Posted by David Stokes at 9:38 a.m. in Transportation | Permalink | © 2009

« Read Previous Entry   Read Next Entry »

9 Comments »

1. Excellent. This is exciting news. Tourism will increase for sure as many bikers now predisposed to go to IL will consider touring the fine roads of MO as well. I would guess that during the summer months I spend $100 to $200 per month on gas and dining in IL which I’d be more than happy to channel back into MO.

   To those that say (and cannot produce anything other than anecdotal discussions otherwise) that this will increase the death or injury rate; I would say try taking a heavy wind catching object off of your head and see how much more aware of your surroundings you can be.

   Whether you can eventually choose to wear, or not to wear one, ride safe always.

   Comment by Brad Poole — March 10, 2009 @ 10:44 a.m.

2. I’ve always found it interesting that in MO you were required to wear a helmet but not a shirt, while in IL you could go helmet-less but not shirtless.

   Comment by Mike — March 11, 2009 @ 4:58 a.m.

3. Clearly, if the repeal fails, someone could make a killing selling Transformer-type helmet-shirts. Or something.

   Comment by Eric D. Dixon — March 11, 2009 @ 12:59 p.m.

4. I always thought that we lived in a free country and that if we want to take a chance on bashing our brains out should be totally up to the individual on the other hand i and all my friends ride almost every weekend and usually we head out to IL. or KY. to blow our money because in those states we are not forced to wear our helmets so you are right about mo. losing a lot of touring revenue from motorcyclist. another thought with states that have helmet laws is to pass a bill stating that if you choose not to wear a helmet then in case of a motorcycle accident you were involved in you would be considered a automatic organ donor it would benefit a lot of people.

   Comment by Eddie Fisher — March 11, 2009 @ 3:21 p.m.

5. I have been waiting many years for this to pass- and every time i have been crushed- I agree with a previous post- I will stay in missouri if this passes, and so will the thousands of bikers who now have to travel to ill to ride free. the increase in revenue for missouri should be a boost to the cause.

   Comment by David Nighthawk — March 12, 2009 @ 5:06 a.m.

6. If a person chooses not to wear a helmet, he or she should have that option.

   I only have two problems with this bill. First, it won’t apply to interstate highways in Missouri. Second, it only applies to people over 21. Last time I checked, the age of majority in Missouri was 18.

   Comment by BenRW — March 13, 2009 @ 12:34 p.m.

7. Finally! I rejoice to hear this, although I dread the hand-wriging and whining coming from the safety nazis, 95% of which do not ride motorcycles.

   No one is arguing that helmets provide a better chance of living through a motorcycle accident. The exact same thing applies to automobiles yet I dont see any of the self-appointed guardians of safety proposing that helmets be made mandatory in cars…

   Comment by Tim — March 13, 2009 @ 3:23 p.m.

8. benrw i agree with you our so called political leaders will decide that its 18 legal age to serve your country and risk your life for thier benefit then sit up safe and sound in the halls of congress and senate then decide you dont have the right to decide about the safety of your own head sumpin wrong with that picture

   Comment by eddie roadstar — March 19, 2009 @ 12:09 p.m.

9. I think wear helmet is still important when riding a motorcycle..

   Comment by motorcycle parts — April 11, 2009 @ 10:34 a.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment