Missouri on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Sen. Carroll should pay more attention to the political atmosphere. Americans are sick of the government crowding in on our freedoms. Everytime you hear the phrase "public burden", beware, another freedom is on the chopping block.

Posted by: Bill Location: Illinois on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:51 AM
This is a fallacious argument. 99% of bikers have private health insurance so why would the state have to pay their medical bills? This is a freedom of choice issue, not a fiscal issue. Stop trying to legislate us into a Nanny welfare state.

Posted by: Organ Donor Location: KY on Jan 11, 2008 at 09:05 AM
Please do me a favor. When you see me zipping down the interstate on my Harley at 85mph while NOT wearing my helmet, please call me one stupid SOB redneck backwards food stamp lovin' uneducated hillbilly white trash jerk, but please don't make me mess up my mullet by wearing a helmet. Sticks and stones my crack my skull but names will never hurt me.

Posted by: Jeff Location: Lexington on Jan 11, 2008 at 08:54 AM
If the senator is so concerned about taxpayers footing the bill, I suggest we pass a law making it illegal to smoke if you are on welfare or medicare. Smoking related diseases cost the taxpayers much more than motorcycle accidents.

Posted by: Jimmy Location: Carter on Jan 11, 2008 at 08:53 AM
1 When the seatbelt law was passed we were told cheaper insurance. Wrong! 2 Rising healthcare could be attributed to those too lazy to work and choose to live on welfare instead. Illegal immigrants also should recieve credit for this.

Posted by: Durbin Location: Covington on Jan 11, 2008 at 08:36 AM
If Mr Carrol wants to work on a law to get passed to boost his political carrear maybe he should work on a no cell phone while driving, I am a motorcyle rider and I choose to wear a helmet, but the helmet didnt do a thing for me when the young (17) year old lady got tired of waiting for a stop sign and was chatting on her cell phone and T-boned me in July, I ended up loosing my left leg, after 68 years of having both of them, well it is a big adjustment, so lets work on that for a law, more people drive and use cell phones than bikers not wearing a helmet. D W Conrad

Posted by: jim Location: Iowa on Jan 11, 2008 at 06:02 AM
Funny how these guys always say there is a public burden bet never have numbers or data to prove it.

Posted by: Tina Location: Ky on Jan 11, 2008 at 03:00 AM
I fill it should be up to the person on the motorcycle if they wont to wear one or not..but it should not effect the insurance if they have a accident..if you risk your own life then you should have to pay your own bill..that also goes for 4 wheelers also..and i fill no one under the age of 21 should be able to recieve there licences for a motorcycle. its like having an toddler that does not see any danger..most teens dont see danger.. at a young age it is the need for speed...May God Bless everyone that rides motorcycle and 4 wheelers...

Posted by: donny Location: ky on Jan 11, 2008 at 02:32 AM
i think it should be left up to the rider if he wants his nogen saved..nothing in mine to save so dont really mater..should be left up to the riders i think..

Posted by: Anonymous on Jan 11, 2008 at 01:19 AM
ITS A FREE COUNTRY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WEAR A HELMENT THEN DON'T. IT HURTS NO ONE BUT THE OPERATOR. AS FOR THE SEATBELT LAW WE DO NEED THIS ONE, BECUASE IF MY KIDS WEAR THERE SEATBELTS IN MY CAR BY MY ORDERS AND THEY GO SOMEWHERE WITH A FRIENDS PARENTS THAT DON'T MAKE THEM WEAR THEM, AND THEY GET INTO A ACCIDENT THIS LAW MAY HELP THEM TO HAVE THERE BELTS ON. NO ONE LIKES HEARING OF MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS OR ANY ACCIDENT WHERE SOMEONE GETS KILLED, BUT AS ON A MOTORCYCLE IT SHOULD BE THE OPERATORS CHOICE. NOT THE STATES

Posted by: aztigrgal2 Location: Arizona on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:35 AM
If we are old enough to vote, aren't we old enough to make our own decisions??? Why is it the biker that has to pay the price when over half of motorcycle related accidents are due to four wheeled drivers? The classic saying " I never saw the motorcycle" DUH !!!!!!! Drop your phone or stop putting on your make up and PAY ATTENTION to your driving !!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Dorian Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Higher Health Care costs are a separate issue. I am a rider, and I find it challenging to turn my head wearing a helmet to see people who are not looking for me. People have lost their right to choose ... this is the ulitimate issue, not helmets or health care costs. People need to take back the right to run their lives the way they want to.

