HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Connecticut (Group) » Motorcyclists Object to M...

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 09:00 AM

Motorcyclists Object to Mandatory Helmet Law Proposal

HARTFORD, CT — Proposed legislation to require all motorcycle operators and passengers to wear helmets, regardless of age, met with stiff opposition by bikers at a public hearing on Wednesday.

The bill, HB 6048, is being proposed by Rep. Tony Guerrera, co-chairman of the Transportation Committee, which held the hearing at the Legislative Office Building.

Currently, Connecticut requires those under the age of 18 to wear a helmet if they’re on a motorcycle.

Guerrera said he had some constituents ask him to take up the legislation this year, even though there have been similar attempts to pass legislation in the past that have failed.

Read more: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/motorcyclists_object_to_mandatory_helmet_law_proposal/

4 replies, 839 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Motorcyclists Object to Mandatory Helmet Law Proposal (Original post)
TexasTowelie Feb 2017 OP
DetlefK Feb 2017 #1
Raster Feb 2017 #2
no_hypocrisy Feb 2017 #3
procon Feb 2017 #4

Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 09:07 AM

1. Counter-point: Wearing a helmet makes you look like a dork. Case closed. Basta.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 09:11 AM

2. What do you call a motorcycle rider without a helmet?

Organ donor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 09:12 AM

3. Two primary reasons behind helmet laws:

1. The obvious safety of the motorcycle operator and/or passenger, and

2. Protecting the State from liability. If there's a motorcycle accident, there's always an opportunity for liability by the injured and/or the deceased. Stuff like an errant, unfixed pothole or traffic issues, etc. Mandating that helmets must be worn often mitigates (lessens) the risk of injury that couldn't be avoided, and thus less money paid to plaintiffs.


The safety of motorcycles has been debated for decades. The riders are exposed to harm that is not extended to vehicles such as automobiles, vans, trucks, etc. due to being enclosed. My cousin's husband died as a result of riding his bike even though he was operating it safely. With the risk of harm being high and making the operation of the bike to be dangerous comparatively, lawmakers have addressed this issue repeatedly. They will not allow riders to "assume the risk" and go without helmets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 10:05 AM

4. And maybe the taxpayers don't want to foot the bill for their medical care.

They need to take responsibility for themselves and not expect taxpayers to do what they refused to do.People with severe head injuries are impaired for the rest of their lives. It costs hundreds of thousands $$$ to warehouse someone in a vegetative state, or maintain someone who is permanently disabled and requires round the clock supportive care forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread