Posted in All | 21 Comments

(7 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5)

 Loading ...

21 Responses to “Jindal would eliminate mandatory helmet laws.”

1. on 29 Jun 2007 at 12:32 pm1FP

   Why should my taxes pay for their hospital and ambulance bills?

   If they want to go without an helmet let them build a private road and waive all public health care benefits for being stupid with their own lives.

2. on 29 Jun 2007 at 2:32 pm2Dan Z.

   That is pretty much what I said.

3. on 30 Jun 2007 at 10:39 am3RoadRunner

   So this is hear say, Right ?

   Has Congressman Jindal or anyone else, actually in spoken or in written word said anything about eliminate mandatory helmet laws.
   No one has actually quoted or heard Mr. Jindal in actually saying he wanting to elimate the that law.

   Democrat Texas Governor Ann Richards and the Texas legislature eliminate mandatory helmet laws back in 1994.

   And the 25 million residents of Texas, didn’t get upset then.

   And no one, Democrat nor Republican has presented to bill the reverse that decision and emplement a mandatory helmut law.

4. on 02 Jul 2007 at 3:14 pm4Ron Chaisson

   Listen I have talked to alot of my friends that would love to not have too wear a helment while riding on a motorbike or motorcycle. You guys come up with the most stupid stuff on this damn fucking website you know that!!!

5. on 02 Jul 2007 at 3:32 pm5Dan Z.

   Ron: I know a lot of people who would love to not wear a helmet when riding a motercycle. Those people do not care about how their decisions affect others. If it was simply a matter of personal choice then they can wear as little protection as possible on the road.

   However, it is not as simple as that Ron. Them not wearing helmets will increase the costs for other drivers/riders. We will wind up paying for medical costs (which means higher insurantes rates for us, both health and auto).

6. on 02 Jul 2007 at 7:38 pm6RoadRunner

   Where either in spoken or written words did Bobby Jindal say he would eliminate the helmet law. Bobby Jindal wouldn’t have that authority.

   “Jindal would eliminate mandatory helmet laws.”

   Keep trying.

7. on 02 Jul 2007 at 7:56 pm7Josh Martin

   We have this stupid brother in law that is fun to have around at family gatherings but you have to keep an eye on him when he is near the fish tank. He is always doing reckless things and putting other people out of their way to bail him out of trouble. I am sure he would love to ride without an helmet. Or a seatbelt for that matter.

   New Hampshire does not have a helmet law. The people there are a lot smarter than the Louisiana’s though. But I wonder how much it cost them to keep a bunch of knuckleheads on life support all the time?

8. on 03 Jul 2007 at 6:49 am8Dan Z.

   One would think that the “healthcare expect” Jindal would understand the impact that repealing the helmet law will have on the health system.

   http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1448295

   “This study finds that the current age-restricted version of Florida’s motorcycle helmet law resulted in more motorcyclist deaths even after adjustment for concurrent increases in motorcycle registrations or miles traveled. Exempting adult motorcycle riders from wearing motorcycle helmets is counterproductive for motorcyclists’ health and unnecessarily increases insurance and medical care expenses.”

   http://www.prleap.com/pr/16843/
   “It was found out that the motorcyclist fatality rate dropped from 10.3 per 10,000 registered motorcycles prelaw to 4.5 postlaw despite almost identical numbers of registered motorcycles. Another finding established was that the motorcyclists wearing helmets had a lower risk of traumatic brain injury than those not wearing helmets. ”

   If Jindal is willing to put winning an election before safety, he has no business being our next governor.

9. on 03 Jul 2007 at 8:47 am9Nick

   Personally, I believe seatbelts and helments should be mandatory for anyone under 18. Any adult (18 or older) who is driving a vehicle where someone under 18 is not wearing a seatbelt should receive a fine as high as $500 1st offense.

   As for insurance rates and healthcare costs, anyone injured in an accident who isn’t wearing a helment or seatbelt should have to receive their care soley on their insurance. No insurance, too bad. You chose to ride without recomended safety measures.

10. on 03 Jul 2007 at 9:57 am10RoadRunner

    Let try this again.

    Where either in spoken or written words did Bobby Jindal say he would eliminate the helmet law. Bobby Jindal wouldn’t have that authority.

    “Jindal would eliminate mandatory helmet laws.”

11. on 03 Jul 2007 at 11:31 am11Dan Z.

    Nick: In a vacuum, I agree. However, when you make such a law like this it makes it difficult. Let’s say that you do have insurance but the card was lost in the accident and the person who crashes needs to be rushed to the hospital. Do you not take them to the hospital and then risk finding out that they did actually have insurance? No. You cannot do that. So you have to treat the emergency. Which means that uninsured people would be treated in an emergency and if thye cannot pay for it then we get stuck with the costs.

    Roadrunner: I believe I linked to a news story that reported Jindal’s stance on helmet laws. Of course, in order for Jindal to accomplish removing the helmet law, he would need the support of the Legislature. But the fact that he does support the repeal is disturbing.

12. on 12 Sep 2007 at 7:35 am12Battaglia

    I am 51 yrs old ! look at Arkansas -no helmet law ! Texas no helmet law! Look at all the rally’s that bring mega money to there states.
    Florida , Daytona–millions of dollars spent by bikers
    S.Dakota,Sturges–millions & millions of biker money spent there..

    New Orleans could be the next place for millions of dollars to be spent by bikers !
    you do know that when i say “Bikers” I mean doctors , lawyers,police officers,judges, all kinds of people ! not just a bunch of biker gangs–but everyday people !!!

13. on 12 Sep 2007 at 7:37 am13Battaglia

    BOBBY JINDAL IS GOOD FOR LOUISIANA !

    WE SHOULD HAVE VOTED HIM IN & NOT blanco !!!!!!!!

14. on 13 Sep 2007 at 9:36 am14Dan Z.

    Battaglia: Should we eliminate seatbelt laws as well? Why or why not?

    And the idea that Jindal would have done better than Blanco is flawed. What proof do you give that Jindal would have done a better job? (And notice I said proof, not speculation).

15. on 22 Oct 2007 at 10:11 am15Seth Juneau

    Yea!!! Sweeping victory for Jindal !!!!

    No More helmets !!!!!

16. on 22 Oct 2007 at 6:26 pm16Dan Z.

    Well, we shall see if he keeps that promise to Louisiana’s bikers.

17. on 22 Oct 2007 at 6:57 pm17Ron Chaisson

    I think the law should stay where you have to wear helments to ride motorbikes. I also think the seatbelt law should stay also and I think both laws will stay bigtime.

18. on 22 Oct 2007 at 7:34 pm18Dan Z.

    I agree with you Ron, both the helmet law and the seatbelt law should be on the books.

19. on 25 Mar 2008 at 7:33 am19250 bad muther

    **Comments removed because of profanity**

20. on 14 Oct 2008 at 8:23 am20JWJjr

    Daniel Z,
    Before one speaks out so loud and heavily on this subject it could be advised to become better educated. Most states who have repealed the helmet law ALSO requires proof of medical insurance, usually $15,000-$25,000. Just like one cannot get a driver license or a car registration without providing proof of insurance, a motocycle rider would not be able to get the “no helmet sticker” for their bike without providing proof of medical insurance.
    So that would be your guarantee.
    BTW, where is the outcry for a guarantee that you would not have to pay for the public health care of a smoker, alchoholic, drug addict, or obesity.
    If one is not to be hypocritical, then society must require proof of medical coverage with every purchase of a pack of cigarettes, beer, Big Mac, and pack of Crack.
    Give the Bikers a “brake” - literally.

21. on 06 May 2009 at 10:00 pm21Joe Lorio

    There is no doubt that wearing a helmet makes one less succeptable to head injuries. So I think everyone who is against the “NO HELMET LAW” should also wear one of these helmets while driving an automobile, truck, flying in a commercial airliner and even having sex……….you would be much safer wearing one , wouldn’t you ? Sure you would but no law is in effect to make you wear one while driving a vehickle , riding a train, flying in a plane or bumping your old lady’s head against the headbord…Get real people, we have enough laws shuved up our nose , let people have a choice of weraing helmets.

Leave a Reply