Posted by: Brenda Padget Location: Springfield, IL on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Bikers in Illinois are currently facing the same rhetoric regarding the need for a mandatory helmet law. I believe Sen. Carroll might benefit from studying The Impact of Helmet Use and Alcohol on Traumatic Brain Injury Related Hospitalizations for Motorcycle Crashes in Wisconsin, 1991-1998, conducted by Wayne Bigelow, M.S. at the Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, which concluded "Helmet use has no significant impact on hospital days, charges, or on injury severity for persons with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) hospitalizations." He might also be interested to know that even in the absence of a mandatory helmet law, 50% still wear a helmet. Awareness and education, not legislation, are key in accident prevention. After all, Sen. Carroll, a helmet can not PREVENT an accident! Brenda Padget Public Relations Coordinator A.B.A.T.E. of Illinois Lincoln Land Chapter Springfield, IL (217) 753-8727

Posted by: Doug Location: Fremont on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM
If helmets are that importent as a piece of safety equipment, Then shouldn't people in cars wear them too?

Posted by: AC Location: ARIZONA on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Can I get a helmet offset. Like all the Greenies claim they are doing for Carbon Offsets. I wear a helmet but will not be told I have to. Hey KY Dont re-elect this pencil pusher. Show up in force at some of his re-election rallies and let him know you are there, watching and Voting. Good Luck

Posted by: Angry_Inch Location: Here on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM
DOT standards for helmets are outdated, under-tested and create more hazards than they are designed to prevent. Instead of forcing helmet use which may or may not help save anything, how about focusing energies into preventing cell-phone and other communication devices being used by drivers. How many more studides need to be done world-wide showing cell-phone use is a worse impairment that drinking while operating a vehicle? The true problem is not bikers who choose not to don a helmet. We need to PREVENT accidents from occuring.

Posted by: John Location: KY/TN State Line on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Why should the government have the authority to tell anyone to wear a helmet or a seat belt. When the government pays the firstnote on my truck or my Harley thrn I might consider they have a right to delve into my personal life. Already we have conceded to much to those elected to represent us.

Posted by: Virgil Location: Richmond on Jan 10, 2008 at 10:19 PM
This is just another example of someone in government pretending that the citizens he/she serves doesn't know what is good for themelves. This is another example of someone in government enacting their own beliefs and trying to force others through the law to follow the beliefs of the law makers. This is an example of someone in government enacting more restrictive laws that only affect an individual either as a person or as one unit. Example being the new seatbelt law. Sure it saves lives but wearing a seatbelt has never been proven to prevent an accident.

Posted by: Joe Location: Florida on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:58 PM
More Pedestrians are killed in America due to Accidents involving Motor Vehicles than Motorcylcist and Automotorists Combined. The Government should Force Everyone to wear helmets ALL the time. When showering, when walking down a wet driveway, when climing or decending stairs. We should also be forced to line are walls of our homes with rubber. We should Not be allowed to eat Steak or drink soda pop. The Government knows whats best for us so lets elect more bureaucrats to TAX us more and tell us whats best for us, and herd us into pens and assure us that they will take care of us and spend ourincome theytax to give themselves 2500.00 raises every 3 or 4 years so they can represent us while they are making 4 times more money a year then we are. I own my Home, I pay medical premiums I am not a Burden on society, I took my Sick parents in and took care of them till they died, I have the RIGHT to choose wether I want to live a parapalegic or Die while I'm living my life the way Iwish.

Posted by: Dr.John Location: Clinton on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:21 PM
Well over half the people killed while riding last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the... WERE wearing helmets. Now, ain't that odd? Add in the fact that a helmet is designed to absorb the same impact a 6' person would encounter by simply falling down, and you start to realize just how ignorant the whole debate is. The added weight increases fatigue in the rider, increasing the possibility of slowed reflexes in the rider to the equivalent to those of a drunk driver. And, while it MIGHT minimally reduce the risk of cranial damage, it SIGNIFICANTLY increases the risk of cervical spinal injury, again due to the added weight. Helmets ARE NOT the answer.

Posted by: Mike Location: AZ on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:03 PM
A helmet in some case is nessasary. I can make that choice myself, no hand holding is nessasary by the uninformed

Posted by: paul Location: california on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:01 PM
It is a personal thing. There are times when a helmet is dangerous, and trying to see around on your passenger can be also. Education is needed. The car drivers have to realize that what they do can kill a motorcycle rider. Helmets aren't saving lives, they are easier for the EMTs to pick up the pieces. I went down in july because a car sideswiped me in Utah. I wasn't wearing a helment and was driving highway speed. I broke a wrist and got some bruises. And yes, as soon as I could, I got right back on it.

Posted by: Wow Location: Richmond on Jan 10, 2008 at 07:51 PM
Maybe change the policy on taking care of them? If you wreck at your own fault and arent wearing a helmet it voids your insurance perhaps? I know personally 3 people that would be DEAD today if they had wore their seat belts in a crash and only 1 that may have lived if he had wore it. Why can they fine me for making a choice on how to save my own life yet let crotch rockets run around not strapped littlone padded by anything, most dont know the japanese developed a air bag type vest for motorcyclists a decade ago.

Posted by: Idiot Location: Fkt on Jan 10, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Why should I wear a helmet,

Posted by: John Location: Springfield Va on Jan 10, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Don't strip us of another freedom...take care of your yard before you tend to mine!!!

Posted by: Mike Rancourt on Jan 10, 2008 at 06:01 PM
I don' think there should be a law for helmets OR seatbelts. We don't need the government to play mommy and daddy to us.

Posted by: Jon Location: Lexington on Jan 10, 2008 at 06:00 PM
Beware, you are having fewer choices and freedoms daily. By the time your children are adults, the Government will dictate everything.

Posted by: BLACKSHEEP Location: PAINTSVILLE on Jan 10, 2008 at 06:00 PM
I AGREE, I THINK THAT EVERY MOTERCYCLE RIDER SHOULD HEAR A HELMET, LEATHERS,BOOTS,GLOVES, AND MAKE IT A LAW THAT THEY SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THEY ARE 21 TO GET A MOTORCYCLE PERMIT. I SAW SOME KID RIDING A "BULLIT BIKE" WEARING A TANK TOP, SHORTS, AND FLIP-FLOPS WHILE RIDING A "WHEELIE" THROUGH TOWN. I ONLY HAVE ONE WORD FOR THAT "ST-ST-ST-ST-STUIPD"

Posted by: Early Cuyler Location: Squidville on Jan 10, 2008 at 05:32 PM
(edited)? I think none of us should be allowed to have any type of motor vehicle at all. We should let the Government pick us up in the converted cattle trailers (they have a helmet for every seat AND a seatbelt!) and take us to whatever job THEY deem we are fit for. Now how ye' like 'at mess?

Posted by: Eagle Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 05:06 PM
That will be the day when I see a motorist wearing a helmet in a vehicle. Get off the cell phone and pay attention to the road. Bikers are 100% safer drivers because we are paying attention. Our eyes are everywhere. Where is the average driver looking? Better yet, what are they doing? Watch the television ads for Allstate. I love those commericals.

Posted by: Harley Location: Bismarck, ND on Jan 10, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I, for one, am real tired of the government trying to legislate "what is good for me". I am an adult, if I choose not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycles, I am weighing the risks and accepting the consequences of my decision. Why aren't 40 million school children on school buses wearing seat belts? I think they have a far greater risk of injury in an accident than I do when I'm riding. Stop trying to nanny legislate and instead seek to pass laws that are actually relavent

Posted by: Eagle Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 05:03 PM
I've riden with and without helmets. They do restrict your vision a lot and put a lot of stress on your neck and upper back/shoulders. I've been in an accident and have friends that were too. Some have died. In most cases, if the accident is serious enough, a helmet didn't make a difference at all. We pay for and have health insurance. If the insurance company refuses to pay covered medical bills, what are we to do? Pay for it ourselves. Bike events are one way bikers raise money for medical bills. I know of no one that had the state pay for anything. There are not enough cases of state welfare cases footing the bill for a ward of a serious accident that the family doesn't provide for. This is just another tactic to pass a useless anti-rights law. Find another cause. This one is dead.

Posted by: BB Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:56 PM
What next - are our brilliant (term used loosely) government officials going to dictate what color bikes we ride? Helmets have yet to be proven a true life saver!!!! Motorcyclists have been classed as public dependent for years "yer typical biker" - we don't have good jobs, don't have insurance are not contributing citizens -- etc.--come on!!! The sales pitch that the "government" pays for our boo boos is hogwash!! LET THOSE WHO RIDE DECIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a helmet and I wish to be able to choose when I wear it.

Posted by: Zeke Location: Olin on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:49 PM
Remember when KY had the helmet law? You people didn`t care then one way or another,until they passed the seat belt law then everyone started crying make motorcyclists wear helments,waa waa waa. Like some say there isn`t approved helments to wear and they only help if you are bearly moving,sometimes they make it worse, check it out before you start whinning. I guess some would like to see seat belts on motorcycles, that was brought up before in at least one state. No, I am not a rider and yes I wear my seat belt.

Posted by: CJ Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:41 PM
I feel that the decision as to wear or not wear a helmet is up to the individual. I have a helmet and I prefer to be the one to decide when I will wear it. As far as the seatbelt law goes - will bikers be forced to wear them also - and perhaps 4 wheel vehicle drivers will be required to wear helmets!! Where are we going here?? Motorcyclists are not a public burden as is inferred but are responsible, insured working indivuduals. We are being classed as totally dependent on society - is this not stereotyping???!

Posted by: lorri Location: fleming on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:39 PM
seat belts and helmets should be the choice of the person in or on the vehicle. I think that anyone under the age of 18 sholld have to wear a seat belt/ helmet but if you are an adult you know the chance you are taking everytime you get on the bike. Wearing a helmet is good but there are days where it feels awesome to go with no helmet. ride like the wind. Let adults make their own decisions!

Posted by: CHUCK Location: PHOENIX AZ on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I would make health care unavailable to illegals. We are paying a lot higher price for their free health care than some motorcycle riders, who do have health care and dont feel that illegals should be rewarded for breaking the law by us paying for their healthcare.

Posted by: Crush Location: USA on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:31 PM
When you start wearing helmets in your cars, I'll wear a helmet on my bike. The seatbelt excuse is pure garbage!

Posted by: cs Location: mt vernon on Jan 10, 2008 at 03:06 PM
I ride, I wear a helmet but it should stay your own choice. It does not hurt YOU if I dont wear one, just like a seatbelt, they should both be freedom of choice. This is up to Kentucky, not NC or AZ to worry about

Posted by: Zatoichi Location: Richmond on Jan 10, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Let's all agree..wearing a helmet just does not look cool.

Posted by: john Location: arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 02:46 PM
i wear a helmet because i choose to, not because i'm told to i do not believe the skewed statistics that say motorcycle head injuries are a great cost to the public. i also will not tell anyone else that they must wear a helmet.

Posted by: DAVID Location: AZ on Jan 10, 2008 at 02:34 PM
GIVE ME A BREAK SOUNDS LIKE THE INS COMPANIES ARE MAKEING THE RULES FOR US AGAIN ONLY THE RIDER SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE TO WEAR A HELMET OR NOT

Posted by: Brad Currey Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Not once has a helmet law reduced injury or accidents or lowered ANYONE'S insurance costs or rates in ANY state!!! Rider training and automobile awarness is the ONLY way to reduce accidents and the costs incurred!

Posted by: Brad Currey on Jan 10, 2008 at 02:04 PM
Since helmets "CAUSE DEATH" 40 % of the time shouldn't bikers be allowed to sue government agencys that require them? When a citizen is forced to use an "Unproven" so called, safety device, against their will are you ready to take responsibility for the increased deaths sand costs?

Posted by: Jim Location: Ft. Huachuca, arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:46 PM
I find this statement below offensive and prejudice against the motorcycle community. For the lack of research you as the author of this article is very one-sided and a great disappointment in your report on this subject.. "but if they survive, the state ends up picking up the bill,” says Sen. Carroll, D-Frankfort." 1. There is not a list of approved helmets, NO LIST-NO LAW! 2. NHTSA and NTSB and DOT do NOT certify or approve helmets. This is left up to each helmet manufacturer. 3. NHTSA contracts Performance Test ONLY according to of a hand full of helmets each year ( not always the case) from May through September. There are thousands of helmets in the NHTSA data base, a number of these are still being sold on the shelf today, this does NOT include counterfeit helmets. For the NHTSA and the NTSB to continue this thirty year BAND-AID for all the Amputee, Paraplegic, TBI, Blunt Force Trauma survivors is as antiquated as the test equipment and helmet debate.

Posted by: Doug Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:35 PM
No--- my brother was killed in Radcliff with helemt on ! did not help him when an idiot in a big hurry did not see him- and this idiot did not even get a ticket because of stupid law in Ky. They want a laws pass a right of way law !!! and make the fines so high people will obey them !

Posted by: GWbiker Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Senator Carroll seems to be unaware that Kentucky's universal helmet law was amended to require only those riders under 21 to wear a helmet. Experienced adult bikers with motorcycle endorsement are free to choose. In addition, the present helmet law in Kentucky does NOT prevent a motorcyclist from wearing a helmet! Senator Carroll and others would be wise to leave the present helmet law alone.

Posted by: papadave Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Far more people are crippled in car crashes than motorcycles and everybody seems content to pay for them.

Posted by: Unbelievable Location: London on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:00 PM
Unless they are under 18, then I agree with a helmet/seat belt law. Otherwise, If I am old enough to fight/die for my country, then I should have the right to not wear a helmet/seat belt if I so choose. I cant believe this guy has nothing better to do.

Posted by: ABATEofVA Location: Virginia on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Most people have an opinion about helmet laws, and most people do absolutely nothing about it. Motorcyclers should join their State Motorcycle Rights Organizations and ask how to help protect their freedoms. Kentucky's got kmakba.com, and neighboring Virginia's got ABATEofVA.com. Do that, and neither the safety bureaucrats nor the insurance industry will be able to treat you like a number.

Posted by: JanBOLT Location: Raleigh NC on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Your insurance claim denial arguments are not valid unless you apply the same rationale to other motorists who do not wear helmets. You really should not encourage legislators to remove more liberties from any group of citizens. They will come after your guns and all your other freedoms and rights. I fight, not just for the right to decide about whether or not I wear helmets, but also for the government to stop being overbearing. The gradual picking apart of all individual liberty must be stop here and now. If not, then when? Will you allow the government to force you to take drugs for your own safety, when there is no contagious epidemic? The governor of TX tried this - he had stocks in the company. Tell Carroll to stop governing and go back to being a public servant.

Posted by: b Location: lex on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:24 PM
People are missing the point to this issue. As a licensed insurance agent in KY, I'll tell you insurance is based on RISK. The more prone someone/something is to damage/injury, the more likely insurance companies will have to pay to have it replaced, fixed, or cared for medically. Because of this, the insurance companies charge more for their service. This affects EVERYONE, not just motorcycle owners. I don't want to pay higher premiums because someone won't wear a helmet. However, I do think you should be allowed to make a choice for yourself. The government should make insurance companies come up with a system that better suits riding habits. The only drawback is, if rates are lower for helmet wearers, who will honestly say "No, I don't wear a helmet."?

