Helmets needed

It was with dismay that we read in The Star a while back that the Missouri legislature had passed a bill rescinding most of the law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Then an article (7/3, A-1, “For motorcyclists, veto by Nixon means helmets remain a must”) reported Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of that sorry piece of legislation.

That greatly enhanced our morning coffee and newspaper routine. Sure the wild-to-be-free chopper people are angry. But a number of them will get to live a longer life.

The public will save millions from the injury accidents ameliorated by the protection of the cyclists’ hard heads. We know people who have struggled with brain injuries from accidents. Too bad those in favor of riding without helmets don’t seem to.

Dick and Joan Henges

Kansas City

Comments

[Kee]

Wow the Gayhawk is off on another rant against "conservative reeps" (does he mean reps?).

I think the old Gayhawk has played in traffic to long, without his helmet!

[JayhawkinMO]

Conservative Reeps just had to remind us who is running the show in Jeff City. Unfortunately, in their outrage over the "nanny state," they stupidly focused on the helmet law ignoring the fact that this is a public safety issue. Luckily, when these clowns have attacked other "nanny state" programs like Medicaid funding for seniors and kids, public outrage forced them to do an about-face. Here's a "nanny state" issue they could take on: Passing a state-wide law against local anti-smoking ordinances...

[pmcw]

Actually, if a motorcycle rider isn't wearing a helmet the odds are he will die in an accident versus end up a veg case for life. Therefore, the cost of care argument doesn't hold water.

Interestingly, there is no law in MO that requires eye protection for motorcycle riders yet in KS, where helmets are not the law, there is an eye protection law. Go figure...