I guess motorcycles count as a disease now?

 

not at all. Nor is it an attempt to reduce motorcycle usage. Here is the CDC Mission Statement:

Welcome to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For over 60 years, CDC has been dedicated to protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. We are committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.

This is very compatible with the AMA stance of "strongly advocating helmet use".

The CDC weighs in on safety aspects of many activities. It does not mean they regard them as diseases. When aspects of activities can so clearly be affected by policy, it is the charge of that agency to weigh in.

 

I thought only wives and significant others called it a disease.

 

Guess they can call it a mental disorder and attempted suicide. I will always say the individual should have the right. But as you can see, we are losing our rights all the time. It's wrong!

 

Off the top I pretty much equate wearing a helmet with wearing a seatbelt so in that respect I think mandatory helmet use is long overdue but the politics of it show we are going in the other direction.

 

One of the things the CDC does is look at leading causes of death and then look for preventive measures...which can be readily argued is inide their perview. However looking at active human behaviors can be considered beyond their mandate. You might consider the whole "gun lock" business of a few years ago. (If memory serves they realized there was an "epidemic" of kids dying due to unsecured weapons in the home.)

Could be they've found an epidemic of deaths/brain injuries due to smacking your melon on the pavement...

My personal opinion is that it's an avoidable injury/death but probably not a public health issue the CDC should be involved with, it's NHTSA territory. I do understand the industries fear of CDC involvement though, deserved or not the CDC's public image is pretty good and this kind of formal involvement would carry bring serious public health considerations to the helmet argument.

 

“Our role is to identify ways to prevent injury and death and rigorously check what works and what does not work. For motorcycle safety, the research shows that universal helmet laws are the most effective way to reduce the number of deaths and traumatic brain injuries that result from crashes.”
Dr. Thomas Frieden, CDC Director

From: www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pdf/mc2012/MotorcycleSafetyBook.pdf

Apparently they feel they are a stakeholder.

 

Fuel for thought:

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ited-states/21589881-feel-wind-your-hair-bill-taxpayer-your-injuries-no-brainer

 

And I simply say, stop treating the fools. That's a nasty stance but I feel the same about those that "choose" to not carry insurance. Stop treating them as if they are "entitled". Now the only problem is proving who does and does not have proper insurance. Having been there I know you can get separated from such proof. When you choose to take such risks then live and or die by that choice.

 

What's the CDC doing about people who are over weight or smoke? Are they going to go for a universal ban on fried food and tobacco? I'm sure that heart disease causes many, many more deaths then helmetless motorcycle crashes, at a significantly higher cost to taxpayers.

 

Obamanation........

 

They Tax the $hit out of tobacco, so I guess its alright as long as you pay. Why don't they put a huge tax on McDonald's? If thats the line of thinking of the powers that be then we can expect mandatory helmet laws and a huge tax on helmets. The bottom line is its not about health its about revenue as always.

 

While I'm not so much against the huge tax on commodity fast foods, I am not thrilled with giving the government any more revenues to spend until they can get their/our house in order.

 

Maybe they should make helmets free. How many more would wear if they could keep trying a new helmet until they found one that really fit? I do know a couple that do say they would wear but refuse to pay $5,000 until they find one that actually fits their melon. After the break-in they say they don't fit right again.

 

Or....how about they mandate that everyone wear a helmet, and those that cannot afford one will be provided with one which is paid for by those that can afford one? That way, only about half the riders have to pay for a helmet, but all of them can ride safe and protected.

 

Why don't we just let the CDC draw up a list of risky behavior and pass laws banning it to make sure all citizens live like a bunch of candy a$$e$ that are afraid to melt in the rain.

“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Maybe the CDC can thrust mediocrity upon us so everyone will be safe and boring.

 

I think, Oz, that those too weak and fearful to be free will accept that mediocrity gladly. Then they can safely try to emulate, and try to experience, the freedom that they think is their right.

 

Considering that many radicals on the far left, and some within the current administration, consider pregnancy to be a disease, combined with the fact that we are now forced to provide birth control and condoms at tax payer expense, wouldn't it follow logic that the next stap be that unexpected pregnancies be prosicuted as a crime under the guise of risky behavior?

 

The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services. Its primary goal is to protect public health and safety through the "control" and prevention of disease, "injury" and disability. Bottom line, this is a government run entity and as such under Obama its main goal is control in any form.

The CDC has tried to acquire money for research funding aimed at reducing gun violence. On the surface this may appear relatively innocuous but it poses the greatest danger as an assault upon our Second Amendment protections. Referring to the helmet law and gun violence as a "public health crisis" Obama hopes to build support for his stringent gun control regulations based on trumped-up 'guns as a public disease' rationale which is based upon federally funded medical pseudo research. If you think the same is not being tried with helmet laws you should educate yourself.

 

Yep. Sort of a trial run. Learn what lies worked and what don't. Then on to guns.

 

why have a fed law? all the states have helmet laws on there books.

and where does anything to do with a moto fall with in the scope of the cdc???


time to slap another bureaucrat down hard.


.

 

On the CDC part, why would they have anything to do with this?? Very weird.

But what I find really silly is this question in the statement from the AMA Pres:

"Is it the goal or strategy of the CDC to reduce the use of motorcycles - a legal mode of transportation - by recommending and pursuing a federal helmet law?

How would a helmet law reduce the use of motorcycles in any way?? Or am I not understanding what he's trying to say?

 

I like the right to choose to or not to wear a helmet. The end

 

To adequately assess the role of helmet laws in preventing serious injury or death in crashes, the CDC task force members would first have had to identify the fatal injury in each crash, then determine whether use of a helmet would have prevented that injury or reduced its effect, thereby saving the life of the motorcyclist. However, the CDC task force cites no such detailed analysis and offers no evidence that the use of a helmet would have lessened or eliminated the fatal injuries in a significant number of crashes. Instead, task force members merely looked at the numbers and drew their conclusion.

"Correlation does not imply causation," said Wayne Allard, AMA's vice president for government relations. "Instead of trying to draw conclusions from this type of observation, the CDC task force could have better spent its time and resources searching for cures for infectious diseases." The AMA has long advocated the voluntary use of helmets, but opposes mandates because helmets do nothing to reduce the likelihood of a crash.

"Rider education and motorist awareness/distracted-driver programs -- which are threatened when scarce funds are siphoned into helmet mandate enforcement -- should be the focus of the safety community," Allard said.

The AMA strongly encourages the use of personal protective equipment, including gloves, sturdy footwear and a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard. However, adults should have the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet. The AMA does not oppose laws requiring helmets for minor motorcycle operators and passengers. "Helmet use alone is insufficient to ensure a motorcyclist's safety," Allard said. "There is a broad range of additional voluntary measures that can be implemented to improve the skill of motorcycle operators, as well as reduce the frequency of situations where other vehicle operators are the cause of crashes that involve motorcycles."

 

I've said it here many times before, once the Fed Govt grabs control of the healthcare system and combines that power with their desire for global climate regulations there is NO aspect of your life they cannot control. They will essentially have control over anything they deem to have ANY effect on you or your environment.

 

And there you have it, exactly right jag... What this current government is all about. Controlling you and all aspects of your life. The Monarch has arrived and just taken his throne.

 

Helmet laws. Now a New World Order conspiracy.

 

incrementally, yes. Every regulation enacted to protect one from ones self is a liberty lost.

 

Free at last, free to ride without a helmet! WARNING: GRAPHIC

CAUTON: Extremely graphic image below.

I"m warnin' ya, don't scroll any further if you've got a squeemish stomach, or are planning on corned beef for dinner...

NHTSA is looking at various non-DOT compliant helmets and requiring a sticker labeling them as "novelties"

Helmets with either NO sticker or "Novelty" sticker will no longer pass muster in helmet law states.

So your and MY tax dollars don't go to pay the hospital bills of un- or under-insured yoyo's like this.

I'm all for freedom. Two insurance rates: One for helmet wearers, another for you if you EVEN once are seen, pulled over, cited, or in an accident and were NOT wearing a helmet.

I propose calling it the "Freedom with Responsibility" legislation.


>NHTSA is proposing to amend several aspects of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Some of the amendments would help realize the full potential of compliant helmets by aiding state and local law enforcement officials in enforcing state helmet use laws, thereby increasing the percentage of motorcycle riders wearing helmets compliant with FMVSS No. 218. The amendments would do this by adopting additional requirements and revising existing requirements to reduce misleading labeling of novelty helmets that creates the impression that uncertified, noncompliant helmets have been properly certified as compliant.

 

...I'm all for freedom. Two insurance rates: One for helmet wearers, another for you if you EVEN once are seen, pulled over, cited, or in an accident and were NOT wearing a helmet.

GREAT idea! But why stop at helmets? Why not have a similar "dual rates" insurance law for people whom don't want to wear a seatbelt in a car?

 

^ so much for my corned beef dinner...

 

Well you can still eat the cabbage, can't you?