Posted by: rustybongard Location: Michigan on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Current Helmet laws are unconstitutional. http://www.strawberryfields4evr.com/index.html Helmets are only as useful as the parameters of the crash. 30 plus years of mandatory helmets in my state and crashes and deaths still increase annually. ? Maybe there are better ways to lower those numbers than by discriminatorily putting the burden on the shoulders of bikers. (No pun intended) There are wise and well studied bikers commenting here. With a lot more experience and knowledge on this issue than that Insurance Industry paid for Senator has. WKYT ought to listen. There is truth in what we say. Do not buy into the BIG LIE.

Posted by: Harley Location: Kentucky on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Why not just outlaw motorcycles and make sure you choke out all Freedom.

Posted by: Anonymous on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Actually, DOT does approve helmets, as does SNELL. I have 4 hemlets now, a KBC, Bell, Scorpion, and a Fulmer. The KBC is the only one not SNELL approved but all are DOT approved. A new study is going to be conducted on helmets. The American Motorcyclist Association has reported on this and has assisted in getting this study approved and partially funded. A few years ago I did some research on this very subject. While some data is outdated, it is somewhat relevant. Like seatbelts, there will be instances in an accident where a helmet will not be enough. But consider this: motorcycle usage is on the rise, partly due to inreasing fuel costs; helmets do reduce the chance of serious head injury; TX & AR motorcycle deaths & injuries increased after repealing helmet laws on 9-1-97 & 8-1-97 respectively, May 1998 helmet use in those states dropped to 52% in AR and 66% in TX. AR m/c fatalities rose 21% the 1st yr while TX fatalities rose 31%. I can cite sources. Properly fitting helmets work.

Posted by: Cindy Location: Somerset on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:17 AM
We shouldnt have a seatbelt or helmet law for anyone of legal age but only idiots wouldnt wear them. They are called Donorcycles for a reason.

Posted by: white rabbit Location: kentucky on Jan 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Agree, Helmets should be worn in all autos.

Posted by: gran Location: richmond on Jan 10, 2008 at 10:59 AM
lmaooooooooooooo we have to wear seatbelts and they dont have seatbelts or have to wear a helmets.But i think there is more to worry about than worrying about adults look at children they are put on the bus everyday do they have seatbelts? or helmets?

Posted by: Shannon Location: Lexington on Jan 10, 2008 at 10:26 AM
We have a seat belt law. We should have a helmet law. It is as simple as that.

Posted by: JanBOLT Location: Raleigh NC on Jan 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM
WKYT - if your poll disallows repeat voting, then please accept my sincere apologies. Thanks for warning people there is another politician who needs to be put in the pillary. Governance should not be done to force conformity, but to ensure freedom of citizens.

Posted by: BS Location: Ky on Jan 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Mandatory helmet or seatbelt laws should only be for anyone under the age of 18. Legal adults should be permitted to make a decision on their own.

Posted by: JanBOLT Location: Raleigh NC on Jan 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM
The wording of the bill is at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/08RS/SB33.htm There was a study in NY that showed helmets caused a 75% increase in serious neck injury and fatality due to broken necks. Helmet testing is for driveway speeds, 13.6 mph. There are over 1/2 million recalled helmets in the DOT recalls database not accounted for. Citizens should not be forced by government to wear helmets. There are illegal aliens in Kentucky clogging your hospitals and schools. Instead of taking away liberties of Americans, you have much bigger problems to contend with. Motorcyclists will not stand for it, clogging your courts. Don't stop at just saying no to Sen Carroll and his un-American safety nanny agenda. Don't reelect him!

Posted by: Anonymous on Jan 10, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Good god, this guys has nothing better to do than lobby for a helmet bill!!! I'm sure the % of motorcylists who wreck n neeed life long health care and the burden it puts on taxpayers is nothing compared to accomodating illegal immigrants or paying forbums on welfare. Focus your efforts on something worthwhile!!

Posted by: JanBOLT Location: Raleigh NC on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:33 AM
There is a poll that is set up at http://bikercourt.com/portal which does not allow repetetive voting. If I can do it, you can do it WKYT. If you're going to have a poll, please don't rig it.

WKYT Response: JanBOLT, our polling system does not allow for repetitive voting. If you vote more than once then the poll simply does not count the later votes. Our polls are not scientific and purely for entertainment we have no involvement in their outcome.


