Another Reason To Wear Motorcycle Helmet.

any reason is a good reason to wear a helmet, if you like your head intact

What, people actually go to court over photo-radar tickets? The last numbers I saw indicated roughly 80-percent of Arizona residents who get them in the mail just throw them away.

BTW helmet and gear are always a good idea. I'd hate to be one of the local riders wearing t-shirt, shorts and flip flops if they ever have an unscheduled dismount.

Cheers

how about monkey face mask driver?
seems he was not so lucky. Too bad it is not a hard shell helmet.

He touched on that, said in your wearing a mask you will probably be pulled over anyway by the police. If you wear a disguise your probably up to no good anyway. LOL

hooray for helmets

two motorcycle accidents (and no, I don't ride anymore), I think it's ALWAYS a good idea to wear a helmet. BTW, I saw a young man riding a crotch rocket a couple of days ago, with no helmet, shirt and was barefooted. Such an idiot.

I hope he lives to get older....

former bike rider myself, always wore helmet, pants, boots, gloves. One case of road rash will cure a lot of folly!

I taught MSF safety back in 80's and 90's. Protective gear was a must, and was hight encouraged all the time. Some did not heed the advice and scrapped baody pieces off pavement. You do NOT want to make love to Miss Pavement..she's plays rough.

On late Sunday afternoons I watch one Harley after another leave the watering hole after a few cold ones, and not be wearing a helmet. They all seem to make it home OK. Of course they may not be drinking adult beverages.

My reason to wear a helmet came ~30 years ago when someone ran a red light and I broadsided them doing ~45 mph. After a couple of flips and landing on the pavement, the helmet worked.

Wasn't there a discussion, that motorcycles can't be detected by some photo radar anyways? Yep i found it under "Red-Light Cameras Inherently Discriminate"
Also found this in there too
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-10-red-light-law...

the policy that the registered owner of a car is given the ticket even if their face is not recognizable. If they say it isn't them then they are required to identify the driver in order for the ticket to be reassigned. Why would motorcycles be treated differently?

Just wondering - smells like urban myth to me....

I know OP talked about Phoenix, and I dunno the law in Arizona, but here in California the camera has to catch the face of the driver.

Inability to match the driver's face with the registered owner's face means the registered owner gets a threatening letter in the mail with a photograph of the driver, ordering the registered owner to divulge the driver's contact info. I don't think California can compel you to reveal this info, though.

In any event, does this mean that I can start driving my car while wearing a helmet? I mean, one can never be too careful, and a seat-belt can only do so much . . .

God watches out for children, drunks, and fools.

The red light camera pictures I have seen only showed the rear of the vehicle. At a former workplace they would get tickets in the mail occasionally with pictures of one of their vehicles running a red light. They never could get anyone to admit to it so the company just ended up paying the ticket, not the employee. I'm not sure why that would be different with motorcycle drivers. Unless they just used the excuse more, knowing that they couldn't be identified.

Why not where the motorcycle helmet while driving a car? Its certainly safer and the photo radar cannot identify the driver... Something to consider, though here in AZ, all the major freeway photo radar is being pulled out permanently on July 16, 2010 and the city of Avondale has already pulled all of their red-light cameras out of the entire city. Good riddence.

Now, that's good news. Maybe it will set a president. Not a bad example for other states to follow.