Posted by: JanBOLT Location: Raleigh NC on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:28 AM
LOL, your poll allows people to vote numerous times. How accurate is that? Hey Senator, is that you clicking away?

Posted by: JanBOLT Location: Raleigh NC on Jan 10, 2008 at 08:22 AM
The use of helmets is not disallowed by the present law. Those who want to may use them. That is as it should be. Obviously, Sen Carroll wants to play babysitter. Helmets should not be forced onto adults who are capable of their own decisions.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: Kentucky on Jan 10, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Let's see I don't exactly understand we have a law to wear seat belts but just because someone wants to look cool there is a no helmet law. I can't exactly add that up. We have a seat belt law so there should be a helmet law.

Posted by: JD Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:41 AM
“was once governor decades ago…” says it all. That is one of the most unintelligent interviews I have ever read regarding the helmet law debate and use of helmets. By that logic, as is true of the logic of most who argue for a helmet law, every driver/rider in and on every vehicle should be required to wear helmets. Would not requiring helmets of all drivers and riders in automobiles (they wear them racing) lower insurance costs? It certainly seems the Senator believes so. By the way, since the Senator is citing examples, maybe he has statistics to back up these statements. For example, name a state that has a helmet law requirement and the cost of insurance actually dropped when the law went into effect and after. That has never happened. (edited)

Posted by: Garry Van Kirk Location: Arizona on Jan 10, 2008 at 01:18 AM
"but if they survive, the state ends up picking up the bill,” says Sen. Carroll, D-Frankfort." 1. There is NOT a list of approved helmets. NO LIST-NO LAW! 2. NHTSA & NTSB & DOT do not certify or approve helmets. This is left up to the helmet manufacturer. 3. NHTSA collects a hand full of helmets from May to September for a contracted study each year( not always the case ) to test PERFORMANCE ONLY! 4. There are thousands of recalled helmets in the NHTSA data base,( not counterfit helmets ), a number of these helmets are still being sold on the shelf today. FMVSS 218 Helmet Test Data formulas are as antiquated as this helmet debate and should not be a BAND-AID for the countless Amputee and Paraplegic, TBI, Blunt Force Trauma Survivors. 5. VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) is the basis to collect motorcycle data to report motorcycle Injuries and Fatalities. This information is scewed and inaccurate each year based on information from both the NHTSA and NTSB. Garry Van Kirk

Posted by: Mike on Jan 10, 2008 at 12:43 AM
I do not think government should dictate what a person has to wear when in a car or on a motorcycle but as long as they are and I have to wear a seatbelt in my car then people on motorcycles should have to wear a helmet.

Posted by: Phil Location: Lexinton on Jan 9, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I agree with the Senator except that to truly save the state money from head injuries, he should mandate the requirement of helmets by all who travel in automobiles. There are 78% more head injuries in autos than motorcycles. I'm all for everyone wearing helmets, not just motorcyclists, yes even grandma that just got her hair done at the salon. Put the helmet on and save the state money.

Posted by: Maxine Bertram on Jan 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Why not motorcycle riders go helmetless? We need more organ donors.

Posted by: jki Location: mt,sterling on Jan 9, 2008 at 09:33 PM
Thank god. someone got smart. I never understood why the no-helmet law was passed anyway.

Posted by: Chris Location: SE KY on Jan 9, 2008 at 09:08 PM
I'm all for less government intervention and more freedom. On the other hand, requiring helmets just makes plain old common sense. If the state can require someone in a car to wear a seatbelt, why not require motorcyclists to wear helmets. If we truly have legislators that are opposed to requiring helmets, then those same legislators need to repeal the seatbelt law. Forcing "other" vehicles to participate in an act for their own safety and not doing the same for motorcycles is a double standard.

Posted by: amc Location: lexington on Jan 9, 2008 at 07:25 PM
a CORRECTION to the HELMET LAW is long over due - health insurance should NOT PAY for injuries suffered by helmet-brainless riders

AP Video
Sponsored Headlines